# Why is Building the Wall Wrong?



## Geaux4it

A- Cost prohibitive
B- Won't work
C- It's racist
D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
E- None of the Above

The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes

You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours

There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.

-Geaux


----------



## Tax Man

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.

NPS


----------



## Timmy

It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways . 

More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .


----------



## candycorn

A&B mostly.  Most illegal immigration does not come over the border by foot.  And if we’re 21T in debt, a quarter T on building a wall is not a good investment.  

So as an immigration barrier, it’s a bad idea; also in the stark light of the reality that illegal immigration has been largely beneficial to the economy despite the horror stories and cherry picked anecdotes.

That being said, it seems to me that a fantastic idea would be to create an alternative to the Panama canal from San Diego to Brownsville TX or so that allows goods to bypass the trip through Central America and can possibly bring irrigation to the desert Southwest.  Not right along the border but something like that would serve multiple purposes;

Jobs during the construction
Immigration barrier to those that do cross illegally
Irrigation
Commerce
National Security.  


All a pipe dream.
It would be a multi decade project of course and We don’t do big things any longer.

Space Force!


----------



## Geaux4it

Tax Man said:


> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS


So I take it you feel this is still valid. Just like our Constitution

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it

Timmy said:


> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .


Why Timmy, why is it a better use of funds?

-Geaux


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Timmy said:


> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .


None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL


----------



## Geaux4it

candycorn said:


> A&B mostly.  Most illegal immigration does not come over the border by foot.  And if we’re 21T in debt, a quarter T on building a wall is not a good investment.
> 
> So as an immigration barrier, it’s a bad idea; also in the stark light of the reality that illegal immigration has been largely beneficial to the economy despite the horror stories and cherry picked anecdotes.
> 
> That being said, it seems to me that a fantastic idea would be to create an alternative to the Panama canal from San Diego to Brownsville TX or so that allows goods to bypass the trip through Central America and can possibly bring irrigation to the desert Southwest.  Not right along the border but something like that would serve multiple purposes;
> 
> Jobs during the construction
> Immigration barrier to those that do cross illegally
> Irrigation
> Commerce
> National Security.
> 
> 
> All a pipe dream.
> It would be a multi decade project of course and We don’t do big things any longer.
> 
> Space Force!


Thanks- I don't know if you saw my post this morning about the negative impacts of illegal immigration for the Black community in LA suburbs like Watts, Compton, Florence etc,

-Geaux


----------



## Tax Man

What is so silly is the reich totally ignores the largest immigration problem is expired visa's. There are more of them than people crossing without permission or documentation.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...

If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?


----------



## Timmy

Grampa Murked U said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
Click to expand...


No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.

If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!


----------



## Geaux4it

Timmy said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
Click to expand...

It's not a perfect solution but unarguably it would reduce crossings

-Geaux


----------



## Timmy

Tax Man said:


> What is so silly is the reich totally ignores the largest immigration problem is expired visa's. There are more of them than people crossing without permission or documentation.



40%. Of illegals came in legally and overstay.  Wall does nothing for that .


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Timmy said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
Click to expand...

10 ft is not a wall. 
And there are things you can top the wall with to make it even more difficult. If those devices get altered you repair them. Inspect the wall daily vs playing catch and release daily.

The logical choice is fucking obvious


----------



## Tax Man

Geaux4it said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A&B mostly.  Most illegal immigration does not come over the border by foot.  And if we’re 21T in debt, a quarter T on building a wall is not a good investment.
> 
> So as an immigration barrier, it’s a bad idea; also in the stark light of the reality that illegal immigration has been largely beneficial to the economy despite the horror stories and cherry picked anecdotes.
> 
> That being said, it seems to me that a fantastic idea would be to create an alternative to the Panama canal from San Diego to Brownsville TX or so that allows goods to bypass the trip through Central America and can possibly bring irrigation to the desert Southwest.  Not right along the border but something like that would serve multiple purposes;
> 
> Jobs during the construction
> Immigration barrier to those that do cross illegally
> Irrigation
> Commerce
> National Security.
> 
> 
> All a pipe dream.
> It would be a multi decade project of course and We don’t do big things any longer.
> 
> Space Force!
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks- I don't know if you saw my post this morning about the negative impacts of illegal immigration for the Black community in LA suburbs like Watts, Compton, Florence etc,
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

Watts is getting ready for its annual riots!
 Crime is down compared to 1964, I think that was the year of the riots.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Timmy said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so silly is the reich totally ignores the largest immigration problem is expired visa's. There are more of them than people crossing without permission or documentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40%. Of illegals came in legally and overstay.  Wall does nothing for that .
Click to expand...

So fuck it forget about the rest? 

Like I said, RUSSIAN ROULETTE


----------



## 2aguy

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux



Because democrats were forced to surrender their slaves after the Civil War, and their attempt to keep Blacks from voting didn't work because the Republicans kept passing Civil Rights legislation.....and now, Blacks are not happy with democrats, so the democrats want a new slave class from Mexico..........


----------



## bodecea

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


How's Mexico's payment schedule coming along?   Remember?  We're not paying for the Wall, Mexico is.


----------



## Timmy

Geaux4it said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a perfect solution but unarguably is would reduce crossings
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


But at what cost ??  You know the “wall” plan includes drones and  all kinds of high tech sensors , roving border guards .  It’s not just some one time cost and you are done .


----------



## candycorn

If I were an illegal, I’d just save some money, fly to Vancouver and walk across the border up there.  Better weather….and you don’t risk stepping in that turd known as Texas


----------



## Timmy

2aguy said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because democrats were forced to surrender their slaves after the Civil War, and their attempt to keep Blacks from voting didn't work because the Republicans kept passing Civil Rights legislation.....and now, Blacks are not happy with democrats, so the democrats want a new slave class from Mexico..........
Click to expand...


Those “democrats” are today’s “republicans “. How many times you going to spin that lie about Dems .


----------



## bripat9643

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


Definitely it's 'D.'


----------



## bripat9643

candycorn said:


> If I were an illegal, I’d just save some money, fly to Vancouver and walk across the border up there.  Better weather….and you don’t risk stepping in that turd known as Texas


First you would have to get a visa to enter Canada.


----------



## bripat9643

Grampa Murked U said:


> Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...
> 
> If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?


There's no truth in that.  The example of Hungary shows that it will stop 99.9% of them.  That's what the snowflakes truly fear.  After the wall is built the Dims will never win another election.


----------



## Timmy

bripat9643 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were an illegal, I’d just save some money, fly to Vancouver and walk across the border up there.  Better weather….and you don’t risk stepping in that turd known as Texas
> 
> 
> 
> First you would have to get a visa to enter Canada.
Click to expand...


Like that’s hard?  By the way , Canada takes in lots of immigrants from those scary countries where terrorists come from .  Where’s the Canada wall?


----------



## 2aguy

Timmy said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because democrats were forced to surrender their slaves after the Civil War, and their attempt to keep Blacks from voting didn't work because the Republicans kept passing Civil Rights legislation.....and now, Blacks are not happy with democrats, so the democrats want a new slave class from Mexico..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those “democrats” are today’s “republicans “. How many times you going to spin that lie about Dems .
Click to expand...



No....the democrats are still the party of racism.  They are now the home of racists of all skin colors....


----------



## bripat9643

Tax Man said:


> What is so silly is the reich totally ignores the largest immigration problem is expired visa's. There are more of them than people crossing without permission or documentation.


So what?  One problem at a time.


----------



## Timmy

bripat9643 said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...
> 
> If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?
> 
> 
> 
> There's no truth in that.  The example Hungary shows that it will stop 99.9% of them.  That's what they truly fear.  After the wall is built the Dims will never win another election.
Click to expand...


Ah , the fairytale of illegals voting .


----------



## 2aguy

Timmy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were an illegal, I’d just save some money, fly to Vancouver and walk across the border up there.  Better weather….and you don’t risk stepping in that turd known as Texas
> 
> 
> 
> First you would have to get a visa to enter Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like that’s hard?  By the way , Canada takes in lots of immigrants from those scary countries where terrorists come from .  Where’s the Canada wall?
Click to expand...



And their crime rate is going up.......


----------



## bripat9643

Tax Man said:


> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS


The Statue of Liberty was dedicated in 1886, moron.   The plaque was added 17 years later.  It has no connection to the reason the statue was built.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Timmy said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a perfect solution but unarguably is would reduce crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But at what cost ??  You know the “wall” plan includes drones and  all kinds of high tech sensors , roving border guards .  It’s not just some one time cost and you are done .
Click to expand...

How high is a preprogrammed drones salary? How many bathroom breaks does he need? How much gas for an 8 hour shift? Does he need a college educated driver who also requires an absurd salary? 

DO YOU HAVE A BRAIN?


----------



## candycorn

Timmy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were an illegal, I’d just save some money, fly to Vancouver and walk across the border up there.  Better weather….and you don’t risk stepping in that turd known as Texas
> 
> 
> 
> First you would have to get a visa to enter Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like that’s hard?  By the way , Canada takes in lots of immigrants from those scary countries where terrorists come from .  Where’s the Canada wall?
Click to expand...


Or you can do like you do here…say you’re a student, enroll in a college, then simply never show up to the class or when your visa expires.


----------



## bripat9643

Timmy said:


> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .


Wrong again, shit for brains.  Why would we ignore 60% of the problem?  Enforcement is 100 times harder and more expensive than keeping them out in the first place.  you know that, of course, which is why decent people rightly conclude that you're a lying traitorous douchebag.


----------



## bripat9643

candycorn said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were an illegal, I’d just save some money, fly to Vancouver and walk across the border up there.  Better weather….and you don’t risk stepping in that turd known as Texas
> 
> 
> 
> First you would have to get a visa to enter Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like that’s hard?  By the way , Canada takes in lots of immigrants from those scary countries where terrorists come from .  Where’s the Canada wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or you can do like you do here…say you’re a student, enroll in a college, then simply never show up to the class or when your visa expires.
Click to expand...

Why would a foreigner who's able to get into an American university not go once they are admitted?

Also, how many Mexican peasants how have a 4th grade education do you imagine can get admitted to Harvard or Yale?

You're a special kind of stupid.


----------



## Geaux4it

I find this compelling. 

-Geaux
--------

*Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*

*A bipartisan effort resulted in a wall that has cut the number of illegal immigrant apprehensions to a 10th of what it was in 2006.*

President Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall along our Southern border will save countless innocent lives. Our Border Patrol agents have seen firsthand the success of a border wall in Yuma, Ariz. — which serves as a prime example of how investments in personnel, technology and a border wall can turn the tide against a flood of illegal immigration and secure our homeland. 


*Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

bodecea said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> How's Mexico's payment schedule coming along?   Remember?  We're not paying for the Wall, Mexico is.
Click to expand...

You seem REALLY hung up on this talking point yet you ignore the VAST MAJORITY who say they would have no problem paying a bit more in taxes to happily pay for it.

I CHALLENGE YOU to create a thread asking if people would be willing to pay a bit more in taxes if it ment that a REAL WALL got built along our entire border.

I know you wont because you know what the results would be and then your dumbass talking point would be rendered useless


----------



## candycorn

Grampa Murked U said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a perfect solution but unarguably is would reduce crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But at what cost ??  You know the “wall” plan includes drones and  all kinds of high tech sensors , roving border guards .  It’s not just some one time cost and you are done .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How high is a preprogrammed drones salary? How many bathroom breaks does he need? How much gas for an 8 hour shift? Does he need a college educated driver who also requires an absurd salary?
> 
> DO YOU HAVE A BRAIN?
Click to expand...


Clearly you do not.  Drones don’t fly themselves….someone monitors what they see…for just one thing.  

How much time do you spend thinking about illegal immigration in a day?  Whatever it is…it’s too much.  

The blob tells you your enemy is down there; you’re dumb enough to believe it.   That is all.   
That is the reason there is a supposed immigration crisis in the nation.  

Essentially the same number people crossing today were crossing 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30, years ago….50 years ago;  Somehow we managed to build the greatest society on the planet.  Ever.  But now you’re told there is a problem with a group of people who, by and large, are just here to do menial labor for little money…and you guys believe it.  

Damn
You
Are 
Stupid.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

bripat9643 said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...
> 
> If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?
> 
> 
> 
> There's no truth in that.  The example Hungary shows that it will stop 99.9% of them.  That's what they truly fear.  After the wall is built the Dims will never win another election.
Click to expand...

Wrong. A wall will not deter the determined. 
In a police chase I once drove through a chain link fence with an 8ft drop off to a lower parking lot. 

You know who got away? I did because I was determined.

Thinking it will stop 99% is naive at best


----------



## bripat9643

Timmy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were an illegal, I’d just save some money, fly to Vancouver and walk across the border up there.  Better weather….and you don’t risk stepping in that turd known as Texas
> 
> 
> 
> First you would have to get a visa to enter Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like that’s hard?  By the way , Canada takes in lots of immigrants from those scary countries where terrorists come from .  Where’s the Canada wall?
Click to expand...

The shear volume of your idiocy is difficult to comprehend.  Why would Canada need a wall?  How many Americans do you know who are dying to get into Canada?

The fact that Canada has a stupid immigration policy doesn't mean we have to follow.  Canada is paying the price for admitting the Muslim savages.


----------



## Geaux4it

bodecea said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> How's Mexico's payment schedule coming along?   Remember?  We're not paying for the Wall, Mexico is.
Click to expand...

You mean like if you want to keep your doctor.........

-Geaux


----------



## bripat9643

Geaux4it said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> Why Timmy, why is it a better use of funds?
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

Because he knows it won't work.


----------



## Maxdeath

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


There are on average 400 deaths of those trying to cross the border each year. If a wall would cut that down to just fifty deaths a year I consider it a great investment. 

It costs about $10,000.00 to deport one person. If we lower the total amount paid only by half it would be a good deal.

There are over 600,000 backlog cases in immigration courts. If we could drop that down to even a quarter of that number it would allow for a better chance of people being treated fairly and a court date being held in a reasonable amount of time.

True less drugs would be transported over the border so for those wanting those drugs it would hurt.

Those wanting to hire illegals at slave wages would be hurt. States that require slave labor would be hurt.

All in all a win win.


----------



## Geaux4it

Timmy said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a perfect solution but unarguably is would reduce crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But at what cost ??  You know the “wall” plan includes drones and  all kinds of high tech sensors , roving border guards .  It’s not just some one time cost and you are done .
Click to expand...

I have no issue with the cost as I feel it would be good use of my tax paying dollars

-Geaux


----------



## bripat9643

Grampa Murked U said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...
> 
> If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?
> 
> 
> 
> There's no truth in that.  The example Hungary shows that it will stop 99.9% of them.  That's what they truly fear.  After the wall is built the Dims will never win another election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. A wall will not deter the determined.
> In a police chase I once drove through a chain link fence with an 8ft drop off to a lower parking lot.
> 
> You know who got away? I did because I was determined.
> 
> Thinking it will stop 99% is naive at best
Click to expand...


Those are the results that Hungary is reporting, so you're blowing hot gas out your ass.  Only 1% of people are as determined to get into this country as you were to get away from a cop.

You gotta wonder about someone who was trying to evade the police.


----------



## bripat9643

Timmy said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
Click to expand...

Where are you going to find a 30 ft ladder?  How are you going to get it to the wall?  Are are you going to climb over before the border patrol arrives?

As usual, your argument is full of holes.


----------



## bripat9643

Timmy said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a perfect solution but unarguably is would reduce crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But at what cost ??  You know the “wall” plan includes drones and  all kinds of high tech sensors , roving border guards .  It’s not just some one time cost and you are done .
Click to expand...

The most expensive component of defending the border is manpower, and the wall reduces the amount of manpower required.  You want to increase the amount of manpower.

Actually, you don't, but I'm trying to give you credit for actually being interested in controlling illegal immigration.


----------



## jasonnfree

It's wrong because trump promised us that Mexico would pay for the wall.   Since  Mexico won't pay,  then he should have set a few billion aside for it that was earmarked for the billionaires during  the latest republican tax  cut.  The billionaires that own him could have sacrificed a few billion.


----------



## bripat9643

Grampa Murked U said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10 ft is not a wall.
> And there are things you can top the wall with to make it even more difficult. If those devices get altered you repair them. Inspect the wall daily vs playing catch and release daily.
> 
> The logical choice is fucking obvious
Click to expand...

All the arguments of the open borders douchebags require no one to be manning the wall.  They are stupid at face value.


----------



## Geaux4it

bripat9643 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> Why Timmy, why is it a better use of funds?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he knows it won't work.
Click to expand...

On a side note, your siggy has me pissing my pants lol

-Geaux


----------



## Weatherman2020

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


It costs Democrats votes.


----------



## Geaux4it

jasonnfree said:


> It's wrong because trump promised us that Mexico would pay for it.   Since  Mexico won't pay,  then he should have set a few billion aside for it that was earmarked for the billionaires during that the latest republican tax  cut.


So you support the wall if it is funded by Mexico?

-Geaux


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

bripat9643 said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...
> 
> If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?
> 
> 
> 
> There's no truth in that.  The example Hungary shows that it will stop 99.9% of them.  That's what they truly fear.  After the wall is built the Dims will never win another election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. A wall will not deter the determined.
> In a police chase I once drove through a chain link fence with an 8ft drop off to a lower parking lot.
> 
> You know who got away? I did because I was determined.
> 
> Thinking it will stop 99% is naive at best
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are the results that Hungary is reporting, so you're blowing hot gas out your ass.  Only 1% of people are as determined to get into this country as you were to get away from a cop.
> 
> You gotta winder about someone who was trying to evade the police.
Click to expand...

I don't blow hot air faggot.


----------



## 2aguy

Timmy said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a perfect solution but unarguably is would reduce crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But at what cost ??  You know the “wall” plan includes drones and  all kinds of high tech sensors , roving border guards .  It’s not just some one time cost and you are done .
Click to expand...



The cost of not having a wall...where we have to worry every time left wing asshats like you create invasions of thousands of illegal aliens to cross our border without that wall...


----------



## bripat9643

Grampa Murked U said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...
> 
> If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?
> 
> 
> 
> There's no truth in that.  The example Hungary shows that it will stop 99.9% of them.  That's what they truly fear.  After the wall is built the Dims will never win another election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. A wall will not deter the determined.
> In a police chase I once drove through a chain link fence with an 8ft drop off to a lower parking lot.
> 
> You know who got away? I did because I was determined.
> 
> Thinking it will stop 99% is naive at best
Click to expand...

We have empirical evidence that it does.

Here's How One Country Cut Immigration by 99%


----------



## bripat9643

Grampa Murked U said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...
> 
> If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?
> 
> 
> 
> There's no truth in that.  The example Hungary shows that it will stop 99.9% of them.  That's what they truly fear.  After the wall is built the Dims will never win another election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. A wall will not deter the determined.
> In a police chase I once drove through a chain link fence with an 8ft drop off to a lower parking lot.
> 
> You know who got away? I did because I was determined.
> 
> Thinking it will stop 99% is naive at best
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are the results that Hungary is reporting, so you're blowing hot gas out your ass.  Only 1% of people are as determined to get into this country as you were to get away from a cop.
> 
> You gotta winder about someone who was trying to evade the police.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't blow hot air faggot.
Click to expand...

Apparently you do, because your claim is patently false.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

bripat9643 said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...
> 
> If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?
> 
> 
> 
> There's no truth in that.  The example Hungary shows that it will stop 99.9% of them.  That's what they truly fear.  After the wall is built the Dims will never win another election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. A wall will not deter the determined.
> In a police chase I once drove through a chain link fence with an 8ft drop off to a lower parking lot.
> 
> You know who got away? I did because I was determined.
> 
> Thinking it will stop 99% is naive at best
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have empirical evidence that it does.
> 
> Here's How One Country Cut Immigration by 99%
Click to expand...

I'm not going to argue with you about it. If you believe a wall would stop Mexicans by 99% your a gullible moron.


----------



## bripat9643

jasonnfree said:


> It's wrong because trump promised us that Mexico would pay for the wall.   Since  Mexico won't pay,  then he should have set a few billion aside for it that was earmarked for the billionaires during  the latest republican tax  cut.  The billionaires that own him could have sacrificed a few billion.


I wouldn't have a problem with that.  They are the ones who have been defending illegal immigration.


----------



## bripat9643

Grampa Murked U said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...
> 
> If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?
> 
> 
> 
> There's no truth in that.  The example Hungary shows that it will stop 99.9% of them.  That's what they truly fear.  After the wall is built the Dims will never win another election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. A wall will not deter the determined.
> In a police chase I once drove through a chain link fence with an 8ft drop off to a lower parking lot.
> 
> You know who got away? I did because I was determined.
> 
> Thinking it will stop 99% is naive at best
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have empirical evidence that it does.
> 
> Here's How One Country Cut Immigration by 99%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to argue with you about it. If you believe a wall would stop Mexicans by 99% your a gullible moron.
Click to expand...

That's the extent of your evidence:  none.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

bripat9643 said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...
> 
> If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?
> 
> 
> 
> There's no truth in that.  The example Hungary shows that it will stop 99.9% of them.  That's what they truly fear.  After the wall is built the Dims will never win another election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. A wall will not deter the determined.
> In a police chase I once drove through a chain link fence with an 8ft drop off to a lower parking lot.
> 
> You know who got away? I did because I was determined.
> 
> Thinking it will stop 99% is naive at best
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are the results that Hungary is reporting, so you're blowing hot gas out your ass.  Only 1% of people are as determined to get into this country as you were to get away from a cop.
> 
> You gotta winder about someone who was trying to evade the police.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't blow hot air faggot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you do, because your claim is patently false.
Click to expand...

My claim can not be false because America has no wall for you to draw evidence from. 
You're just a fat stupid fuck full of shit as usual. 
Now don't you have a failing GoFundMe to attend to?


----------



## playtime

i don't want drumpf building a wall that will also  keep us _*in.   *_


----------



## bripat9643

Geaux4it said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> Why Timmy, why is it a better use of funds?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he knows it won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On a side note, your siggy has me pissing my pants lol
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

Schumer is pretty fucking scary.


----------



## nat4900

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux



East Germany's  leader, Walter Ulbricht, once stated the same EXACT question as your thread's title.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

bripat9643 said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...
> 
> If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?
> 
> 
> 
> There's no truth in that.  The example Hungary shows that it will stop 99.9% of them.  That's what they truly fear.  After the wall is built the Dims will never win another election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. A wall will not deter the determined.
> In a police chase I once drove through a chain link fence with an 8ft drop off to a lower parking lot.
> 
> You know who got away? I did because I was determined.
> 
> Thinking it will stop 99% is naive at best
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have empirical evidence that it does.
> 
> Here's How One Country Cut Immigration by 99%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to argue with you about it. If you believe a wall would stop Mexicans by 99% your a gullible moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the extent of your evidence:  none.
Click to expand...

And your evidence?  A wall in another country with a different population trying to scale it...

You want to point to anecdotal evidence from a different population and apply it to us. 

You have proven over the years that you can not think for yourself so I don't expect this to be any different. 

You might as well point to Europes dependence on tiny ass cars for your evidence as to why we should ban SUVs in America. Makes about as much sense


----------



## Geaux4it

nat4900 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> East Germany's  leader, Walter Ulbricht, once stated the same EXACT question as your thread's title.
Click to expand...

Good for him

-Geaux


----------



## bripat9643

Grampa Murked U said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no truth in that.  The example Hungary shows that it will stop 99.9% of them.  That's what they truly fear.  After the wall is built the Dims will never win another election.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. A wall will not deter the determined.
> In a police chase I once drove through a chain link fence with an 8ft drop off to a lower parking lot.
> 
> You know who got away? I did because I was determined.
> 
> Thinking it will stop 99% is naive at best
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are the results that Hungary is reporting, so you're blowing hot gas out your ass.  Only 1% of people are as determined to get into this country as you were to get away from a cop.
> 
> You gotta winder about someone who was trying to evade the police.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't blow hot air faggot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you do, because your claim is patently false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My claim can not be false because America has no wall for you to draw evidence from.
> You're just a fat stupid fuck full of shit as usual.
> Now don't you have a failing GoFundMe to attend to?
Click to expand...

So we can't look at the walls other countries have built for evidence?

That has to be one of the dumbest arguments posted to the forum this week.


----------



## Geaux4it

bripat9643 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> Why Timmy, why is it a better use of funds?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he knows it won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On a side note, your siggy has me pissing my pants lol
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Schumer is pretty fucking scary.
Click to expand...

Looks like a pervert. Trench coat kind of looking dude

-Geaux


----------



## Brain357

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


We will have it as soon as Mexico pays for it.


----------



## regent

Apparently the politicians have not yet agreed on how the wall-money is to be split up.


----------



## nat4900

Geaux4it said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> East Germany's  leader, Walter Ulbricht, once stated the same EXACT question as your thread's title.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for him
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


.....and, eventually.......


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

bripat9643 said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. A wall will not deter the determined.
> In a police chase I once drove through a chain link fence with an 8ft drop off to a lower parking lot.
> 
> You know who got away? I did because I was determined.
> 
> Thinking it will stop 99% is naive at best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are the results that Hungary is reporting, so you're blowing hot gas out your ass.  Only 1% of people are as determined to get into this country as you were to get away from a cop.
> 
> You gotta winder about someone who was trying to evade the police.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't blow hot air faggot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you do, because your claim is patently false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My claim can not be false because America has no wall for you to draw evidence from.
> You're just a fat stupid fuck full of shit as usual.
> Now don't you have a failing GoFundMe to attend to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So we can't look at the walls other countries have built for evidence?
> 
> That has to be one of the dumbest arguments posted to the forum this week.
Click to expand...

Evidence =/= undeniable proof you stupidfuck. 
We have different magnets that draw people here and those people have a different mindset and goals.

It is certainly evidence that it stems the flow but to expect the same exact results when the motivations are different is just stupid


----------



## bripat9643

Timmy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...
> 
> If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?
> 
> 
> 
> There's no truth in that.  The example Hungary shows that it will stop 99.9% of them.  That's what they truly fear.  After the wall is built the Dims will never win another election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah , the fairytale of illegals voting .
Click to expand...

Even if illegals can't vote, their children can, and the Dims will find a way to make it legal for illegals themselves to vote.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Brain357 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> We will have it as soon as Mexico pays for it.
Click to expand...

Another fail. 

I refer you to my earlier post when someone used this talking point. The same challenge applies to you


----------



## Defiant1

Timmy said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so silly is the reich totally ignores the largest immigration problem is expired visa's. There are more of them than people crossing without permission or documentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40%. Of illegals came in legally and overstay.  Wall does nothing for that .
Click to expand...


I have a plan to fix that.


----------



## bripat9643

Timmy said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because democrats were forced to surrender their slaves after the Civil War, and their attempt to keep Blacks from voting didn't work because the Republicans kept passing Civil Rights legislation.....and now, Blacks are not happy with democrats, so the democrats want a new slave class from Mexico..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those “democrats” are today’s “republicans “. How many times you going to spin that lie about Dems .
Click to expand...

Another Democrat lie.


----------



## Brain357

Grampa Murked U said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> We will have it as soon as Mexico pays for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another fail.
> 
> I refer you to my earlier post when someone used this talking point. The same challenge applies to you
Click to expand...

There is no fail.  If Mexico paid for it we would have it.  Even with Republican in full control it hasn't happened.  I'm pretty sure the only option is when Mexico pays for it.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Brain357 said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> We will have it as soon as Mexico pays for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another fail.
> 
> I refer you to my earlier post when someone used this talking point. The same challenge applies to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no fail.  If Mexico paid for it we would have it.  Even with Republican in full control it hasn't happened.  I'm pretty sure the only option is when Mexico pays for it.
Click to expand...

Wall Is Being Built, Mile by Mile, Slowly | National Review

Did Mexico send a check then?


----------



## bripat9643

nat4900 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> East Germany's  leader, Walter Ulbricht, once stated the same EXACT question as your thread's title.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for him
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .....and, eventually.......
Click to expand...

Comparing a wall to keep foreign invaders out with a wall built by totalitarians to keep their citizens in is the mark of a douchebag.


----------



## bripat9643

Grampa Murked U said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are the results that Hungary is reporting, so you're blowing hot gas out your ass.  Only 1% of people are as determined to get into this country as you were to get away from a cop.
> 
> You gotta winder about someone who was trying to evade the police.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't blow hot air faggot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you do, because your claim is patently false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My claim can not be false because America has no wall for you to draw evidence from.
> You're just a fat stupid fuck full of shit as usual.
> Now don't you have a failing GoFundMe to attend to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So we can't look at the walls other countries have built for evidence?
> 
> That has to be one of the dumbest arguments posted to the forum this week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evidence =/= undeniable proof you stupidfuck.
> We have different magnets that draw people here and those people have a different mindset and goals.
> 
> It is certainly evidence that it stems the flow but to expect the same exact results when the motivations are different is just stupid
Click to expand...

The motivations are exactly the same:  access to the easy life in Western society.  Furthermore, their motivation really doesn't matter.  All that matters is how easy it is for them to cross our border.


----------



## Brain357

Grampa Murked U said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> We will have it as soon as Mexico pays for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another fail.
> 
> I refer you to my earlier post when someone used this talking point. The same challenge applies to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no fail.  If Mexico paid for it we would have it.  Even with Republican in full control it hasn't happened.  I'm pretty sure the only option is when Mexico pays for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wall Is Being Built, Mile by Mile, Slowly | National Review
> 
> Did Mexico send a check then?
Click to expand...

That's replacing a wall already there.  Net gain of wall 0.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Building the Wall will work....that’s why the LefTarded hate the idea. Plain and fucking simple.
https://nypost.com/2018/03/10/cutting-welfare-to-illegal-aliens-would-pay-for-trumps-wall/


----------



## Brain357

BrokeLoser said:


> Building the Wall will work....that’s why the LefTarded hate the idea. Plain and fucking simple.
> https://nypost.com/2018/03/10/cutting-welfare-to-illegal-aliens-would-pay-for-trumps-wall/


Repubs are in full control.  They must hate it too.


----------



## Geaux4it

nat4900 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> East Germany's  leader, Walter Ulbricht, once stated the same EXACT question as your thread's title.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for him
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .....and, eventually.......
Click to expand...

Thanks to Ronald Regan. Thanks for the memories

-Geaux


----------



## Crepitus

Grampa Murked U said:


> Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...
> 
> If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?


And righies say gun control won't stop them all.

What's your point?


----------



## Bush92

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


It’s a national sovereignty issue. I can’t believe we haven’t been shooting the bastards.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Brain357 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Building the Wall will work....that’s why the LefTarded hate the idea. Plain and fucking simple.
> https://nypost.com/2018/03/10/cutting-welfare-to-illegal-aliens-would-pay-for-trumps-wall/
> 
> 
> 
> Repubs are in full control.  They must hate it too.
Click to expand...

I definitely hate it. Just like your side hated it when you had control and did nothing but Obamacare. The difference of course being that you had a basic supermajority and we didn't so unless we could pass things via reconciliation we were fucked because of leftist opposition


----------



## Bush92

Tax Man said:


> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS


And those that came through Ellis Island did so legally and were needed during the post Civil War industrialization era. These people are coming in in violation of the law, and are not needed.


----------



## Geaux4it

Bush92 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a national sovereignty issue. I can’t believe we haven’t been shooting the bastards.
Click to expand...


The machine controls all. Just like our marijuana black market. Someone is always getting paid to look the other way

-Geaux


----------



## Crepitus

bripat9643 said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS
> 
> 
> 
> The Statue of Liberty was dedicated in 1886, moron.   The plaque was added 17 years later.  It has no connection to the reason the statue was built.
Click to expand...

The statue was originally and antislavery statement.

You republicans should hate it.


----------



## bripat9643

Crepitus said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS
> 
> 
> 
> The Statue of Liberty was dedicated in 1886, moron.   The plaque was added 17 years later.  It has no connection to the reason the statue was built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The statue was originally and antislavery statement.
> 
> You republicans should hate it.
Click to expand...

Even if true, it has nothing to do with immigration.


----------



## danielpalos

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.


----------



## Bush92

Crepitus said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS
> 
> 
> 
> The Statue of Liberty was dedicated in 1886, moron.   The plaque was added 17 years later.  It has no connection to the reason the statue was built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The statue was originally and antislavery statement.
> 
> You republicans should hate it.
Click to expand...

You fucking blithering idiot, it was gift for our Centenary in 1876.


----------



## Bush92

danielpalos said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.
Click to expand...

Bullets are the most cost effective.


----------



## Brain357

Grampa Murked U said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Building the Wall will work....that’s why the LefTarded hate the idea. Plain and fucking simple.
> https://nypost.com/2018/03/10/cutting-welfare-to-illegal-aliens-would-pay-for-trumps-wall/
> 
> 
> 
> Repubs are in full control.  They must hate it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I definitely hate it. Just like your side hated it when you had control and did nothing but Obamacare. The difference of course being that you had a basic supermajority and we didn't so unless we could pass things via reconciliation we were fucked because of leftist opposition
Click to expand...

I don't have a side.  I don't think they put any real effort into this wall.  It certainly won't happen with a dem house.


----------



## Bush92

Brain357 said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Building the Wall will work....that’s why the LefTarded hate the idea. Plain and fucking simple.
> https://nypost.com/2018/03/10/cutting-welfare-to-illegal-aliens-would-pay-for-trumps-wall/
> 
> 
> 
> Repubs are in full control.  They must hate it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I definitely hate it. Just like your side hated it when you had control and did nothing but Obamacare. The difference of course being that you had a basic supermajority and we didn't so unless we could pass things via reconciliation we were fucked because of leftist opposition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have a side.  I don't think they put any real effort into this wall.  It certainly won't happen with a dem house.
Click to expand...

The House starts the budget process and will defund ICE. Government will be shut down and liberal media will blame Trump daily. Hope he stands his ground. I don’t care if it takes two years.


----------



## BrokeLoser

*How a border fence destroyed a tight community*
How a border fence destroyed a tight community


----------



## XponentialChaos

I have no problem with Mexico paying for our wall.  

When do we get the check?


----------



## BrokeLoser

XponentialChaos said:


> I have no problem with Mexico paying for our wall.
> 
> When do we get the check?



Don’t need it...tell Mexico to use that money to teach their teenagers abstinence...tell them to fund truckloads of condoms and drop them in the barrios....problem solved.
Our Wall EASILY funds itself. The arithmetic is elementary.
https://nypost.com/2018/03/10/cutting-welfare-to-illegal-aliens-would-pay-for-trumps-wall/


----------



## Timmy

Geaux4it said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a perfect solution but unarguably is would reduce crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But at what cost ??  You know the “wall” plan includes drones and  all kinds of high tech sensors , roving border guards .  It’s not just some one time cost and you are done .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no issue with the cost as I feel it would be good use of my tax paying dollars
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Right .  Cause cons don’t mind wasting tax money so long as you thinks it’s being used to stroke your xenophobia .


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Timmy said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a perfect solution but unarguably is would reduce crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But at what cost ??  You know the “wall” plan includes drones and  all kinds of high tech sensors , roving border guards .  It’s not just some one time cost and you are done .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no issue with the cost as I feel it would be good use of my tax paying dollars
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right .  Cause cons don’t mind wasting tax money so long as you thinks it’s being used to stroke your xenophobia .
Click to expand...


----------



## Timmy

Grampa Murked U said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a perfect solution but unarguably is would reduce crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But at what cost ??  You know the “wall” plan includes drones and  all kinds of high tech sensors , roving border guards .  It’s not just some one time cost and you are done .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no issue with the cost as I feel it would be good use of my tax paying dollars
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right .  Cause cons don’t mind wasting tax money so long as you thinks it’s being used to stroke your xenophobia .
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Insults caused you can’t make arguments .


----------



## nat4900

Geaux4it said:


> Thanks to Ronald Regan. Thanks for the memories



Actually, morons like you should be objective and "thank" Gorbachev


----------



## WaitingFor2020

Timmy said:


> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .



Spend the money on ridding these central American drug cartels of their chokehold on innocent citizens.
These migrants DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES.
Nobody wants to be driven away from their homeland.
But if their lives are at risk, they are going to try.

.
.
.


----------



## BrokeLoser

WaitingFor2020 said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spend the money on ridding these central American drug cartels of their chokehold on innocent citizens.
> These migrants DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES.
> Nobody wants to be driven away from their homeland.
> But if their lives are at risk, they are going to try.
> 
> .
> .
> .
Click to expand...


Then why didn’t the caravan of filth stop in Mehico?
No lucrative welfare policy?


----------



## nat4900

BrokeLoser said:


> Then why didn’t the caravan of filth stop in Mehico?
> No lucrative welfare policy?




Is it difficult to type out your moronic posts from under your bed?..............LOL


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac




----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Timmy said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a perfect solution but unarguably is would reduce crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But at what cost ??  You know the “wall” plan includes drones and  all kinds of high tech sensors , roving border guards .  It’s not just some one time cost and you are done .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no issue with the cost as I feel it would be good use of my tax paying dollars
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right .  Cause cons don’t mind wasting tax money so long as you thinks it’s being used to stroke your xenophobia .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Insults caused you can’t make arguments .
Click to expand...

My arguments were made an hour ago. You're just too stupid to recognize it. Hence the insults


----------



## Lesh

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


A+B


----------



## WaitingFor2020

candycorn said:


> If I were an illegal, I’d just save some money, fly to Vancouver and walk across the border up there.  Better weather….and you don’t risk stepping in that turd known as Texas




Trumpanzees seem to forget about boats.  I have a brother who lives north of San Diego and he said many come in by sea in the dead of night.
.
.
.


----------



## Lesh

The bottom line is that they will come here as long as employers WANT them to come and will hire them.And they do.

Go after EMPLOYERS and the problem gets solved.

Of course you have to understand   there are 11 million already here and ya just can't "ethnically cleanse" 11 million people.


----------



## Thinker101

WaitingFor2020 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were an illegal, I’d just save some money, fly to Vancouver and walk across the border up there.  Better weather….and you don’t risk stepping in that turd known as Texas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trumpanzees seem to forget about boats.  I have a brother who lives north of San Diego and he said many come in by sea in the dead of night.
> .
> .
> .
Click to expand...


Yeah, so because the wall can only stop 40-80%, what the hell, why stop any of them.  Dumbass.


----------



## BrokeLoser

nat4900 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why didn’t the caravan of filth stop in Mehico?
> No lucrative welfare policy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it difficult to type out your moronic posts from under your bed?..............LOL
Click to expand...


I’m sorry, did I make you look foolish?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

WaitingFor2020 said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spend the money on ridding these central American drug cartels of their chokehold on innocent citizens.
> These migrants DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES.
> Nobody wants to be driven away from their homeland.
> But if their lives are at risk, they are going to try.
> 
> .
> .
> .
Click to expand...


It has nothing to do with their lives being at risk.  It has to do with them not wanting to fight to make their country a better place.  It's easier just to move to higher ground if possible.  if their country was so bad, WTF are they having children?


----------



## WaitingFor2020

BrokeLoser said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spend the money on ridding these central American drug cartels of their chokehold on innocent citizens.
> These migrants DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES.
> Nobody wants to be driven away from their homeland.
> But if their lives are at risk, they are going to try.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why didn’t the caravan of filth stop in Mehico?
> No lucrative welfare policy?
Click to expand...


No jobs.
No big American food processing manufacturers or Big Ag farmers or hundreds of thousands of small landscaping/lawn service companies promising jobs down the line through their current pool of illegal workers to the relatives back home in Honduras.
Use your head.  Illegals are here because the aforementioned employers WANT them here.
They pay under the table and save millions on insurance, workmens comp, FICA, state taxes, sick days, etc.
.
I don't know of anyone in our neighborhood who mows their own lawn anymore.  Every day of the week, including weekends, the sound of mowers, blowers and edgers can be heard.  And none of the people doing the work speak a word of English.  But they never miss a day of work.

.
.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Lesh said:


> The bottom line is that they will come here as long as employers WANT them to come and will hire them.And they do.
> 
> Go after EMPLOYERS and the problem gets solved.
> 
> Of course you have to understand   there are 11 million already here and ya just can't "ethnically cleanse" 11 million people.



Haha...funny shit. We had 11 million in 1995....I’ve never once heard of a wetback jumping the fence back into Mehico. Sane people know we have 20-50 million and easily 12 million in Mexifornia alone.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

XponentialChaos said:


> I have no problem with Mexico paying for our wall.
> 
> When do we get the check?



I guess when we get affordable healthcare.


----------



## candycorn

Thinker101 said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were an illegal, I’d just save some money, fly to Vancouver and walk across the border up there.  Better weather….and you don’t risk stepping in that turd known as Texas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trumpanzees seem to forget about boats.  I have a brother who lives north of San Diego and he said many come in by sea in the dead of night.
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, so because the wall can only stop 40-80%, what the hell, why stop any of them.  Dumbass.
Click to expand...


Good question.  We've had an unparalelled expansion of our economy (which was already the world's strongest) when immigration (illegal and otherwise) really got going, we've had comparatively few problems with illegals compared to natives, and a great amount of non citizens have served with honor in our military service.  

We can't have open borders but this jihad you guys have launched against brown people is really stupid.


----------



## BrokeLoser

WaitingFor2020 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spend the money on ridding these central American drug cartels of their chokehold on innocent citizens.
> These migrants DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES.
> Nobody wants to be driven away from their homeland.
> But if their lives are at risk, they are going to try.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why didn’t the caravan of filth stop in Mehico?
> No lucrative welfare policy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No jobs.
> No big American food processing manufacturers or Big Ag farmers or hundreds of thousands of small landscaping/lawn service companies promising jobs down the line through their current pool of illegal workers to the relatives back home in Honduras.
> Use your head.  Illegals are here because the aforementioned employers WANT them here.
> They pay under the table and save millions on insurance, workmens comp, FICA, state taxes, sick days, etc.
> .
> I don't know of anyone in our neighborhood who mows their own lawn anymore.  Every day of the week, including weekends, the sound of mowers, blowers and edgers can be heard.  And none of the people doing the work speak a word of English.
> .
> .
Click to expand...


Weird...it almost sounds like you support the hiring of 21st century slaves?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Crepitus said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...
> 
> If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?
> 
> 
> 
> And righies say gun control won't stop them all.
> 
> What's your point?
Click to expand...


No, what we said is disarming law abiding citizens will only empower the criminal.


----------



## Thinker101

candycorn said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were an illegal, I’d just save some money, fly to Vancouver and walk across the border up there.  Better weather….and you don’t risk stepping in that turd known as Texas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trumpanzees seem to forget about boats.  I have a brother who lives north of San Diego and he said many come in by sea in the dead of night.
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, so because the wall can only stop 40-80%, what the hell, why stop any of them.  Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question.  We've had an unparalelled expansion of our economy (which was already the world's strongest) when immigration (illegal and otherwise) really got going, we've had comparatively few problems with illegals compared to natives, and a great amount of non citizens have served with honor in our military service.
> 
> We can't have open borders but this jihad you guys have launched against brown people is really stupid.
Click to expand...


Sure...they're all valedictorians.


----------



## Crepitus

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...
> 
> If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?
> 
> 
> 
> And righies say gun control won't stop them all.
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what we said is disarming law abiding citizens will only empower the criminal.
Click to expand...

No, it's not.


----------



## WaitingFor2020

Ray From Cleveland said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spend the money on ridding these central American drug cartels of their chokehold on innocent citizens.
> These migrants DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES.
> Nobody wants to be driven away from their homeland.
> But if their lives are at risk, they are going to try.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with their lives being at risk.  It has to do with them not wanting to fight to make their country a better place.  It's easier just to move to higher ground if possible.  if their country was so bad, WTF are they having children?
Click to expand...


Show your American ignorance.  You've probably never been to Central America.  I lived in the Frontera/Baja of Mexico for a year north of Cabo, and I've never seen such poverty. And we were not under threat by the cartels.  Saw plenty of human misery in Lima, Peru, too.  So I can't imagine how bad it is in places like Honduras.

You deny the drug cartels exist then you're even dumber than I thought.

And you'd probably be the last to keep your pecker in your pants, too. So don't even go there about why they are having children, you fucking dolt.
.
.
.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bripat9643 said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...
> 
> If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?
> 
> 
> 
> There's no truth in that.  The example Hungary shows that it will stop 99.9% of them.  That's what they truly fear.  After the wall is built the Dims will never win another election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah , the fairytale of illegals voting .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if illegals can't vote, their children can, and the Dims will find a way to make it legal for illegals themselves to vote.
Click to expand...


It's part of the big-game plan.  Get as many of them in the US as possible, and once Democrats gain full control of government, grant them all amnesty and citizenship which would give them the right to vote.


----------



## candycorn

Thinker101 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were an illegal, I’d just save some money, fly to Vancouver and walk across the border up there.  Better weather….and you don’t risk stepping in that turd known as Texas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trumpanzees seem to forget about boats.  I have a brother who lives north of San Diego and he said many come in by sea in the dead of night.
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, so because the wall can only stop 40-80%, what the hell, why stop any of them.  Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question.  We've had an unparalelled expansion of our economy (which was already the world's strongest) when immigration (illegal and otherwise) really got going, we've had comparatively few problems with illegals compared to natives, and a great amount of non citizens have served with honor in our military service.
> 
> We can't have open borders but this jihad you guys have launched against brown people is really stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure...they're all valedictorians.
Click to expand...


No far from it.  Some very bad people come across but by and large they have been a beneficial influence to the nation.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

WaitingFor2020 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spend the money on ridding these central American drug cartels of their chokehold on innocent citizens.
> These migrants DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES.
> Nobody wants to be driven away from their homeland.
> But if their lives are at risk, they are going to try.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with their lives being at risk.  It has to do with them not wanting to fight to make their country a better place.  It's easier just to move to higher ground if possible.  if their country was so bad, WTF are they having children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show your American ignorance.  You've probably never been to Central America.  I lived in the Frontera/Baja of Mexico for a year north of Cabo, and I've never seen such poverty. And we were not under threat by the cartels.  Saw plenty of human misery in Lima, Peru, too.  So I can't imagine how bad it is in places like Honduras.
> 
> You deny the drug cartels exist then you're even dumber than I thought.
> 
> And you'd probably be the last to keep your pecker in your pants, too. So don't even go there about why they are having children, you fucking dolt.
> .
> .
> .
Click to expand...


I live in a free country where children would be raised in an excellent environment and I didn't have any children for financial reasons.  Know why?  BECAUSE I'M A RESPONSIBLE PERSON!  To the point, these people are not responsible in any way or form.  

WTF needs more irresponsible people here?  We have enough of them already. We call them Democrats.


----------



## Thinker101

candycorn said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were an illegal, I’d just save some money, fly to Vancouver and walk across the border up there.  Better weather….and you don’t risk stepping in that turd known as Texas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trumpanzees seem to forget about boats.  I have a brother who lives north of San Diego and he said many come in by sea in the dead of night.
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, so because the wall can only stop 40-80%, what the hell, why stop any of them.  Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question.  We've had an unparalelled expansion of our economy (which was already the world's strongest) when immigration (illegal and otherwise) really got going, we've had comparatively few problems with illegals compared to natives, and a great amount of non citizens have served with honor in our military service.
> 
> We can't have open borders but this jihad you guys have launched against brown people is really stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure...they're all valedictorians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No far from it.  Some very bad people come across but by and large they have been a beneficial influence to the nation.
Click to expand...


By and large?  So what percentage of "by and large" would not being beneficial be acceptable?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> No far from it. Some very bad people come across but by and large they have been a beneficial influence to the nation.



Yeah, it's so beneficial for people to come here and turn us into a bilingual country and more than half end up on our welfare programs.


----------



## XponentialChaos

BrokeLoser said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with Mexico paying for our wall.
> 
> When do we get the check?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t need it...tell Mexico to use that money to teach their teenagers abstinence...tell them to fund truckloads of condoms and drop them in the barrios....problem solved.
> Our Wall EASILY funds itself. The arithmetic is elementary.
> https://nypost.com/2018/03/10/cutting-welfare-to-illegal-aliens-would-pay-for-trumps-wall/
Click to expand...


That's cool.

Oh hey, I have this bridge to sell you.  Don't worry, it will fund itself.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux



Not a damn thing, and really funding should come out of the personal pockets of two bygone Congresses that raided the funds already allotted for a wall, twice! 

Does no one else know about that, or what?

Clinton built the most wall out of any president.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Crepitus said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...
> 
> If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?
> 
> 
> 
> And righies say gun control won't stop them all.
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what we said is disarming law abiding citizens will only empower the criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is.  When you disarm the general public, criminals will not obey any new gun laws.  Therefore what you end up with is a society where only the police and criminals have guns and nobody else does.  That's been our argument all along.


----------



## Thinker101

XponentialChaos said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with Mexico paying for our wall.
> 
> When do we get the check?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t need it...tell Mexico to use that money to teach their teenagers abstinence...tell them to fund truckloads of condoms and drop them in the barrios....problem solved.
> Our Wall EASILY funds itself. The arithmetic is elementary.
> https://nypost.com/2018/03/10/cutting-welfare-to-illegal-aliens-would-pay-for-trumps-wall/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's cool.
> 
> Oh hey, I have this bridge to sell you.  Don't worry, it will fund itself.
Click to expand...


Yeah, Obama already tried that one.


----------



## XponentialChaos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with Mexico paying for our wall.
> 
> When do we get the check?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess when we get affordable healthcare.
Click to expand...


Good point.  

Let's go with the Republican plan for affordable healthcare.


----------



## XponentialChaos

Thinker101 said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with Mexico paying for our wall.
> 
> When do we get the check?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t need it...tell Mexico to use that money to teach their teenagers abstinence...tell them to fund truckloads of condoms and drop them in the barrios....problem solved.
> Our Wall EASILY funds itself. The arithmetic is elementary.
> https://nypost.com/2018/03/10/cutting-welfare-to-illegal-aliens-would-pay-for-trumps-wall/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's cool.
> 
> Oh hey, I have this bridge to sell you.  Don't worry, it will fund itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, Obama already tried that one.
Click to expand...


Don't worry, Mexico will pay for it.

Wait, no.  I need YOU to pay for it.  But don't worry - it will pay for itself.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were an illegal, I’d just save some money, fly to Vancouver and walk across the border up there.  Better weather….and you don’t risk stepping in that turd known as Texas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trumpanzees seem to forget about boats.  I have a brother who lives north of San Diego and he said many come in by sea in the dead of night.
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, so because the wall can only stop 40-80%, what the hell, why stop any of them.  Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question.  We've had an unparalelled expansion of our economy (which was already the world's strongest) when immigration (illegal and otherwise) really got going, we've had comparatively few problems with illegals compared to natives, and a great amount of non citizens have served with honor in our military service.
> 
> We can't have open borders but this jihad you guys have launched against brown people is really stupid.
Click to expand...


Immigration (legal and illegal) has been on the decline throughout our economic expansion.  We're doing just fine without them.  In fact, they are much more of a liability than a benefit.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

XponentialChaos said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with Mexico paying for our wall.
> 
> When do we get the check?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess when we get affordable healthcare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point.
> 
> Let's go with the Republican plan for affordable healthcare.
Click to expand...


Why not? Just as good as any Democrat plan.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

XponentialChaos said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with Mexico paying for our wall.
> 
> When do we get the check?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t need it...tell Mexico to use that money to teach their teenagers abstinence...tell them to fund truckloads of condoms and drop them in the barrios....problem solved.
> Our Wall EASILY funds itself. The arithmetic is elementary.
> https://nypost.com/2018/03/10/cutting-welfare-to-illegal-aliens-would-pay-for-trumps-wall/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's cool.
> 
> Oh hey, I have this bridge to sell you.  Don't worry, it will fund itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, Obama already tried that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry, Mexico will pay for it.
> 
> Wait, no.  I need YOU to pay for it.  But don't worry - it will pay for itself.
Click to expand...


----------



## XponentialChaos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with Mexico paying for our wall.
> 
> When do we get the check?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess when we get affordable healthcare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point.
> 
> Let's go with the Republican plan for affordable healthcare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not? Just as good as any Democrat plan.
Click to expand...


Sounds good.  Especially since they've had 8 years to come up with something better.

  Wait, what was that Republican plan again?


----------



## Thinker101

XponentialChaos said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with Mexico paying for our wall.
> 
> When do we get the check?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t need it...tell Mexico to use that money to teach their teenagers abstinence...tell them to fund truckloads of condoms and drop them in the barrios....problem solved.
> Our Wall EASILY funds itself. The arithmetic is elementary.
> https://nypost.com/2018/03/10/cutting-welfare-to-illegal-aliens-would-pay-for-trumps-wall/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's cool.
> 
> Oh hey, I have this bridge to sell you.  Don't worry, it will fund itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, Obama already tried that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry, Mexico will pay for it.
> 
> Wait, no.  I need YOU to pay for it.  But don't worry - it will pay for itself.
Click to expand...


Dang, is this a recording?


----------



## XponentialChaos

Thinker101 said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with Mexico paying for our wall.
> 
> When do we get the check?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t need it...tell Mexico to use that money to teach their teenagers abstinence...tell them to fund truckloads of condoms and drop them in the barrios....problem solved.
> Our Wall EASILY funds itself. The arithmetic is elementary.
> https://nypost.com/2018/03/10/cutting-welfare-to-illegal-aliens-would-pay-for-trumps-wall/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's cool.
> 
> Oh hey, I have this bridge to sell you.  Don't worry, it will fund itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, Obama already tried that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry, Mexico will pay for it.
> 
> Wait, no.  I need YOU to pay for it.  But don't worry - it will pay for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dang, is this a recording?
Click to expand...


Yes?


----------



## Timmy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spend the money on ridding these central American drug cartels of their chokehold on innocent citizens.
> These migrants DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES.
> Nobody wants to be driven away from their homeland.
> But if their lives are at risk, they are going to try.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with their lives being at risk.  It has to do with them not wanting to fight to make their country a better place.  It's easier just to move to higher ground if possible.  if their country was so bad, WTF are they having children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show your American ignorance.  You've probably never been to Central America.  I lived in the Frontera/Baja of Mexico for a year north of Cabo, and I've never seen such poverty. And we were not under threat by the cartels.  Saw plenty of human misery in Lima, Peru, too.  So I can't imagine how bad it is in places like Honduras.
> 
> You deny the drug cartels exist then you're even dumber than I thought.
> 
> And you'd probably be the last to keep your pecker in your pants, too. So don't even go there about why they are having children, you fucking dolt.
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in a free country where children would be raised in an excellent environment and I didn't have any children for financial reasons.  Know why?  BECAUSE I'M A RESPONSIBLE PERSON!  To the point, these people are not responsible in any way or form.
> 
> WTF needs more irresponsible people here?  We have enough of them already. We call them Democrats.
Click to expand...


Did you claim you kids on your taxes ?


----------



## Timmy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...
> 
> If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?
> 
> 
> 
> And righies say gun control won't stop them all.
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what we said is disarming law abiding citizens will only empower the criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  When you disarm the general public, criminals will not obey any new gun laws.  Therefore what you end up with is a society where only the police and criminals have guns and nobody else does.  That's been our argument all along.
Click to expand...


Where are people banning guns ?  Typical gun nut lies .


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Timmy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spend the money on ridding these central American drug cartels of their chokehold on innocent citizens.
> These migrants DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES.
> Nobody wants to be driven away from their homeland.
> But if their lives are at risk, they are going to try.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with their lives being at risk.  It has to do with them not wanting to fight to make their country a better place.  It's easier just to move to higher ground if possible.  if their country was so bad, WTF are they having children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show your American ignorance.  You've probably never been to Central America.  I lived in the Frontera/Baja of Mexico for a year north of Cabo, and I've never seen such poverty. And we were not under threat by the cartels.  Saw plenty of human misery in Lima, Peru, too.  So I can't imagine how bad it is in places like Honduras.
> 
> You deny the drug cartels exist then you're even dumber than I thought.
> 
> And you'd probably be the last to keep your pecker in your pants, too. So don't even go there about why they are having children, you fucking dolt.
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in a free country where children would be raised in an excellent environment and I didn't have any children for financial reasons.  Know why?  BECAUSE I'M A RESPONSIBLE PERSON!  To the point, these people are not responsible in any way or form.
> 
> WTF needs more irresponsible people here?  We have enough of them already. We call them Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you claim you kids on your taxes ?
Click to expand...


Comprehension problems I see.


----------



## Timmy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No far from it. Some very bad people come across but by and large they have been a beneficial influence to the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's so beneficial for people to come here and turn us into a bilingual country and more than half end up on our welfare programs.
Click to expand...


Illegals aren’t entitled to welfare.

What other lies you spinning today?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Timmy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...
> 
> If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?
> 
> 
> 
> And righies say gun control won't stop them all.
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what we said is disarming law abiding citizens will only empower the criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  When you disarm the general public, criminals will not obey any new gun laws.  Therefore what you end up with is a society where only the police and criminals have guns and nobody else does.  That's been our argument all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are people banning guns ?  Typical gun nut lies .
Click to expand...


It's a Democrat wet dream; to ban guns and disarm society.  They can't because we have a Constitution, but in select places across the country, they are trying to get as close as they can.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Timmy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No far from it. Some very bad people come across but by and large they have been a beneficial influence to the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's so beneficial for people to come here and turn us into a bilingual country and more than half end up on our welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals aren’t entitled to welfare.
> 
> What other lies you spinning today?
Click to expand...


Their children are which they can use for themselves as well.  And over half of the legal immigrants in the USA are on some sort of welfare program.  CLOSE THE BORDER!


----------



## Timmy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spend the money on ridding these central American drug cartels of their chokehold on innocent citizens.
> These migrants DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES.
> Nobody wants to be driven away from their homeland.
> But if their lives are at risk, they are going to try.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with their lives being at risk.  It has to do with them not wanting to fight to make their country a better place.  It's easier just to move to higher ground if possible.  if their country was so bad, WTF are they having children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show your American ignorance.  You've probably never been to Central America.  I lived in the Frontera/Baja of Mexico for a year north of Cabo, and I've never seen such poverty. And we were not under threat by the cartels.  Saw plenty of human misery in Lima, Peru, too.  So I can't imagine how bad it is in places like Honduras.
> 
> You deny the drug cartels exist then you're even dumber than I thought.
> 
> And you'd probably be the last to keep your pecker in your pants, too. So don't even go there about why they are having children, you fucking dolt.
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in a free country where children would be raised in an excellent environment and I didn't have any children for financial reasons.  Know why?  BECAUSE I'M A RESPONSIBLE PERSON!  To the point, these people are not responsible in any way or form.
> 
> WTF needs more irresponsible people here?  We have enough of them already. We call them Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you claim you kids on your taxes ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comprehension problems I see.
Click to expand...


You didn’t answer the question .   I’m guessing you did use the kids for tax breaks .


----------



## Timmy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No far from it. Some very bad people come across but by and large they have been a beneficial influence to the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's so beneficial for people to come here and turn us into a bilingual country and more than half end up on our welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals aren’t entitled to welfare.
> 
> What other lies you spinning today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their children are which they can use for themselves as well.  And over half of the legal immigrants in the USA are on some sort of welfare program.  CLOSE THE BORDER!
Click to expand...


Bullshit spin.  Immigrants aren’t entitled to welfare .  Thats part of immigration .  You have a sponsor who’s responsible for you .


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Timmy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with their lives being at risk.  It has to do with them not wanting to fight to make their country a better place.  It's easier just to move to higher ground if possible.  if their country was so bad, WTF are they having children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show your American ignorance.  You've probably never been to Central America.  I lived in the Frontera/Baja of Mexico for a year north of Cabo, and I've never seen such poverty. And we were not under threat by the cartels.  Saw plenty of human misery in Lima, Peru, too.  So I can't imagine how bad it is in places like Honduras.
> 
> You deny the drug cartels exist then you're even dumber than I thought.
> 
> And you'd probably be the last to keep your pecker in your pants, too. So don't even go there about why they are having children, you fucking dolt.
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in a free country where children would be raised in an excellent environment and I didn't have any children for financial reasons.  Know why?  BECAUSE I'M A RESPONSIBLE PERSON!  To the point, these people are not responsible in any way or form.
> 
> WTF needs more irresponsible people here?  We have enough of them already. We call them Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you claim you kids on your taxes ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comprehension problems I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn’t answer the question .   I’m guessing you did use the kids for tax breaks .
Click to expand...


And I'm guessing you don't have the comprehension skills of a third grader.  Read it again, especially the sentence where I stated I HAVE NO CHILDREN!!!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Timmy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No far from it. Some very bad people come across but by and large they have been a beneficial influence to the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's so beneficial for people to come here and turn us into a bilingual country and more than half end up on our welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals aren’t entitled to welfare.
> 
> What other lies you spinning today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their children are which they can use for themselves as well.  And over half of the legal immigrants in the USA are on some sort of welfare program.  CLOSE THE BORDER!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit spin.  Immigrants aren’t entitled to welfare .  Thats part of immigration .  You have a sponsor who’s responsible for you .
Click to expand...



Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children


----------



## Timmy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> And righies say gun control won't stop them all.
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what we said is disarming law abiding citizens will only empower the criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  When you disarm the general public, criminals will not obey any new gun laws.  Therefore what you end up with is a society where only the police and criminals have guns and nobody else does.  That's been our argument all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are people banning guns ?  Typical gun nut lies .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a Democrat wet dream; to ban guns and disarm society.  They can't because we have a Constitution, but in select places across the country, they are trying to get as close as they can.
Click to expand...


Gun control is not = banning all guns .

How about I go around saying “gun nuts want firearms available out if vending machines”.   Is that what you want ?


----------



## Timmy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No far from it. Some very bad people come across but by and large they have been a beneficial influence to the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's so beneficial for people to come here and turn us into a bilingual country and more than half end up on our welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals aren’t entitled to welfare.
> 
> What other lies you spinning today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their children are which they can use for themselves as well.  And over half of the legal immigrants in the USA are on some sort of welfare program.  CLOSE THE BORDER!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit spin.  Immigrants aren’t entitled to welfare .  Thats part of immigration .  You have a sponsor who’s responsible for you .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children
Click to expand...


Medicare?   Yeah cause no one can really get health insurance .  That goes for millions .

And this from your link:  


Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of program.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Timmy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's so beneficial for people to come here and turn us into a bilingual country and more than half end up on our welfare programs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals aren’t entitled to welfare.
> 
> What other lies you spinning today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their children are which they can use for themselves as well.  And over half of the legal immigrants in the USA are on some sort of welfare program.  CLOSE THE BORDER!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit spin.  Immigrants aren’t entitled to welfare .  Thats part of immigration .  You have a sponsor who’s responsible for you .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Medicare?   Yeah cause no one can really get health insurance .  That goes for millions .
> 
> And this from your link:
> 
> 
> Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of program.
Click to expand...


So?  Do you have a point behind that paste?  Because we have native born Americans that can't even get Medicaid, and these people come here and get their problems taken care of by the American taxpayers.


----------



## Kondor3

Tax Man said:


> What is so silly is the reich totally ignores the largest immigration problem is expired visa's. There are more of them than people crossing without permission or documentation.


"_The reich_"?

Blow it out your tailpipe, Tvaritch !


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Timmy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, what we said is disarming law abiding citizens will only empower the criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  When you disarm the general public, criminals will not obey any new gun laws.  Therefore what you end up with is a society where only the police and criminals have guns and nobody else does.  That's been our argument all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are people banning guns ?  Typical gun nut lies .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a Democrat wet dream; to ban guns and disarm society.  They can't because we have a Constitution, but in select places across the country, they are trying to get as close as they can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun control is not = banning all guns .
> 
> How about I go around saying “gun nuts want firearms available out if vending machines”.   Is that what you want ?
Click to expand...


Again, Democrats can't ban all guns because of the Constitution, and the judges Trump brilliantly put in place.  It will never happen.  But if Democrats could, they would.  Gun control is only one more step towards their goal.


----------



## candycorn

Thinker101 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trumpanzees seem to forget about boats.  I have a brother who lives north of San Diego and he said many come in by sea in the dead of night.
> .
> .
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so because the wall can only stop 40-80%, what the hell, why stop any of them.  Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question.  We've had an unparalelled expansion of our economy (which was already the world's strongest) when immigration (illegal and otherwise) really got going, we've had comparatively few problems with illegals compared to natives, and a great amount of non citizens have served with honor in our military service.
> 
> We can't have open borders but this jihad you guys have launched against brown people is really stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure...they're all valedictorians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No far from it.  Some very bad people come across but by and large they have been a beneficial influence to the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By and large?  So what percentage of "by and large" would not being beneficial be acceptable?
Click to expand...


Well, the way I look at it is this; how many illegals do you think are here?  10M?  15M? 20M?  Lets say 10M.  The overwhelming majority buy things that creates sales tax revenue which stays in the states where it is spent. .  The sales tax receipts--depending on how many you think are here--are equal to the population of many states.  Michigan has 9 million people...so we're talking about the sales tax revenue generated by the State of Michigan.  That is a sizable impact in real dollars spread across a great many states.  

We can't have open borders.  That is a no-brainer.  And the ones we do allow into the nation officially need to have a much more stringent screening process.  But the fallacy that all these folks do is take and give nothing back is flat out wrong.


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No far from it. Some very bad people come across but by and large they have been a beneficial influence to the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's so beneficial for people to come here and turn us into a bilingual country and more than half end up on our welfare programs.
Click to expand...


More fear.


----------



## Thinker101

candycorn said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so because the wall can only stop 40-80%, what the hell, why stop any of them.  Dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.  We've had an unparalelled expansion of our economy (which was already the world's strongest) when immigration (illegal and otherwise) really got going, we've had comparatively few problems with illegals compared to natives, and a great amount of non citizens have served with honor in our military service.
> 
> We can't have open borders but this jihad you guys have launched against brown people is really stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure...they're all valedictorians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No far from it.  Some very bad people come across but by and large they have been a beneficial influence to the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By and large?  So what percentage of "by and large" would not being beneficial be acceptable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the way I look at it is this; how many illegals do you think are here?  10M?  15M? 20M?  Lets say 10M.  The overwhelming majority buy things that creates sales tax revenue which stays in the states where it is spent. .  The sales tax receipts--depending on how many you think are here--are equal to the population of many states.  Michigan has 9 million people...so we're talking about the sales tax revenue generated by the State of Michigan.  That is a sizable impact in real dollars spread across a great many states.
> 
> We can't have open borders.  That is a no-brainer.  And the ones we do allow into the nation officially need to have a much more stringent screening process.  But the fallacy that all these folks do is take and give nothing back is flat out wrong.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't it be nice if the rest of us only paid sales tax.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No far from it. Some very bad people come across but by and large they have been a beneficial influence to the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's so beneficial for people to come here and turn us into a bilingual country and more than half end up on our welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More fear.
Click to expand...


More truth.  Something the left really hates.


----------



## candycorn

Thinker101 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.  We've had an unparalelled expansion of our economy (which was already the world's strongest) when immigration (illegal and otherwise) really got going, we've had comparatively few problems with illegals compared to natives, and a great amount of non citizens have served with honor in our military service.
> 
> We can't have open borders but this jihad you guys have launched against brown people is really stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure...they're all valedictorians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No far from it.  Some very bad people come across but by and large they have been a beneficial influence to the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By and large?  So what percentage of "by and large" would not being beneficial be acceptable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the way I look at it is this; how many illegals do you think are here?  10M?  15M? 20M?  Lets say 10M.  The overwhelming majority buy things that creates sales tax revenue which stays in the states where it is spent. .  The sales tax receipts--depending on how many you think are here--are equal to the population of many states.  Michigan has 9 million people...so we're talking about the sales tax revenue generated by the State of Michigan.  That is a sizable impact in real dollars spread across a great many states.
> 
> We can't have open borders.  That is a no-brainer.  And the ones we do allow into the nation officially need to have a much more stringent screening process.  But the fallacy that all these folks do is take and give nothing back is flat out wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be nice if the rest of us only paid sales tax.
Click to expand...


Is that the best you can do?


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No far from it. Some very bad people come across but by and large they have been a beneficial influence to the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's so beneficial for people to come here and turn us into a bilingual country and more than half end up on our welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More truth.  Something the left really hates.
Click to expand...


Nope...pure fear.  Its all you have.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No far from it. Some very bad people come across but by and large they have been a beneficial influence to the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's so beneficial for people to come here and turn us into a bilingual country and more than half end up on our welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More truth.  Something the left really hates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope...pure fear.  Its all you have.
Click to expand...


Do you or do you not have to press 1 to hear or speak to somebody in your own language? 
Are most signs today written in English and Spanish? 
Did you read my link about welfare and immigrants. 

Like I said, it's just plain ole truth.


----------



## Butch_Coolidge

Grampa Murked U said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10 ft is not a wall.
> And there are things you can top the wall with to make it even more difficult. If those devices get altered you repair them. Inspect the wall daily vs playing catch and release daily.
> 
> The logical choice is fucking obvious
Click to expand...


Build it high and cover it with razor wire like prisons do to keep people in. Slather it with grease. Too bad they can’t be electrified. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No far from it. Some very bad people come across but by and large they have been a beneficial influence to the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's so beneficial for people to come here and turn us into a bilingual country and more than half end up on our welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More truth.  Something the left really hates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope...pure fear.  Its all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you or do you not have to press 1 to hear or speak to somebody in your own language?
> Are most signs today written in English and Spanish?
> Did you read my link about welfare and immigrants.
> 
> Like I said, it's just plain ole truth.
Click to expand...


Being scared of it is Option 1....being a man is Option 2.  You've chosen option 1.


----------



## GWV5903

The Wall is needed for more than immigration, the most obvious is the Cartels. The Left ran a known criminal and the LMSM still applaud him to this day, Fake Mexican "Beto" O'Rourke. His mother was caught laundering money, fined $250K and chose to close a second generation small furniture business in 2017, right before he ran for the US Senate, who wants to bet she re-opens that business? The corruption impact alone is worth it, quit whining about this and get it done NOW!


----------



## BrokeLoser

candycorn said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so because the wall can only stop 40-80%, what the hell, why stop any of them.  Dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.  We've had an unparalelled expansion of our economy (which was already the world's strongest) when immigration (illegal and otherwise) really got going, we've had comparatively few problems with illegals compared to natives, and a great amount of non citizens have served with honor in our military service.
> 
> We can't have open borders but this jihad you guys have launched against brown people is really stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure...they're all valedictorians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No far from it.  Some very bad people come across but by and large they have been a beneficial influence to the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By and large?  So what percentage of "by and large" would not being beneficial be acceptable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the way I look at it is this; how many illegals do you think are here?  10M?  15M? 20M?  Lets say 10M.  The overwhelming majority buy things that creates sales tax revenue which stays in the states where it is spent. .  The sales tax receipts--depending on how many you think are here--are equal to the population of many states.  Michigan has 9 million people...so we're talking about the sales tax revenue generated by the State of Michigan.  That is a sizable impact in real dollars spread across a great many states.
> 
> We can't have open borders.  That is a no-brainer.  And the ones we do allow into the nation officially need to have a much more stringent screening process.  But the fallacy that all these folks do is take and give nothing back is flat out wrong.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's so beneficial for people to come here and turn us into a bilingual country and more than half end up on our welfare programs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More truth.  Something the left really hates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope...pure fear.  Its all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you or do you not have to press 1 to hear or speak to somebody in your own language?
> Are most signs today written in English and Spanish?
> Did you read my link about welfare and immigrants.
> 
> Like I said, it's just plain ole truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being scared of it is Option 1....being a man is Option 2.  You've chosen option 1.
Click to expand...


Men don't run.  Men fight.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Butch_Coolidge said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10 ft is not a wall.
> And there are things you can top the wall with to make it even more difficult. If those devices get altered you repair them. Inspect the wall daily vs playing catch and release daily.
> 
> The logical choice is fucking obvious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Build it high and cover it with razor wire like prisons do to keep people in. Slather it with grease. Too bad they can’t be electrified.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Absolutely.  That's how Hungary solved their illegal immigrant problem.


----------



## Lesh

Thinker101 said:


> Yeah, so because the wall can only stop 40-80%, what the hell, why stop any of them. Dumbass.



Wrong...Dumbass.

Your fantasy wall is only DESIGNED to stop 40-50% of them. And it won't even do that. 

SO what of the 11 million already here?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so because the wall can only stop 40-80%, what the hell, why stop any of them. Dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong...Dumbass.
> 
> Your fantasy wall is only DESIGNED to stop 40-50% of them. And it won't even do that.
> 
> SO what of the 11 million already here?
Click to expand...


Dumb question.  What you are talking about is similar to a sinking boat.  Do we get the water out faster or do we stop the hole in the boat from getting larger?  

The simple solution to all this is to make being here illegally a felony instead of a misdemeanor.  A five year minimum federal prison sentence if caught.  Then we wouldn't have any need for a wall, no need for e-veryify, and solve the Visa overstay problem.  All these immigrant problems solved with the passage of one law.  

The 11 million you question (which is more like 22 million) would be running to that border so fast to get the hell out of this country there would be a backup.


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> A+B
Click to expand...

Lesh - Dumbass.


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so because the wall can only stop 40-80%, what the hell, why stop any of them. Dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong...Dumbass.
> 
> Your fantasy wall is only DESIGNED to stop 40-50% of them. And it won't even do that.
> 
> SO what of the 11 million already here?
Click to expand...

So your theory is we should open the flood gates because of bad decisions made by previous presidents and congresses?

You're a dumbass.


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> The bottom line is that they will come here as long as employers WANT them to come and will hire them.And they do.
> 
> Go after EMPLOYERS and the problem gets solved.
> 
> Of course you have to understand   there are 11 million already here and ya just can't "ethnically cleanse" 11 million people.


The bottom line is that they can't come here if we have a well designed wall. 

You're a fucking dumbass.


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> The bottom line is that they will come here as long as employers WANT them to come and will hire them.And they do.
> 
> Go after EMPLOYERS and the problem gets solved.
> 
> Of course you have to understand   there are 11 million already here and ya just can't "ethnically cleanse" 11 million people.


You want to go after employers only because you hate employers.  Whenever the government does go after employers, dumbasses like you scream about it.


----------



## bripat9643

WaitingFor2020 said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spend the money on ridding these central American drug cartels of their chokehold on innocent citizens.
> These migrants DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES.
> Nobody wants to be driven away from their homeland.
> But if their lives are at risk, they are going to try.
> 
> .
> .
> .
Click to expand...

bullshit.  Drug dealers aren't responsible for making countries like Honduras into shit holes.


----------



## bripat9643

WaitingFor2020 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spend the money on ridding these central American drug cartels of their chokehold on innocent citizens.
> These migrants DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES.
> Nobody wants to be driven away from their homeland.
> But if their lives are at risk, they are going to try.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why didn’t the caravan of filth stop in Mehico?
> No lucrative welfare policy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No jobs.
> No big American food processing manufacturers or Big Ag farmers or hundreds of thousands of small landscaping/lawn service companies promising jobs down the line through their current pool of illegal workers to the relatives back home in Honduras.
> Use your head.  Illegals are here because the aforementioned employers WANT them here.
> They pay under the table and save millions on insurance, workmens comp, FICA, state taxes, sick days, etc.
> .
> I don't know of anyone in our neighborhood who mows their own lawn anymore.  Every day of the week, including weekends, the sound of mowers, blowers and edgers can be heard.  And none of the people doing the work speak a word of English.  But they never miss a day of work.
> 
> .
> .
Click to expand...

They're here because we don't stop them at the border, and then we don't deport them when we know they are here.

You're a fucking dumbass.


----------



## bripat9643

candycorn said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were an illegal, I’d just save some money, fly to Vancouver and walk across the border up there.  Better weather….and you don’t risk stepping in that turd known as Texas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trumpanzees seem to forget about boats.  I have a brother who lives north of San Diego and he said many come in by sea in the dead of night.
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, so because the wall can only stop 40-80%, what the hell, why stop any of them.  Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question.  We've had an unparalelled expansion of our economy (which was already the world's strongest) when immigration (illegal and otherwise) really got going, we've had comparatively few problems with illegals compared to natives, and a great amount of non citizens have served with honor in our military service.
> 
> We can't have open borders but this jihad you guys have launched against brown people is really stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure...they're all valedictorians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No far from it.  Some very bad people come across but by and large they have been a beneficial influence to the nation.
Click to expand...


Horseshit.  Immigrants have mostly been a bad influence on this country.  Consider the mafia.  They were all immigrants.


----------



## bripat9643

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No far from it. Some very bad people come across but by and large they have been a beneficial influence to the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's so beneficial for people to come here and turn us into a bilingual country and more than half end up on our welfare programs.
Click to expand...

The worst thing they do is vote Democrat.


----------



## bripat9643

Ray From Cleveland said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spend the money on ridding these central American drug cartels of their chokehold on innocent citizens.
> These migrants DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES.
> Nobody wants to be driven away from their homeland.
> But if their lives are at risk, they are going to try.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with their lives being at risk.  It has to do with them not wanting to fight to make their country a better place.  It's easier just to move to higher ground if possible.  if their country was so bad, WTF are they having children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show your American ignorance.  You've probably never been to Central America.  I lived in the Frontera/Baja of Mexico for a year north of Cabo, and I've never seen such poverty. And we were not under threat by the cartels.  Saw plenty of human misery in Lima, Peru, too.  So I can't imagine how bad it is in places like Honduras.
> 
> You deny the drug cartels exist then you're even dumber than I thought.
> 
> And you'd probably be the last to keep your pecker in your pants, too. So don't even go there about why they are having children, you fucking dolt.
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in a free country where children would be raised in an excellent environment and I didn't have any children for financial reasons.  Know why?  BECAUSE I'M A RESPONSIBLE PERSON!  To the point, these people are not responsible in any way or form.
> 
> WTF needs more irresponsible people here?  We have enough of them already. We call them Democrats.
Click to expand...


The reason Honduras is a shit hole is the fact that it's infested with Hondurans.


----------



## Marion Morrison

bripat9643 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spend the money on ridding these central American drug cartels of their chokehold on innocent citizens.
> These migrants DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES.
> Nobody wants to be driven away from their homeland.
> But if their lives are at risk, they are going to try.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with their lives being at risk.  It has to do with them not wanting to fight to make their country a better place.  It's easier just to move to higher ground if possible.  if their country was so bad, WTF are they having children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show your American ignorance.  You've probably never been to Central America.  I lived in the Frontera/Baja of Mexico for a year north of Cabo, and I've never seen such poverty. And we were not under threat by the cartels.  Saw plenty of human misery in Lima, Peru, too.  So I can't imagine how bad it is in places like Honduras.
> 
> You deny the drug cartels exist then you're even dumber than I thought.
> 
> And you'd probably be the last to keep your pecker in your pants, too. So don't even go there about why they are having children, you fucking dolt.
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in a free country where children would be raised in an excellent environment and I didn't have any children for financial reasons.  Know why?  BECAUSE I'M A RESPONSIBLE PERSON!  To the point, these people are not responsible in any way or form.
> 
> WTF needs more irresponsible people here?  We have enough of them already. We call them Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason Honduras is a shit hole is the fact that it's infested with Hondurans.
Click to expand...


Actually it's drugs and corrupt government.

Honduran president's brother accused of drug trafficking

Their president's brother was just arrested in Miami. Do you really have to ask what for? Smuggling tons of cocaine. I guarantee their president is in on it, too.

Leftists can bitch all they want about Trump, but he's not like that. We need a wall to stop some of that crap.


----------



## Mac1958

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


Maybe it's time to stop the band-aid bullshit and get serious:  Band Aids, Borders, Burritos & Bejing

End the REAL problem:  People so desperate to get here.

Get the cartels, screw over China and make Mexico and South America our biggest trading partners.

We just have to think a little.  Work together a little.
.


----------



## danielpalos

Bush92 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullets are the most cost effective.
Click to expand...

The right wing doesn't care about natural rights; why should we believe them in abortion threads.


----------



## danielpalos

BrokeLoser said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with Mexico paying for our wall.
> 
> When do we get the check?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t need it...tell Mexico to use that money to teach their teenagers abstinence...tell them to fund truckloads of condoms and drop them in the barrios....problem solved.
> Our Wall EASILY funds itself. The arithmetic is elementary.
> https://nypost.com/2018/03/10/cutting-welfare-to-illegal-aliens-would-pay-for-trumps-wall/
Click to expand...

Ending our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror would save even more, and not create refugees in the process.


----------



## danielpalos

Timmy said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a perfect solution but unarguably is would reduce crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But at what cost ??  You know the “wall” plan includes drones and  all kinds of high tech sensors , roving border guards .  It’s not just some one time cost and you are done .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no issue with the cost as I feel it would be good use of my tax paying dollars
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right .  Cause cons don’t mind wasting tax money so long as you thinks it’s being used to stroke your xenophobia .
Click to expand...

as long as the rich get a tax break and they can finance it on the Peoples' dime.


----------



## Norman

It's racist, America belong to anyone and everyone.


----------



## Roo2

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux



It isn't.


----------



## Thinker101

candycorn said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure...they're all valedictorians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No far from it.  Some very bad people come across but by and large they have been a beneficial influence to the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By and large?  So what percentage of "by and large" would not being beneficial be acceptable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the way I look at it is this; how many illegals do you think are here?  10M?  15M? 20M?  Lets say 10M.  The overwhelming majority buy things that creates sales tax revenue which stays in the states where it is spent. .  The sales tax receipts--depending on how many you think are here--are equal to the population of many states.  Michigan has 9 million people...so we're talking about the sales tax revenue generated by the State of Michigan.  That is a sizable impact in real dollars spread across a great many states.
> 
> We can't have open borders.  That is a no-brainer.  And the ones we do allow into the nation officially need to have a much more stringent screening process.  But the fallacy that all these folks do is take and give nothing back is flat out wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be nice if the rest of us only paid sales tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the best you can do?
Click to expand...


For you....yes.  Paying sales tax...dumbass.


----------



## danielpalos

Upgrading Ellis Island instead is simply more market friendly and we subscribe to Capitalism, not socialism on a national basis as the right wing would have us believe.

All foreign nationals should be processed as tourists until they complete their immigration and naturalization proceedings.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bripat9643 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trumpanzees seem to forget about boats.  I have a brother who lives north of San Diego and he said many come in by sea in the dead of night.
> .
> .
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so because the wall can only stop 40-80%, what the hell, why stop any of them.  Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question.  We've had an unparalelled expansion of our economy (which was already the world's strongest) when immigration (illegal and otherwise) really got going, we've had comparatively few problems with illegals compared to natives, and a great amount of non citizens have served with honor in our military service.
> 
> We can't have open borders but this jihad you guys have launched against brown people is really stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure...they're all valedictorians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No far from it.  Some very bad people come across but by and large they have been a beneficial influence to the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  Immigrants have mostly been a bad influence on this country.  Consider the mafia.  They were all immigrants.
Click to expand...


Immigrants had little opportunity to make money back in those days.  As things got better, many of the people in those organizations were already in.......and there's only one way out.  

Today people can come here and do okay if they learn a trade, get educated or start their own business.  However many of the people from South-Central don't even want to learn the language.  They don't have the will or energy as European immigrants had.  Sure, they will work hard, but they will never become anything because manual labor doesn't pay anything anymore.  Then they end up on some welfare program.  

People from Ellis Island had more of a motivation to become Americans.  They cut ties to their homeland instead of making money here and sending it back home.  They felt blessed to be part of our country unlike these people from the south that feel coming here is something owed to them.  

I was born in an immigrant community so I know the difference between the attitude of people back then and the people I see on the news today.  It's a night and day difference.........and no, for you liberals reading this, it wasn't meant in a racial way.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bripat9643 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that they will come here as long as employers WANT them to come and will hire them.And they do.
> 
> Go after EMPLOYERS and the problem gets solved.
> 
> Of course you have to understand   there are 11 million already here and ya just can't "ethnically cleanse" 11 million people.
> 
> 
> 
> You want to go after employers only because you hate employers.  Whenever the government does go after employers, dumbasses like you scream about it.
Click to expand...


That's exactly what happened when they busted two big places here in Ohio.  Liberals were crying the blues that these people were just trying to support their family; they weren't bothering anybody; they are hard working law abiding people.


----------



## Thinker101

Ray From Cleveland said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so because the wall can only stop 40-80%, what the hell, why stop any of them.  Dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.  We've had an unparalelled expansion of our economy (which was already the world's strongest) when immigration (illegal and otherwise) really got going, we've had comparatively few problems with illegals compared to natives, and a great amount of non citizens have served with honor in our military service.
> 
> We can't have open borders but this jihad you guys have launched against brown people is really stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure...they're all valedictorians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No far from it.  Some very bad people come across but by and large they have been a beneficial influence to the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  Immigrants have mostly been a bad influence on this country.  Consider the mafia.  They were all immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigrants had little opportunity to make money back in those days.  As things got better, many of the people in those organizations were already in.......and there's only one way out.
> 
> Today people can come here and do okay if they learn a trade, get educated or start their own business.  However many of the people from South-Central don't even want to learn the language.  They don't have the will or energy as European immigrants had.  Sure, they will work hard, but they will never become anything because manual labor doesn't pay anything anymore.  Then they end up on some welfare program.
> 
> People from Ellis Island had more of a motivation to become Americans.  They cut ties to their homeland instead of making money here and sending it back home.  They felt blessed to be part of our country unlike these people from the south that feel coming here is something owed to them.
> 
> I was born in an immigrant community so I know the difference between the attitude of people back then and the people I see on the news today.  It's a night and day difference.........and no, for you liberals reading this, it wasn't meant in a racial way.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately that lack of work ethic is not limited to only illegal immigrants.


----------



## Lesh

bripat9643 said:


> bullshit. Drug dealers aren't responsible for making countries like Honduras into shit holes.


You're a loudmouthed idiot. Of COURSE drugs and the corruption that goes with them is why Honduras is a "shithole"


Ray From Cleveland said:


> People from Ellis Island had more of a motivation to become Americans. They cut ties to their homeland instead of making money here and sending it back home.



They kept as close as the infrastructure and technology allowed them to. You just pull shit like that out of your ass and try to polish it into gold?


----------



## danielpalos

A wall does nothing; upgrading Ellis Island can ensure all foreign nationals in the US have a federal id. not a State id.


----------



## OldLady

Timmy said:


> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .


Why not some of both?  No walls in some places just make it more labor intensive to catch the border jumpers.  All your ideas are excellent, but giving Donald his Wall, in strategic places, is not a bad idea.  We can afford it.  Don't let them fool you.


----------



## Lesh

Ray From Cleveland said:


> That's exactly what happened when they busted two big places here in Ohio. Liberals were crying the blues that these people were just trying to support their family; they weren't bothering anybody; they are hard working law abiding people.



I've worked side by side with immigrants from Peru (and other Latin American countries) . I assumed they were illegal...at least some of them ( I never asked)...and I found them to be decent hard working people. REALLY hard working people.

You Trumpers want to punish them and pretend to believe that they are somehow evil...when in reality they are just like you. The problem is not who they are...or their ethnicity...or their life style. It's that employers exploit them to put downward pressure on wages for everyone.

And as far as punishing employers that hire them? Are you kidding? That's a joke. Why do you not see THEM as evil? THEY are the cause here


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

F. the wall prevents the Democratic Party from replacing educated middle class voters with uneducated third world anti-American voters


----------



## danielpalos

the right wing understands nothing about natural rights or capitalism.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what happened when they busted two big places here in Ohio. Liberals were crying the blues that these people were just trying to support their family; they weren't bothering anybody; they are hard working law abiding people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've worked side by side with immigrants from Peru (and other Latin American countries) . I assumed they were illegal...at least some of them ( I never asked)...and I found them to be decent hard working people. REALLY hard working people.
> 
> You Trumpers want to punish them and pretend to believe that they are somehow evil...when in reality they are just like you. The problem is not who they are...or their ethnicity...or their life style. It's that employers exploit them to put downward pressure on wages for everyone.
> 
> And as far as punishing employers that hire them? Are you kidding? That's a joke. Why do you not see THEM as evil? THEY are the cause here
Click to expand...


They are not the cause.  Democrats are the cause.  You don't see employers on TV expressing their concern or empathy for these people.  You see Democrats doing that.  

Republicans are not protecting these illegals in their sanctuary cities.  Republicans did not threaten to shutdown the government by implementing plans to keep them out of this country.  You didn't see Republicans making a big fuss over separation of families.  Democrats do these things.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what happened when they busted two big places here in Ohio. Liberals were crying the blues that these people were just trying to support their family; they weren't bothering anybody; they are hard working law abiding people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've worked side by side with immigrants from Peru (and other Latin American countries) . I assumed they were illegal...at least some of them ( I never asked)...and I found them to be decent hard working people. REALLY hard working people.
> 
> You Trumpers want to punish them and pretend to believe that they are somehow evil...when in reality they are just like you. The problem is not who they are...or their ethnicity...or their life style. It's that employers exploit them to put downward pressure on wages for everyone.
> 
> And as far as punishing employers that hire them? Are you kidding? That's a joke. Why do you not see THEM as evil? THEY are the cause here
Click to expand...


LefTard Logic:
“When you leave your keys in your ignition and you car is stole it is not the fault of the thief.”


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> They kept as close as the infrastructure and technology allowed them to. You just pull shit like that out of your ass and try to polish it into gold?



Nope.  The most they did was write a letter around Christmas time if that.  You mean we had no way to send money overseas back in the 60's and 70's?


----------



## Lesh

Ray From Cleveland said:


> They are not the cause. Democrats are the cause. You don't see employers on TV expressing their concern or empathy for these people. You see Democrats doing that.



You DO see Republicans constantly defending employers who are the CAUSE of this problem. No jobs...no illegals



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Republicans are not protecting these illegals in their sanctuary cities. Republicans did not threaten to shutdown the government by implementing plans to keep them out of this country. You didn't see Republicans making a big fuss over separation of families. Democrats do these things.



Your ENTIRE immigration policy...if it can be called that...centers on punishing illegals...

Newsflash. Punish them as much as you want...all it will do is give you a warm fuzzy (how disgusting is it that punishing people gives you a tingle?) .  It won't solve the problem


----------



## Lesh

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Nope. The most they did was write a letter around Christmas time if that. You mean we had no way to send money overseas back in the 60's and 70's?



Really?

Because I grew up in a town that was 30% Polish and 60% Italian. The Poles were essentially cut off from their homeland but the Italians were not. Their connection to Sicily and Naples was strong. And it included bringing over relatives and sending money back to help family back "home"


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The most they did was write a letter around Christmas time if that. You mean we had no way to send money overseas back in the 60's and 70's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Because I grew up in a town that was 30% Polish and 60% Italian. The Poles were essentially cut off from their homeland but the Italians were not. Their connection to Sicily and Naples was strong. And it included bringing over relatives and sending money back to help family back "home"
Click to expand...


That didn't happen with most Europeans.  People back then didn't have the money to send back home even if they wanted to.  Many Europeans didn't believe in credit.  If they didn't have money to pay for it, they figured they didn't have to have it.  So what they saved they saved for themselves.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> You DO see Republicans constantly defending employers who are the CAUSE of this problem. No jobs...no illegals



If they are defending the employers, why have I not seen one?  



Lesh said:


> Your ENTIRE immigration policy...if it can be called that...centers on punishing illegals...
> 
> Newsflash. Punish them as much as you want...all it will do is give you a warm fuzzy (how disgusting is it that punishing people gives you a tingle?) . It won't solve the problem



Giving them drivers licenses, allowing them to work, sending their kids to our schools certainly won't solve the problem.  At least we are trying to get a wall built, but guess who is stopping us?  

A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.


----------



## Lesh

Lesh said:


> They kept as close as the infrastructure and technology allowed them to. You just pull shit like that out of your ass and try to polish it into gold?





Ray From Cleveland said:


> That didn't happen with most Europeans. People back then didn't have the money to send back home even if they wanted to. Many Europeans didn't believe in credit. If they didn't have money to pay for it, they figured they didn't have to have it. So what they saved they saved for themselves.



You just agreed with me...dumfuk


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> They kept as close as the infrastructure and technology allowed them to. You just pull shit like that out of your ass and try to polish it into gold?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That didn't happen with most Europeans. People back then didn't have the money to send back home even if they wanted to. Many Europeans didn't believe in credit. If they didn't have money to pay for it, they figured they didn't have to have it. So what they saved they saved for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just agreed with me...dumfuk
Click to expand...


Learn how to read dumbfuck.


----------



## Lesh

Ray From Cleveland said:


> If they are defending the employers, why have I not seen one?



Look at every.....single....thread where immigration is brought up and you will see "leftists" pointing out employers as the problem and Trumpers either defending employers or ignoring that aspect completely.
'
And in the press?

Not a WORD about employers

Republican politicians?

Not a word

You "see" what you want to see...and what you want to see are dark skinned immigrants punished...because it makes you feel good.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

What we need to do is tax remittances.   A heavy tax.  Reducing the amount of money sent back home would discourage many.  The tax would also pay fot the wall.


----------



## Esmeralda

Grampa Murked U said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
Click to expand...

A wall does not prohibit someone from walking in. They can arrive by air or sea, for example. They can go to Canada and then walk over the border. They can dig under the wall or climb over it.  Use your brain. The wall Trump and his minions want is a SYMBOL and a symbol only.  A symbol of him looking like he is doing something. A symbol that will cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars and essentially do nothing.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they are defending the employers, why have I not seen one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at every.....single....thread where immigration is brought up and you will see "leftists" pointing out employers as the problem and Trumpers either defending employers or ignoring that aspect completely.
> '
> And in the press?
> 
> Not a WORD about employers
> 
> Republican politicians?
> 
> Not a word
> 
> You "see" what you want to see...and what you want to see are dark skinned immigrants punished...because it makes you feel good.
Click to expand...


Your argument is one often used by desperate fools. In the real world when you have a problem you track it to its root / origin. The problem with illegals is at the border and not In the strawberry field.
Further, the reality is, the majority of wetbacks work for other wetbacks off the books...that’s certainly the case in the wetback capital of the world, south Mexifornia. The demand for their services leaves when they leave. You see, the wetback slave trade is mostly utilized by wetbacks. It’s a self serving, black market, underground economy within a legitimate economy.
That’s right, Rodrigos Tires, Gustavo’s Auto Body, Guadalupes House Cleaning, Manuel’s Landscape Service and Alejandro’s Carniceria employ the bulk of the cockroaches in south Mexifornia.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Esmeralda said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A wall does not prohibit someone from walking in. They can arrive by air or sea, for example. They can go to Canada and then walk over the border. They can dig under the wall or climb over it.  Use your brain. The wall Trump and his minions want is a SYMBOL and a symbol only.  A symbol of him looking like he is doing something. A symbol that will cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars and essentially do nothing.
Click to expand...


That’s weird...*Esmeralda*, a Spaniard is against good Americans keeping wetbacks out....FUCKING WEIRD!


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> What we need to do is tax remittances.   A heavy tax.  Reducing the amount of money sent back home would discourage many.  The tax would also pay fot the wall.


They have Home Depot in Mexico now.


----------



## danielpalos

Esmeralda said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A wall does not prohibit someone from walking in. They can arrive by air or sea, for example. They can go to Canada and then walk over the border. They can dig under the wall or climb over it.  Use your brain. The wall Trump and his minions want is a SYMBOL and a symbol only.  A symbol of him looking like he is doing something. A symbol that will cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars and essentially do nothing.
Click to expand...

the right wing is for Trade Barriers not Free Trade.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Esmeralda said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A wall does not prohibit someone from walking in. They can arrive by air or sea, for example. They can go to Canada and then walk over the border. They can dig under the wall or climb over it.  Use your brain. The wall Trump and his minions want is a SYMBOL and a symbol only.  A symbol of him looking like he is doing something. A symbol that will cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars and essentially do nothing.
Click to expand...


The only reason you on the left are afraid of a wall is because you know it would work.  It would greatly reduce the amount of illegals coming to this country and the illegal narcotics to boot.  This isn't 1944.  We have technology today that could detect people building tunnels under a wall.  Furthermore the estimated cost for the wall is about 30 billion dollars.  That's about half of what we spend in just one year on food stamps.


----------



## Oddball

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


 1) Because it could be used to keep us in.

2) There are better and far more cost effective ways to do the job.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they are defending the employers, why have I not seen one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at every.....single....thread where immigration is brought up and you will see "leftists" pointing out employers as the problem and Trumpers either defending employers or ignoring that aspect completely.
> '
> And in the press?
> 
> Not a WORD about employers
> 
> Republican politicians?
> 
> Not a word
> 
> You "see" what you want to see...and what you want to see are dark skinned immigrants punished...because it makes you feel good.
Click to expand...


That's different than saying Republicans are for employers using illegals.  We know that's a small part of the problem, but people come here for more than just work.  Over half of the immigrants in the US today are on some sort of welfare program.  

Look at who was complaining when Trump said the 14th amendment needs to be looked at.  It certainly wasn't Republicans.  Democrats want anchor babies because they know that attracts the adults to the country illegally.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Esmeralda said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A wall does not prohibit someone from walking in. They can arrive by air or sea, for example. They can go to Canada and then walk over the border. They can dig under the wall or climb over it.  Use your brain. The wall Trump and his minions want is a SYMBOL and a symbol only.  A symbol of him looking like he is doing something. A symbol that will cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars and essentially do nothing.
Click to expand...

Derp!


----------



## BrokeLoser

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A wall does not prohibit someone from walking in. They can arrive by air or sea, for example. They can go to Canada and then walk over the border. They can dig under the wall or climb over it.  Use your brain. The wall Trump and his minions want is a SYMBOL and a symbol only.  A symbol of him looking like he is doing something. A symbol that will cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars and essentially do nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only reason you on the left are afraid of a wall is because you know it would work.  It would greatly reduce the amount of illegals coming to this country and the illegal narcotics to boot.  This isn't 1944.  We have technology today that could detect people building tunnels under a wall.  Furthermore the estimated cost for the wall is about 30 billion dollars.  That's about half of what we spend in just one year on food stamps.
Click to expand...


I find it quite fascinating that Loons Lesh are so quick to blame employers for incentivizing wetbacks yet they’ll never once suggest that .gov and sanctuary states stop incentivizing them....Why is that?
When is the last time you heard a LefTard suggest that we refuse to educate them and treat them in our medical facilities?
Would Democrats really vote to remove all incentives for illegals?


----------



## Nova78




----------



## BrokeLoser

Oddball said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Because it could be used to keep us in.
> 
> 2) There are better and far more cost effective ways to do the job.
Click to expand...


Haha...another “walls don’t work” dumbass.


----------



## Oddball

Oddball said:
			
		

> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Because it could be used to keep us in.
> 
> 2) There are better and far more cost effective ways to do the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...another “walls don’t work” dumbass.
Click to expand...

I said there are more cost effective ways to get the result, dumbass.

Reading for comprehension will really build up you communication skills.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Oddball said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Because it could be used to keep us in.
> 
> 2) There are better and far more cost effective ways to do the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...another “walls don’t work” dumbass.
Click to expand...

I said there are more cost effective ways to get the result, dumbass.

Reading for comprehension will really build up you communication skills.[/QUOTE]

Okay cool wack...you must be waiting for someone to play along...I’ll play. What are those “more cost effective ways”?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Oddball said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Because it could be used to keep us in.
> 
> 2) There are better and far more cost effective ways to do the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...another “walls don’t work” dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said there are more cost effective ways to get the result, dumbass.
> 
> Reading for comprehension will really build up you communication skills.
Click to expand...


Now it's about cost.  It wasn't about cost to give subsides to people to buy electric cars.  It wasn't about cost when DumBama expanded the food stamp program. It wasn't about cost to send money to Planned Parenthood.  But now?  Now it's about cost.


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit. Drug dealers aren't responsible for making countries like Honduras into shit holes.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a loudmouthed idiot. Of COURSE drugs and the corruption that goes with them is why Honduras is a "shithole"
Click to expand...


ROFL!   Drugs are just a byproduct of government corruption.  The problem with Honduras and most of the countries in Latin America, is that anytime someone tries to start a business, a line of petty government bureaucrats with their hands out forms.  There are also tons of the absurd regulations leftwingers love so much.  Honduras is the epitome of liberal economic policy and liberal jurisprudence.


----------



## Oddball

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Now it's about cost.  It wasn't about cost to give subsides to people to buy electric cars.  It wasn't about cost when DumBama expanded the food stamp program. It wasn't about cost to send money to Planned Parenthood.  But now?  Now it's about cost.


I'm against *all* subsidies and always in favor of cost effectiveness.....You have NFI who you're talking to, do you?


----------



## bripat9643

OldLady said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> Why not some of both?  No walls in some places just make it more labor intensive to catch the border jumpers.  All your ideas are excellent, but giving Donald his Wall, in strategic places, is not a bad idea.  We can afford it.  Don't let them fool you.
Click to expand...

The next Obama can't make a wall disappear with the stroke of a pen.  He can't also fail to staff it without it being obvious.  In the first place, Dims refuse to fund your "intensive measures," and the next Obama will make them disappear.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Oddball said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now it's about cost.  It wasn't about cost to give subsides to people to buy electric cars.  It wasn't about cost when DumBama expanded the food stamp program. It wasn't about cost to send money to Planned Parenthood.  But now?  Now it's about cost.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm against *all* subsidies and always in favor of cost effectiveness.....You have NFI who you're talking to, do you?
Click to expand...


No I don't.  Is this you Barack?


----------



## Oddball

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now it's about cost.  It wasn't about cost to give subsides to people to buy electric cars.  It wasn't about cost when DumBama expanded the food stamp program. It wasn't about cost to send money to Planned Parenthood.  But now?  Now it's about cost.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm against *all* subsidies and always in favor of cost effectiveness.....You have NFI who you're talking to, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't.  Is this you Barack?
Click to expand...

I'll score the answer to my question a big "YES"...AMF.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Because it could be used to keep us in.
> 
> 2) There are better and far more cost effective ways to do the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...another “walls don’t work” dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said there are more cost effective ways to get the result, dumbass.
> 
> Reading for comprehension will really build up you communication skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now it's about cost.  It wasn't about cost to give subsides to people to buy electric cars.  It wasn't about cost when DumBama expanded the food stamp program. It wasn't about cost to send money to Planned Parenthood.  But now?  Now it's about cost.
Click to expand...


Shit, Jerry loves em Brown never had a problem with costs related to wetbacks...the unAmerican piece of shit spent $25B per year on the filthy fucks while raising taxes and fucking off infrastructure.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Oddball said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now it's about cost.  It wasn't about cost to give subsides to people to buy electric cars.  It wasn't about cost when DumBama expanded the food stamp program. It wasn't about cost to send money to Planned Parenthood.  But now?  Now it's about cost.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm against *all* subsidies and always in favor of cost effectiveness.....You have NFI who you're talking to, do you?
Click to expand...


Is this your “I’m a total and complete badass” proclamation?


----------



## bripat9643

Esmeralda said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A wall does not prohibit someone from walking in. They can arrive by air or sea, for example. They can go to Canada and then walk over the border. They can dig under the wall or climb over it.  Use your brain. The wall Trump and his minions want is a SYMBOL and a symbol only.  A symbol of him looking like he is doing something. A symbol that will cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars and essentially do nothing.
Click to expand...

Ships and planes are easy to police.  Everyone on a plane or a ship has to go through immigration.  Your belief that it's easy to get in that way is pure idiocy.  Digging under the wall or climbing over it have also been demonstrated to be easily thwarted.  All it takes is some listening devices and some guards watching for people trying to climb over.  You must assume that ICE is staffed by congenital morons.  I have news for you:  They aren't as stupid as you are.


----------



## bripat9643

Oddball said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Because it could be used to keep us in.
> 
> 2) There are better and far more cost effective ways to do the job.
Click to expand...

No there aren't more cost effective ways.

We have much more serious things to worry about if anyone contemplates preventing Americans from leaving.


----------



## bripat9643

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Because it could be used to keep us in.
> 
> 2) There are better and far more cost effective ways to do the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...another “walls don’t work” dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said there are more cost effective ways to get the result, dumbass.
> 
> Reading for comprehension will really build up you communication skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now it's about cost.  It wasn't about cost to give subsides to people to buy electric cars.  It wasn't about cost when DumBama expanded the food stamp program. It wasn't about cost to send money to Planned Parenthood.  But now?  Now it's about cost.
Click to expand...

Whenever Dims start whining about the cost of something, you know they are full of shit.


----------



## Oddball

bripat9643 said:


> Whenever Dims start whining about the cost of something, you know they are full of shit.


Dude, you know I'm not a demoncrat....Knock it off with that shit.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Oddball said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever Dims start whining about the cost of something, you know they are full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you know I'm not a demoncrat....Knock it off with that shit.
Click to expand...


You’re squirmy as fuck....you’re all over the place...you don’t know what you stand for.
I’m thinking you confused, no difference making smartest guys in the room types such as Golfing Gator Mac1958 and g5000 should start your own Party. Now is the time.


----------



## Oddball

bripat9643 said:


> No there aren't more cost effective ways.


Um, yeah there are...Abolishing the expansive welfare moocher state is one.



bripat9643 said:


> We have much more serious things to worry about if anyone contemplates preventing Americans from leaving.


So certain are you.


----------



## Oddball

BrokeLoser said:


> You’re squirmy as fuck....you’re all over the place...you don’t know what you stand for.


I'm always against The State, while you lick its boots when the polish is flavored just right.


----------



## bripat9643

Oddball said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No there aren't more cost effective ways.
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah there are...Abolishing the expansive welfare moocher state is one.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have much more serious things to worry about if anyone contemplates preventing Americans from leaving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So certain are you.
Click to expand...

You know the welfare moocher state is never going to be abolished.  Getting the wall funded would be 1000 times easier.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Oddball said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re squirmy as fuck....you’re all over the place...you don’t know what you stand for.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm always against The State, while you lick its boots when the polish is flavored just right.
Click to expand...


I hear ya...You refuse to vote and you rock a yellow “Don’t Tread On Me” flag...you’re a total badass...just ask you.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Oddball said:


> Um, yeah there are...Abolishing the expansive welfare moocher state is one.



And since that will never happen, step 2 is the next best thing.


----------



## debbiedowner

The only way to keep illegals out is first to stop international flights coming or going, build wall on Northern border, southern and along the shores of pacific, gulf of mexico and atlantic and hope no one can dig under one of the walls. Otherwise one fucking wall on the southern border means nothing. In other words seal off the U.S. and the citizens from anything or anyone from the outside world. Only then can the wacko's have peace.


----------



## BrokeLoser

debbiedowner said:


> The only way to keep illegals out is first to stop international flights coming or going, build wall on Northern border, southern and along the shores of pacific, gulf of mexico and atlantic and hope no one can dig under one of the walls. Otherwise one fucking wall on the southern border means nothing. In other words seal off the U.S. and the citizens from anything or anyone from the outside world. Only then can the wacko's have peace.



Conversely....don’t build any wall, keep the border wide open, let in as many disgusting thirdworlders as we possibly can to fuck good Americans over, ruin our public education, destroy our healthcare, pack our prisons full and fuck up every single city and community they reside in....Only then can the wackos have peace.

This is fun.


----------



## Oddball

bripat9643 said:


> You know the welfare moocher state is never going to be abolished.  Getting the wall funded would be 1000 times easier.


When you start with that attitude, then you're right....The demoncrats *never ever* quit that easily, and they depend upon exactly the quitter's mindset you're exhibiting to enable them.

And unless you think that such a wall can be thrown up in a mere few years (a laughable proposition if there ever was one), then you'll eventually have an Oboingo type come along, with his pen and phone, and stop it.


----------



## Oddball

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah there are...Abolishing the expansive welfare moocher state is one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And since that will never happen, step 2 is the next best thing.
Click to expand...

The demoncrats thrive off of that quitter's mindset, quitter.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Oddball said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know the welfare moocher state is never going to be abolished.  Getting the wall funded would be 1000 times easier.
> 
> 
> 
> When you start with that attitude, then you're right.
> 
> The demoncrats *never ever* quit that easily, and they depend upon exactly the quitter's mindset you're exhibiting to enable them.
Click to expand...


Haha...while I respect your noble vision on many things, you really need to wake the fuck up and realize you’re operating well outside of the real world and the current climate. Do something, say something that matters TODAY that has the ability to make a difference TODAY.


----------



## Oddball

BrokeLoser said:


> Haha...while I respect your noble vision on many things, you really need to wake the fuck up and realize you’re operating well outside of the real world and the current climate. Do something, say something that matters TODAY that has the ability to make a difference TODAY.


Quitter.....No, you're worse than a quitter...You're an appeaser.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Oddball said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...while I respect your noble vision on many things, you really need to wake the fuck up and realize you’re operating well outside of the real world and the current climate. Do something, say something that matters TODAY that has the ability to make a difference TODAY.
> 
> 
> 
> Quitter.....No, you're worse than a quitter...You're an appeaser.
Click to expand...


Sane folks set and fight to achieve attainable goals. Fucking dumbasses chase pipe dreams that sound cool.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Oddball said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah there are...Abolishing the expansive welfare moocher state is one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And since that will never happen, step 2 is the next best thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The demoncrats thrive off of that quitter's mindset, quitter.
Click to expand...


Who's quitting?  You know how long we've wanted to get rid of the welfare state?  Now it's time to do something that will alleviate the problem.  It's time to build a wall.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Oddball said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know the welfare moocher state is never going to be abolished.  Getting the wall funded would be 1000 times easier.
> 
> 
> 
> When you start with that attitude, then you're right....The demoncrats *never ever* quit that easily, and they depend upon exactly the quitter's mindset you're exhibiting to enable them.
> 
> And unless you think that such a wall can be thrown up in a mere few years (a laughable proposition if there ever was one), then you'll eventually have an Oboingo type come along, with his pen and phone, and stop it.
Click to expand...


Then we have a little over two years to build as much as we can at the most fragile points of entry to this country.


----------



## Oddball

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Who's quitting?  You know how long we've wanted to get rid of the welfare state?  Now it's time to do something that will alleviate the problem.  It's time to build a wall.


You're quitting...You support a party of quitters...Hell, the cheese dick surrender monkeys running your party can't even get rid of the got-damned National Endowments for the Arts (the funders of the Piss Christ) after 25 long years.

Pussy quitters, every one of them


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

debbiedowner said:


> The only way to keep illegals out is first to stop international flights coming or going, build wall on Northern border, southern and along the shores of pacific, gulf of mexico and atlantic and hope no one can dig under one of the walls. Otherwise one fucking wall on the southern border means nothing. In other words seal off the U.S. and the citizens from anything or anyone from the outside world. Only then can the wacko's have peace.




Where do Border Fences work? Everywhere


----------



## BrokeLoser

Oddball said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's quitting?  You know how long we've wanted to get rid of the welfare state?  Now it's time to do something that will alleviate the problem.  It's time to build a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> You're quitting...You support a party of quitters...Hell, the cheese dick surrender monkeys running your party can't even get rid of the got-damned National Endowments for the Arts (the funders of the Piss Christ) after 25 long years.
> 
> Pussy quitters, every one of them
Click to expand...


You mean the Party that owns D.C.? 
I suppose you support that party of zero relevance?


----------



## jasonnfree

Trump said about three jillion times to his base....'Whose gonna build that wall?'  And the base shouted out with glee....'Mexico'.   Time to make him live up to his promises guys.  Like training  a little kid, you can't let Trump off the hook so easy or he'll never grow up.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Oddball said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's quitting?  You know how long we've wanted to get rid of the welfare state?  Now it's time to do something that will alleviate the problem.  It's time to build a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> You're quitting...You support a party of quitters...Hell, the cheese dick surrender monkeys running your party can't even get rid of the got-damned National Endowments for the Arts (the funders of the Piss Christ) after 25 long years.
> 
> Pussy quitters, every one of them
Click to expand...


A quitter is one who tries to achieve the impossible knowing their goal is unrealistic.  A person who supports aggressive action that will work is not a quitter.


----------



## Slyhunter

Timmy said:


> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .


How much would it cost to hire enough Judges to process the Caravans and export them back to their own countries without being forced to allow them to wander around ours?
How much would it cost to round up those that are here and deport them?

Compare costs to building a wall.


----------



## bripat9643

Oddball said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know the welfare moocher state is never going to be abolished.  Getting the wall funded would be 1000 times easier.
> 
> 
> 
> When you start with that attitude, then you're right....The demoncrats *never ever* quit that easily, and they depend upon exactly the quitter's mindset you're exhibiting to enable them.
> 
> And unless you think that such a wall can be thrown up in a mere few years (a laughable proposition if there ever was one), then you'll eventually have an Oboingo type come along, with his pen and phone, and stop it.
Click to expand...

Try proposing something that actually has a chance of getting passed rather than something that can't possibly happen for at least another 100 years, if ever.


----------



## BrokeLoser

jasonnfree said:


> Trump said about three jillion times to his base....'Whose gonna build that wall?'  And the base shouted out with glee....'Mexico'.   Time to make him live up to his promises guys.  Like training  a little kid, you can't let Trump off the hook so easy or he'll never grow up.



They are paying for it...one must have an iQ over 12 to connect the dots.


----------



## Oddball

bripat9643 said:


> Try proposing something that actually has a chance of getting passed rather than something that can't possibly happen for at least another 100 years, if ever.


Way to be an appeasing surrender monkey.


----------



## Oddball

Ray From Cleveland said:


> A quitter is one who tries to achieve the impossible knowing their goal is unrealistic.  A person who supports aggressive action that will work is not a quitter.


Here ya go...


----------



## Esmeralda

Grampa Murked U said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A wall does not prohibit someone from walking in. They can arrive by air or sea, for example. They can go to Canada and then walk over the border. They can dig under the wall or climb over it.  Use your brain. The wall Trump and his minions want is a SYMBOL and a symbol only.  A symbol of him looking like he is doing something. A symbol that will cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars and essentially do nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Derp!
Click to expand...

You're a brainless partisan.


----------



## justoffal

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux



Because it makes the United States stronger and stands in the way of a major globalist goal.  For those of us who live here it's the right thing to do. To those who live here and also hate the United States as it is it's an evil abomination.

Jo


----------



## Lesh

BrokeLoser said:


> Your argument is one often used by desperate fools. In the real world when you have a problem you track it to its root / origin. The problem with illegals is at the border and not In the strawberry field.



You have the right idea. You just can't identify the problem correctly. If you can't identify the problem you can't see the solution.

The problem is NOT immigrants in and of themselves.

It's the JOBS they come here for. But you're too caught up in hatred of immigrants to see the real problem and the real solution


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Oddball said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> A quitter is one who tries to achieve the impossible knowing their goal is unrealistic.  A person who supports aggressive action that will work is not a quitter.
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya go...
Click to expand...


Well we'll see who wins out in the end, you or me.  Wouldn't it suck to be outsmarted by a quitter???


----------



## Astrostar

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


Simple.  Trump lied by saying "Mexico is going to pay for the wall," when in reality he never had an agreement with them to do so.  Therefore, the whole idea is invalid. Simple.


----------



## Rustic

Timmy said:


> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .


Quit falling down the well 
What about the diseased illegal aliens?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Esmeralda said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A wall does not prohibit someone from walking in. They can arrive by air or sea, for example. They can go to Canada and then walk over the border. They can dig under the wall or climb over it.  Use your brain. The wall Trump and his minions want is a SYMBOL and a symbol only.  A symbol of him looking like he is doing something. A symbol that will cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars and essentially do nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Derp!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a brainless partisan.
Click to expand...

More derp, what a surprise!


----------



## BrokeLoser

Lesh said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is one often used by desperate fools. In the real world when you have a problem you track it to its root / origin. The problem with illegals is at the border and not In the strawberry field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right idea. You just can't identify the problem correctly. If you can't identify the problem you can't see the solution.
> 
> The problem is NOT immigrants in and of themselves.
> 
> It's the JOBS they come here for. But you're too caught up in hatred of immigrants to see the real problem and the real solution
Click to expand...


This is as simple as shit gets, it always has been but you bleeding heart Loons are blinded by your bullshit nobility and prefer to make it a complex issue.
The PROBLEM is; we border a nation full of low grade, low iQ, desperate, filthy thirdworlders whom all want a piece of the free shit we offer here.
The SOLUTION is; we build a barrier between us and them and defend the muthafucker like Fort Knox to keep us from becoming them. We know exactly what happens when they overrun and beanerize a community, city and state...look at the super shithole...Mexifornia.


----------



## Lesh

BrokeLoser said:


> This is as simple as shit gets, it always has been but you bleeding heart Loons are blinded by your bullshit nobility and prefer to make it a complex issue.
> The PROBLEM is; we border a nation full of low grade, low iQ, desperate, filthy thirdworlders whom all want a piece of the free shit we offer here.
> The SOLUTION is; we build a barrier between us and them and defend the muthafucker like Fort Knox to keep us from becoming them. We know exactly what happens when they overrun and beanerize a community, city and state...look at the super shithole...Mexifornia.



Again...you're blinded by your hatred and bigotry


----------



## BrokeLoser

Lesh said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is as simple as shit gets, it always has been but you bleeding heart Loons are blinded by your bullshit nobility and prefer to make it a complex issue.
> The PROBLEM is; we border a nation full of low grade, low iQ, desperate, filthy thirdworlders whom all want a piece of the free shit we offer here.
> The SOLUTION is; we build a barrier between us and them and defend the muthafucker like Fort Knox to keep us from becoming them. We know exactly what happens when they overrun and beanerize a community, city and state...look at the super shithole...Mexifornia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again...you're blinded by your hatred and bigotry
Click to expand...


Haha...look, NOBODY will take you serious with that shit spewing from your mouth.....When our founders declared our sovereignty they didn’t give two fucks what bordering nations thought and neither should we...Listen closely....WE OWE MEXICO NOTHING, ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH!
We owe the American people protection from neighboring shitholes and that’s that. There is no debating this. 
By the way, what part of Mehico are you from?


----------



## Esmeralda

Grampa Murked U said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A wall does not prohibit someone from walking in. They can arrive by air or sea, for example. They can go to Canada and then walk over the border. They can dig under the wall or climb over it.  Use your brain. The wall Trump and his minions want is a SYMBOL and a symbol only.  A symbol of him looking like he is doing something. A symbol that will cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars and essentially do nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Derp!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a brainless partisan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More derp, what a surprise!
Click to expand...

You are such a dimwit.


----------



## WaitingFor2020

Thinker101 said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were an illegal, I’d just save some money, fly to Vancouver and walk across the border up there.  Better weather….and you don’t risk stepping in that turd known as Texas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trumpanzees seem to forget about boats.  I have a brother who lives north of San Diego and he said many come in by sea in the dead of night.
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, so because the wall can only stop 40-80%, what the hell, why stop any of them.  Dumbass.
Click to expand...


Post that figure as fact, dumbass.
You Trumpanzees NEVER bother to post proof of your claims.
.
I did a google search using your comment and came up with 0% articles or links.  ZERO.
.
.
.
.


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is one often used by desperate fools. In the real world when you have a problem you track it to its root / origin. The problem with illegals is at the border and not In the strawberry field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right idea. You just can't identify the problem correctly. If you can't identify the problem you can't see the solution.
> 
> The problem is NOT immigrants in and of themselves.
> 
> It's the JOBS they come here for. But you're too caught up in hatred of immigrants to see the real problem and the real solution
Click to expand...

He hates immigrants, but you want to take their jobs away.  Do you intend to deport them after they have been discovered working here?  Of course not.  That would be "hate."

You're a fucking idiot.


----------



## bripat9643

Astrostar said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.  Trump lied by saying "Mexico is going to pay for the wall," when in reality he never had an agreement with them to do so.  Therefore, the whole idea is invalid. Simple.
Click to expand...

How could Trump make an agreement with Mexico before he was president?

You're a special kind of dumbass.


----------



## bripat9643

Oddball said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try proposing something that actually has a chance of getting passed rather than something that can't possibly happen for at least another 100 years, if ever.
> 
> 
> 
> Way to be an appeasing surrender monkey.
Click to expand...

Waiting 100 years to solve the problem is surrendering.


----------



## Likkmee

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


The wall is no problem. It needs to be built around the district of Columbia


----------



## Cellblock2429

Timmy said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because democrats were forced to surrender their slaves after the Civil War, and their attempt to keep Blacks from voting didn't work because the Republicans kept passing Civil Rights legislation.....and now, Blacks are not happy with democrats, so the democrats want a new slave class from Mexico..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those “democrats” are today’s “republicans “. How many times you going to spin that lie about Dems .
Click to expand...

/——/ Total bullshyt excuse democRATs have tried to get people to believe for decades. At no time did Slave holding democRATs switch sides with the Republicans who defeated them. How pathetic.


----------



## candycorn

Thinker101 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No far from it.  Some very bad people come across but by and large they have been a beneficial influence to the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By and large?  So what percentage of "by and large" would not being beneficial be acceptable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the way I look at it is this; how many illegals do you think are here?  10M?  15M? 20M?  Lets say 10M.  The overwhelming majority buy things that creates sales tax revenue which stays in the states where it is spent. .  The sales tax receipts--depending on how many you think are here--are equal to the population of many states.  Michigan has 9 million people...so we're talking about the sales tax revenue generated by the State of Michigan.  That is a sizable impact in real dollars spread across a great many states.
> 
> We can't have open borders.  That is a no-brainer.  And the ones we do allow into the nation officially need to have a much more stringent screening process.  But the fallacy that all these folks do is take and give nothing back is flat out wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be nice if the rest of us only paid sales tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the best you can do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For you....yes.  Paying sales tax...dumbass.
Click to expand...


So the calculation, dumbass, is you can have a bunch of natives paying sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, etc…  and take that money OR you can have a bunch of natives paying sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, etc….*in addition to the Michigan-sized impact of 9,000,000 people paying sales taxes as well.  *If politics were removed from the equation, every governor would say they would want the greater sales tax receipts in addition to what every one else is paying.

I know your playbook (one page) is to bitch about the consumption of the illegal aliens. Shove it up your ass.  Natives consume just as many resources, more in fact since they avail themselves of the entire suite of offerings by governments (the court system for one fuck face).


----------



## candycorn

Likkmee said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> The wall is no problem. It needs to be built around the district of Columbia
Click to expand...


nice


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so because the wall can only stop 40-80%, what the hell, why stop any of them.  Dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.  We've had an unparalelled expansion of our economy (which was already the world's strongest) when immigration (illegal and otherwise) really got going, we've had comparatively few problems with illegals compared to natives, and a great amount of non citizens have served with honor in our military service.
> 
> We can't have open borders but this jihad you guys have launched against brown people is really stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure...they're all valedictorians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No far from it.  Some very bad people come across but by and large they have been a beneficial influence to the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  Immigrants have mostly been a bad influence on this country.  Consider the mafia.  They were all immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigrants had little opportunity to make money back in those days.  As things got better, many of the people in those organizations were already in.......and there's only one way out.
> 
> Today people can come here and do okay if they learn a trade, get educated or start their own business.  However many of the people from South-Central don't even want to learn the language.  They don't have the will or energy as European immigrants had.  Sure, they will work hard, but they will never become anything because manual labor doesn't pay anything anymore.  Then they end up on some welfare program.
> 
> People from Ellis Island had more of a motivation to become Americans.  They cut ties to their homeland instead of making money here and sending it back home.  They felt blessed to be part of our country unlike these people from the south that feel coming here is something owed to them.
> 
> I was born in an immigrant community so I know the difference between the attitude of people back then and the people I see on the news today.  It's a night and day difference.........and no, for you liberals reading this, it wasn't meant in a racial way.
Click to expand...


really


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Esmeralda said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> 
> 
> A wall does not prohibit someone from walking in. They can arrive by air or sea, for example. They can go to Canada and then walk over the border. They can dig under the wall or climb over it.  Use your brain. The wall Trump and his minions want is a SYMBOL and a symbol only.  A symbol of him looking like he is doing something. A symbol that will cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars and essentially do nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Derp!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a brainless partisan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More derp, what a surprise!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are such a dimwit.
Click to expand...

A triple shot of derp! Impressive


----------



## Thinker101

WaitingFor2020 said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were an illegal, I’d just save some money, fly to Vancouver and walk across the border up there.  Better weather….and you don’t risk stepping in that turd known as Texas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trumpanzees seem to forget about boats.  I have a brother who lives north of San Diego and he said many come in by sea in the dead of night.
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, so because the wall can only stop 40-80%, what the hell, why stop any of them.  Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post that figure as fact, dumbass.
> You Trumpanzees NEVER bother to post proof of your claims.
> .
> I did a google search using your comment and came up with 0% articles or links.  ZERO.
> .
> .
> .
> .
Click to expand...


Yeah, that must mean the wall won't stop any of them.....dumbass.


----------



## Thinker101

candycorn said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By and large?  So what percentage of "by and large" would not being beneficial be acceptable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the way I look at it is this; how many illegals do you think are here?  10M?  15M? 20M?  Lets say 10M.  The overwhelming majority buy things that creates sales tax revenue which stays in the states where it is spent. .  The sales tax receipts--depending on how many you think are here--are equal to the population of many states.  Michigan has 9 million people...so we're talking about the sales tax revenue generated by the State of Michigan.  That is a sizable impact in real dollars spread across a great many states.
> 
> We can't have open borders.  That is a no-brainer.  And the ones we do allow into the nation officially need to have a much more stringent screening process.  But the fallacy that all these folks do is take and give nothing back is flat out wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be nice if the rest of us only paid sales tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the best you can do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For you....yes.  Paying sales tax...dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the calculation, dumbass, is you can have a bunch of natives paying sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, etc…  and take that money OR you can have a bunch of natives paying sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, etc….*in addition to the Michigan-sized impact of 9,000,000 people paying sales taxes as well.  *If politics were removed from the equation, every governor would say they would want the greater sales tax receipts in addition to what every one else is paying.
> 
> I know your playbook (one page) is to bitch about the consumption of the illegal aliens. Shove it up your ass.  Natives consume just as many resources, more in fact since they avail themselves of the entire suite of offerings by governments (the court system for one fuck face).
Click to expand...


Sorry pal, you must be using that fricken Obama math.  Dumbass.


----------



## candycorn

Thinker101 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the way I look at it is this; how many illegals do you think are here?  10M?  15M? 20M?  Lets say 10M.  The overwhelming majority buy things that creates sales tax revenue which stays in the states where it is spent. .  The sales tax receipts--depending on how many you think are here--are equal to the population of many states.  Michigan has 9 million people...so we're talking about the sales tax revenue generated by the State of Michigan.  That is a sizable impact in real dollars spread across a great many states.
> 
> We can't have open borders.  That is a no-brainer.  And the ones we do allow into the nation officially need to have a much more stringent screening process.  But the fallacy that all these folks do is take and give nothing back is flat out wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be nice if the rest of us only paid sales tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the best you can do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For you....yes.  Paying sales tax...dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the calculation, dumbass, is you can have a bunch of natives paying sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, etc…  and take that money OR you can have a bunch of natives paying sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, etc….*in addition to the Michigan-sized impact of 9,000,000 people paying sales taxes as well.  *If politics were removed from the equation, every governor would say they would want the greater sales tax receipts in addition to what every one else is paying.
> 
> I know your playbook (one page) is to bitch about the consumption of the illegal aliens. Shove it up your ass.  Natives consume just as many resources, more in fact since they avail themselves of the entire suite of offerings by governments (the court system for one fuck face).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry pal, you must be using that fricken Obama math.  Dumbass.
Click to expand...


No, it's standard math.  I guess you're just stupid.


----------



## Thinker101

candycorn said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be nice if the rest of us only paid sales tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the best you can do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For you....yes.  Paying sales tax...dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the calculation, dumbass, is you can have a bunch of natives paying sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, etc…  and take that money OR you can have a bunch of natives paying sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, etc….*in addition to the Michigan-sized impact of 9,000,000 people paying sales taxes as well.  *If politics were removed from the equation, every governor would say they would want the greater sales tax receipts in addition to what every one else is paying.
> 
> I know your playbook (one page) is to bitch about the consumption of the illegal aliens. Shove it up your ass.  Natives consume just as many resources, more in fact since they avail themselves of the entire suite of offerings by governments (the court system for one fuck face).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry pal, you must be using that fricken Obama math.  Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's standard math.  I guess you're just stupid.
Click to expand...


Yikes...from someone trying to tell me that thousands paying sales tax ONLY is somehow cost effective.  Dumbass.


----------



## Lesh

BrokeLoser said:


> Haha...look, NOBODY will take you serious with that shit spewing from your mouth.....When our founders declared our sovereignty they didn’t give two fucks what bordering nations thought and neither should we...Listen closely....WE OWE MEXICO NOTHING, ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH!
> We owe the American people protection from neighboring shitholes and that’s that. There is no debating this.
> By the way, what part of Mehico are you from?



A. The current group of immigrants that you folks are so worked up are not Mexicans...but I guess to you all those spanish speaking brown folks are the same...and you hate them all.

B, I don't believe the Founders weighed in on this issue at all...at least not in the Constitution that I am aware of

C. Owe Mexico? WTF are you talking about 

D. I''m Scots/English

No one but fellow bigots take YOU seriously my friend


----------



## candycorn

Thinker101 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the best you can do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For you....yes.  Paying sales tax...dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the calculation, dumbass, is you can have a bunch of natives paying sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, etc…  and take that money OR you can have a bunch of natives paying sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, etc….*in addition to the Michigan-sized impact of 9,000,000 people paying sales taxes as well.  *If politics were removed from the equation, every governor would say they would want the greater sales tax receipts in addition to what every one else is paying.
> 
> I know your playbook (one page) is to bitch about the consumption of the illegal aliens. Shove it up your ass.  Natives consume just as many resources, more in fact since they avail themselves of the entire suite of offerings by governments (the court system for one fuck face).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry pal, you must be using that fricken Obama math.  Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's standard math.  I guess you're just stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yikes...from someone trying to tell me that thousands paying sales tax ONLY is somehow cost effective.  Dumbass.
Click to expand...


Well, if you're too dumb to figure it out, that's your problem.  Most governors, free of the politics, would take the increased tax receipts over the perverse pride you experience with your xenophobia.


----------



## Lesh

bripat9643 said:


> He hates immigrants, but you want to take their jobs away. Do you intend to deport them after they have been discovered working here? Of course not. That would be "hate."
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.



He bases his everything on that unreasoning hatred...as do you.

I have said many times that we need to deal with the 11 million already here. Obviously we are going to have to give them work visas or something along those lines if they are currently working.

That's PART of what a comprehensive immigration policy would entail.

What alternative do we have?

Put em in the camps and fire up the ovens?

Continue the current Kabuki dance?

I don't hate immigrants. I have worked along side many and find them to be decent hard working people. My problem with them is that they work cheap and drive down wages.

We need to deal with THAT.  Minimum wage increases, work visas, and cracking down HARD on employers who hire illegals will do that


----------



## Thinker101

Lesh said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He hates immigrants, but you want to take their jobs away. Do you intend to deport them after they have been discovered working here? Of course not. That would be "hate."
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He bases his everything on that unreasoning hatred...as do you.
> 
> I have said many times that we need to deal with the 11 million already here. Obviously we are going to have to give them work visas or something along those lines if they are currently working.
> 
> That's PART of what a comprehensive immigration policy would entail.
> 
> What alternative do we have?
> 
> Put em in the camps and fire up the ovens?
> 
> Continue the current Kabuki dance?
> 
> I don't hate immigrants. I have worked along side many and find them to be decent hard working people. My problem with them is that they work cheap and drive down wages.
> 
> We need to deal with THAT.  Minimum wage increases, work visas, and cracking down HARD on employers who hire illegals will do that
Click to expand...


So....you want to crack down HARD on employers that hire illegals, but give visas to those that are working.  How about crack down HARD on the employers that these illegals are working for and give all the illegals workers a pink slip and a bus ticket.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He hates immigrants, but you want to take their jobs away. Do you intend to deport them after they have been discovered working here? Of course not. That would be "hate."
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He bases his everything on that unreasoning hatred...as do you.
> 
> I have said many times that we need to deal with the 11 million already here. Obviously we are going to have to give them work visas or something along those lines if they are currently working.
> 
> That's PART of what a comprehensive immigration policy would entail.
> 
> What alternative do we have?
> 
> Put em in the camps and fire up the ovens?
> 
> Continue the current Kabuki dance?
> 
> I don't hate immigrants. I have worked along side many and find them to be decent hard working people. My problem with them is that they work cheap and drive down wages.
> 
> We need to deal with THAT.  Minimum wage increases, work visas, and cracking down HARD on employers who hire illegals will do that
Click to expand...


What we really need is to make being in the US illegally a felony carrying a minimum of five years in prison.  Then we wouldn't have to worry about what to do with them.  Most of them would be running to the border so fast to get the hell out of here that California would lose a third of it's population.


----------



## Lesh

11 million people in jail for 5 years?

Yea...great idea

How about we put EMPLOYERS that hire illegals in jail for 5 years?

All in on that?


----------



## BrokeLoser

Lesh said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...look, NOBODY will take you serious with that shit spewing from your mouth.....When our founders declared our sovereignty they didn’t give two fucks what bordering nations thought and neither should we...Listen closely....WE OWE MEXICO NOTHING, ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH!
> We owe the American people protection from neighboring shitholes and that’s that. There is no debating this.
> By the way, what part of Mehico are you from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. The current group of immigrants that you folks are so worked up are not Mexicans...but I guess to you all those spanish speaking brown folks are the same...and you hate them all.
> 
> B, I don't believe the Founders weighed in on this issue at all...at least not in the Constitution that I am aware of
> 
> C. Owe Mexico? WTF are you talking about
> 
> D. I''m Scots/English
> No one but fellow bigots take YOU seriously my friend
Click to expand...


*A. The current group of immigrants that you folks are so worked up are not Mexicans...but I guess to you all those spanish speaking brown folks are the same...and you hate them all.*
Like all good, real Americans, I hate all criminals and all piece of shits whom would ignore American law and sovereignty. I’m “worked up” over ALL illegals and not just a “current group”.

*B, I don't believe the Founders weighed in on this issue at all...at least not in the Constitution that I am aware of*
When declaring independence from Britain we became a sovereign nation with boundaries. You didn’t know that?
The Naturalization Act Of 1790 will shed some light on who the founders wanted as U.S. Citizens...Look it up.

*C. Owe Mexico? WTF are you talking about *
You unAmerican traitors like to pretend that U.S. taxpayers owe illegal wetbacks an opportunity here...no?
(use some clever wordplay here...that always works)

*D. I''m Scots/English*
Sure you are.

*No one but fellow bigots take YOU seriously my friend*
And 30 states and 2,623 counties full of legit, real Americans.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Lesh said:


> 11 million people in jail for 5 years?
> 
> Yea...great idea
> 
> How about we put EMPLOYERS that hire illegals in jail for 5 years?
> 
> All in on that?



Wouldn’t you want to tweak a few laws that would allow law enforcement and immigration courts the ability to get rediculously aggressive so we can effectively eradicate the tens of millions here fucking this nation up?
OR do you usually prefer to issue golden tickets and rewards to those clever enough to elude law enforcement?
(you probably should pretend you didn’t see this post)


----------



## Lesh

BrokeLoser said:


> Like all good, real Americans, I hate all criminals and all piece of shits whom would ignore American law and sovereignty. I’m “worked up” over ALL illegals and not just a “current group”.



Most particularly those that speak Spanish and have brown skin



BrokeLoser said:


> You unAmerican traitors like to pretend that U.S. taxpayers owe illegal wetbacks an opportunity here...no?
> (use some clever wordplay here...that always works)



You're making bullshit claims again...but it's your standard practice



BrokeLoser said:


> Sure you are.



You doubt that my people are Scots/English? Based on what? You normal NOTHING? Fucking idiot



BrokeLoser said:


> And 30 states and 2,623 counties full of legit, real Americans.


'
God I hope you are wrong and there aren't that many bigoted racists in this country



BrokeLoser said:


> When declaring independence from Britain we became a sovereign nation with boundaries. You didn’t know that?
> The Naturalization Act Of 1790 will shed some light on who the founders wanted as U.S. Citizens...Look it up.



I did. Hey guess what dumfuk. The Nationalization Act of 1790 made ANY free person who had been in the county for two years a citizen...regardless of how they got here or where they came from.

You couldn't have failed harder you stupid bigot


----------



## BrokeLoser

Lesh said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like all good, real Americans, I hate all criminals and all piece of shits whom would ignore American law and sovereignty. I’m “worked up” over ALL illegals and not just a “current group”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most particularly those that speak Spanish and have brown skin
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> You unAmerican traitors like to pretend that U.S. taxpayers owe illegal wetbacks an opportunity here...no?
> (use some clever wordplay here...that always works)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making bullshit claims again...but it's your standard practice
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You doubt that my people are Scots/English? Based on what? You normal NOTHING? Fucking idiot
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> And 30 states and 2,623 counties full of legit, real Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> '
> God I hope you are wrong and there aren't that many bigoted racists in this country
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> When declaring independence from Britain we became a sovereign nation with boundaries. You didn’t know that?
> The Naturalization Act Of 1790 will shed some light on who the founders wanted as U.S. Citizens...Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did. Hey guess what dumfuk. The Nationalization Act of 1790 made ANY free person who had been in the county for two years a citizen...regardless of how they got here or where they came from.
> 
> You couldn't have failed harder you stupid bigot
Click to expand...


*“I did. Hey guess what dumfuk. The Nationalization Act of 1790 made ANY free person who had been in the county for two years a citizen...regardless of how they got here or where they came from.”*

Haha...you are either a liar or plain fucking stupid...I’ll bet you’re both...Anyhoo...enjoy.

“The first statute in the United States to codify naturalization law. Alternately known as the Nationality Act, the Naturalization Act of 1790 restricted citizenship to "any alien, being a free *white* person" who had been in the U.S. for two years.”

Haha...your Beaners were not invited to be part of this nation...sucks huh?


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> 11 million people in jail for 5 years?
> 
> Yea...great idea
> 
> How about we put EMPLOYERS that hire illegals in jail for 5 years?
> 
> All in on that?


I don't think putting them in prison for a long term is a good idea.  Deporting them immediately is all we need.  The end goal is getting them out of the country and keeping them out of the country.


----------



## Lesh

bripat9643 said:


> I don't think putting them in prison for a long term is a good idea. Deporting them immediately is all we need. The end goal is getting them out of the country and keeping them out of the country.



You want to deport employers that hire illegals?

I'm not sure that's legal. I think five years in jail is though.

Oh wait...you're not talking about employers at all are you...as usual they get a pass.

You're still living this "deport 11 million people" fantasy


----------



## BrokeLoser

Lesh said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think putting them in prison for a long term is a good idea. Deporting them immediately is all we need. The end goal is getting them out of the country and keeping them out of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to deport employers that hire illegals?
> 
> I'm not sure that's legal. I think five years in jail is though.
> 
> Oh wait...you're not talking about employers at all are you...as usual they get a pass.
> 
> You're still living this "deport 11 million people" fantasy
Click to expand...


LefTard Logic:
“When you leave your keys in your ignition and you car is stole it is not the fault of the thief.”


----------



## BrokeLoser

Lesh said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think putting them in prison for a long term is a good idea. Deporting them immediately is all we need. The end goal is getting them out of the country and keeping them out of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to deport employers that hire illegals?
> 
> I'm not sure that's legal. I think five years in jail is though.
> 
> Oh wait...you're not talking about employers at all are you...as usual they get a pass.
> 
> You're still living this "deport 11 million people" fantasy
Click to expand...


Wouldn’t you want to tweak a few laws that would allow law enforcement and immigration courts the ability to get rediculously aggressive so we can effectively eradicate the tens of millions here fucking this nation up?
OR do you usually prefer to issue golden tickets and rewards to those clever enough to elude law enforcement?
(you probably should pretend you didn’t see this post)


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think putting them in prison for a long term is a good idea. Deporting them immediately is all we need. The end goal is getting them out of the country and keeping them out of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to deport employers that hire illegals?
> 
> I'm not sure that's legal. I think five years in jail is though.
> 
> Oh wait...you're not talking about employers at all are you...as usual they get a pass.
> 
> You're still living this "deport 11 million people" fantasy
Click to expand...

It's only a "fantasy" if Dims kick and scream to stop it, and they will, of course.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bripat9643 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 11 million people in jail for 5 years?
> 
> Yea...great idea
> 
> How about we put EMPLOYERS that hire illegals in jail for 5 years?
> 
> All in on that?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think putting them in prison for a long term is a good idea.  Deporting them immediately is all we need.  The end goal is getting them out of the country and keeping them out of the country.
Click to expand...


Tough to do when there is no wall.  Hopefully that changes before Congress does.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> Most particularly those that speak Spanish and have brown skin



What group is causing the US the most problems?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> 11 million people in jail for 5 years?
> 
> Yea...great idea
> 
> How about we put EMPLOYERS that hire illegals in jail for 5 years?
> 
> All in on that?



There wouldn't be 11 million people in jail because the penalty would produce self-deportation. 

I don't care where you are from or how bad it was, nothing is worse than being locked up behind bars.  You would rather have freedom in the country you came from than being locked up in the US where you would then have no freedom at all followed by deportation.


----------



## oreo

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


*

It won't work.*   You build a 1000 wall there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it as soon as it's built.

This 2-1/2 minute video at the end will describe the 240 tunnels they've already found in the San Diego region alone.






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

The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly to an alert.  Anything that can be seen---can & will always be compromised.  _Something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
_
_Now your Ass Clown turned down a proposal by Chuck Schummer & Nancy Pelosi to do just that.  Add more border security and technology to the border, if Trump would go along with a DACA (dreamer bill).  Trump refused it--he wants his worthless piece of shit wall--that no congress is going to fund.  If Republicans wouldn't do it, Democrats sure won't.

_


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

oreo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It won't work.*   You build a 1000 wall there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it as soon as it's built.
> 
> This 2-1/2 minute video at the end will describe the 240 tunnels they've already found in the San Diego region alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly to an alert.  Anything that can be seen can & will always be compromised.  Something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
Click to expand...


Correct, because our technology is so primitive we won't be able to detect construction machinery creating such tunnels.


----------



## oreo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It won't work.*   You build a 1000 wall there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it as soon as it's built.
> 
> This 2-1/2 minute video at the end will describe the 240 tunnels they've already found in the San Diego region alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly to an alert.  Anything that can be seen can & will always be compromised.  Something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, because our technology is so primitive we won't be able to detect construction machinery creating such tunnels.
Click to expand...



You're not getting a WALL, you just lost the House. If Republicans wouldn't fund it, the odds of a Democrat congress funding it is zero to NONE.

Why build a wall with technology to make certain that no one is digging underneath the piece of shit, when you can just use technology to keep them from crossing the border.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> How much would it cost to hire enough Judges to process the Caravans and export them back to their own countries without being forced to allow them to wander around ours?
> How much would it cost to round up those that are here and deport them?
> 
> Compare costs to building a wall.
Click to expand...

Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  Asylum seekers could go there without straining local resources. Se could be solving several issues by upgrading the Island.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

oreo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It won't work.*   You build a 1000 wall there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it as soon as it's built.
> 
> This 2-1/2 minute video at the end will describe the 240 tunnels they've already found in the San Diego region alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly to an alert.  Anything that can be seen can & will always be compromised.  Something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, because our technology is so primitive we won't be able to detect construction machinery creating such tunnels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're not getting a WALL, you just lost the House. If Republicans wouldn't fund it, the odds of a Democrat congress funding it is zero to NONE.
> 
> Why build a wall with technology to make certain that no one is digging underneath the piece of shit, when you can just use technology to keep them from crossing the border.
Click to expand...


There just isn't enough technology to stop them in an open border country like ours.  Step one is to build the wall; all our border patrols say that would be a huge help.  Then concentrate on keeping illegals out.


----------



## Lesh

Building a wall...if it was 100% effective (and it obviously won't be anywhere near that) would only stop 40-50% of illigals . 

At what cost?  We'd have to TAKE land from Americans screw up the border to all hell...and spend as much as 50 billion dollars.

Sure. Build the fucking thing.

It's not my land that gets confiscated. You assholes spend money like it's water anyway.

But then you'll have to admit that you wasted all that money because it won't stop employers from hiring and without that...NOTHING will change


----------



## danielpalos

Our welfare clause is general and we have a commerce clause.  Why are we losing money on border policy?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> Building a wall...if it was 100% effective (and it obviously won't be anywhere near that) would only stop 40-50% of illigals .
> 
> At what cost?  We'd have to TAKE land from Americans screw up the border to all hell...and spend as much as 50 billion dollars.
> 
> Sure. Build the fucking thing.
> 
> It's not my land that gets confiscated. You assholes spend money like it's water anyway.
> 
> But then you'll have to admit that you wasted all that money because it won't stop employers from hiring and without that...NOTHING will change



The estimate for the wall is about 32 billion.  Go gauge that, it's about half of what we spend on food stamps in just one year.  

If the Democrats thought the wall would be a failure, they wouldn't have tried so hard to stop it.  They would welcome the wall because then they could own the Republicans for the next coming decades.  They could remind Americans of how much of a failure the wall was.  

The reason they don't want a wall is because they know it will give us results.  It will reduce the amount of illegals and narcotics coming into the country.  Those that continue to try to get in will be more obvious and it will take much more effort.  

The wall is only one piece of the puzzle.  But it's an important piece.


----------



## Lesh

Really. I wonder why Republicans did nothing about the Wall for the entire two years they held both Houses of Congress and the White House...

I'm thinking THEY understand that it wouldn't change anything and the entire boondoggle would be exposed for the fraud that it is


----------



## bripat9643

Ray From Cleveland said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It won't work.*   You build a 1000 wall there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it as soon as it's built.
> 
> This 2-1/2 minute video at the end will describe the 240 tunnels they've already found in the San Diego region alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly to an alert.  Anything that can be seen can & will always be compromised.  Something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, because our technology is so primitive we won't be able to detect construction machinery creating such tunnels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're not getting a WALL, you just lost the House. If Republicans wouldn't fund it, the odds of a Democrat congress funding it is zero to NONE.
> 
> Why build a wall with technology to make certain that no one is digging underneath the piece of shit, when you can just use technology to keep them from crossing the border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There just isn't enough technology to stop them in an open border country like ours.  Step one is to build the wall; all our border patrols say that would be a huge help.  Then concentrate on keeping illegals out.
Click to expand...

Have you noticed how all the douchebags who oppose the wall also support granting amnesty to the 20 million illegals who are already here?


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> Really. I wonder why Republicans did nothing about the Wall for the entire two years they held both Houses of Congress and the White House...
> 
> I'm thinking THEY understand that it wouldn't change anything and the entire boondoggle would be exposed for the fraud that it is


The reality is that many Republicans are establishment douchebags who oppose the wall and sell out their own constituents.  Jeff Flake and John McCain are perfect examples.


----------



## Lesh

Of course anyone smart enough to see through the boondoggle CAN'T be a "real" Republican


----------



## Thinker101

Understanding Border Fences for Dummies

*Why are advocates for illegal aliens opposed to a border fence?*
*Because they know it works.*
*FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT BORDER FENCES*

*Q. Can fences along the border impede the flow of hordes of aliens who cross the border illegally daily?*
*A. Yes. Many successful fences to keep aliens and other types of intruders out have been built. In San Diego, the 14 mile double layer border fence led to a 97 percent decrease in apprehensions and a corresponding decrease in border crime from 1989 to present.*

*Israel’s border fence has been extraordinarily successful in keeping out potential infiltrators who are far more determined to cross the border than mere immigrants.*

*Even Saudi Arabia, one of the most vocal critics of Israel's "security fence" in the West Bank, has quietly emulated the Israeli example by erecting a barrier along its porous border with Yemen to prevent terrorists from entering.*

*Q. Won't border crossers simply go to where there is no fence?*
*A. That's not an argument against a fence -- it's an argument for a fence across both of the ENTIRE borders (Canada and Mexico).*

*Q. Isn't a fence of such a large magnitude an enormously costly engineering nightmare?*
*A. Building a complete double layer border fence across both borders is inexpensive child's play compared to American engineering feats such as the Panama Canal and Boulder Dam.*

*Q. Can a fence be put across all terrain such as mountains and rivers?*
*A. No. There are some lengths across both borders where a fence is impractical to install. In some cases, a fence would act as a dam by trapping plants and brush when heavy rain waters or melting snow flows. But those unfenced lengths of rough terrain are natural barriers that aliens would not easily cross. Moreover, those impassable areas are more easily monitored by the border patrol with hi-tech unmanned lookout posts.*

*Q. Won't a border fence be environmentally unfriendly?*
*A. A border fence can be built to minimize environmental problems. A fence will not only impede the flow of illegal aliens, but will also impede the flow of terrorists. Worrying about minor environmental problems at the border is like worrying about who will fix the potholes after an earthquake.*

*Q. Why do opponents of border fences compare it to the Great Wall of China saying that China's enemies still managed to enter china?*
*A. Just as any border barrier will not prevent 100 percent of intruders from crossing it, the Great Wall of China did in fact keep China safe from large invading armies.*

*Q. Why do opponents of border fences compare it to the Berlin wall?*
*A. Such a comparison is even an insult to the intelligence of dummies. When you build a wall to keep people in, that’s a prison. When you build a fence to keep people out, that’s securing your sovereignty. Would you compare a fence around your house to control who comes into your yard to the Berlin wall? Moreover, the proposal by congress was for building of a "fence," not a "wall."*

*Q. What's the difference between a fence and a wall?*
*A. A wall is a thick solid structure through which you cannot see. A fence is a thin structure that you can see through to the other side.*

*Q. Wait a minute. Isn't the section of border fence which separates Naco, Mexico from Naco, Arizona one that you cannot see through?*
*A. Yes. And there are many more border fences just like the Naco fence. Sometimes the government does stupid things like building fences through which the Border Patrol cannot see. Illegal crossers poke holes in the fence to watch for border patrol officers. When the coast is clear, they simply scale to the top on the Mexican side sometimes using ladders and drop down on the U.S. side sometimes with ropes. Successful border fences must be able to be seen through.*

*Speaking of government doing stupid things, this section of border fence which separates Douglas Arizona from Agua Prieta has the iron bar tips pointing away from Mexico. According to Rick Oltman of CAPS (Californians for Population Stabilization), when he asked a staffer at Arizona Senator John McCain's office why the tips were pointing towards the U.S., he was told that they didn't want to offend Mexico.*

*Q. Why not save all that money to build a physical fence by instead, building a "virtual" fence?*
*A. There is no such thing as a virtual fence? A physical fence physically impedes aliens from crossing. A so called virtual fence does not. What is referred to as virtual fences, are video cameras and invisible arrays of sensors along the border. When a sensor is triggered, a display appears at the Border Patrol station which tells the station officers in real time when and where aliens are crossing. But effective physical fences also use detection apparatus.*

*Q. So what's wrong with a virtual fence?*
*A. The problem at the border is not the inability to electronically detect intruders -- the problem is getting to them and arresting them once they are detected.*

*Large numbers of up to one hundred aliens can quickly cross an invisible virtual fence (the crossing of such groups are known as Bonzai charges). Intruders crossing a virtual fence are not aware that they have been detected and keep moving on at a rate of about two miles per hour. By the time the border patrol gets to the point of detection, the crossers aren't there. Thus, the arriving border patrol officers must radio for helicopter help to search the area. At the same time other border patrol resources are dispatched to other trails and paths that the crossers MIGHT use. The border patrol is usually successful in apprehending some of the group, but are too overwhelmed to apprehend all those in a large group. Smugglers know how the border patrol works, so while all border patrol resources in the area are being used going after just one group, other groups cross almost unnoticed.*

*With a physical fence, a large group is easily detected just as with a virtual fence, but it takes time to climb a fence. Thus, the border patrol can get to the fence in time to intercept most of the crossers.*

*Q. Why bother with a physical fence that apparently is easy to get over using a ladder and rope?*
*A. Using a ladder and rope to get over a fence is not easy if the fence is a double layered fence as the 700 mile fence is supposed to be. With a double layered fence, a crosser would have to lift the ladder up with him to the top of the fence, lean it against the other side of the first layer, climb down the other side of the first layer and then repeat the process to climb the second layer and would have to leave the ladder behind. For a large group, two ladders would have to be in place -- one ladder against the first layer and second latter against the second layer. A large group would have to climb the first ladder, drop down on the other side of the first layer with a rope and repeat the process for the second layer. A large group trying to hurdle two layers of fence in single file, gives border patrol officers plenty of time to intercept all or most crossers.

Q. How much double layered fence has been built to date so far?*
*A. ABP (American Border Patrol), a non-profit corporation, performed aerial surveillance of the fence construction progress from the time congress mandated it to the present. ABP has documented proof that only 40 miles of double layered fence has been built to date (July, 2014.)*

*Q. I don't get it. On December 15, 2008, Michael Chertoff, then Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security claimed that 500 miles of fence had been built. Isn't this in conflict with American Border Patrol's figure of 40 miles?*
*A. Although congress originally mandated that the entire fence be double layered, Texas Senator Hutchison introduced and passed a Border Amendment which virtually gutted the original fence bill. The amendment required Chertoff to use double layer fence only in more smuggler troublesome areas but allowed the use of single layer fence where Chertoff determined it was adequate. But not only did Chertoff use single layer fence where he thought it adequate, he had vehicle barriers which do not impede pedestrian movement built in place of fencing and left existing inferior fencing in place in many locations. Chertoff came up with his 500 mile figure by adding any newly constructed double layer fencing (40 miles) plus newly constructed single layer fencing plus vehicle barriers plus existing fencing.*
*Watch ABP video which documents the "border fence scam."*

*Q. Hal, have you verified the border scam for yourself?*
*A. Yes. Watchdog America's satellite office is located within walking distance from the fence along the border separating Sonora, Mexico and Palominas, Arizona. Here is just one example of what Homeland Security isn't telling the public.*

*Q. So is the border fence a failure?*
*A. On the contrary. Although the Bush administration saw to it that the fence be designed and constructed to fail, to their's and the Obama administration surprise, it is working to a great extent despite its shortcomings and has caused the drug cartels to fight over remaining routes where there is no fence or inadequate fencing. So the Obama and the Democratic congress realizing that the fence works, they are determined not to finish it.*

*Q. Why hasn't the main stream media reported the truth on the border fence?*
*A. The only organization that has been reporting the truth on the border fence is American Border Patrol. It is no secret that the N.Y. Times, the L.A. Times, the Chicago Tribune and a myriad of other main stream news media are in lock step with President Obama and the majority of Democrats in congress who favor open borders. These media have enacted a virtual news blackout on American Border Patrol. *

*Q. Why do some people insist that a fence alone won't fix the problem?*
*A. They are right that a fence alone won't fix the (entire) problem. But that doesn't mean that if you can't fix the entire problem all at once, that you shouldn't fix part of the problem to begin with. Wouldn't you expect a doctor to first stop the hemorrhaging from an opening in a patient's body before fixing the cause of the hemorrhaging?*

*Q. Won't a border fence offend Hispanics?*
*A. There should be no American offended by a fence to secure our country. American Hispanics are AMERICANS.*

*Q. Shouldn't our government work together with the Mexican government to more harmoniously construct a fence?*
*A. No. As American citizens, we influence our elected leaders to reflect political policies in our national interest. As American citizens, we can't influence by vote, Mexican foreign policy. Mexican politicos do not make policy in the interest of the U.S.*

*Q. With the facts presented in this Q. and A., Why would anyone be opposed to a border fence?*
*A. Let's be honest. The majority of those opposed to a border fence, really don't want it because they want the border open to illegals, who will be future Democrat voters whose demographics will render the Republican party extinct.*

*Q. So why would anyone in the federal government and the Department of Homeland Security be opposed to a border fence?*
*A.  Because the Obama administration and most Democrats know it works*


----------



## danielpalos

Upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure is more cost effective.  We can't afford to finance more Government, right wingers.


----------



## anynameyouwish

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux




Conservatives should start a GoFundMe page for their wall and stop demanding that everyone else pay for it.


----------



## BrokeLoser

anynameyouwish said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives should start a GoFundMe page for their wall and stop demanding that everyone else pay for it.
Click to expand...


We’ll do that as soon as you wetback lovers stop forcing us to spoon feed your foreign pet humans from the filthy south...fair enough?


----------



## Geaux4it

anynameyouwish said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives should start a GoFundMe page for their wall and stop demanding that everyone else pay for it.
Click to expand...

You mean, part of the 49% who pay taxes that disagree. The other 51% can fuck off

-Geaux


----------



## RealDave

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux



Trump's wall is foolish.  Anyone with a brain knows this.

It would not be cost effective.

Nothing else needs said.

I realize you Trumpettes think that Trump knows more than anyone the past 50 years  but I have news, Trump is an ignorant fool.


----------



## RealDave

BrokeLoser said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives should start a GoFundMe page for their wall and stop demanding that everyone else pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We’ll do that as soon as you wetback lovers stop forcing us to spoon feed your foreign pet humans from the filthy south...fair enough?
Click to expand...

Bigoted Fuck


----------



## RealDave

Grampa Murked U said:


> Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...
> 
> If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?


Are you going first?


----------



## RealDave

Thinker101 said:


> Understanding Border Fences for Dummies
> 
> *Why are advocates for illegal aliens opposed to a border fence?
> Because they know it works.
> FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT BORDER FENCES*
> 
> *Q. Can fences along the border impede the flow of hordes of aliens who cross the border illegally daily?
> A. Yes. Many successful fences to keep aliens and other types of intruders out have been built. In San Diego, the 14 mile double layer border fence led to a 97 percent decrease in apprehensions and a corresponding decrease in border crime from 1989 to present.*
> 
> *Israel’s border fence has been extraordinarily successful in keeping out potential infiltrators who are far more determined to cross the border than mere immigrants.*
> 
> *Even Saudi Arabia, one of the most vocal critics of Israel's "security fence" in the West Bank, has quietly emulated the Israeli example by erecting a barrier along its porous border with Yemen to prevent terrorists from entering.*
> 
> *Q. Won't border crossers simply go to where there is no fence?
> A. That's not an argument against a fence -- it's an argument for a fence across both of the ENTIRE borders (Canada and Mexico).*
> 
> *Q. Isn't a fence of such a large magnitude an enormously costly engineering nightmare?
> A. Building a complete double layer border fence across both borders is inexpensive child's play compared to American engineering feats such as the Panama Canal and Boulder Dam.*
> 
> *Q. Can a fence be put across all terrain such as mountains and rivers?
> A. No. There are some lengths across both borders where a fence is impractical to install. In some cases, a fence would act as a dam by trapping plants and brush when heavy rain waters or melting snow flows. But those unfenced lengths of rough terrain are natural barriers that aliens would not easily cross. Moreover, those impassable areas are more easily monitored by the border patrol with hi-tech unmanned lookout posts.*
> 
> *Q. Won't a border fence be environmentally unfriendly?
> A. A border fence can be built to minimize environmental problems. A fence will not only impede the flow of illegal aliens, but will also impede the flow of terrorists. Worrying about minor environmental problems at the border is like worrying about who will fix the potholes after an earthquake.*
> 
> *Q. Why do opponents of border fences compare it to the Great Wall of China saying that China's enemies still managed to enter china?
> A. Just as any border barrier will not prevent 100 percent of intruders from crossing it, the Great Wall of China did in fact keep China safe from large invading armies.*
> 
> *Q. Why do opponents of border fences compare it to the Berlin wall?
> A. Such a comparison is even an insult to the intelligence of dummies. When you build a wall to keep people in, that’s a prison. When you build a fence to keep people out, that’s securing your sovereignty. Would you compare a fence around your house to control who comes into your yard to the Berlin wall? Moreover, the proposal by congress was for building of a "fence," not a "wall."*
> 
> *Q. What's the difference between a fence and a wall?
> A. A wall is a thick solid structure through which you cannot see. A fence is a thin structure that you can see through to the other side.*
> 
> *Q. Wait a minute. Isn't the section of border fence which separates Naco, Mexico from Naco, Arizona one that you cannot see through?
> A. Yes. And there are many more border fences just like the Naco fence. Sometimes the government does stupid things like building fences through which the Border Patrol cannot see. Illegal crossers poke holes in the fence to watch for border patrol officers. When the coast is clear, they simply scale to the top on the Mexican side sometimes using ladders and drop down on the U.S. side sometimes with ropes. Successful border fences must be able to be seen through.*
> 
> *Speaking of government doing stupid things, this section of border fence which separates Douglas Arizona from Agua Prieta has the iron bar tips pointing away from Mexico. According to Rick Oltman of CAPS (Californians for Population Stabilization), when he asked a staffer at Arizona Senator John McCain's office why the tips were pointing towards the U.S., he was told that they didn't want to offend Mexico.*
> 
> *Q. Why not save all that money to build a physical fence by instead, building a "virtual" fence?
> A. There is no such thing as a virtual fence? A physical fence physically impedes aliens from crossing. A so called virtual fence does not. What is referred to as virtual fences, are video cameras and invisible arrays of sensors along the border. When a sensor is triggered, a display appears at the Border Patrol station which tells the station officers in real time when and where aliens are crossing. But effective physical fences also use detection apparatus.*
> 
> *Q. So what's wrong with a virtual fence?
> A. The problem at the border is not the inability to electronically detect intruders -- the problem is getting to them and arresting them once they are detected.*
> 
> *Large numbers of up to one hundred aliens can quickly cross an invisible virtual fence (the crossing of such groups are known as Bonzai charges). Intruders crossing a virtual fence are not aware that they have been detected and keep moving on at a rate of about two miles per hour. By the time the border patrol gets to the point of detection, the crossers aren't there. Thus, the arriving border patrol officers must radio for helicopter help to search the area. At the same time other border patrol resources are dispatched to other trails and paths that the crossers MIGHT use. The border patrol is usually successful in apprehending some of the group, but are too overwhelmed to apprehend all those in a large group. Smugglers know how the border patrol works, so while all border patrol resources in the area are being used going after just one group, other groups cross almost unnoticed.*
> 
> *With a physical fence, a large group is easily detected just as with a virtual fence, but it takes time to climb a fence. Thus, the border patrol can get to the fence in time to intercept most of the crossers.*
> 
> *Q. Why bother with a physical fence that apparently is easy to get over using a ladder and rope?
> A. Using a ladder and rope to get over a fence is not easy if the fence is a double layered fence as the 700 mile fence is supposed to be. With a double layered fence, a crosser would have to lift the ladder up with him to the top of the fence, lean it against the other side of the first layer, climb down the other side of the first layer and then repeat the process to climb the second layer and would have to leave the ladder behind. For a large group, two ladders would have to be in place -- one ladder against the first layer and second latter against the second layer. A large group would have to climb the first ladder, drop down on the other side of the first layer with a rope and repeat the process for the second layer. A large group trying to hurdle two layers of fence in single file, gives border patrol officers plenty of time to intercept all or most crossers.
> 
> Q. How much double layered fence has been built to date so far?*
> *A. ABP (American Border Patrol), a non-profit corporation, performed aerial surveillance of the fence construction progress from the time congress mandated it to the present. ABP has documented proof that only 40 miles of double layered fence has been built to date (July, 2014.)*
> 
> *Q. I don't get it. On December 15, 2008, Michael Chertoff, then Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security claimed that 500 miles of fence had been built. Isn't this in conflict with American Border Patrol's figure of 40 miles?
> A. Although congress originally mandated that the entire fence be double layered, Texas Senator Hutchison introduced and passed a Border Amendment which virtually gutted the original fence bill. The amendment required Chertoff to use double layer fence only in more smuggler troublesome areas but allowed the use of single layer fence where Chertoff determined it was adequate. But not only did Chertoff use single layer fence where he thought it adequate, he had vehicle barriers which do not impede pedestrian movement built in place of fencing and left existing inferior fencing in place in many locations. Chertoff came up with his 500 mile figure by adding any newly constructed double layer fencing (40 miles) plus newly constructed single layer fencing plus vehicle barriers plus existing fencing.
> Watch ABP video which documents the "border fence scam."*
> 
> *Q. Hal, have you verified the border scam for yourself?*
> *A. Yes. Watchdog America's satellite office is located within walking distance from the fence along the border separating Sonora, Mexico and Palominas, Arizona. Here is just one example of what Homeland Security isn't telling the public.*
> 
> *Q. So is the border fence a failure?*
> *A. On the contrary. Although the Bush administration saw to it that the fence be designed and constructed to fail, to their's and the Obama administration surprise, it is working to a great extent despite its shortcomings and has caused the drug cartels to fight over remaining routes where there is no fence or inadequate fencing. So the Obama and the Democratic congress realizing that the fence works, they are determined not to finish it.*
> 
> *Q. Why hasn't the main stream media reported the truth on the border fence?
> A. The only organization that has been reporting the truth on the border fence is American Border Patrol. It is no secret that the N.Y. Times, the L.A. Times, the Chicago Tribune and a myriad of other main stream news media are in lock step with President Obama and the majority of Democrats in congress who favor open borders. These media have enacted a virtual news blackout on American Border Patrol. *
> 
> *Q. Why do some people insist that a fence alone won't fix the problem?
> A. They are right that a fence alone won't fix the (entire) problem. But that doesn't mean that if you can't fix the entire problem all at once, that you shouldn't fix part of the problem to begin with. Wouldn't you expect a doctor to first stop the hemorrhaging from an opening in a patient's body before fixing the cause of the hemorrhaging?*
> 
> *Q. Won't a border fence offend Hispanics?
> A. There should be no American offended by a fence to secure our country. American Hispanics are AMERICANS.*
> 
> *Q. Shouldn't our government work together with the Mexican government to more harmoniously construct a fence?
> A. No. As American citizens, we influence our elected leaders to reflect political policies in our national interest. As American citizens, we can't influence by vote, Mexican foreign policy. Mexican politicos do not make policy in the interest of the U.S.*
> 
> *Q. With the facts presented in this Q. and A., Why would anyone be opposed to a border fence?
> A. Let's be honest. The majority of those opposed to a border fence, really don't want it because they want the border open to illegals, who will be future Democrat voters whose demographics will render the Republican party extinct.*
> 
> *Q. So why would anyone in the federal government and the Department of Homeland Security be opposed to a border fence?
> A.  Because the Obama administration and most Democrats know it works*



So, you don't know the difference between a fence and a forty foot wall?


----------



## BrokeLoser

RealDave said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's wall is foolish.  Anyone with a brain knows this.
> 
> It would not be cost effective.
> 
> Nothing else needs said.
> 
> I realize you Trumpettes think that Trump knows more than anyone the past 50 years  but I have news, Trump is an ignorant fool.
Click to expand...


Only ignorant fools are ignorant enough to call billionaires ignorant fools....haha


----------



## sartre play

Why cant any one consider that both sides of the disagreement have valued points, why does everything have to be my way or your way. do you honestly believe that half the population can be 100% wrong & the outer half 100% right about everything? that defies logic.  why is every thing about winning, and not about finding solutions that work well for the majority, why should either half get to decide what's best for all.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sartre play said:


> Why cant any one consider that both sides of the disagreement have valued points, why does everything have to be my way or your way. do you honestly believe that half the population can be 100% wrong & the outer half 100% right about everything? that defies logic.  why is every thing about winning, and not about finding solutions that work well for the majority, why should either half get to decide what's best for all.



So what is the middle ground between wall and no wall?  Half a wall?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

RealDave said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's wall is foolish.  Anyone with a brain knows this.
> 
> It would not be cost effective.
> 
> Nothing else needs said.
> 
> I realize you Trumpettes think that Trump knows more than anyone the past 50 years  but I have news, Trump is an ignorant fool.
Click to expand...



Trump isn't the only one: 

Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

anynameyouwish said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives should start a GoFundMe page for their wall and stop demanding that everyone else pay for it.
Click to expand...


So we should set up a Go Fund Me account for a wall, but have taxpayers keep paying for Planned Parenthood, NPR, PBS, Endowment for the Arts?  

Now constitutionally speaking, which one of these items are closer to what the document says government should provide?


----------



## oreo

bripat9643 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It won't work.*   You build a 1000 wall there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it as soon as it's built.
> 
> This 2-1/2 minute video at the end will describe the 240 tunnels they've already found in the San Diego region alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly to an alert.  Anything that can be seen can & will always be compromised.  Something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, because our technology is so primitive we won't be able to detect construction machinery creating such tunnels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're not getting a WALL, you just lost the House. If Republicans wouldn't fund it, the odds of a Democrat congress funding it is zero to NONE.
> 
> Why build a wall with technology to make certain that no one is digging underneath the piece of shit, when you can just use technology to keep them from crossing the border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There just isn't enough technology to stop them in an open border country like ours.  Step one is to build the wall; all our border patrols say that would be a huge help.  Then concentrate on keeping illegals out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you noticed how all the douchebags who oppose the wall also support granting amnesty to the 20 million illegals who are already here?
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  We can put a man on the moon, we can protect our borders with technology.

Watch it again. 2-1/2 minutes that will show you some tunnels. Then it will go into other video's of terrain, making a wall the most ineffective way of protecting the border. It would make for the most expensive, laughable boondoggle in the history of this nation.

Does the Border Fence work?

Which is why a full house of Republicans have REFUSED to fund Trump's worthless POS WALL.


----------



## toobfreak

Timmy said:


> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .




Right on, Timmy!  Spending 20 billion to stop a problem that costs us 120 billion in court costs, benefits, agents, courts, crime, healthcare, housing, and many other things is a TOTAL waste of money!  We need to keep those borders open, keep that 120 billion bleeding us every year and on top of that, spend yet MORE money on more agents, courts and judges as a venue for even more attorneys to argue their case to keep them here!   Glad to know you are of the school of math where 50+50 = -75.  You make liberals proud.


----------



## toobfreak

candycorn said:


> Most illegal immigration does not come over the border by foot.



No?  What do they do, fly in on Dumbo's wings?


----------



## Geaux4it

oreo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> It won't work.*   You build a 1000 wall there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it as soon as it's built.
> 
> This 2-1/2 minute video at the end will describe the 240 tunnels they've already found in the San Diego region alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly to an alert.  Anything that can be seen can & will always be compromised.  Something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, because our technology is so primitive we won't be able to detect construction machinery creating such tunnels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're not getting a WALL, you just lost the House. If Republicans wouldn't fund it, the odds of a Democrat congress funding it is zero to NONE.
> 
> Why build a wall with technology to make certain that no one is digging underneath the piece of shit, when you can just use technology to keep them from crossing the border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There just isn't enough technology to stop them in an open border country like ours.  Step one is to build the wall; all our border patrols say that would be a huge help.  Then concentrate on keeping illegals out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you noticed how all the douchebags who oppose the wall also support granting amnesty to the 20 million illegals who are already here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  We can put a man on the moon, we can protect our borders with technology.
> 
> Watch it again. 2-1/2 minutes that will show you some tunnels. Then it will go into other video's of terrain, making a wall the most ineffective way of protecting the border. It would make for the most expensive, laughable boondoggle in the history of this nation.
> 
> Does the Border Fence work?
> 
> Which is why a full house of Republicans have REFUSED to fund Trump's worthless POS WALL.
Click to expand...

Yes they work. Yuma is proof that a wall reduces illegal crossings

-Geaux

*Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*

The bipartisan Secure Fence Act of 2006 — supported by then-Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and others — mandated the construction of hundreds of additional miles of secure fencing and infrastructure investments. Yuma sector was one of the first areas to receive infrastructure investments.


We built new infrastructure along the border east and west of the San Luis Arizona Port of Entry in 2006. The existing fence was quickly lengthened, and we added second and third layers to that fencing in urban areas. Lighting, roads and increased surveillance were added to aid agents patrolling the border.

Although there is still work to do, the border in Yuma sector today is more secure because of this investment. Even under lax enforcement standards, apprehensions in fiscal year 2016 were roughly a 10th of what they were in FY 2005 — and are on track to be even lower this year. Crime has significantly decreased in the Yuma area, and smugglers now look for other less difficult areas of the border to cross — often areas without fencing.

Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.


----------



## LeftofLeft

Timmy said:


> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .



Do both.... build the wall and enforce companies who hire illegals. Further, facilitate legal immigration.


----------



## BrokeLoser

sartre play said:


> Why cant any one consider that both sides of the disagreement have valued points, why does everything have to be my way or your way. do you honestly believe that half the population can be 100% wrong & the outer half 100% right about everything? that defies logic.  why is every thing about winning, and not about finding solutions that work well for the majority, why should either half get to decide what's best for all.



I’m pretty sure the debate isn’t necessarily all about the Wall...I’d say more than anything it’s perplexing to most that we have people, so called citizens on our soil whom do not respect our sovereignty, our laws and the good Americans funding Mexico and all their filthy rejects.
Good folks find it very disappointing that we have to live elbow to elbow with anyone illegitimate enough to put the needs of foreign thirdworlders ahead of our nations laws and values.


----------



## oreo

Geaux4it said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, because our technology is so primitive we won't be able to detect construction machinery creating such tunnels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not getting a WALL, you just lost the House. If Republicans wouldn't fund it, the odds of a Democrat congress funding it is zero to NONE.
> 
> Why build a wall with technology to make certain that no one is digging underneath the piece of shit, when you can just use technology to keep them from crossing the border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There just isn't enough technology to stop them in an open border country like ours.  Step one is to build the wall; all our border patrols say that would be a huge help.  Then concentrate on keeping illegals out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you noticed how all the douchebags who oppose the wall also support granting amnesty to the 20 million illegals who are already here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  We can put a man on the moon, we can protect our borders with technology.
> 
> Watch it again. 2-1/2 minutes that will show you some tunnels. Then it will go into other video's of terrain, making a wall the most ineffective way of protecting the border. It would make for the most expensive, laughable boondoggle in the history of this nation.
> 
> Does the Border Fence work?
> 
> Which is why a full house of Republicans have REFUSED to fund Trump's worthless POS WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they work. Yuma is proof that a wall reduces illegal crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> *Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
> 
> The bipartisan Secure Fence Act of 2006 — supported by then-Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and others — mandated the construction of hundreds of additional miles of secure fencing and infrastructure investments. Yuma sector was one of the first areas to receive infrastructure investments.
> 
> 
> We built new infrastructure along the border east and west of the San Luis Arizona Port of Entry in 2006. The existing fence was quickly lengthened, and we added second and third layers to that fencing in urban areas. Lighting, roads and increased surveillance were added to aid agents patrolling the border.
> 
> Although there is still work to do, the border in Yuma sector today is more secure because of this investment. Even under lax enforcement standards, apprehensions in fiscal year 2016 were roughly a 10th of what they were in FY 2005 — and are on track to be even lower this year. Crime has significantly decreased in the Yuma area, and smugglers now look for other less difficult areas of the border to cross — often areas without fencing.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
Click to expand...


The 1000 mile wall that Mexico was going to pay for--is no more!   If you can't get a Republican full house to approve funds for the wall---the odds of a Democrat house agreeing to fund it is zero to none.  

Especially when the American public is overwhelming against it.



> Donald Trump has vowed that there will be a wall on the United States’ border with Mexico if and when he is president — “100 percent,” as he put it to Sean Hannity on Tuesday. But the percentage of Americans backing the edifice in a new Pew Research Center study on attitudes about immigration released Thursday is *far lower: 36 percent*. More than six in 10 — *61 percent — of the thousands of adults surveyed, said they oppose the construction of a wall along the entire border with Mexico,* as Trump has proposed throughout his campaign. And 34 percent of voters identifying themselves as Republican or leaning toward the GOP said they opposed the wall, with 63 percent supporting.


Pew study: Majority of Americans still oppose Trump's wall

This issue is not even worth talking about right now.


----------



## bripat9643

oreo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not getting a WALL, you just lost the House. If Republicans wouldn't fund it, the odds of a Democrat congress funding it is zero to NONE.
> 
> Why build a wall with technology to make certain that no one is digging underneath the piece of shit, when you can just use technology to keep them from crossing the border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There just isn't enough technology to stop them in an open border country like ours.  Step one is to build the wall; all our border patrols say that would be a huge help.  Then concentrate on keeping illegals out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you noticed how all the douchebags who oppose the wall also support granting amnesty to the 20 million illegals who are already here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  We can put a man on the moon, we can protect our borders with technology.
> 
> Watch it again. 2-1/2 minutes that will show you some tunnels. Then it will go into other video's of terrain, making a wall the most ineffective way of protecting the border. It would make for the most expensive, laughable boondoggle in the history of this nation.
> 
> Does the Border Fence work?
> 
> Which is why a full house of Republicans have REFUSED to fund Trump's worthless POS WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they work. Yuma is proof that a wall reduces illegal crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> *Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
> 
> The bipartisan Secure Fence Act of 2006 — supported by then-Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and others — mandated the construction of hundreds of additional miles of secure fencing and infrastructure investments. Yuma sector was one of the first areas to receive infrastructure investments.
> 
> 
> We built new infrastructure along the border east and west of the San Luis Arizona Port of Entry in 2006. The existing fence was quickly lengthened, and we added second and third layers to that fencing in urban areas. Lighting, roads and increased surveillance were added to aid agents patrolling the border.
> 
> Although there is still work to do, the border in Yuma sector today is more secure because of this investment. Even under lax enforcement standards, apprehensions in fiscal year 2016 were roughly a 10th of what they were in FY 2005 — and are on track to be even lower this year. Crime has significantly decreased in the Yuma area, and smugglers now look for other less difficult areas of the border to cross — often areas without fencing.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 1000 mile wall that Mexico was going to pay for--is no more!   If you can't get a Republican full house to approve funds for the wall---the odds of a Democrat house agreeing to fund it is zero to none.
> 
> Especially when the American public is overwhelming against it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump has vowed that there will be a wall on the United States’ border with Mexico if and when he is president — “100 percent,” as he put it to Sean Hannity on Tuesday. But the percentage of Americans backing the edifice in a new Pew Research Center study on attitudes about immigration released Thursday is *far lower: 36 percent*. More than six in 10 — *61 percent — of the thousands of adults surveyed, said they oppose the construction of a wall along the entire border with Mexico,* as Trump has proposed throughout his campaign. And 34 percent of voters identifying themselves as Republican or leaning toward the GOP said they opposed the wall, with 63 percent supporting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pew study: Majority of Americans still oppose Trump's wall
> 
> This issue is not even worth talking about right now.
Click to expand...

They oppose construction of the wall "*along the entire border with Mexico"  *That doesn't mean they oppose construction of a smaller portion of that.

In other words, you are a fucking liar.


----------



## Care4all

I don't think a wall is wrong....  I think building one across the whole southern border is wrong and cost prohibitive, but I do think we need to rebuild the walls near heavy crossing points, which seem to be shabby...  like the one near Tijuana...  videos showed how shabby parts of it were....  they are still likely going to be able to cross over it...but it will slow them down...  giving time for border patrol to catch them (fingers crossed)  or even under it... unless somehow it is technically able to detect such tunnels...a ''Smart'' wall, so to say...


----------



## Wyatt earp

nat4900 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> East Germany's  leader, Walter Ulbricht, once stated the same EXACT question as your thread's title.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for him
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .....and, eventually.......
Click to expand...



Only Nat could try to compare the two.


.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Timmy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...
> 
> If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?
> 
> 
> 
> And righies say gun control won't stop them all.
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what we said is disarming law abiding citizens will only empower the criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  When you disarm the general public, criminals will not obey any new gun laws.  Therefore what you end up with is a society where only the police and criminals have guns and nobody else does.  That's been our argument all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are people banning guns ?  Typical gun nut lies .
Click to expand...



In Chicago for years ..



But you refuse to acknowledge it


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Care4all said:


> I don't think a wall is wrong....  I think building one across the whole southern border is wrong and cost prohibitive, but I do think we need to rebuild the walls near heavy crossing points, which seem to be shabby...  like the one near Tijuana...  videos showed how shabby parts of it were....  they are still likely going to be able to cross over it...but it will slow them down...  giving time for border patrol to catch them (fingers crossed)  or even under it... unless somehow it is technically able to detect such tunnels...a ''Smart'' wall, so to say...



Well, your people are against building a wall anywhere.  They are against slowing down illegals coming into this country along with dangerous drugs that kill over 60,000 Americans a year.


----------



## Lesh

LeftofLeft said:


> Do both.... build the wall and enforce companies who hire illegals. Further, facilitate legal immigration.



I frankly don't care if you waste money on the former, it's not my land you will be confiscating...as long as you do the latter...which you won't


----------



## bripat9643

Care4all said:


> I don't think a wall is wrong....  I think building one across the whole southern border is wrong and cost prohibitive, but I do think we need to rebuild the walls near heavy crossing points, which seem to be shabby...  like the one near Tijuana...  videos showed how shabby parts of it were....  they are still likely going to be able to cross over it...but it will slow them down...  giving time for border patrol to catch them (fingers crossed)  or even under it... unless somehow it is technically able to detect such tunnels...a ''Smart'' wall, so to say...


The cost of the wall is .01% of the  annual budget.  Medicare for everyone?  $1.5 trillion/yr. Which one does the snowflake moron believe to be too expensive?


----------



## Claudette

bripat9643 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think a wall is wrong....  I think building one across the whole southern border is wrong and cost prohibitive, but I do think we need to rebuild the walls near heavy crossing points, which seem to be shabby...  like the one near Tijuana...  videos showed how shabby parts of it were....  they are still likely going to be able to cross over it...but it will slow them down...  giving time for border patrol to catch them (fingers crossed)  or even under it... unless somehow it is technically able to detect such tunnels...a ''Smart'' wall, so to say...
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of the wall is .01% of the  annual budget.  Medicare for everyone?  $1.5 trillion/yr. Which one does the snowflake moron believe to be too expensive?
Click to expand...


Not to mention the 300 billion illegals cost we tax payers every year.

Build the wall.


----------



## The Original Tree

*The Greatest Civilizations in History built walls to extend their lifespans and extend their influence in their regions.

Building a wall not only makes sense from a security standpoint, but also from a political standpoint and economically.

American Culture is what makes America a wealthy nation, and a land of opportunity.

Importing Foreign Cultures that promote Socialism which uses deficit spending to expand their Social Safety nets will eventually make America a land of want.  

Once you crush The American Dream with burdensome taxes, deficit spending, and a fractured disparate people and a far too large Government, you crush America under the weight of it's own promised obligations leveraged on the backs of those who pay taxes.

A People Divided will fall.  E Pluribus Unum is the only way to ensure Freedom.

When the lash comes upon The American people and Pharaoh  asks The People to "Make Bricks without Straw" then what shall you do?

It is already too late once you realize that the yoke of economic enslavement is upon your necks.*


----------



## CowboyTed

Geaux4it said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> Why Timmy, why is it a better use of funds?
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Look at this:

Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels - Wikipedia

This is over less than 9 miles... Mexico has far more machinery and resources at their disposal.  As soon as you go 50ft down no radar can pick you up.. The IDF (Israelis) have used everything and again only 9 miles... They can drive cars under the border in Mexico, there biggest problem is hitting something that is already there...

This is the border:





That bit in the middle belongs to Israel... Full Buffer zone, Armed to the teeth military guards and still pretty powerless to stop them...


----------



## Care4all

Claudette said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think a wall is wrong....  I think building one across the whole southern border is wrong and cost prohibitive, but I do think we need to rebuild the walls near heavy crossing points, which seem to be shabby...  like the one near Tijuana...  videos showed how shabby parts of it were....  they are still likely going to be able to cross over it...but it will slow them down...  giving time for border patrol to catch them (fingers crossed)  or even under it... unless somehow it is technically able to detect such tunnels...a ''Smart'' wall, so to say...
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of the wall is .01% of the  annual budget.  Medicare for everyone?  $1.5 trillion/yr. Which one does the snowflake moron believe to be too expensive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention the 300 billion illegals cost we tax payers every year.
> 
> Build the wall.
Click to expand...

simply pulled out of thin air....  they do not cost us 300 billion a year....  a totally extreme exaggeration...  without the amount they add to the economy


----------



## Thinker101

Care4all said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think a wall is wrong....  I think building one across the whole southern border is wrong and cost prohibitive, but I do think we need to rebuild the walls near heavy crossing points, which seem to be shabby...  like the one near Tijuana...  videos showed how shabby parts of it were....  they are still likely going to be able to cross over it...but it will slow them down...  giving time for border patrol to catch them (fingers crossed)  or even under it... unless somehow it is technically able to detect such tunnels...a ''Smart'' wall, so to say...
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of the wall is .01% of the  annual budget.  Medicare for everyone?  $1.5 trillion/yr. Which one does the snowflake moron believe to be too expensive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention the 300 billion illegals cost we tax payers every year.
> 
> Build the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply pulled out of thin air....  they do not cost us 300 billion a year....  a totally extreme exaggeration...  without the amount they add to the economy
Click to expand...


Yeah, $116 Billion sounds so much better.  Although, the head-count appears to be way under-valued, so $300 may be an accurate number...dumbass.
The Cost of Illegal Immigration to US Taxpayers | FAIR


----------



## danielpalos

Geaux4it said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, because our technology is so primitive we won't be able to detect construction machinery creating such tunnels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not getting a WALL, you just lost the House. If Republicans wouldn't fund it, the odds of a Democrat congress funding it is zero to NONE.
> 
> Why build a wall with technology to make certain that no one is digging underneath the piece of shit, when you can just use technology to keep them from crossing the border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There just isn't enough technology to stop them in an open border country like ours.  Step one is to build the wall; all our border patrols say that would be a huge help.  Then concentrate on keeping illegals out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you noticed how all the douchebags who oppose the wall also support granting amnesty to the 20 million illegals who are already here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  We can put a man on the moon, we can protect our borders with technology.
> 
> Watch it again. 2-1/2 minutes that will show you some tunnels. Then it will go into other video's of terrain, making a wall the most ineffective way of protecting the border. It would make for the most expensive, laughable boondoggle in the history of this nation.
> 
> Does the Border Fence work?
> 
> Which is why a full house of Republicans have REFUSED to fund Trump's worthless POS WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they work. Yuma is proof that a wall reduces illegal crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> *Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
> 
> The bipartisan Secure Fence Act of 2006 — supported by then-Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and others — mandated the construction of hundreds of additional miles of secure fencing and infrastructure investments. Yuma sector was one of the first areas to receive infrastructure investments.
> 
> 
> We built new infrastructure along the border east and west of the San Luis Arizona Port of Entry in 2006. The existing fence was quickly lengthened, and we added second and third layers to that fencing in urban areas. Lighting, roads and increased surveillance were added to aid agents patrolling the border.
> 
> Although there is still work to do, the border in Yuma sector today is more secure because of this investment. Even under lax enforcement standards, apprehensions in fiscal year 2016 were roughly a 10th of what they were in FY 2005 — and are on track to be even lower this year. Crime has significantly decreased in the Yuma area, and smugglers now look for other less difficult areas of the border to cross — often areas without fencing.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
Click to expand...

Too bad it is like the anti-federalists with our Bill of Rights.

Needing a wall means our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are Worthless.


----------



## Claudette

Care4all said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think a wall is wrong....  I think building one across the whole southern border is wrong and cost prohibitive, but I do think we need to rebuild the walls near heavy crossing points, which seem to be shabby...  like the one near Tijuana...  videos showed how shabby parts of it were....  they are still likely going to be able to cross over it...but it will slow them down...  giving time for border patrol to catch them (fingers crossed)  or even under it... unless somehow it is technically able to detect such tunnels...a ''Smart'' wall, so to say...
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of the wall is .01% of the  annual budget.  Medicare for everyone?  $1.5 trillion/yr. Which one does the snowflake moron believe to be too expensive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention the 300 billion illegals cost we tax payers every year.
> 
> Build the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply pulled out of thin air....  they do not cost us 300 billion a year....  a totally extreme exaggeration...  without the amount they add to the economy
Click to expand...


Nope. I looked it up and you can to.


----------



## Thinker101

CowboyTed said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> Why Timmy, why is it a better use of funds?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at this:
> 
> Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels - Wikipedia
> 
> This is over less than 9 miles... Mexico has far more machinery and resources at their disposal.  As soon as you go 50ft down no radar can pick you up.. The IDF (Israelis) have used everything and again only 9 miles... They can drive cars under the border in Mexico, there biggest problem is hitting something that is already there...
> 
> This is the border:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That bit in the middle belongs to Israel... Full Buffer zone, Armed to the teeth military guards and still pretty powerless to stop them...
Click to expand...


Hmmm, 50ft down.  You realize 50ft is a long way, right?


----------



## Claudette

Thinker101 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think a wall is wrong....  I think building one across the whole southern border is wrong and cost prohibitive, but I do think we need to rebuild the walls near heavy crossing points, which seem to be shabby...  like the one near Tijuana...  videos showed how shabby parts of it were....  they are still likely going to be able to cross over it...but it will slow them down...  giving time for border patrol to catch them (fingers crossed)  or even under it... unless somehow it is technically able to detect such tunnels...a ''Smart'' wall, so to say...
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of the wall is .01% of the  annual budget.  Medicare for everyone?  $1.5 trillion/yr. Which one does the snowflake moron believe to be too expensive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention the 300 billion illegals cost we tax payers every year.
> 
> Build the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply pulled out of thin air....  they do not cost us 300 billion a year....  a totally extreme exaggeration...  without the amount they add to the economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, $116 Billion sounds so much better.  Although, the head-count appears to be way under-valued, so $300 may be an accurate number...dumbass.
> The Cost of Illegal Immigration to US Taxpayers | FAIR
Click to expand...


Yup. That's what I thought it was to begin with. Someone on the board said it was 300 billion.

Sure enough when I looked that's what it costs we the tax payers. 300 billion, with a B, a year.


----------



## CowboyTed

Geaux4it said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a perfect solution but unarguably it would reduce crossings
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Not really and it would 

redirect resources
Cause wildlife migration disaster
Spilt communities and businesses
Maintenance will be hell
In reality if someone wants to get into America this won't stop them. There is plenty of places along the border where US and Mexicans are neighbours popping over and back...

Honestly if you want to actually stop Illegal Immigration just look at the root problem. Mexico has net emigration but leave that for the moment...

Lets look at those Asylum Seekers for Honduras. These people left their family and community, their home, their property, etc... to walk thousands of miles to try and get into a country which doesn't want them with the only possessions they have they are carrying. 
Seriously, what makes someone that desperate? (Would that person suddenly be deterred by a wall?)

Then lets look at Honduras as a country:

Their political leadership for decades was heavily influence/selected by US who fighting proxy wars in the area.
US demand for Cocaine (failed drug war) has caused a huge amount of Black money to riddle the country with corruption
US supply of Arms has it that if you aren't taking a bribe then you are dead or your family will be killed off one by one
Gangs like MS-13 and 18th (which were set up in the US) have huge control and are well financed by this drug trade.
MS-13 and 18th also control Mexico as well so while you escape through Mexico you are not free fro them.
This is why the wall won't work.. You think you are arguing with someone that has a choice, if you had husband killed in gang warfare and the local gang leader wants you 10yr old son as a runner and you can't let your 12yr old daughter out as she will be kidnapped and trafficked for sex, but they could raid your house and take her anyway. Think of the fear they live in..

I am sorry but the US holds a lot of responsibility for what is going on south of its border. If the CIA was trying to destabilise these countries they could do it better than the US has already done so...


----------



## Lesh

Claudette said:


> Yup. That's what I thought it was to begin with. Someone on the board said it was 300 billion.
> 
> Sure enough when I looked that's what it costs we the tax payers. 300 billion, with a B, a year.



You're dumber than fuck

Does illegal immigration cost the United States more than $100 billion a year?

CATO...not exactly a liberal think tank...puts the cost at between 3-30 billion and notes that this ignores the positive effect of their labor and spending.

Even FAIR (a notoriously anti-immigrant org) puts it at a THIRD of your idiotic claim


----------



## danielpalos

Thinker101 said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> Why Timmy, why is it a better use of funds?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at this:
> 
> Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels - Wikipedia
> 
> This is over less than 9 miles... Mexico has far more machinery and resources at their disposal.  As soon as you go 50ft down no radar can pick you up.. The IDF (Israelis) have used everything and again only 9 miles... They can drive cars under the border in Mexico, there biggest problem is hitting something that is already there...
> 
> This is the border:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That bit in the middle belongs to Israel... Full Buffer zone, Armed to the teeth military guards and still pretty powerless to stop them...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm, 50ft down.  You realize 50ft is a long way, right?
Click to expand...

Wingsuits and "trebuchets"?


----------



## Thinker101

danielpalos said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> Why Timmy, why is it a better use of funds?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at this:
> 
> Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels - Wikipedia
> 
> This is over less than 9 miles... Mexico has far more machinery and resources at their disposal.  As soon as you go 50ft down no radar can pick you up.. The IDF (Israelis) have used everything and again only 9 miles... They can drive cars under the border in Mexico, there biggest problem is hitting something that is already there...
> 
> This is the border:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That bit in the middle belongs to Israel... Full Buffer zone, Armed to the teeth military guards and still pretty powerless to stop them...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm, 50ft down.  You realize 50ft is a long way, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wingsuits and "trebuchets"?
Click to expand...


Yeah, those don't work too well underground.


----------



## TheDude

Because it costs like 8 billion dollars to build and will only last well over a century.  Compare that to illegal immigrants who only cost us 50 billion annually.


----------



## danielpalos

TheDude said:


> Because it costs like 8 billion dollars to build and will only last well over a century.  Compare that to illegal immigrants who only cost us 50 billion annually.


Lousy capitalists lose money with a Commerce Clause; why does the right wing allege to be for Capitalism?


----------



## oreo

danielpalos said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not getting a WALL, you just lost the House. If Republicans wouldn't fund it, the odds of a Democrat congress funding it is zero to NONE.
> 
> Why build a wall with technology to make certain that no one is digging underneath the piece of shit, when you can just use technology to keep them from crossing the border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There just isn't enough technology to stop them in an open border country like ours.  Step one is to build the wall; all our border patrols say that would be a huge help.  Then concentrate on keeping illegals out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you noticed how all the douchebags who oppose the wall also support granting amnesty to the 20 million illegals who are already here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  We can put a man on the moon, we can protect our borders with technology.
> 
> Watch it again. 2-1/2 minutes that will show you some tunnels. Then it will go into other video's of terrain, making a wall the most ineffective way of protecting the border. It would make for the most expensive, laughable boondoggle in the history of this nation.
> 
> Does the Border Fence work?
> 
> Which is why a full house of Republicans have REFUSED to fund Trump's worthless POS WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they work. Yuma is proof that a wall reduces illegal crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> *Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
> 
> The bipartisan Secure Fence Act of 2006 — supported by then-Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and others — mandated the construction of hundreds of additional miles of secure fencing and infrastructure investments. Yuma sector was one of the first areas to receive infrastructure investments.
> 
> 
> We built new infrastructure along the border east and west of the San Luis Arizona Port of Entry in 2006. The existing fence was quickly lengthened, and we added second and third layers to that fencing in urban areas. Lighting, roads and increased surveillance were added to aid agents patrolling the border.
> 
> Although there is still work to do, the border in Yuma sector today is more secure because of this investment. Even under lax enforcement standards, apprehensions in fiscal year 2016 were roughly a 10th of what they were in FY 2005 — and are on track to be even lower this year. Crime has significantly decreased in the Yuma area, and smugglers now look for other less difficult areas of the border to cross — often areas without fencing.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad it is like the anti-federalists with our Bill of Rights.
> 
> Needing a wall means our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are Worthless.
Click to expand...


It's a mute point now.  Paul Ryan basically told Trump during the campaign that if Mexico refused to pay for his wall Trump would have to come up with other means to fund it.

Existing trade deals are written signed into law bills  that also need congressional approval to be changed or rewritten.

So Trump never really had  leverage over Mexico to pay for the wall.


----------



## danielpalos

oreo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There just isn't enough technology to stop them in an open border country like ours.  Step one is to build the wall; all our border patrols say that would be a huge help.  Then concentrate on keeping illegals out.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed how all the douchebags who oppose the wall also support granting amnesty to the 20 million illegals who are already here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  We can put a man on the moon, we can protect our borders with technology.
> 
> Watch it again. 2-1/2 minutes that will show you some tunnels. Then it will go into other video's of terrain, making a wall the most ineffective way of protecting the border. It would make for the most expensive, laughable boondoggle in the history of this nation.
> 
> Does the Border Fence work?
> 
> Which is why a full house of Republicans have REFUSED to fund Trump's worthless POS WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they work. Yuma is proof that a wall reduces illegal crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> *Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
> 
> The bipartisan Secure Fence Act of 2006 — supported by then-Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and others — mandated the construction of hundreds of additional miles of secure fencing and infrastructure investments. Yuma sector was one of the first areas to receive infrastructure investments.
> 
> 
> We built new infrastructure along the border east and west of the San Luis Arizona Port of Entry in 2006. The existing fence was quickly lengthened, and we added second and third layers to that fencing in urban areas. Lighting, roads and increased surveillance were added to aid agents patrolling the border.
> 
> Although there is still work to do, the border in Yuma sector today is more secure because of this investment. Even under lax enforcement standards, apprehensions in fiscal year 2016 were roughly a 10th of what they were in FY 2005 — and are on track to be even lower this year. Crime has significantly decreased in the Yuma area, and smugglers now look for other less difficult areas of the border to cross — often areas without fencing.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad it is like the anti-federalists with our Bill of Rights.
> 
> Needing a wall means our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are Worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a mute point now.  Paul Ryan basically told Trump during the campaign that if Mexico refused to pay for his wall Trump would have to come up with other means to fund it.
> 
> Existing trade deals are written signed into law bills  that also need congressional approval to be changed or rewritten.
> 
> So Trump never really had  leverage over Mexico to pay for the wall.
Click to expand...

The economic point is, those alleged wars Cost a lot of money.  Spending is a problem for Congress.


----------



## Geaux4it

CowboyTed said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a perfect solution but unarguably it would reduce crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really and it would
> 
> redirect resources
> Cause wildlife migration disaster
> Spilt communities and businesses
> Maintenance will be hell
> *In reality if someone wants to get into America this won't stop them.* There is plenty of places along the border where US and Mexicans are neighbours popping over and back...
> 
> Honestly if you want to actually stop Illegal Immigration just look at the root problem. Mexico has net emigration but leave that for the moment...
> 
> Lets look at those Asylum Seekers for Honduras. These people left their family and community, their home, their property, etc... to walk thousands of miles to try and get into a country which doesn't want them with the only possessions they have they are carrying.
> Seriously, what makes someone that desperate? (Would that person suddenly be deterred by a wall?)
> 
> Then lets look at Honduras as a country:
> 
> Their political leadership for decades was heavily influence/selected by US who fighting proxy wars in the area.
> US demand for Cocaine (failed drug war) has caused a huge amount of Black money to riddle the country with corruption
> US supply of Arms has it that if you aren't taking a bribe then you are dead or your family will be killed off one by one
> Gangs like MS-13 and 18th (which were set up in the US) have huge control and are well financed by this drug trade.
> MS-13 and 18th also control Mexico as well so while you escape through Mexico you are not free fro them.
> This is why the wall won't work.. You think you are arguing with someone that has a choice, if you had husband killed in gang warfare and the local gang leader wants you 10yr old son as a runner and you can't let your 12yr old daughter out as she will be kidnapped and trafficked for sex, but they could raid your house and take her anyway. Think of the fear they live in..
> 
> I am sorry but the US holds a lot of responsibility for what is going on south of its border. If the CIA was trying to destabilise these countries they could do it better than the US has already done so...
Click to expand...


Just like if somebody wants to shoot someone with a gun, then laws to prevent such, wont stop them..... right? So why do we need current and more gun laws?

-Geaux


----------



## Wyatt earp

Lesh said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. That's what I thought it was to begin with. Someone on the board said it was 300 billion.
> 
> Sure enough when I looked that's what it costs we the tax payers. 300 billion, with a B, a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're dumber than fuck
> 
> Does illegal immigration cost the United States more than $100 billion a year?
> 
> CATO...not exactly a liberal think tank...puts the cost at between 3-30 billion and notes that this ignores the positive effect of their labor and spending.
> 
> Even FAIR (a notoriously anti-immigrant org) puts it at a THIRD of your idiotic claim
Click to expand...



Why do you love exploiting the brown man?



.


----------



## Lesh

bear513 said:


> Why do you love exploiting the brown man?



Why do you love saying stupid shit and making bullshit claims?

Oh...never mind. I already know.

You're a Trumper


----------



## Wyatt earp

Lesh said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you love exploiting the brown man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you love saying stupid shit and making bullshit claims?
> 
> Oh...never mind. I already know.
> 
> You're a Trumper
Click to expand...


So in your world it's not true?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

oreo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There just isn't enough technology to stop them in an open border country like ours.  Step one is to build the wall; all our border patrols say that would be a huge help.  Then concentrate on keeping illegals out.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed how all the douchebags who oppose the wall also support granting amnesty to the 20 million illegals who are already here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  We can put a man on the moon, we can protect our borders with technology.
> 
> Watch it again. 2-1/2 minutes that will show you some tunnels. Then it will go into other video's of terrain, making a wall the most ineffective way of protecting the border. It would make for the most expensive, laughable boondoggle in the history of this nation.
> 
> Does the Border Fence work?
> 
> Which is why a full house of Republicans have REFUSED to fund Trump's worthless POS WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they work. Yuma is proof that a wall reduces illegal crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> *Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
> 
> The bipartisan Secure Fence Act of 2006 — supported by then-Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and others — mandated the construction of hundreds of additional miles of secure fencing and infrastructure investments. Yuma sector was one of the first areas to receive infrastructure investments.
> 
> 
> We built new infrastructure along the border east and west of the San Luis Arizona Port of Entry in 2006. The existing fence was quickly lengthened, and we added second and third layers to that fencing in urban areas. Lighting, roads and increased surveillance were added to aid agents patrolling the border.
> 
> Although there is still work to do, the border in Yuma sector today is more secure because of this investment. Even under lax enforcement standards, apprehensions in fiscal year 2016 were roughly a 10th of what they were in FY 2005 — and are on track to be even lower this year. Crime has significantly decreased in the Yuma area, and smugglers now look for other less difficult areas of the border to cross — often areas without fencing.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad it is like the anti-federalists with our Bill of Rights.
> 
> Needing a wall means our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are Worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a mute point now.  Paul Ryan basically told Trump during the campaign that if Mexico refused to pay for his wall Trump would have to come up with other means to fund it.
> 
> Existing trade deals are written signed into law bills  that also need congressional approval to be changed or rewritten.
> 
> So Trump never really had  leverage over Mexico to pay for the wall.
Click to expand...


Well compare it to Commie Care.  We were promised that it would save American families $2,500 a year in premiums.  We were promised we could keep our doctor and care facilities.  We were promised we could keep our insurance.  

None of these things happened.  Piglosi said they had to pass the bill to find out what was in it. 

But now that it's our agenda, keep bringing up how Mexico isn't paying up front for the wall.  Why can't we pass a bill for a wall to find out what's in it like ObamaCare?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

CowboyTed said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a perfect solution but unarguably it would reduce crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really and it would
> 
> redirect resources
> Cause wildlife migration disaster
> Spilt communities and businesses
> Maintenance will be hell
> In reality if someone wants to get into America this won't stop them. There is plenty of places along the border where US and Mexicans are neighbours popping over and back...
> 
> Honestly if you want to actually stop Illegal Immigration just look at the root problem. Mexico has net emigration but leave that for the moment...
> 
> Lets look at those Asylum Seekers for Honduras. These people left their family and community, their home, their property, etc... to walk thousands of miles to try and get into a country which doesn't want them with the only possessions they have they are carrying.
> Seriously, what makes someone that desperate? (Would that person suddenly be deterred by a wall?)
> 
> Then lets look at Honduras as a country:
> 
> Their political leadership for decades was heavily influence/selected by US who fighting proxy wars in the area.
> US demand for Cocaine (failed drug war) has caused a huge amount of Black money to riddle the country with corruption
> US supply of Arms has it that if you aren't taking a bribe then you are dead or your family will be killed off one by one
> Gangs like MS-13 and 18th (which were set up in the US) have huge control and are well financed by this drug trade.
> MS-13 and 18th also control Mexico as well so while you escape through Mexico you are not free fro them.
> This is why the wall won't work.. You think you are arguing with someone that has a choice, if you had husband killed in gang warfare and the local gang leader wants you 10yr old son as a runner and you can't let your 12yr old daughter out as she will be kidnapped and trafficked for sex, but they could raid your house and take her anyway. Think of the fear they live in..
> 
> I am sorry but the US holds a lot of responsibility for what is going on south of its border. If the CIA was trying to destabilise these countries they could do it better than the US has already done so...
Click to expand...





CowboyTed said:


> Lets look at those Asylum Seekers for Honduras. These people left their family and community, their home, their property, etc... to walk thousands of miles to try and get into a country which doesn't want them with the only possessions they have they are carrying.
> Seriously, what makes someone that desperate? (Would that person suddenly be deterred by a wall?)



If they are so desperate as you say, why did they not accept asylum from Mexico when offered?  

It took a lot of money and a lot of lives to build this place called America.  We continue to do so today.  Now that it's the shining house on the hill, everybody just wants to come on over now that the hard work is done.  Forget about these people doing something with their own countries.  That's too much time and hard work.  

Of course they will travel months on end to get here.  What have they got to lose?  It's not like they have full-time jobs they have to be at in the morning.  It's kind of like when we Americans go do Disneyland.  It's a great place somebody built for our entertainment and relaxation!  

Yet these places they come from are so terrible they continue to have families.  So what you people on the left want are these breeding grounds of third worlders and a direct moving sidewalk to send these families from there to the US.


----------



## Lesh

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Well compare it to Commie Care. We were promised that it would save American families $2,500 a year in premiums. We were promised we could keep our doctor and care facilities. We were promised we could keep our insurance.



A. You were "promised" that it would save $2500/per family...and it likely has ! Premiums have gone up at a much slower rate than previously. Was it a full $2500? Hard to say but it HAS saved families  money

B. Who lost their doctor because of the ACA? You know anyone? I sure don't. And if an insurer decides to not offer in a particular state that's on the insurer...not the ACA. It happened prior to the ACA as well. 

C. You COULD keep your insurance...as long as it actually WAS insurance and not a bullshit policy


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bripat9643 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think a wall is wrong....  I think building one across the whole southern border is wrong and cost prohibitive, but I do think we need to rebuild the walls near heavy crossing points, which seem to be shabby...  like the one near Tijuana...  videos showed how shabby parts of it were....  they are still likely going to be able to cross over it...but it will slow them down...  giving time for border patrol to catch them (fingers crossed)  or even under it... unless somehow it is technically able to detect such tunnels...a ''Smart'' wall, so to say...
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of the wall is .01% of the  annual budget.  Medicare for everyone?  $1.5 trillion/yr. Which one does the snowflake moron believe to be too expensive?
Click to expand...


We spend 72 billion a year on food stamps........EVERY YEAR.  The Democrats have no problem with that.  All we want is just half that amount one time only, and that's too much to ask for.  Now they are concerned about money.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well compare it to Commie Care. We were promised that it would save American families $2,500 a year in premiums. We were promised we could keep our doctor and care facilities. We were promised we could keep our insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. You were "promised" that it would save $2500/per family...and it likely has ! Premiums have gone up at a much slower rate than previously. Was it a full $2500? Hard to say but it HAS saved families  money
> 
> B. Who lost their doctor because of the ACA? You know anyone? I sure don't. And if an insurer decides to not offer in a particular state that's on the insurer...not the ACA. It happened prior to the ACA as well.
> 
> C. You COULD keep your insurance...as long as it actually WAS insurance and not a bullshit policy
Click to expand...


All three of your points are BS. 

Commie Care only offers one plan for my provider, and it's way too expensive for anybody to afford.  

Bullshit policies?  Have you checked out what Commie Care has to offer for the money?  I never had such bullshit plans in my life when employers were providing them. 

Yes, you could keep your insurance provided they included birth control and prenatal care.  What guy needs prenatal care?  Plus the policy was only grandfathered in provided nothing ever changed.  WTF insurance policy never changes; especially cost wise?


----------



## Lesh

Ray From Cleveland said:


> We spend 72 billion a year on food stamps........EVERY YEAR. The Democrats have no problem with that. All we want is just half that amount one time only, and that's too much to ask for. Now they are concerned about money.



SNAP provides important nutritional support for low-wage working families, low-income seniors, and people with disabilities living on fixed incomes.  Close to 70 percent of SNAP participants are in families with children; nearly a third are in households with seniors or people with disabilities.  After unemployment insurance, it is the most responsive federal program providing additional assistance during economic downturns. 

And guess what you're NOT whining about?

The 20 billion we give to farmers...often to NOT grow crops. DOesn't seem to bother you at all.

But hey.

Build that fucking wall. Piss away those 10s of billions and watch it NOT fix the problem.

Of course then you'd have to stop whining and own the problem so...


----------



## Lesh

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Commie Care only offers one plan for my provider, and it's way too expensive for anybody to afford.



Sure. We believe you. Of course you won't specify what state will you....because then we could check

Can't be Ohio

how much does healkthcare cost in ohio - Google Search

Cmon mouth. Where?

https://www.cms.gov/sites/drupal/files/2018-10/10-11-18 Average Monthly Premiums for SLCSP and LCP 2016-2019.pdf


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a perfect solution but unarguably it would reduce crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really and it would
> 
> redirect resources
> Cause wildlife migration disaster
> Spilt communities and businesses
> Maintenance will be hell
> In reality if someone wants to get into America this won't stop them. There is plenty of places along the border where US and Mexicans are neighbours popping over and back...
> 
> Honestly if you want to actually stop Illegal Immigration just look at the root problem. Mexico has net emigration but leave that for the moment...
> 
> Lets look at those Asylum Seekers for Honduras. These people left their family and community, their home, their property, etc... to walk thousands of miles to try and get into a country which doesn't want them with the only possessions they have they are carrying.
> Seriously, what makes someone that desperate? (Would that person suddenly be deterred by a wall?)
> 
> Then lets look at Honduras as a country:
> 
> Their political leadership for decades was heavily influence/selected by US who fighting proxy wars in the area.
> US demand for Cocaine (failed drug war) has caused a huge amount of Black money to riddle the country with corruption
> US supply of Arms has it that if you aren't taking a bribe then you are dead or your family will be killed off one by one
> Gangs like MS-13 and 18th (which were set up in the US) have huge control and are well financed by this drug trade.
> MS-13 and 18th also control Mexico as well so while you escape through Mexico you are not free fro them.
> This is why the wall won't work.. You think you are arguing with someone that has a choice, if you had husband killed in gang warfare and the local gang leader wants you 10yr old son as a runner and you can't let your 12yr old daughter out as she will be kidnapped and trafficked for sex, but they could raid your house and take her anyway. Think of the fear they live in..
> 
> I am sorry but the US holds a lot of responsibility for what is going on south of its border. If the CIA was trying to destabilise these countries they could do it better than the US has already done so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets look at those Asylum Seekers for Honduras. These people left their family and community, their home, their property, etc... to walk thousands of miles to try and get into a country which doesn't want them with the only possessions they have they are carrying.
> Seriously, what makes someone that desperate? (Would that person suddenly be deterred by a wall?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they are so desperate as you say, why did they not accept asylum from Mexico when offered?
> 
> It took a lot of money and a lot of lives to build this place called America.  We continue to do so today.  Now that it's the shining house on the hill, everybody just wants to come on over now that the hard work is done.  Forget about these people doing something with their own countries.  That's too much time and hard work.
> 
> Of course they will travel months on end to get here.  What have they got to lose?  It's not like they have full-time jobs they have to be at in the morning.  It's kind of like when we Americans go do Disneyland.  It's a great place somebody built for our entertainment and relaxation!
> 
> Yet these places they come from are so terrible they continue to have families.  So what you people on the left want are these breeding grounds of third worlders and a direct moving sidewalk to send these families from there to the US.
Click to expand...

Mexico is also ruined by the GOP never ending war on drugs and the 2008 GOP corrupt World economic meltdown.


----------



## francoHFW

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commie Care only offers one plan for my provider, and it's way too expensive for anybody to afford.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. We believe you. Of course you won't specify what state will you....because then we could check
Click to expand...

Ohio. Cleveland.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think a wall is wrong....  I think building one across the whole southern border is wrong and cost prohibitive, but I do think we need to rebuild the walls near heavy crossing points, which seem to be shabby...  like the one near Tijuana...  videos showed how shabby parts of it were....  they are still likely going to be able to cross over it...but it will slow them down...  giving time for border patrol to catch them (fingers crossed)  or even under it... unless somehow it is technically able to detect such tunnels...a ''Smart'' wall, so to say...
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of the wall is .01% of the  annual budget.  Medicare for everyone?  $1.5 trillion/yr. Which one does the snowflake moron believe to be too expensive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We spend 72 billion a year on food stamps........EVERY YEAR.  The Democrats have no problem with that.  All we want is just half that amount one time only, and that's too much to ask for.  Now they are concerned about money.
Click to expand...

Pass a living wage and that number would be decimated


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well compare it to Commie Care. We were promised that it would save American families $2,500 a year in premiums. We were promised we could keep our doctor and care facilities. We were promised we could keep our insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. You were "promised" that it would save $2500/per family...and it likely has ! Premiums have gone up at a much slower rate than previously. Was it a full $2500? Hard to say but it HAS saved families  money
> 
> B. Who lost their doctor because of the ACA? You know anyone? I sure don't. And if an insurer decides to not offer in a particular state that's on the insurer...not the ACA. It happened prior to the ACA as well.
> 
> C. You COULD keep your insurance...as long as it actually WAS insurance and not a bullshit policy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All three of your points are BS.
> 
> Commie Care only offers one plan for my provider, and it's way too expensive for anybody to afford.
> 
> Bullshit policies?  Have you checked out what Commie Care has to offer for the money?  I never had such bullshit plans in my life when employers were providing them.
> 
> Yes, you could keep your insurance provided they included birth control and prenatal care.  What guy needs prenatal care?  Plus the policy was only grandfathered in provided nothing ever changed.  WTF insurance policy never changes; especially cost wise?
Click to expand...

God you are full of garbage propaganda...


----------



## Thinker101

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well compare it to Commie Care. We were promised that it would save American families $2,500 a year in premiums. We were promised we could keep our doctor and care facilities. We were promised we could keep our insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. You were "promised" that it would save $2500/per family...and it likely has ! Premiums have gone up at a much slower rate than previously. Was it a full $2500? Hard to say but it HAS saved families  money
> 
> B. Who lost their doctor because of the ACA? You know anyone? I sure don't. And if an insurer decides to not offer in a particular state that's on the insurer...not the ACA. It happened prior to the ACA as well.
> 
> C. You COULD keep your insurance...as long as it actually WAS insurance and not a bullshit policy
Click to expand...


A.  Likely has?  WTF kinda answer is that.  How about looking it up instead of just spewing BS.
Obamacare Was Supposed to Lower Health Care Costs, But Has It?

B. I lost my doctor, three of my neighbors lost their doctors.  Do you look anything up or just insist on saying stupid shit.
Patients outraged after losing doctors under Obamacare

C. So, the insurance some of us used for the last 15-20 years and worked fairly well was a bullshit policy?

You are obviously the epitome of a stupid fuck.


----------



## francoHFW

Thinker101 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well compare it to Commie Care. We were promised that it would save American families $2,500 a year in premiums. We were promised we could keep our doctor and care facilities. We were promised we could keep our insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. You were "promised" that it would save $2500/per family...and it likely has ! Premiums have gone up at a much slower rate than previously. Was it a full $2500? Hard to say but it HAS saved families  money
> 
> B. Who lost their doctor because of the ACA? You know anyone? I sure don't. And if an insurer decides to not offer in a particular state that's on the insurer...not the ACA. It happened prior to the ACA as well.
> 
> C. You COULD keep your insurance...as long as it actually WAS insurance and not a bullshit policy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A.  Likely has?  WTF kinda answer is that.  How about looking it up instead of just spewing BS.
> Obamacare Was Supposed to Lower Health Care Costs, But Has It?
> 
> B. I lost my doctor, three of my neighbors lost their doctors.  Do you look anything up or just insist on saying stupid shit.
> Patients outraged after losing doctors under Obamacare
> 
> C. So, the insurance some of us used for the last 15-20 years and worked fairly well was a bullshit policy?
> 
> You are obviously the epitome of a stupid fuck.
Click to expand...

Under the old scam GOP system, there were 750,000 bankruptcies a year because of Health Care, and 500000 of those were people who thought they had good insurance. Also 40000 + died a year because they had no insurance and did the did not feel like losing everything... Those people who lost their doctors signed up for the wrong Network. Everyone agrees that the cost rise curve has gone down, except for liars and silly dupes like you, and that is with all the sabotage from the GOP...


----------



## Thinker101

francoHFW said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well compare it to Commie Care. We were promised that it would save American families $2,500 a year in premiums. We were promised we could keep our doctor and care facilities. We were promised we could keep our insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. You were "promised" that it would save $2500/per family...and it likely has ! Premiums have gone up at a much slower rate than previously. Was it a full $2500? Hard to say but it HAS saved families  money
> 
> B. Who lost their doctor because of the ACA? You know anyone? I sure don't. And if an insurer decides to not offer in a particular state that's on the insurer...not the ACA. It happened prior to the ACA as well.
> 
> C. You COULD keep your insurance...as long as it actually WAS insurance and not a bullshit policy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A.  Likely has?  WTF kinda answer is that.  How about looking it up instead of just spewing BS.
> Obamacare Was Supposed to Lower Health Care Costs, But Has It?
> 
> B. I lost my doctor, three of my neighbors lost their doctors.  Do you look anything up or just insist on saying stupid shit.
> Patients outraged after losing doctors under Obamacare
> 
> C. So, the insurance some of us used for the last 15-20 years and worked fairly well was a bullshit policy?
> 
> You are obviously the epitome of a stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under the old scam GOP system, there were 750,000 bankruptcies a year because of Health Care, and 500000 of those were people who thought they had good insurance. Also 40000 + died a year because they had no insurance and did the did not feel like losing everything... Those people who lost their doctors signed up for the wrong Network. Everyone agrees that the cost rise curve has gone down, except for liars and silly dupes like you, and that is with all the sabotage from the GOP...
Click to expand...


Dumbass....
Has Obamacare reduced medical bankruptcy? | The American Journal of Medicine Blog


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well compare it to Commie Care. We were promised that it would save American families $2,500 a year in premiums. We were promised we could keep our doctor and care facilities. We were promised we could keep our insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. You were "promised" that it would save $2500/per family...and it likely has ! Premiums have gone up at a much slower rate than previously. Was it a full $2500? Hard to say but it HAS saved families  money
> 
> B. Who lost their doctor because of the ACA? You know anyone? I sure don't. And if an insurer decides to not offer in a particular state that's on the insurer...not the ACA. It happened prior to the ACA as well.
> 
> C. You COULD keep your insurance...as long as it actually WAS insurance and not a bullshit policy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A.  Likely has?  WTF kinda answer is that.  How about looking it up instead of just spewing BS.
> Obamacare Was Supposed to Lower Health Care Costs, But Has It?
> 
> B. I lost my doctor, three of my neighbors lost their doctors.  Do you look anything up or just insist on saying stupid shit.
> Patients outraged after losing doctors under Obamacare
> 
> C. So, the insurance some of us used for the last 15-20 years and worked fairly well was a bullshit policy?
> 
> You are obviously the epitome of a stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under the old scam GOP system, there were 750,000 bankruptcies a year because of Health Care, and 500000 of those were people who thought they had good insurance. Also 40000 + died a year because they had no insurance and did the did not feel like losing everything... Those people who lost their doctors signed up for the wrong Network. Everyone agrees that the cost rise curve has gone down, except for liars and silly dupes like you, and that is with all the sabotage from the GOP...
Click to expand...


Utter bull as usual from you: 

Opinion | The truth about medical bankruptcies


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well compare it to Commie Care. We were promised that it would save American families $2,500 a year in premiums. We were promised we could keep our doctor and care facilities. We were promised we could keep our insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. You were "promised" that it would save $2500/per family...and it likely has ! Premiums have gone up at a much slower rate than previously. Was it a full $2500? Hard to say but it HAS saved families  money
> 
> B. Who lost their doctor because of the ACA? You know anyone? I sure don't. And if an insurer decides to not offer in a particular state that's on the insurer...not the ACA. It happened prior to the ACA as well.
> 
> C. You COULD keep your insurance...as long as it actually WAS insurance and not a bullshit policy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A.  Likely has?  WTF kinda answer is that.  How about looking it up instead of just spewing BS.
> Obamacare Was Supposed to Lower Health Care Costs, But Has It?
> 
> B. I lost my doctor, three of my neighbors lost their doctors.  Do you look anything up or just insist on saying stupid shit.
> Patients outraged after losing doctors under Obamacare
> 
> C. So, the insurance some of us used for the last 15-20 years and worked fairly well was a bullshit policy?
> 
> You are obviously the epitome of a stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under the old scam GOP system, there were 750,000 bankruptcies a year because of Health Care, and 500000 of those were people who thought they had good insurance. Also 40000 + died a year because they had no insurance and did the did not feel like losing everything... Those people who lost their doctors signed up for the wrong Network. Everyone agrees that the cost rise curve has gone down, except for liars and silly dupes like you, and that is with all the sabotage from the GOP...
Click to expand...


Utter bull as usual from you: 

Opinion | The truth about medical bankruptcies


Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commie Care only offers one plan for my provider, and it's way too expensive for anybody to afford.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. We believe you. Of course you won't specify what state will you....because then we could check
> 
> Can't be Ohio
> 
> how much does healkthcare cost in ohio - Google Search
> 
> Cmon mouth. Where?
> 
> https://www.cms.gov/sites/drupal/files/2018-10/10-11-18 Average Monthly Premiums for SLCSP and LCP 2016-2019.pdf
Click to expand...


Yeah, average, and WTF does that prove? People with money don't need Commie Care, so that only leaves the poor and middle-class.  And if you knew what you were reading, you'd see the increase between 2016 and 2018 was over 37%.  

And WTF was that first link supposed to be about anyway?  Go to Commie Care, sign up like I did, and then checkout their plans.  The crappiest plan they had for me (which didn't cover my doctor or health facility) was $680.00 a month.  That's with an $8,000 deductible and an $8,000 out of pocket.  In other words, I'd be paying a mortgage payment for insurance I'll never use unless I get hit by a bus.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> We spend 72 billion a year on food stamps........EVERY YEAR. The Democrats have no problem with that. All we want is just half that amount one time only, and that's too much to ask for. Now they are concerned about money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SNAP provides important nutritional support for low-wage working families, low-income seniors, and people with disabilities living on fixed incomes.  Close to 70 percent of SNAP participants are in families with children; nearly a third are in households with seniors or people with disabilities.  After unemployment insurance, it is the most responsive federal program providing additional assistance during economic downturns.
> 
> And guess what you're NOT whining about?
> 
> The 20 billion we give to farmers...often to NOT grow crops. DOesn't seem to bother you at all.
> 
> But hey.
> 
> Build that fucking wall. Piss away those 10s of billions and watch it NOT fix the problem.
> 
> Of course then you'd have to stop whining and own the problem so...
Click to expand...


A wall will work.  WTF do you think Democrats are so scared to death about?  They know it will work.  

Yeah,food stamps are for people who irresponsibly have kids they can't afford to feed.  So taxpayers feed their kids for them.  Senior citizens?  You mean those who didn't save a dime for retirement and now want us to give them additional support on top of Social Security?   Given over half of all immigrants in the US use welfare of some sort, I'm sure food stamps is at the top of the list because it's easier to get.  

Speaking of Social Security, SS disability is pretty generous; not doing great, but pay you enough to live on including food.  

Correct. I don't whine about farm subsidies like you don't whine about electric car or solar panel subsidies.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well compare it to Commie Care. We were promised that it would save American families $2,500 a year in premiums. We were promised we could keep our doctor and care facilities. We were promised we could keep our insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. You were "promised" that it would save $2500/per family...and it likely has ! Premiums have gone up at a much slower rate than previously. Was it a full $2500? Hard to say but it HAS saved families  money
> 
> B. Who lost their doctor because of the ACA? You know anyone? I sure don't. And if an insurer decides to not offer in a particular state that's on the insurer...not the ACA. It happened prior to the ACA as well.
> 
> C. You COULD keep your insurance...as long as it actually WAS insurance and not a bullshit policy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A.  Likely has?  WTF kinda answer is that.  How about looking it up instead of just spewing BS.
> Obamacare Was Supposed to Lower Health Care Costs, But Has It?
> 
> B. I lost my doctor, three of my neighbors lost their doctors.  Do you look anything up or just insist on saying stupid shit.
> Patients outraged after losing doctors under Obamacare
> 
> C. So, the insurance some of us used for the last 15-20 years and worked fairly well was a bullshit policy?
> 
> You are obviously the epitome of a stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under the old scam GOP system, there were 750,000 bankruptcies a year because of Health Care, and 500000 of those were people who thought they had good insurance. Also 40000 + died a year because they had no insurance and did the did not feel like losing everything... Those people who lost their doctors signed up for the wrong Network. Everyone agrees that the cost rise curve has gone down, except for liars and silly dupes like you, and that is with all the sabotage from the GOP...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Utter bull as usual from you:
> 
> Opinion | The truth about medical bankruptcies
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commie Care only offers one plan for my provider, and it's way too expensive for anybody to afford.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. We believe you. Of course you won't specify what state will you....because then we could check
> 
> Can't be Ohio
> 
> how much does healkthcare cost in ohio - Google Search
> 
> Cmon mouth. Where?
> 
> https://www.cms.gov/sites/drupal/files/2018-10/10-11-18 Average Monthly Premiums for SLCSP and LCP 2016-2019.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, average, and WTF does that prove? People with money don't need Commie Care, so that only leaves the poor and middle-class.  And if you knew what you were reading, you'd see the increase between 2016 and 2018 was over 37%.
> 
> And WTF was that first link supposed to be about anyway?  Go to Commie Care, sign up like I did, and then checkout their plans.  The crappiest plan they had for me (which didn't cover my doctor or health facility) was $680.00 a month.  That's with an $8,000 deductible and an $8,000 out of pocket.  In other words, I'd be paying a mortgage payment for insurance I'll never use unless I get hit by a bus.
Click to expand...

Yes Obamacare is great for poor workers and the poor, but the competition and regulation will bring down the cost for the middle class and the rest also. The old GOP scam system was a disgrace. That may be from The Washington Post but its a GOP liar I reckon as usual.... At any rate I'm not paying to read it


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well compare it to Commie Care. We were promised that it would save American families $2,500 a year in premiums. We were promised we could keep our doctor and care facilities. We were promised we could keep our insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. You were "promised" that it would save $2500/per family...and it likely has ! Premiums have gone up at a much slower rate than previously. Was it a full $2500? Hard to say but it HAS saved families  money
> 
> B. Who lost their doctor because of the ACA? You know anyone? I sure don't. And if an insurer decides to not offer in a particular state that's on the insurer...not the ACA. It happened prior to the ACA as well.
> 
> C. You COULD keep your insurance...as long as it actually WAS insurance and not a bullshit policy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A.  Likely has?  WTF kinda answer is that.  How about looking it up instead of just spewing BS.
> Obamacare Was Supposed to Lower Health Care Costs, But Has It?
> 
> B. I lost my doctor, three of my neighbors lost their doctors.  Do you look anything up or just insist on saying stupid shit.
> Patients outraged after losing doctors under Obamacare
> 
> C. So, the insurance some of us used for the last 15-20 years and worked fairly well was a bullshit policy?
> 
> You are obviously the epitome of a stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under the old scam GOP system, there were 750,000 bankruptcies a year because of Health Care, and 500000 of those were people who thought they had good insurance. Also 40000 + died a year because they had no insurance and did the did not feel like losing everything... Those people who lost their doctors signed up for the wrong Network. Everyone agrees that the cost rise curve has gone down, except for liars and silly dupes like you, and that is with all the sabotage from the GOP...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Utter bull as usual from you:
> 
> Opinion | The truth about medical bankruptcies
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commie Care only offers one plan for my provider, and it's way too expensive for anybody to afford.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. We believe you. Of course you won't specify what state will you....because then we could check
> 
> Can't be Ohio
> 
> how much does healkthcare cost in ohio - Google Search
> 
> Cmon mouth. Where?
> 
> https://www.cms.gov/sites/drupal/files/2018-10/10-11-18 Average Monthly Premiums for SLCSP and LCP 2016-2019.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, average, and WTF does that prove? People with money don't need Commie Care, so that only leaves the poor and middle-class.  And if you knew what you were reading, you'd see the increase between 2016 and 2018 was over 37%.
> 
> And WTF was that first link supposed to be about anyway?  Go to Commie Care, sign up like I did, and then checkout their plans.  The crappiest plan they had for me (which didn't cover my doctor or health facility) was $680.00 a month.  That's with an $8,000 deductible and an $8,000 out of pocket.  In other words, I'd be paying a mortgage payment for insurance I'll never use unless I get hit by a bus.
Click to expand...

There are many free tests for all kinds of diseases also... Catastrophic care was the way this was going before Obamacare...


----------



## Thinker101

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well compare it to Commie Care. We were promised that it would save American families $2,500 a year in premiums. We were promised we could keep our doctor and care facilities. We were promised we could keep our insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. You were "promised" that it would save $2500/per family...and it likely has ! Premiums have gone up at a much slower rate than previously. Was it a full $2500? Hard to say but it HAS saved families  money
> 
> B. Who lost their doctor because of the ACA? You know anyone? I sure don't. And if an insurer decides to not offer in a particular state that's on the insurer...not the ACA. It happened prior to the ACA as well.
> 
> C. You COULD keep your insurance...as long as it actually WAS insurance and not a bullshit policy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A.  Likely has?  WTF kinda answer is that.  How about looking it up instead of just spewing BS.
> Obamacare Was Supposed to Lower Health Care Costs, But Has It?
> 
> B. I lost my doctor, three of my neighbors lost their doctors.  Do you look anything up or just insist on saying stupid shit.
> Patients outraged after losing doctors under Obamacare
> 
> C. So, the insurance some of us used for the last 15-20 years and worked fairly well was a bullshit policy?
> 
> You are obviously the epitome of a stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under the old scam GOP system, there were 750,000 bankruptcies a year because of Health Care, and 500000 of those were people who thought they had good insurance. Also 40000 + died a year because they had no insurance and did the did not feel like losing everything... Those people who lost their doctors signed up for the wrong Network. Everyone agrees that the cost rise curve has gone down, except for liars and silly dupes like you, and that is with all the sabotage from the GOP...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Utter bull as usual from you:
> 
> Opinion | The truth about medical bankruptcies
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commie Care only offers one plan for my provider, and it's way too expensive for anybody to afford.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. We believe you. Of course you won't specify what state will you....because then we could check
> 
> Can't be Ohio
> 
> how much does healkthcare cost in ohio - Google Search
> 
> Cmon mouth. Where?
> 
> https://www.cms.gov/sites/drupal/files/2018-10/10-11-18 Average Monthly Premiums for SLCSP and LCP 2016-2019.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, average, and WTF does that prove? People with money don't need Commie Care, so that only leaves the poor and middle-class.  And if you knew what you were reading, you'd see the increase between 2016 and 2018 was over 37%.
> 
> And WTF was that first link supposed to be about anyway?  Go to Commie Care, sign up like I did, and then checkout their plans.  The crappiest plan they had for me (which didn't cover my doctor or health facility) was $680.00 a month.  That's with an $8,000 deductible and an $8,000 out of pocket.  In other words, I'd be paying a mortgage payment for insurance I'll never use unless I get hit by a bus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes Obamacare is great for poor workers and the poor, but the competition and regulation will bring down the cost for the middle class and the rest also. The old GOP scam system was a disgrace. That may be from The Washington Post but its a GOP liar I reckon as usual.... At any rate I'm not paying to read it
Click to expand...


That's more commonly known as Medicaid....dumbass.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well compare it to Commie Care. We were promised that it would save American families $2,500 a year in premiums. We were promised we could keep our doctor and care facilities. We were promised we could keep our insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. You were "promised" that it would save $2500/per family...and it likely has ! Premiums have gone up at a much slower rate than previously. Was it a full $2500? Hard to say but it HAS saved families  money
> 
> B. Who lost their doctor because of the ACA? You know anyone? I sure don't. And if an insurer decides to not offer in a particular state that's on the insurer...not the ACA. It happened prior to the ACA as well.
> 
> C. You COULD keep your insurance...as long as it actually WAS insurance and not a bullshit policy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A.  Likely has?  WTF kinda answer is that.  How about looking it up instead of just spewing BS.
> Obamacare Was Supposed to Lower Health Care Costs, But Has It?
> 
> B. I lost my doctor, three of my neighbors lost their doctors.  Do you look anything up or just insist on saying stupid shit.
> Patients outraged after losing doctors under Obamacare
> 
> C. So, the insurance some of us used for the last 15-20 years and worked fairly well was a bullshit policy?
> 
> You are obviously the epitome of a stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under the old scam GOP system, there were 750,000 bankruptcies a year because of Health Care, and 500000 of those were people who thought they had good insurance. Also 40000 + died a year because they had no insurance and did the did not feel like losing everything... Those people who lost their doctors signed up for the wrong Network. Everyone agrees that the cost rise curve has gone down, except for liars and silly dupes like you, and that is with all the sabotage from the GOP...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Utter bull as usual from you:
> 
> Opinion | The truth about medical bankruptcies
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commie Care only offers one plan for my provider, and it's way too expensive for anybody to afford.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. We believe you. Of course you won't specify what state will you....because then we could check
> 
> Can't be Ohio
> 
> how much does healkthcare cost in ohio - Google Search
> 
> Cmon mouth. Where?
> 
> https://www.cms.gov/sites/drupal/files/2018-10/10-11-18 Average Monthly Premiums for SLCSP and LCP 2016-2019.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, average, and WTF does that prove? People with money don't need Commie Care, so that only leaves the poor and middle-class.  And if you knew what you were reading, you'd see the increase between 2016 and 2018 was over 37%.
> 
> And WTF was that first link supposed to be about anyway?  Go to Commie Care, sign up like I did, and then checkout their plans.  The crappiest plan they had for me (which didn't cover my doctor or health facility) was $680.00 a month.  That's with an $8,000 deductible and an $8,000 out of pocket.  In other words, I'd be paying a mortgage payment for insurance I'll never use unless I get hit by a bus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are many free tests for all kinds of diseases also... Catastrophic care was the way this was going before Obamacare...
Click to expand...


So what you're saying is you have no Fn idea what Out Of Pocket expenses are.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well compare it to Commie Care. We were promised that it would save American families $2,500 a year in premiums. We were promised we could keep our doctor and care facilities. We were promised we could keep our insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. You were "promised" that it would save $2500/per family...and it likely has ! Premiums have gone up at a much slower rate than previously. Was it a full $2500? Hard to say but it HAS saved families  money
> 
> B. Who lost their doctor because of the ACA? You know anyone? I sure don't. And if an insurer decides to not offer in a particular state that's on the insurer...not the ACA. It happened prior to the ACA as well.
> 
> C. You COULD keep your insurance...as long as it actually WAS insurance and not a bullshit policy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A.  Likely has?  WTF kinda answer is that.  How about looking it up instead of just spewing BS.
> Obamacare Was Supposed to Lower Health Care Costs, But Has It?
> 
> B. I lost my doctor, three of my neighbors lost their doctors.  Do you look anything up or just insist on saying stupid shit.
> Patients outraged after losing doctors under Obamacare
> 
> C. So, the insurance some of us used for the last 15-20 years and worked fairly well was a bullshit policy?
> 
> You are obviously the epitome of a stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under the old scam GOP system, there were 750,000 bankruptcies a year because of Health Care, and 500000 of those were people who thought they had good insurance. Also 40000 + died a year because they had no insurance and did the did not feel like losing everything... Those people who lost their doctors signed up for the wrong Network. Everyone agrees that the cost rise curve has gone down, except for liars and silly dupes like you, and that is with all the sabotage from the GOP...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Utter bull as usual from you:
> 
> Opinion | The truth about medical bankruptcies
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commie Care only offers one plan for my provider, and it's way too expensive for anybody to afford.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. We believe you. Of course you won't specify what state will you....because then we could check
> 
> Can't be Ohio
> 
> how much does healkthcare cost in ohio - Google Search
> 
> Cmon mouth. Where?
> 
> https://www.cms.gov/sites/drupal/files/2018-10/10-11-18 Average Monthly Premiums for SLCSP and LCP 2016-2019.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, average, and WTF does that prove? People with money don't need Commie Care, so that only leaves the poor and middle-class.  And if you knew what you were reading, you'd see the increase between 2016 and 2018 was over 37%.
> 
> And WTF was that first link supposed to be about anyway?  Go to Commie Care, sign up like I did, and then checkout their plans.  The crappiest plan they had for me (which didn't cover my doctor or health facility) was $680.00 a month.  That's with an $8,000 deductible and an $8,000 out of pocket.  In other words, I'd be paying a mortgage payment for insurance I'll never use unless I get hit by a bus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes Obamacare is great for poor workers and the poor, but the competition and regulation will bring down the cost for the middle class and the rest also. The old GOP scam system was a disgrace. That may be from The Washington Post but its a GOP liar I reckon as usual.... At any rate I'm not paying to read it
Click to expand...


I have more sites if you'd like them.  Want me to post them? 

What the sites states is that for the most part, very few people lost anything or went into bankruptcy for medical bills alone.  What it does point out is that people with serious issues in need of care file bankruptcy because of their inability to work and create income.  In other words, medical bills alone did not put them in the hole.  They are dumbed down with bills from all over the place such as car loans, mortgage payments, credit card bills and so on.  

If that big-eared dope came out with a  program that said all insurance companies must accept you as a driver, what do you think that would do to your rates? 

Drivers that had multiple DUI's, drivers that racked up a lot of points or been suspended, drivers that constantly get into automobile accidents.  What do you suppose AutoBama would do to your car insurance? How about your house insurance?  

Younger people with no medical issues don't get insurance if not offered through their employer.  That's where his idiotic fines came into play.  The Democrats knew low risk clients would likely not be getting insurance.  So that leaves you with older people and people with preexisting conditions.


----------



## francoHFW

Thinker101 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> A. You were "promised" that it would save $2500/per family...and it likely has ! Premiums have gone up at a much slower rate than previously. Was it a full $2500? Hard to say but it HAS saved families  money
> 
> B. Who lost their doctor because of the ACA? You know anyone? I sure don't. And if an insurer decides to not offer in a particular state that's on the insurer...not the ACA. It happened prior to the ACA as well.
> 
> C. You COULD keep your insurance...as long as it actually WAS insurance and not a bullshit policy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A.  Likely has?  WTF kinda answer is that.  How about looking it up instead of just spewing BS.
> Obamacare Was Supposed to Lower Health Care Costs, But Has It?
> 
> B. I lost my doctor, three of my neighbors lost their doctors.  Do you look anything up or just insist on saying stupid shit.
> Patients outraged after losing doctors under Obamacare
> 
> C. So, the insurance some of us used for the last 15-20 years and worked fairly well was a bullshit policy?
> 
> You are obviously the epitome of a stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under the old scam GOP system, there were 750,000 bankruptcies a year because of Health Care, and 500000 of those were people who thought they had good insurance. Also 40000 + died a year because they had no insurance and did the did not feel like losing everything... Those people who lost their doctors signed up for the wrong Network. Everyone agrees that the cost rise curve has gone down, except for liars and silly dupes like you, and that is with all the sabotage from the GOP...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Utter bull as usual from you:
> 
> Opinion | The truth about medical bankruptcies
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commie Care only offers one plan for my provider, and it's way too expensive for anybody to afford.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. We believe you. Of course you won't specify what state will you....because then we could check
> 
> Can't be Ohio
> 
> how much does healkthcare cost in ohio - Google Search
> 
> Cmon mouth. Where?
> 
> https://www.cms.gov/sites/drupal/files/2018-10/10-11-18 Average Monthly Premiums for SLCSP and LCP 2016-2019.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, average, and WTF does that prove? People with money don't need Commie Care, so that only leaves the poor and middle-class.  And if you knew what you were reading, you'd see the increase between 2016 and 2018 was over 37%.
> 
> And WTF was that first link supposed to be about anyway?  Go to Commie Care, sign up like I did, and then checkout their plans.  The crappiest plan they had for me (which didn't cover my doctor or health facility) was $680.00 a month.  That's with an $8,000 deductible and an $8,000 out of pocket.  In other words, I'd be paying a mortgage payment for insurance I'll never use unless I get hit by a bus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes Obamacare is great for poor workers and the poor, but the competition and regulation will bring down the cost for the middle class and the rest also. The old GOP scam system was a disgrace. That may be from The Washington Post but its a GOP liar I reckon as usual.... At any rate I'm not paying to read it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's more commonly known as Medicaid....dumbass.
Click to expand...

Yes expanded Medicare his part of Obamacar, along with competition and the exchanges. it is a framework that should be tinkered with forever. conservatives of always screwed up Health systems as much as possible so they can get kickbacks. The GOP is the swamp, dumbass.


----------



## Thinker101

francoHFW said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A.  Likely has?  WTF kinda answer is that.  How about looking it up instead of just spewing BS.
> Obamacare Was Supposed to Lower Health Care Costs, But Has It?
> 
> B. I lost my doctor, three of my neighbors lost their doctors.  Do you look anything up or just insist on saying stupid shit.
> Patients outraged after losing doctors under Obamacare
> 
> C. So, the insurance some of us used for the last 15-20 years and worked fairly well was a bullshit policy?
> 
> You are obviously the epitome of a stupid fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> Under the old scam GOP system, there were 750,000 bankruptcies a year because of Health Care, and 500000 of those were people who thought they had good insurance. Also 40000 + died a year because they had no insurance and did the did not feel like losing everything... Those people who lost their doctors signed up for the wrong Network. Everyone agrees that the cost rise curve has gone down, except for liars and silly dupes like you, and that is with all the sabotage from the GOP...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Utter bull as usual from you:
> 
> Opinion | The truth about medical bankruptcies
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commie Care only offers one plan for my provider, and it's way too expensive for anybody to afford.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. We believe you. Of course you won't specify what state will you....because then we could check
> 
> Can't be Ohio
> 
> how much does healkthcare cost in ohio - Google Search
> 
> Cmon mouth. Where?
> 
> https://www.cms.gov/sites/drupal/files/2018-10/10-11-18 Average Monthly Premiums for SLCSP and LCP 2016-2019.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, average, and WTF does that prove? People with money don't need Commie Care, so that only leaves the poor and middle-class.  And if you knew what you were reading, you'd see the increase between 2016 and 2018 was over 37%.
> 
> And WTF was that first link supposed to be about anyway?  Go to Commie Care, sign up like I did, and then checkout their plans.  The crappiest plan they had for me (which didn't cover my doctor or health facility) was $680.00 a month.  That's with an $8,000 deductible and an $8,000 out of pocket.  In other words, I'd be paying a mortgage payment for insurance I'll never use unless I get hit by a bus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes Obamacare is great for poor workers and the poor, but the competition and regulation will bring down the cost for the middle class and the rest also. The old GOP scam system was a disgrace. That may be from The Washington Post but its a GOP liar I reckon as usual.... At any rate I'm not paying to read it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's more commonly known as Medicaid....dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes expanded Medicare his part of Obamacar, along with competition and the exchanges. it is a framework that should be tinkered with forever. conservatives of always screwed up Health systems as much as possible so they can get kickbacks. The GOP is the swamp, dumbass.
Click to expand...


MEDICAID....dumbass.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a perfect solution but unarguably it would reduce crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really and it would
> 
> redirect resources
> Cause wildlife migration disaster
> Spilt communities and businesses
> Maintenance will be hell
> In reality if someone wants to get into America this won't stop them. There is plenty of places along the border where US and Mexicans are neighbours popping over and back...
> 
> Honestly if you want to actually stop Illegal Immigration just look at the root problem. Mexico has net emigration but leave that for the moment...
> 
> Lets look at those Asylum Seekers for Honduras. These people left their family and community, their home, their property, etc... to walk thousands of miles to try and get into a country which doesn't want them with the only possessions they have they are carrying.
> Seriously, what makes someone that desperate? (Would that person suddenly be deterred by a wall?)
> 
> Then lets look at Honduras as a country:
> 
> Their political leadership for decades was heavily influence/selected by US who fighting proxy wars in the area.
> US demand for Cocaine (failed drug war) has caused a huge amount of Black money to riddle the country with corruption
> US supply of Arms has it that if you aren't taking a bribe then you are dead or your family will be killed off one by one
> Gangs like MS-13 and 18th (which were set up in the US) have huge control and are well financed by this drug trade.
> MS-13 and 18th also control Mexico as well so while you escape through Mexico you are not free fro them.
> This is why the wall won't work.. You think you are arguing with someone that has a choice, if you had husband killed in gang warfare and the local gang leader wants you 10yr old son as a runner and you can't let your 12yr old daughter out as she will be kidnapped and trafficked for sex, but they could raid your house and take her anyway. Think of the fear they live in..
> 
> I am sorry but the US holds a lot of responsibility for what is going on south of its border. If the CIA was trying to destabilise these countries they could do it better than the US has already done so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets look at those Asylum Seekers for Honduras. These people left their family and community, their home, their property, etc... to walk thousands of miles to try and get into a country which doesn't want them with the only possessions they have they are carrying.
> Seriously, what makes someone that desperate? (Would that person suddenly be deterred by a wall?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they are so desperate as you say, why did they not accept asylum from Mexico when offered?
> 
> It took a lot of money and a lot of lives to build this place called America.  We continue to do so today.  Now that it's the shining house on the hill, everybody just wants to come on over now that the hard work is done.  Forget about these people doing something with their own countries.  That's too much time and hard work.
> 
> Of course they will travel months on end to get here.  What have they got to lose?  It's not like they have full-time jobs they have to be at in the morning.  It's kind of like when we Americans go do Disneyland.  It's a great place somebody built for our entertainment and relaxation!
> 
> Yet these places they come from are so terrible they continue to have families.  So what you people on the left want are these breeding grounds of third worlders and a direct moving sidewalk to send these families from there to the US.
Click to expand...

you tell us; Europeans could have gone anywhere else in Europe.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A.  Likely has?  WTF kinda answer is that.  How about looking it up instead of just spewing BS.
> Obamacare Was Supposed to Lower Health Care Costs, But Has It?
> 
> B. I lost my doctor, three of my neighbors lost their doctors.  Do you look anything up or just insist on saying stupid shit.
> Patients outraged after losing doctors under Obamacare
> 
> C. So, the insurance some of us used for the last 15-20 years and worked fairly well was a bullshit policy?
> 
> You are obviously the epitome of a stupid fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> Under the old scam GOP system, there were 750,000 bankruptcies a year because of Health Care, and 500000 of those were people who thought they had good insurance. Also 40000 + died a year because they had no insurance and did the did not feel like losing everything... Those people who lost their doctors signed up for the wrong Network. Everyone agrees that the cost rise curve has gone down, except for liars and silly dupes like you, and that is with all the sabotage from the GOP...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Utter bull as usual from you:
> 
> Opinion | The truth about medical bankruptcies
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commie Care only offers one plan for my provider, and it's way too expensive for anybody to afford.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. We believe you. Of course you won't specify what state will you....because then we could check
> 
> Can't be Ohio
> 
> how much does healkthcare cost in ohio - Google Search
> 
> Cmon mouth. Where?
> 
> https://www.cms.gov/sites/drupal/files/2018-10/10-11-18 Average Monthly Premiums for SLCSP and LCP 2016-2019.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, average, and WTF does that prove? People with money don't need Commie Care, so that only leaves the poor and middle-class.  And if you knew what you were reading, you'd see the increase between 2016 and 2018 was over 37%.
> 
> And WTF was that first link supposed to be about anyway?  Go to Commie Care, sign up like I did, and then checkout their plans.  The crappiest plan they had for me (which didn't cover my doctor or health facility) was $680.00 a month.  That's with an $8,000 deductible and an $8,000 out of pocket.  In other words, I'd be paying a mortgage payment for insurance I'll never use unless I get hit by a bus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes Obamacare is great for poor workers and the poor, but the competition and regulation will bring down the cost for the middle class and the rest also. The old GOP scam system was a disgrace. That may be from The Washington Post but its a GOP liar I reckon as usual.... At any rate I'm not paying to read it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's more commonly known as Medicaid....dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes expanded Medicare his part of Obamacar, along with competition and the exchanges. it is a framework that should be tinkered with forever. conservatives of always screwed up Health systems as much as possible so they can get kickbacks. The GOP is the swamp, dumbass.
Click to expand...


What the commies did was take a bad situation and made it worse.  


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under the old scam GOP system, there were 750,000 bankruptcies a year because of Health Care, and 500000 of those were people who thought they had good insurance. Also 40000 + died a year because they had no insurance and did the did not feel like losing everything... Those people who lost their doctors signed up for the wrong Network. Everyone agrees that the cost rise curve has gone down, except for liars and silly dupes like you, and that is with all the sabotage from the GOP...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter bull as usual from you:
> 
> Opinion | The truth about medical bankruptcies
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. We believe you. Of course you won't specify what state will you....because then we could check
> 
> Can't be Ohio
> 
> how much does healkthcare cost in ohio - Google Search
> 
> Cmon mouth. Where?
> 
> https://www.cms.gov/sites/drupal/files/2018-10/10-11-18 Average Monthly Premiums for SLCSP and LCP 2016-2019.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, average, and WTF does that prove? People with money don't need Commie Care, so that only leaves the poor and middle-class.  And if you knew what you were reading, you'd see the increase between 2016 and 2018 was over 37%.
> 
> And WTF was that first link supposed to be about anyway?  Go to Commie Care, sign up like I did, and then checkout their plans.  The crappiest plan they had for me (which didn't cover my doctor or health facility) was $680.00 a month.  That's with an $8,000 deductible and an $8,000 out of pocket.  In other words, I'd be paying a mortgage payment for insurance I'll never use unless I get hit by a bus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes Obamacare is great for poor workers and the poor, but the competition and regulation will bring down the cost for the middle class and the rest also. The old GOP scam system was a disgrace. That may be from The Washington Post but its a GOP liar I reckon as usual.... At any rate I'm not paying to read it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's more commonly known as Medicaid....dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes expanded Medicare his part of Obamacar, along with competition and the exchanges. it is a framework that should be tinkered with forever. conservatives of always screwed up Health systems as much as possible so they can get kickbacks. The GOP is the swamp, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the commies did was take a bad situation and made it worse.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...

There are no communists in the United States anymore super duper... Never were really. Makes you sound like a total Dupe lol. Try socialists. Sorry your boss is also a dupe and screwed you.

The cost rise curve is bending down and many poor workers are now covered. It is working and thank you senator McCain.... yeah actual problem is the ridiculous costs of healthcare in a Republican scam system, now being fixed. Despite pure irrational GOP sabotage and misinformed Chumps like you....


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Utter bull as usual from you:
> 
> Opinion | The truth about medical bankruptcies
> Yeah, average, and WTF does that prove? People with money don't need Commie Care, so that only leaves the poor and middle-class.  And if you knew what you were reading, you'd see the increase between 2016 and 2018 was over 37%.
> 
> And WTF was that first link supposed to be about anyway?  Go to Commie Care, sign up like I did, and then checkout their plans.  The crappiest plan they had for me (which didn't cover my doctor or health facility) was $680.00 a month.  That's with an $8,000 deductible and an $8,000 out of pocket.  In other words, I'd be paying a mortgage payment for insurance I'll never use unless I get hit by a bus.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Obamacare is great for poor workers and the poor, but the competition and regulation will bring down the cost for the middle class and the rest also. The old GOP scam system was a disgrace. That may be from The Washington Post but its a GOP liar I reckon as usual.... At any rate I'm not paying to read it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's more commonly known as Medicaid....dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes expanded Medicare his part of Obamacar, along with competition and the exchanges. it is a framework that should be tinkered with forever. conservatives of always screwed up Health systems as much as possible so they can get kickbacks. The GOP is the swamp, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the commies did was take a bad situation and made it worse.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no communists in the United States anymore super duper... Never were really. Makes you sound like a total Dupe lol. Try socialists. Sorry your boss is also a dupe and screwed you.
> 
> The cost rise curve is bending down and many poor workers are now covered. It is working and thank you senator McCain.... yeah actual problem is the ridiculous costs of healthcare in a Republican scam system, now being fixed. Despite pure irrational GOP sabotage and misinformed Chumps like you....
Click to expand...


Yes, lowlifes now have health coverage at the cost to hard working people.  And what party do lowlifes generally vote for again?  

Now try figuring out for yourself what Commie Care was all about.


----------



## Cosmos

It's not wrong.  It's right.  Build the damn wall.


----------



## Cosmos

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Utter bull as usual from you:
> 
> Opinion | The truth about medical bankruptcies
> Yeah, average, and WTF does that prove? People with money don't need Commie Care, so that only leaves the poor and middle-class.  And if you knew what you were reading, you'd see the increase between 2016 and 2018 was over 37%.
> 
> And WTF was that first link supposed to be about anyway?  Go to Commie Care, sign up like I did, and then checkout their plans.  The crappiest plan they had for me (which didn't cover my doctor or health facility) was $680.00 a month.  That's with an $8,000 deductible and an $8,000 out of pocket.  In other words, I'd be paying a mortgage payment for insurance I'll never use unless I get hit by a bus.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Obamacare is great for poor workers and the poor, but the competition and regulation will bring down the cost for the middle class and the rest also. The old GOP scam system was a disgrace. That may be from The Washington Post but its a GOP liar I reckon as usual.... At any rate I'm not paying to read it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's more commonly known as Medicaid....dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes expanded Medicare his part of Obamacar, along with competition and the exchanges. it is a framework that should be tinkered with forever. conservatives of always screwed up Health systems as much as possible so they can get kickbacks. The GOP is the swamp, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the commies did was take a bad situation and made it worse.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no communists in the United States anymore super duper... Never were really. Makes you sound like a total Dupe lol. Try socialists. Sorry your boss is also a dupe and screwed you.
Click to expand...


Sure there are.  In great numbers.  With only minor variations, inside every democrat is an islamofascist leftist communist socialist that hopes to fundamentally change America into something we've successfully avoided for 250 years.


----------



## Lesh

I hope you idiots DO get the money to build the wall. I doubt it will ever get built even then but should it happen...we'd see the fallacy of that nonsense.

And we'll be able to do an accounting of the boondoggle that won't change a fucking thing.


----------



## francoHFW

Cosmos said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Obamacare is great for poor workers and the poor, but the competition and regulation will bring down the cost for the middle class and the rest also. The old GOP scam system was a disgrace. That may be from The Washington Post but its a GOP liar I reckon as usual.... At any rate I'm not paying to read it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's more commonly known as Medicaid....dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes expanded Medicare his part of Obamacar, along with competition and the exchanges. it is a framework that should be tinkered with forever. conservatives of always screwed up Health systems as much as possible so they can get kickbacks. The GOP is the swamp, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the commies did was take a bad situation and made it worse.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no communists in the United States anymore super duper... Never were really. Makes you sound like a total Dupe lol. Try socialists. Sorry your boss is also a dupe and screwed you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there are.  In great numbers.  With only minor variations, inside every democrat is an islamofascist leftist communist socialist that hopes to fundamentally change America into something we've successfully avoided for 250 years.
Click to expand...

You can't find one Democrat in favor of a dictatorship owning all business and industry, brainwashed functional moron. Fair capitalism with a good safety net yes....


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> We spend 72 billion a year on food stamps........EVERY YEAR. The Democrats have no problem with that. All we want is just half that amount one time only, and that's too much to ask for. Now they are concerned about money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SNAP provides important nutritional support for low-wage working families, low-income seniors, and people with disabilities living on fixed incomes.  Close to 70 percent of SNAP participants are in families with children; nearly a third are in households with seniors or people with disabilities.  After unemployment insurance, it is the most responsive federal program providing additional assistance during economic downturns.
> 
> And guess what you're NOT whining about?
> 
> The 20 billion we give to farmers...often to NOT grow crops. DOesn't seem to bother you at all.
> 
> But hey.
> 
> Build that fucking wall. Piss away those 10s of billions and watch it NOT fix the problem.
> 
> Of course then you'd have to stop whining and own the problem so...
Click to expand...

I've been whining about that since I was old enough to vote, douchebag. 

If the wall didn't go a long way towards solving the problem, you wouldn't be whining about it.


----------



## bripat9643

francoHFW said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well compare it to Commie Care. We were promised that it would save American families $2,500 a year in premiums. We were promised we could keep our doctor and care facilities. We were promised we could keep our insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. You were "promised" that it would save $2500/per family...and it likely has ! Premiums have gone up at a much slower rate than previously. Was it a full $2500? Hard to say but it HAS saved families  money
> 
> B. Who lost their doctor because of the ACA? You know anyone? I sure don't. And if an insurer decides to not offer in a particular state that's on the insurer...not the ACA. It happened prior to the ACA as well.
> 
> C. You COULD keep your insurance...as long as it actually WAS insurance and not a bullshit policy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A.  Likely has?  WTF kinda answer is that.  How about looking it up instead of just spewing BS.
> Obamacare Was Supposed to Lower Health Care Costs, But Has It?
> 
> B. I lost my doctor, three of my neighbors lost their doctors.  Do you look anything up or just insist on saying stupid shit.
> Patients outraged after losing doctors under Obamacare
> 
> C. So, the insurance some of us used for the last 15-20 years and worked fairly well was a bullshit policy?
> 
> You are obviously the epitome of a stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under the old scam GOP system, there were 750,000 bankruptcies a year because of Health Care, and 500000 of those were people who thought they had good insurance. Also 40000 + died a year because they had no insurance and did the did not feel like losing everything... Those people who lost their doctors signed up for the wrong Network. Everyone agrees that the cost rise curve has gone down, except for liars and silly dupes like you, and that is with all the sabotage from the GOP...
Click to expand...

It wasn't the GOP system.  Democrats created it, moron.  Democrats created Medicare.  Democrats created Medicaid.  Democrats created the FDA.  Democrats created almost all th regulations governing the healthcare Industry.

Democrats fucked up our healthcare system.  Then they complained about how awful and expensive it is.


----------



## bripat9643

francoHFW said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's more commonly known as Medicaid....dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes expanded Medicare his part of Obamacar, along with competition and the exchanges. it is a framework that should be tinkered with forever. conservatives of always screwed up Health systems as much as possible so they can get kickbacks. The GOP is the swamp, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the commies did was take a bad situation and made it worse.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no communists in the United States anymore super duper... Never were really. Makes you sound like a total Dupe lol. Try socialists. Sorry your boss is also a dupe and screwed you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there are.  In great numbers.  With only minor variations, inside every democrat is an islamofascist leftist communist socialist that hopes to fundamentally change America into something we've successfully avoided for 250 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't find one Democrat in favor of a dictatorship owning all business and industry, brainwashed functional moron. Fair capitalism with a good safety net yes....
Click to expand...


----------



## Thinker101

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Utter bull as usual from you:
> 
> Opinion | The truth about medical bankruptcies
> Yeah, average, and WTF does that prove? People with money don't need Commie Care, so that only leaves the poor and middle-class.  And if you knew what you were reading, you'd see the increase between 2016 and 2018 was over 37%.
> 
> And WTF was that first link supposed to be about anyway?  Go to Commie Care, sign up like I did, and then checkout their plans.  The crappiest plan they had for me (which didn't cover my doctor or health facility) was $680.00 a month.  That's with an $8,000 deductible and an $8,000 out of pocket.  In other words, I'd be paying a mortgage payment for insurance I'll never use unless I get hit by a bus.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Obamacare is great for poor workers and the poor, but the competition and regulation will bring down the cost for the middle class and the rest also. The old GOP scam system was a disgrace. That may be from The Washington Post but its a GOP liar I reckon as usual.... At any rate I'm not paying to read it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's more commonly known as Medicaid....dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes expanded Medicare his part of Obamacar, along with competition and the exchanges. it is a framework that should be tinkered with forever. conservatives of always screwed up Health systems as much as possible so they can get kickbacks. The GOP is the swamp, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the commies did was take a bad situation and made it worse.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no communists in the United States anymore super duper... Never were really. Makes you sound like a total Dupe lol. Try socialists. Sorry your boss is also a dupe and screwed you.
> 
> The cost rise curve is bending down and many poor workers are now covered. It is working and thank you senator McCain.... yeah actual problem is the ridiculous costs of healthcare in a Republican scam system, now being fixed. Despite pure irrational GOP sabotage and misinformed Chumps like you....
Click to expand...


Oops....except this guy.


----------



## Lesh

Not a communist. Voted for Gus Hall...that does not make you a communist


----------



## francoHFW

bripat9643 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well compare it to Commie Care. We were promised that it would save American families $2,500 a year in premiums. We were promised we could keep our doctor and care facilities. We were promised we could keep our insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. You were "promised" that it would save $2500/per family...and it likely has ! Premiums have gone up at a much slower rate than previously. Was it a full $2500? Hard to say but it HAS saved families  money
> 
> B. Who lost their doctor because of the ACA? You know anyone? I sure don't. And if an insurer decides to not offer in a particular state that's on the insurer...not the ACA. It happened prior to the ACA as well.
> 
> C. You COULD keep your insurance...as long as it actually WAS insurance and not a bullshit policy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A.  Likely has?  WTF kinda answer is that.  How about looking it up instead of just spewing BS.
> Obamacare Was Supposed to Lower Health Care Costs, But Has It?
> 
> B. I lost my doctor, three of my neighbors lost their doctors.  Do you look anything up or just insist on saying stupid shit.
> Patients outraged after losing doctors under Obamacare
> 
> C. So, the insurance some of us used for the last 15-20 years and worked fairly well was a bullshit policy?
> 
> You are obviously the epitome of a stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under the old scam GOP system, there were 750,000 bankruptcies a year because of Health Care, and 500000 of those were people who thought they had good insurance. Also 40000 + died a year because they had no insurance and did the did not feel like losing everything... Those people who lost their doctors signed up for the wrong Network. Everyone agrees that the cost rise curve has gone down, except for liars and silly dupes like you, and that is with all the sabotage from the GOP...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't the GOP system.  Democrats created it, moron.  Democrats created Medicare.  Democrats created Medicaid.  Democrats created the FDA.  Democrats created almost all th regulations governing the healthcare Industry.
> 
> Democrats fucked up our healthcare system.  Then they complained about how awful and expensive it is.
Click to expand...

Of course they were very few regulations on the private insurers hospitals and doctors who made the overpriced scam a reality . People on Medicare and Medicaid basically had their lives saved. 500000 people a year who thought they had good insurance got screwed, and 40,000 died cuz they had no Health Care and didn't want to go bankrupt.


----------



## francoHFW

Thinker101 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Obamacare is great for poor workers and the poor, but the competition and regulation will bring down the cost for the middle class and the rest also. The old GOP scam system was a disgrace. That may be from The Washington Post but its a GOP liar I reckon as usual.... At any rate I'm not paying to read it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's more commonly known as Medicaid....dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes expanded Medicare his part of Obamacar, along with competition and the exchanges. it is a framework that should be tinkered with forever. conservatives of always screwed up Health systems as much as possible so they can get kickbacks. The GOP is the swamp, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the commies did was take a bad situation and made it worse.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no communists in the United States anymore super duper... Never were really. Makes you sound like a total Dupe lol. Try socialists. Sorry your boss is also a dupe and screwed you.
> 
> The cost rise curve is bending down and many poor workers are now covered. It is working and thank you senator McCain.... yeah actual problem is the ridiculous costs of healthcare in a Republican scam system, now being fixed. Despite pure irrational GOP sabotage and misinformed Chumps like you....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oops....except this guy.
Click to expand...

read something about it, you will find out you are a brainwashed functional moron. Of course he was not a communist LOL...


----------



## Thinker101

francoHFW said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well compare it to Commie Care. We were promised that it would save American families $2,500 a year in premiums. We were promised we could keep our doctor and care facilities. We were promised we could keep our insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. You were "promised" that it would save $2500/per family...and it likely has ! Premiums have gone up at a much slower rate than previously. Was it a full $2500? Hard to say but it HAS saved families  money
> 
> B. Who lost their doctor because of the ACA? You know anyone? I sure don't. And if an insurer decides to not offer in a particular state that's on the insurer...not the ACA. It happened prior to the ACA as well.
> 
> C. You COULD keep your insurance...as long as it actually WAS insurance and not a bullshit policy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A.  Likely has?  WTF kinda answer is that.  How about looking it up instead of just spewing BS.
> Obamacare Was Supposed to Lower Health Care Costs, But Has It?
> 
> B. I lost my doctor, three of my neighbors lost their doctors.  Do you look anything up or just insist on saying stupid shit.
> Patients outraged after losing doctors under Obamacare
> 
> C. So, the insurance some of us used for the last 15-20 years and worked fairly well was a bullshit policy?
> 
> You are obviously the epitome of a stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under the old scam GOP system, there were 750,000 bankruptcies a year because of Health Care, and 500000 of those were people who thought they had good insurance. Also 40000 + died a year because they had no insurance and did the did not feel like losing everything... Those people who lost their doctors signed up for the wrong Network. Everyone agrees that the cost rise curve has gone down, except for liars and silly dupes like you, and that is with all the sabotage from the GOP...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't the GOP system.  Democrats created it, moron.  Democrats created Medicare.  Democrats created Medicaid.  Democrats created the FDA.  Democrats created almost all th regulations governing the healthcare Industry.
> 
> Democrats fucked up our healthcare system.  Then they complained about how awful and expensive it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they were very few regulations on the private insurers hospitals and doctors who made the overpriced scam a reality . People on Medicare and Medicaid basically had their lives saved. 500000 people a year who thought they had good insurance got screwed, and 40,000 died cuz they had no Health Care and didn't want to go bankrupt.
Click to expand...


Wait...40,000 died because they didn't want to go bankrupt?  Must have been liberals.


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> Not a communist. Voted for Gus Hall...that does not make you a communist


It pretty much does.


----------



## bripat9643

francoHFW said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well compare it to Commie Care. We were promised that it would save American families $2,500 a year in premiums. We were promised we could keep our doctor and care facilities. We were promised we could keep our insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. You were "promised" that it would save $2500/per family...and it likely has ! Premiums have gone up at a much slower rate than previously. Was it a full $2500? Hard to say but it HAS saved families  money
> 
> B. Who lost their doctor because of the ACA? You know anyone? I sure don't. And if an insurer decides to not offer in a particular state that's on the insurer...not the ACA. It happened prior to the ACA as well.
> 
> C. You COULD keep your insurance...as long as it actually WAS insurance and not a bullshit policy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A.  Likely has?  WTF kinda answer is that.  How about looking it up instead of just spewing BS.
> Obamacare Was Supposed to Lower Health Care Costs, But Has It?
> 
> B. I lost my doctor, three of my neighbors lost their doctors.  Do you look anything up or just insist on saying stupid shit.
> Patients outraged after losing doctors under Obamacare
> 
> C. So, the insurance some of us used for the last 15-20 years and worked fairly well was a bullshit policy?
> 
> You are obviously the epitome of a stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under the old scam GOP system, there were 750,000 bankruptcies a year because of Health Care, and 500000 of those were people who thought they had good insurance. Also 40000 + died a year because they had no insurance and did the did not feel like losing everything... Those people who lost their doctors signed up for the wrong Network. Everyone agrees that the cost rise curve has gone down, except for liars and silly dupes like you, and that is with all the sabotage from the GOP...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't the GOP system.  Democrats created it, moron.  Democrats created Medicare.  Democrats created Medicaid.  Democrats created the FDA.  Democrats created almost all th regulations governing the healthcare Industry.
> 
> Democrats fucked up our healthcare system.  Then they complained about how awful and expensive it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they were very few regulations on the private insurers hospitals and doctors who made the overpriced scam a reality . People on Medicare and Medicaid basically had their lives saved. 500000 people a year who thought they had good insurance got screwed, and 40,000 died cuz they had no Health Care and didn't want to go bankrupt.
Click to expand...

It wasn't "overpriced" when it wasn't regulated, moron.  People paid their doctors bills with cash in those days.  There's no evidence that Medicare or Medicaid have saved any lives.

Your claims are all leftwing myths.


----------



## Lesh

bripat9643 said:


> It wasn't "overpriced" when it wasn't regulated, moron. People paid their doctors bills with cash in those days. There's no evidence that Medicare or Medicaid have saved any lives.
> 
> Your claims are all leftwing myths.



Paid cash for heart surgery? Cancer treatment? Dialysis?

WHat planet do you fuckers live on?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> I hope you idiots DO get the money to build the wall. I doubt it will ever get built even then but should it happen...we'd see the fallacy of that nonsense.
> 
> And we'll be able to do an accounting of the boondoggle that won't change a fucking thing.



Right, because what works for other countries couldn't work here.


----------



## Thinker101

Lesh said:


> Not a communist. Voted for Gus Hall...that does not make you a communist



Ok...voting for Gus Hall (Former General Secretary of the National Committee of the Communist Party) *doesn't* make you a communist? 
That's some fricken liberal logic right there.


----------



## francoHFW

bripat9643 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a communist. Voted for Gus Hall...that does not make you a communist
> 
> 
> 
> It pretty much does.
Click to expand...

Brennan a communist fact check - Google Search


----------



## bripat9643

francoHFW said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a communist. Voted for Gus Hall...that does not make you a communist
> 
> 
> 
> It pretty much does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brennan a communist fact check - Google Search
Click to expand...


"Fact check" sites are fake news.


----------



## Lesh

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Right, because what works for other countries couldn't work here.



Ummmm do you feel that way about guns and healthcare?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because what works for other countries couldn't work here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm do you feel that way about guns and healthcare?
Click to expand...


Yes I do because every place has their ups and downs.  For instance: London now has more murders with knives than NYC does with all their guns.  Show me a healthcare system that has no downfalls or backdrops.  

Back to point, border barriers do work in other countries.  So why don't you think it would work here?  Because your puppet masters told you it wouldn't.  They provide no evidence, no comparison, they just told you that's what you should believe.


----------



## francoHFW

bripat9643 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a communist. Voted for Gus Hall...that does not make you a communist
> 
> 
> 
> It pretty much does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brennan a communist fact check - Google Search
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Fact check" sites are fake news.
Click to expand...

Yep if it's not paid for by Rupert Murdoch it's fake. The rest of the world thinks you're nuts.


----------



## Cosmos

francoHFW said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's more commonly known as Medicaid....dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes expanded Medicare his part of Obamacar, along with competition and the exchanges. it is a framework that should be tinkered with forever. conservatives of always screwed up Health systems as much as possible so they can get kickbacks. The GOP is the swamp, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the commies did was take a bad situation and made it worse.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no communists in the United States anymore super duper... Never were really. Makes you sound like a total Dupe lol. Try socialists. Sorry your boss is also a dupe and screwed you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there are.  In great numbers.  With only minor variations, inside every democrat is an islamofascist leftist communist socialist that hopes to fundamentally change America into something we've successfully avoided for 250 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't find one Democrat in favor of a dictatorship owning all business and industry, brainwashed functional moron. Fair capitalism with a good safety net yes....
Click to expand...


Except for the leader of your corrupt, inept, America-hating party........No, they can't quite come out and admit they're for a dicatatorship owning all business and industry, even if that's what they want.  They have to lie and say they're for this crap instead.  Not so long ago calling a filthy democrat a socialist was taken as an insult.  Now the morons revel in it.  The good news is this bimbo won't last very long and Perez with have to come up with a new future for your stupid party.

_The chair of the Democratic Party just embraced progressive insurgent Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, calling her 'the future of our party'

The Democratic National Committee chair, Tom Perez, on Tuesday wholeheartedly embraced  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 28-year-old progressive insurgent who stunned the political world last week when she unseated a 10-term incumbent New York Democrat, calling the democratic socialist "the future of our party."_


----------



## francoHFW

Cosmos said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes expanded Medicare his part of Obamacar, along with competition and the exchanges. it is a framework that should be tinkered with forever. conservatives of always screwed up Health systems as much as possible so they can get kickbacks. The GOP is the swamp, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the commies did was take a bad situation and made it worse.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no communists in the United States anymore super duper... Never were really. Makes you sound like a total Dupe lol. Try socialists. Sorry your boss is also a dupe and screwed you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there are.  In great numbers.  With only minor variations, inside every democrat is an islamofascist leftist communist socialist that hopes to fundamentally change America into something we've successfully avoided for 250 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't find one Democrat in favor of a dictatorship owning all business and industry, brainwashed functional moron. Fair capitalism with a good safety net yes....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except for the leader of your corrupt, inept, America-hating party........No, they can't quite come out and admit they're for a dicatatorship owning all business and industry, even if that's what they want.  They have to lie and say they're for this crap instead.  Not so long ago calling a filthy democrat a socialist was taken as an insult.  Now the morons revel in it.  The good news is this bimbo won't last very long and Perez with have to come up with a new future for your stupid party.
> 
> _The chair of the Democratic Party just embraced progressive insurgent Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, calling her 'the future of our party'
> 
> The Democratic National Committee chair, Tom Perez, on Tuesday wholeheartedly embraced  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 28-year-old progressive insurgent who stunned the political world last week when she unseated a 10-term incumbent New York Democrat, calling the democratic socialist "the future of our party."_
Click to expand...

everyone outside your bubble of BS propaganda knows that socialism is always democratic faire capitalism with a good safety net, pathetic dupe of the greedy idiot GOP rich....


----------



## Richard-H

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux



1. The vast majority of illegal immigrants arrive here by jet, so at best it would be ineffective. 

2. The wall would have to be an engineering miracle to cover the entire U.S. - Mexico border. It's costs would be astronomical.  

3. It probably would not stop much illegal immigration at the U.S. - Mexico border. They'd just find a way to climb over it or tunnel under it. No matter how deep you make the walls foundation, they can always dig deeper.

4. The wall would provide a sense of false confidence that would result in the reduction of border patrols and we'd end up with MORE illegal immigrants crossing the U.S. - Mexican border than there are now.

5. The wall is simply an idiotic idea.


----------



## Cosmos

francoHFW said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the commies did was take a bad situation and made it worse.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> 
> 
> There are no communists in the United States anymore super duper... Never were really. Makes you sound like a total Dupe lol. Try socialists. Sorry your boss is also a dupe and screwed you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there are.  In great numbers.  With only minor variations, inside every democrat is an islamofascist leftist communist socialist that hopes to fundamentally change America into something we've successfully avoided for 250 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't find one Democrat in favor of a dictatorship owning all business and industry, brainwashed functional moron. Fair capitalism with a good safety net yes....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except for the leader of your corrupt, inept, America-hating party........No, they can't quite come out and admit they're for a dicatatorship owning all business and industry, even if that's what they want.  They have to lie and say they're for this crap instead.  Not so long ago calling a filthy democrat a socialist was taken as an insult.  Now the morons revel in it.  The good news is this bimbo won't last very long and Perez with have to come up with a new future for your stupid party.
> 
> _The chair of the Democratic Party just embraced progressive insurgent Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, calling her 'the future of our party'
> 
> The Democratic National Committee chair, Tom Perez, on Tuesday wholeheartedly embraced  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 28-year-old progressive insurgent who stunned the political world last week when she unseated a 10-term incumbent New York Democrat, calling the democratic socialist "the future of our party."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> everyone outside your bubble of BS propaganda knows that socialism is always democratic faire capitalism with a good safety net, pathetic dupe of the greedy idiot GOP rich....
Click to expand...


Ok.  So you're an idiot.  Just wanted to let you have one chance to confirm.


----------



## Siete

*Why is Building the Wall Wrong?*


WHAT WALL ?  Ain't gonna be no damn wall.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Richard-H said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The vast majority of illegal immigrants arrive here by jet, so at best it would be ineffective.
> 
> 2. The wall would have to be an engineering miracle to cover the entire U.S. - Mexico border. It's costs would be astronomical.
> 
> 3. It probably would not stop much illegal immigration at the U.S. - Mexico border. They'd just find a way to climb over it or tunnel under it. No matter how deep you make the walls foundation, they can always dig deeper.
> 
> 4. The wall would provide a sense of false confidence that would result in the reduction of border patrols and we'd end up with MORE illegal immigrants crossing the U.S. - Mexican border than there are now.
> 
> 5. The wall is simply an idiotic idea.
Click to expand...


Hungary would debate you on every point, and unlike you, they have evidence to sustain their claim.  

Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration


----------



## Siete

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The vast majority of illegal immigrants arrive here by jet, so at best it would be ineffective.
> 
> 2. The wall would have to be an engineering miracle to cover the entire U.S. - Mexico border. It's costs would be astronomical.
> 
> 3. It probably would not stop much illegal immigration at the U.S. - Mexico border. They'd just find a way to climb over it or tunnel under it. No matter how deep you make the walls foundation, they can always dig deeper.
> 
> 4. The wall would provide a sense of false confidence that would result in the reduction of border patrols and we'd end up with MORE illegal immigrants crossing the U.S. - Mexican border than there are now.
> 
> 5. The wall is simply an idiotic idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hungary would debate you on every point, and unlike you, they have evidence to sustain their claim.
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
Click to expand...


psssst - hey idiot

razor wire fence ain't a  WALL .... DDDDUUUUURRRRRR


----------



## Cosmos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The vast majority of illegal immigrants arrive here by jet, so at best it would be ineffective.
> 
> 2. The wall would have to be an engineering miracle to cover the entire U.S. - Mexico border. It's costs would be astronomical.
> 
> 3. It probably would not stop much illegal immigration at the U.S. - Mexico border. They'd just find a way to climb over it or tunnel under it. No matter how deep you make the walls foundation, they can always dig deeper.
> 
> 4. The wall would provide a sense of false confidence that would result in the reduction of border patrols and we'd end up with MORE illegal immigrants crossing the U.S. - Mexican border than there are now.
> 
> 5. The wall is simply an idiotic idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hungary would debate you on every point, and unlike you, they have evidence to sustain their claim.
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
Click to expand...


Yeah.  That razor wire and tear gas seems to be pretty effective.  Cheap, too.


----------



## danielpalos

I guess the right wing doesn't consider our refugee problem as being due to our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.


----------



## francoHFW

Cosmos said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no communists in the United States anymore super duper... Never were really. Makes you sound like a total Dupe lol. Try socialists. Sorry your boss is also a dupe and screwed you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there are.  In great numbers.  With only minor variations, inside every democrat is an islamofascist leftist communist socialist that hopes to fundamentally change America into something we've successfully avoided for 250 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't find one Democrat in favor of a dictatorship owning all business and industry, brainwashed functional moron. Fair capitalism with a good safety net yes....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except for the leader of your corrupt, inept, America-hating party........No, they can't quite come out and admit they're for a dicatatorship owning all business and industry, even if that's what they want.  They have to lie and say they're for this crap instead.  Not so long ago calling a filthy democrat a socialist was taken as an insult.  Now the morons revel in it.  The good news is this bimbo won't last very long and Perez with have to come up with a new future for your stupid party.
> 
> _The chair of the Democratic Party just embraced progressive insurgent Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, calling her 'the future of our party'
> 
> The Democratic National Committee chair, Tom Perez, on Tuesday wholeheartedly embraced  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 28-year-old progressive insurgent who stunned the political world last week when she unseated a 10-term incumbent New York Democrat, calling the democratic socialist "the future of our party."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> everyone outside your bubble of BS propaganda knows that socialism is always democratic faire capitalism with a good safety net, pathetic dupe of the greedy idiot GOP rich....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  So you're an idiot.  Just wanted to let you have one chance to confirm.
Click to expand...

Yes you are right LOL. Most Democrats are communists who want a dictatorship that owns all businesses and Industry. Another gigantic conspiracy like the one that protects Hillary and Obama from all your phony conspiracies. You better order some more tin foil....


----------



## francoHFW

Cosmos said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The vast majority of illegal immigrants arrive here by jet, so at best it would be ineffective.
> 
> 2. The wall would have to be an engineering miracle to cover the entire U.S. - Mexico border. It's costs would be astronomical.
> 
> 3. It probably would not stop much illegal immigration at the U.S. - Mexico border. They'd just find a way to climb over it or tunnel under it. No matter how deep you make the walls foundation, they can always dig deeper.
> 
> 4. The wall would provide a sense of false confidence that would result in the reduction of border patrols and we'd end up with MORE illegal immigrants crossing the U.S. - Mexican border than there are now.
> 
> 5. The wall is simply an idiotic idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hungary would debate you on every point, and unlike you, they have evidence to sustain their claim.
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  That razor wire and tear gas seems to be pretty effective.  Cheap, too.
Click to expand...

nobody wants to go to hungary anymore anyway, they just go to the country next door duh dupes...


----------



## Siete

danielpalos said:


> I guess the right wing doesn't consider our refugee problem as being due to our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.



or that Hungary is smaller than 10 counties in East Texas.

they're simpleton morons - old, white, and uneducated. The perfect Trumpdrone.


----------



## francoHFW

francoHFW said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there are.  In great numbers.  With only minor variations, inside every democrat is an islamofascist leftist communist socialist that hopes to fundamentally change America into something we've successfully avoided for 250 years.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't find one Democrat in favor of a dictatorship owning all business and industry, brainwashed functional moron. Fair capitalism with a good safety net yes....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except for the leader of your corrupt, inept, America-hating party........No, they can't quite come out and admit they're for a dicatatorship owning all business and industry, even if that's what they want.  They have to lie and say they're for this crap instead.  Not so long ago calling a filthy democrat a socialist was taken as an insult.  Now the morons revel in it.  The good news is this bimbo won't last very long and Perez with have to come up with a new future for your stupid party.
> 
> _The chair of the Democratic Party just embraced progressive insurgent Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, calling her 'the future of our party'
> 
> The Democratic National Committee chair, Tom Perez, on Tuesday wholeheartedly embraced  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 28-year-old progressive insurgent who stunned the political world last week when she unseated a 10-term incumbent New York Democrat, calling the democratic socialist "the future of our party."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> everyone outside your bubble of BS propaganda knows that socialism is always democratic faire capitalism with a good safety net, pathetic dupe of the greedy idiot GOP rich....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  So you're an idiot.  Just wanted to let you have one chance to confirm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you are right LOL. Most Democrats are communists who want a dictatorship that owns all businesses and Industry. Another gigantic conspiracy like the one that protects Hillary and Obama from all your phony conspiracies. You better order some more tin foil....
Click to expand...

Most GOP voters are brainwashed with BS to the point of insanity. The rest of the world is aghast. You have billionaire financed propaganda, every respected media, academic and law enforcement in the world disagrees with you stupid.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Yes you are right LOL. Most Democrats are communists who want a dictatorship that owns all businesses and Industry. Another gigantic conspiracy like the one that protects Hillary and Obama from all your phony conspiracies. You better order some more tin foil....



Did DumBama try to shutdown power plants that used coal, yes or no? 

Did DumBama tax roll-your-own cigarette shops out of business, yes or no? 

Did he not also stop American Indians from mail order cigarette sales, yes or no? 

Did he not close down the Gulf until a court ordered him to reopen it, yes or no? 

Did DumBama not close down car dealerships across the country, yes or no?  

Did DumBama not force auto companies to take bailout money even though they didn't need it, yes or no? 

Did he try to take over our healthcare industry, yes or no?  

Did he not force food vendors to put calorie count on all food items sold, yes or no? 

Did Blooming Idiot not try to stop vendors from selling soda in large cups, yes or no?  

Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out

Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered


----------



## francoHFW

Cosmos said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The vast majority of illegal immigrants arrive here by jet, so at best it would be ineffective.
> 
> 2. The wall would have to be an engineering miracle to cover the entire U.S. - Mexico border. It's costs would be astronomical.
> 
> 3. It probably would not stop much illegal immigration at the U.S. - Mexico border. They'd just find a way to climb over it or tunnel under it. No matter how deep you make the walls foundation, they can always dig deeper.
> 
> 4. The wall would provide a sense of false confidence that would result in the reduction of border patrols and we'd end up with MORE illegal immigrants crossing the U.S. - Mexican border than there are now.
> 
> 5. The wall is simply an idiotic idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hungary would debate you on every point, and unlike you, they have evidence to sustain their claim.
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  That razor wire and tear gas seems to be pretty effective.  Cheap, too.
Click to expand...

How did they manage to cover the 2700 miles of gigantic Hungarian canyons deserts etc etc?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The vast majority of illegal immigrants arrive here by jet, so at best it would be ineffective.
> 
> 2. The wall would have to be an engineering miracle to cover the entire U.S. - Mexico border. It's costs would be astronomical.
> 
> 3. It probably would not stop much illegal immigration at the U.S. - Mexico border. They'd just find a way to climb over it or tunnel under it. No matter how deep you make the walls foundation, they can always dig deeper.
> 
> 4. The wall would provide a sense of false confidence that would result in the reduction of border patrols and we'd end up with MORE illegal immigrants crossing the U.S. - Mexican border than there are now.
> 
> 5. The wall is simply an idiotic idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hungary would debate you on every point, and unlike you, they have evidence to sustain their claim.
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  That razor wire and tear gas seems to be pretty effective.  Cheap, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody wants to go to hungary anymore anyway, they just go to the country next door duh dupes...
Click to expand...


Sure, nobody wanted to go there.  They just put up the fence for shits and giggles.  

Borders work--Democrats don't.


----------



## sparky

Tax Man said:


> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like our brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS


*The Newer Colossus

Much like the brazen potus of chickenhawk fame,
With conquering pimps astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose fame
Is the imprisoned detainees, and her name
M’f*cker of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide wrath; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep to your own lands, you mooches!" cries she
With silent lips. "Get your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to mooch free,
The f*ck off our back door.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost back,
I loft my tear gas inside our boarder door!"*

w/apologies to Emma  ~S~


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Siete said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The vast majority of illegal immigrants arrive here by jet, so at best it would be ineffective.
> 
> 2. The wall would have to be an engineering miracle to cover the entire U.S. - Mexico border. It's costs would be astronomical.
> 
> 3. It probably would not stop much illegal immigration at the U.S. - Mexico border. They'd just find a way to climb over it or tunnel under it. No matter how deep you make the walls foundation, they can always dig deeper.
> 
> 4. The wall would provide a sense of false confidence that would result in the reduction of border patrols and we'd end up with MORE illegal immigrants crossing the U.S. - Mexican border than there are now.
> 
> 5. The wall is simply an idiotic idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hungary would debate you on every point, and unlike you, they have evidence to sustain their claim.
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> psssst - hey idiot
> 
> razor wire fence ain't a  WALL .... DDDDUUUUURRRRRR
Click to expand...


Hey idiot, it's a barrier that very few can cross.  So where are the tunnels, ladders, and all the other BS you on the left spew that would make the wall useless?  If they can to that to a  wall, they certainly can do that to a fence.


----------



## francoHFW

francoHFW said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The vast majority of illegal immigrants arrive here by jet, so at best it would be ineffective.
> 
> 2. The wall would have to be an engineering miracle to cover the entire U.S. - Mexico border. It's costs would be astronomical.
> 
> 3. It probably would not stop much illegal immigration at the U.S. - Mexico border. They'd just find a way to climb over it or tunnel under it. No matter how deep you make the walls foundation, they can always dig deeper.
> 
> 4. The wall would provide a sense of false confidence that would result in the reduction of border patrols and we'd end up with MORE illegal immigrants crossing the U.S. - Mexican border than there are now.
> 
> 5. The wall is simply an idiotic idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hungary would debate you on every point, and unlike you, they have evidence to sustain their claim.
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  That razor wire and tear gas seems to be pretty effective.  Cheap, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did they manage to cover the 2700 miles of gigantic Hungarian canyons deserts etc etc?
Click to expand...

You do know that more than half of our illegals fly in and just overstay their visas? When will the GOP recognize reality and allow a national ID card that would stop this mess? I don't believe any of you really give a damn except in the middle of another corrupt GOP economic meltdown. Stupid walls and unconstitutional harassment laws do nothing. Every other country in the world has already managed to end illegal immigration except our stupid gop-dominated mess. Great job scumbag party first GOP and silly brainwashed dupes like you...

As Winston Churchill said, Americans are wonderful people, they will always do the right thing, after exhausting every other possibility. Thanks idiot GOP


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are right LOL. Most Democrats are communists who want a dictatorship that owns all businesses and Industry. Another gigantic conspiracy like the one that protects Hillary and Obama from all your phony conspiracies. You better order some more tin foil....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did DumBama try to shutdown power plants that used coal, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama tax roll-your-own cigarette shops out of business, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not also stop American Indians from mail order cigarette sales, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not close down the Gulf until a court ordered him to reopen it, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not close down car dealerships across the country, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not force auto companies to take bailout money even though they didn't need it, yes or no?
> 
> Did he try to take over our healthcare industry, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not force food vendors to put calorie count on all food items sold, yes or no?
> 
> Did Blooming Idiot not try to stop vendors from selling soda in large cups, yes or no?
> 
> Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out
> 
> Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered
Click to expand...

No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.


----------



## Siete

Natural Gas, The New Coal

Coal Proponents, Old Right Wing Hacks.

THE END.


----------



## ThisIsMe

For those that support the accepting of illegals into the country, why do you support this?


----------



## danielpalos

...it may be Centuries before we can generate revenue from it!


----------



## Cosmos

francoHFW said:


> You do know that more than half of our illegals fly in and just overstay their visas?



Right.  So by that logic you're objecting to internal immigration enforcement and demanding the abolishment of ICE because half of our illegals sneak in across our open borders.  Idiot.


----------



## danielpalos

We should be solving this issue in a market friendly manner for the sake of Capitalism.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The vast majority of illegal immigrants arrive here by jet, so at best it would be ineffective.
> 
> 2. The wall would have to be an engineering miracle to cover the entire U.S. - Mexico border. It's costs would be astronomical.
> 
> 3. It probably would not stop much illegal immigration at the U.S. - Mexico border. They'd just find a way to climb over it or tunnel under it. No matter how deep you make the walls foundation, they can always dig deeper.
> 
> 4. The wall would provide a sense of false confidence that would result in the reduction of border patrols and we'd end up with MORE illegal immigrants crossing the U.S. - Mexican border than there are now.
> 
> 5. The wall is simply an idiotic idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hungary would debate you on every point, and unlike you, they have evidence to sustain their claim.
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  That razor wire and tear gas seems to be pretty effective.  Cheap, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody wants to go to hungary anymore anyway, they just go to the country next door duh dupes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, nobody wanted to go there.  They just put up the fence for shits and giggles.
> 
> Borders work--Democrats don't.
Click to expand...

The GOP should stop playing politics with useless idiotic walls and unconstitutional laws and help pass a national ID card that would end this stupid crap. The wall is a joke, for silly dupes only...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The vast majority of illegal immigrants arrive here by jet, so at best it would be ineffective.
> 
> 2. The wall would have to be an engineering miracle to cover the entire U.S. - Mexico border. It's costs would be astronomical.
> 
> 3. It probably would not stop much illegal immigration at the U.S. - Mexico border. They'd just find a way to climb over it or tunnel under it. No matter how deep you make the walls foundation, they can always dig deeper.
> 
> 4. The wall would provide a sense of false confidence that would result in the reduction of border patrols and we'd end up with MORE illegal immigrants crossing the U.S. - Mexican border than there are now.
> 
> 5. The wall is simply an idiotic idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hungary would debate you on every point, and unlike you, they have evidence to sustain their claim.
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  That razor wire and tear gas seems to be pretty effective.  Cheap, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody wants to go to hungary anymore anyway, they just go to the country next door duh dupes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, nobody wanted to go there.  They just put up the fence for shits and giggles.
> 
> Borders work--Democrats don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP should stop playing politics with useless idiotic walls and unconstitutional laws and help pass a national ID card that would end this stupid crap. The wall is a joke, for silly dupes only...
Click to expand...



No, your stupid national ID card is a joke.  Yeah, give out a card that can be duplicated and sold on the black market.  That will make the illegals not want to come here.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Cosmos said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that more than half of our illegals fly in and just overstay their visas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  So by that logic you're objecting to internal immigration enforcement and demanding the abolishment of ICE because half of our illegals sneak in across our open borders.  Idiot.
Click to expand...


Yeah, because illegals get here other ways, it makes no sense to stop the easiest way to get here.  

That's liberal logic for ya.


----------



## francoHFW

Cosmos said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that more than half of our illegals fly in and just overstay their visas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  So by that logic you're objecting to internal immigration enforcement and demanding the abolishment of ICE because half of our illegals sneak in across our open borders.  Idiot.
Click to expand...

 thank you Pavlov's dog dot-dot-dot I'm in favor of a national ID card that cannot be faked and strict enforcement. However I am not a racist idiot so I am in favor of the worthy ones being allowed to stay. The GOP basically invited them in by not allowing an ID card all this time, super duper.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are right LOL. Most Democrats are communists who want a dictatorship that owns all businesses and Industry. Another gigantic conspiracy like the one that protects Hillary and Obama from all your phony conspiracies. You better order some more tin foil....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did DumBama try to shutdown power plants that used coal, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama tax roll-your-own cigarette shops out of business, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not also stop American Indians from mail order cigarette sales, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not close down the Gulf until a court ordered him to reopen it, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not close down car dealerships across the country, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not force auto companies to take bailout money even though they didn't need it, yes or no?
> 
> Did he try to take over our healthcare industry, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not force food vendors to put calorie count on all food items sold, yes or no?
> 
> Did Blooming Idiot not try to stop vendors from selling soda in large cups, yes or no?
> 
> Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out
> 
> Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
Click to expand...


There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.  

"Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.  

The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.  

I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.  

This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.


----------



## Geaux4it

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The vast majority of illegal immigrants arrive here by jet, so at best it would be ineffective.
> 
> 2. The wall would have to be an engineering miracle to cover the entire U.S. - Mexico border. It's costs would be astronomical.
> 
> 3. It probably would not stop much illegal immigration at the U.S. - Mexico border. They'd just find a way to climb over it or tunnel under it. No matter how deep you make the walls foundation, they can always dig deeper.
> 
> 4. The wall would provide a sense of false confidence that would result in the reduction of border patrols and we'd end up with MORE illegal immigrants crossing the U.S. - Mexican border than there are now.
> 
> 5. The wall is simply an idiotic idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hungary would debate you on every point, and unlike you, they have evidence to sustain their claim.
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  That razor wire and tear gas seems to be pretty effective.  Cheap, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody wants to go to hungary anymore anyway, they just go to the country next door duh dupes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, nobody wanted to go there.  They just put up the fence for shits and giggles.
> 
> Borders work--Democrats don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP should stop playing politics with useless idiotic walls and unconstitutional laws and help pass a national ID card that would end this stupid crap. The wall is a joke, for silly dupes only...
Click to expand...

Would this cough.... cough... National ID Card you speak of be required to vote?

-Geaux


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hungary would debate you on every point, and unlike you, they have evidence to sustain their claim.
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  That razor wire and tear gas seems to be pretty effective.  Cheap, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody wants to go to hungary anymore anyway, they just go to the country next door duh dupes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, nobody wanted to go there.  They just put up the fence for shits and giggles.
> 
> Borders work--Democrats don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP should stop playing politics with useless idiotic walls and unconstitutional laws and help pass a national ID card that would end this stupid crap. The wall is a joke, for silly dupes only...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, your stupid national ID card is a joke.  Yeah, give out a card that can be duplicated and sold on the black market.  That will make the illegals not want to come here.
Click to expand...

That is the GOP system we have had forever dumbass. It is certainly possible to make an ID card that cannot be faked, like with a computer chip. Stop being a goddamn idiot.


----------



## francoHFW

Geaux4it said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hungary would debate you on every point, and unlike you, they have evidence to sustain their claim.
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  That razor wire and tear gas seems to be pretty effective.  Cheap, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody wants to go to hungary anymore anyway, they just go to the country next door duh dupes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, nobody wanted to go there.  They just put up the fence for shits and giggles.
> 
> Borders work--Democrats don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP should stop playing politics with useless idiotic walls and unconstitutional laws and help pass a national ID card that would end this stupid crap. The wall is a joke, for silly dupes only...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would this cough.... cough... National ID Card you speak of be required to vote?
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

No. Only for work.


----------



## Geaux4it

francoHFW said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  That razor wire and tear gas seems to be pretty effective.  Cheap, too.
> 
> 
> 
> nobody wants to go to hungary anymore anyway, they just go to the country next door duh dupes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, nobody wanted to go there.  They just put up the fence for shits and giggles.
> 
> Borders work--Democrats don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP should stop playing politics with useless idiotic walls and unconstitutional laws and help pass a national ID card that would end this stupid crap. The wall is a joke, for silly dupes only...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would this cough.... cough... National ID Card you speak of be required to vote?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Only for work.
Click to expand...



-Geaux


----------



## francoHFW

francoHFW said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  That razor wire and tear gas seems to be pretty effective.  Cheap, too.
> 
> 
> 
> nobody wants to go to hungary anymore anyway, they just go to the country next door duh dupes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, nobody wanted to go there.  They just put up the fence for shits and giggles.
> 
> Borders work--Democrats don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP should stop playing politics with useless idiotic walls and unconstitutional laws and help pass a national ID card that would end this stupid crap. The wall is a joke, for silly dupes only...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would this cough.... cough... National ID Card you speak of be required to vote?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Only for work.
Click to expand...

on the other hand that might be the way to get the Republicans to finally go along....


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are right LOL. Most Democrats are communists who want a dictatorship that owns all businesses and Industry. Another gigantic conspiracy like the one that protects Hillary and Obama from all your phony conspiracies. You better order some more tin foil....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did DumBama try to shutdown power plants that used coal, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama tax roll-your-own cigarette shops out of business, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not also stop American Indians from mail order cigarette sales, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not close down the Gulf until a court ordered him to reopen it, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not close down car dealerships across the country, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not force auto companies to take bailout money even though they didn't need it, yes or no?
> 
> Did he try to take over our healthcare industry, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not force food vendors to put calorie count on all food items sold, yes or no?
> 
> Did Blooming Idiot not try to stop vendors from selling soda in large cups, yes or no?
> 
> Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out
> 
> Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
Click to expand...

Socialist regulate business and industry, communistd own them, dingbat. Republicans let them run wild so they can make corrupt killing and then we have to pay for it. Every time they get eight years it happens.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are right LOL. Most Democrats are communists who want a dictatorship that owns all businesses and Industry. Another gigantic conspiracy like the one that protects Hillary and Obama from all your phony conspiracies. You better order some more tin foil....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did DumBama try to shutdown power plants that used coal, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama tax roll-your-own cigarette shops out of business, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not also stop American Indians from mail order cigarette sales, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not close down the Gulf until a court ordered him to reopen it, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not close down car dealerships across the country, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not force auto companies to take bailout money even though they didn't need it, yes or no?
> 
> Did he try to take over our healthcare industry, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not force food vendors to put calorie count on all food items sold, yes or no?
> 
> Did Blooming Idiot not try to stop vendors from selling soda in large cups, yes or no?
> 
> Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out
> 
> Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialist regulate business and industry, communistd own them, dingbat. Republicans let them run wild so they can make corrupt killing and then we have to pay for it. Every time they get eight years it happens.
Click to expand...


Bull.  Reagan had the greatest economy in history.  Trump lowered regulations and removed the ones DumBama put in, and we have record unemployment in a half-century.  But watch what happens when Democrats begin leadership of Congress.  That's when everything will start to go to hell again just like the last time they took over Congress.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are right LOL. Most Democrats are communists who want a dictatorship that owns all businesses and Industry. Another gigantic conspiracy like the one that protects Hillary and Obama from all your phony conspiracies. You better order some more tin foil....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did DumBama try to shutdown power plants that used coal, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama tax roll-your-own cigarette shops out of business, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not also stop American Indians from mail order cigarette sales, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not close down the Gulf until a court ordered him to reopen it, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not close down car dealerships across the country, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not force auto companies to take bailout money even though they didn't need it, yes or no?
> 
> Did he try to take over our healthcare industry, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not force food vendors to put calorie count on all food items sold, yes or no?
> 
> Did Blooming Idiot not try to stop vendors from selling soda in large cups, yes or no?
> 
> Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out
> 
> Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialist regulate business and industry, communistd own them, dingbat. Republicans let them run wild so they can make corrupt killing and then we have to pay for it. Every time they get eight years it happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.  Reagan had the greatest economy in history.  Trump lowered regulations and removed the ones DumBama put in, and we have record unemployment in a half-century.  But watch what happens when Democrats begin leadership of Congress.  That's when everything will start to go to hell again just like the last time they took over Congress.
Click to expand...

Reagan's economy was the typical GOP scam, tripled the debt in supposedly Good Times and then well have you ever heard of the s&l crisis bubble bust scandal? That was the worst financial meltdown since 1929 until 2008. And his ridiculous tax rates on the richest have given us the worst inequality and worst upward mobility in our history, just keeps getting worse and worse, dumbass.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are right LOL. Most Democrats are communists who want a dictatorship that owns all businesses and Industry. Another gigantic conspiracy like the one that protects Hillary and Obama from all your phony conspiracies. You better order some more tin foil....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did DumBama try to shutdown power plants that used coal, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama tax roll-your-own cigarette shops out of business, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not also stop American Indians from mail order cigarette sales, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not close down the Gulf until a court ordered him to reopen it, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not close down car dealerships across the country, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not force auto companies to take bailout money even though they didn't need it, yes or no?
> 
> Did he try to take over our healthcare industry, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not force food vendors to put calorie count on all food items sold, yes or no?
> 
> Did Blooming Idiot not try to stop vendors from selling soda in large cups, yes or no?
> 
> Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out
> 
> Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialist regulate business and industry, communistd own them, dingbat. Republicans let them run wild so they can make corrupt killing and then we have to pay for it. Every time they get eight years it happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.  Reagan had the greatest economy in history.  Trump lowered regulations and removed the ones DumBama put in, and we have record unemployment in a half-century.  But watch what happens when Democrats begin leadership of Congress.  That's when everything will start to go to hell again just like the last time they took over Congress.
Click to expand...

So are you are blaming the powerless Democrats 2007 until 2008 for the largest financial meltdown since 1929? Hilarious.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did DumBama try to shutdown power plants that used coal, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama tax roll-your-own cigarette shops out of business, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not also stop American Indians from mail order cigarette sales, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not close down the Gulf until a court ordered him to reopen it, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not close down car dealerships across the country, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not force auto companies to take bailout money even though they didn't need it, yes or no?
> 
> Did he try to take over our healthcare industry, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not force food vendors to put calorie count on all food items sold, yes or no?
> 
> Did Blooming Idiot not try to stop vendors from selling soda in large cups, yes or no?
> 
> Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out
> 
> Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered
> 
> 
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialist regulate business and industry, communistd own them, dingbat. Republicans let them run wild so they can make corrupt killing and then we have to pay for it. Every time they get eight years it happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.  Reagan had the greatest economy in history.  Trump lowered regulations and removed the ones DumBama put in, and we have record unemployment in a half-century.  But watch what happens when Democrats begin leadership of Congress.  That's when everything will start to go to hell again just like the last time they took over Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are you are blaming the powerless Democrats 2007 until 2008 for the largest financial meltdown since 1929? Hilarious.
Click to expand...



Why not?  You blamed George Bush.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did DumBama try to shutdown power plants that used coal, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama tax roll-your-own cigarette shops out of business, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not also stop American Indians from mail order cigarette sales, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not close down the Gulf until a court ordered him to reopen it, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not close down car dealerships across the country, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not force auto companies to take bailout money even though they didn't need it, yes or no?
> 
> Did he try to take over our healthcare industry, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not force food vendors to put calorie count on all food items sold, yes or no?
> 
> Did Blooming Idiot not try to stop vendors from selling soda in large cups, yes or no?
> 
> Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out
> 
> Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered
> 
> 
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialist regulate business and industry, communistd own them, dingbat. Republicans let them run wild so they can make corrupt killing and then we have to pay for it. Every time they get eight years it happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.  Reagan had the greatest economy in history.  Trump lowered regulations and removed the ones DumBama put in, and we have record unemployment in a half-century.  But watch what happens when Democrats begin leadership of Congress.  That's when everything will start to go to hell again just like the last time they took over Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan's economy was the typical GOP scam, tripled the debt in supposedly Good Times and then well have you ever heard of the s&l crisis bubble bust scandal? That was the worst financial meltdown since 1929 until 2008. And his ridiculous tax rates on the richest have given us the worst inequality and worst upward mobility in our history, just keeps getting worse and worse, dumbass.
Click to expand...


What Reagan did was look into the future.  Jobs have been leaving this country since the mid 70's or some even earlier.  What Reagan did was give incentive to keep more jobs here.  You can't take most of people's money and expect more to risk capital, start businesses, only for government to take most of their money.  

Yes, the Democrats played a very large part in the housing meltdown.  The plans were instituted by Bill Clinton, and the fuse was lit at that point.  The real problem is Republicans didn't do enough to stop it.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialist regulate business and industry, communistd own them, dingbat. Republicans let them run wild so they can make corrupt killing and then we have to pay for it. Every time they get eight years it happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.  Reagan had the greatest economy in history.  Trump lowered regulations and removed the ones DumBama put in, and we have record unemployment in a half-century.  But watch what happens when Democrats begin leadership of Congress.  That's when everything will start to go to hell again just like the last time they took over Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are you are blaming the powerless Democrats 2007 until 2008 for the largest financial meltdown since 1929? Hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  You blamed George Bush.
Click to expand...

Because all the damage was done 2003 to 2006 or 7. all about crony regulators.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialist regulate business and industry, communistd own them, dingbat. Republicans let them run wild so they can make corrupt killing and then we have to pay for it. Every time they get eight years it happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.  Reagan had the greatest economy in history.  Trump lowered regulations and removed the ones DumBama put in, and we have record unemployment in a half-century.  But watch what happens when Democrats begin leadership of Congress.  That's when everything will start to go to hell again just like the last time they took over Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan's economy was the typical GOP scam, tripled the debt in supposedly Good Times and then well have you ever heard of the s&l crisis bubble bust scandal? That was the worst financial meltdown since 1929 until 2008. And his ridiculous tax rates on the richest have given us the worst inequality and worst upward mobility in our history, just keeps getting worse and worse, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Reagan did was look into the future.  Jobs have been leaving this country since the mid 70's or some even earlier.  What Reagan did was give incentive to keep more jobs here.  You can't take most of people's money and expect more to risk capital, start businesses, only for government to take most of their money.
> 
> Yes, the Democrats played a very large part in the housing meltdown.  The plans were instituted by Bill Clinton, and the fuse was lit at that point.  The real problem is Republicans didn't do enough to stop it.
Click to expand...

The Democrats made it possible for minorities to get mortgages, ending redlining. Then GOP Regulators under Bush let their Pals in independent financial institutions go nuts, giving mortgages to anyone breathing. Toxic assets great deal great job scumbag Republicans and silly Dupe's like you...


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

Geaux4it said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a perfect solution but unarguably it would reduce crossings
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Not it will not.

What it will do is allow the Cartels to build tunnels that they control and force illegals to either go through the Cartels tunnels or risk climbing the wall.

One of the few times I will agree with Timmy on any subject and the wall is a waste of money and could be spent on enforcing the law and hiring more agents.


----------



## bripat9643

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a perfect solution but unarguably it would reduce crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not it will not.
> 
> What it will do is allow the Cartels to build tunnels that they control and force illegals to either go through the Cartels tunnels or risk climbing the wall.
> 
> One of the few times I will agree with Timmy on any subject and the wall is a waste of money and could be spent on enforcing the law and hiring more agents.
Click to expand...

Sorry, dumbass, but they have ways to find tunnels.  Furthermore, you can only build tunnels in the city.  If you build them in the desert, it's easy to spot the exit. 

Tunnels are built by drug dealers.  They don't allow peasants to use them for getting into the US.


----------



## Wyatt earp

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  That razor wire and tear gas seems to be pretty effective.  Cheap, too.
> 
> 
> 
> nobody wants to go to hungary anymore anyway, they just go to the country next door duh dupes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, nobody wanted to go there.  They just put up the fence for shits and giggles.
> 
> Borders work--Democrats don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP should stop playing politics with useless idiotic walls and unconstitutional laws and help pass a national ID card that would end this stupid crap. The wall is a joke, for silly dupes only...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, your stupid national ID card is a joke.  Yeah, give out a card that can be duplicated and sold on the black market.  That will make the illegals not want to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the GOP system we have had forever dumbass. It is certainly possible to make an ID card that cannot be faked, like with a computer chip. Stop being a goddamn idiot.
Click to expand...



We have already covered this, you can fake anything.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a perfect solution but unarguably it would reduce crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not it will not.
> 
> What it will do is allow the Cartels to build tunnels that they control and force illegals to either go through the Cartels tunnels or risk climbing the wall.
> 
> One of the few times I will agree with Timmy on any subject and the wall is a waste of money and could be spent on enforcing the law and hiring more agents.
Click to expand...


So what's quicker, crossing the desert to get into the US or getting the construction equipment and building a tunnel?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialist regulate business and industry, communistd own them, dingbat. Republicans let them run wild so they can make corrupt killing and then we have to pay for it. Every time they get eight years it happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.  Reagan had the greatest economy in history.  Trump lowered regulations and removed the ones DumBama put in, and we have record unemployment in a half-century.  But watch what happens when Democrats begin leadership of Congress.  That's when everything will start to go to hell again just like the last time they took over Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan's economy was the typical GOP scam, tripled the debt in supposedly Good Times and then well have you ever heard of the s&l crisis bubble bust scandal? That was the worst financial meltdown since 1929 until 2008. And his ridiculous tax rates on the richest have given us the worst inequality and worst upward mobility in our history, just keeps getting worse and worse, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Reagan did was look into the future.  Jobs have been leaving this country since the mid 70's or some even earlier.  What Reagan did was give incentive to keep more jobs here.  You can't take most of people's money and expect more to risk capital, start businesses, only for government to take most of their money.
> 
> Yes, the Democrats played a very large part in the housing meltdown.  The plans were instituted by Bill Clinton, and the fuse was lit at that point.  The real problem is Republicans didn't do enough to stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Democrats made it possible for minorities to get mortgages, ending redlining. Then GOP Regulators under Bush let their Pals in independent financial institutions go nuts, giving mortgages to anyone breathing. Toxic assets great deal great job scumbag Republicans and silly Dupe's like you...
Click to expand...


Dummy.  Banks only lend money according to government regulation set out by HUD which is the boss of Fanny and Freddy.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialist regulate business and industry, communistd own them, dingbat. Republicans let them run wild so they can make corrupt killing and then we have to pay for it. Every time they get eight years it happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.  Reagan had the greatest economy in history.  Trump lowered regulations and removed the ones DumBama put in, and we have record unemployment in a half-century.  But watch what happens when Democrats begin leadership of Congress.  That's when everything will start to go to hell again just like the last time they took over Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are you are blaming the powerless Democrats 2007 until 2008 for the largest financial meltdown since 1929? Hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  You blamed George Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because all the damage was done 2003 to 2006 or 7. all about crony regulators.
Click to expand...


No, it's all about government being involved with private business.  Trust me, banks would never lend a dime to unworthy borrowers unless the government told them to.  But then we'd have to hear people cry how they couldn't get a home loan because of race or income.  Democrats fixed that alright.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hungary would debate you on every point, and unlike you, they have evidence to sustain their claim.
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  That razor wire and tear gas seems to be pretty effective.  Cheap, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody wants to go to hungary anymore anyway, they just go to the country next door duh dupes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, nobody wanted to go there.  They just put up the fence for shits and giggles.
> 
> Borders work--Democrats don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP should stop playing politics with useless idiotic walls and unconstitutional laws and help pass a national ID card that would end this stupid crap. The wall is a joke, for silly dupes only...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, your stupid national ID card is a joke.  Yeah, give out a card that can be duplicated and sold on the black market.  That will make the illegals not want to come here.
Click to expand...

all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that more than half of our illegals fly in and just overstay their visas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  So by that logic you're objecting to internal immigration enforcement and demanding the abolishment of ICE because half of our illegals sneak in across our open borders.  Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because illegals get here other ways, it makes no sense to stop the easiest way to get here.
> 
> That's liberal logic for ya.
Click to expand...

end our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror to stop destabilizing other countries and stop creating refugees.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are right LOL. Most Democrats are communists who want a dictatorship that owns all businesses and Industry. Another gigantic conspiracy like the one that protects Hillary and Obama from all your phony conspiracies. You better order some more tin foil....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did DumBama try to shutdown power plants that used coal, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama tax roll-your-own cigarette shops out of business, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not also stop American Indians from mail order cigarette sales, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not close down the Gulf until a court ordered him to reopen it, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not close down car dealerships across the country, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not force auto companies to take bailout money even though they didn't need it, yes or no?
> 
> Did he try to take over our healthcare industry, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not force food vendors to put calorie count on all food items sold, yes or no?
> 
> Did Blooming Idiot not try to stop vendors from selling soda in large cups, yes or no?
> 
> Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out
> 
> Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
Click to expand...

The left is for health care reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.


----------



## Wyatt earp

danielpalos said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are right LOL. Most Democrats are communists who want a dictatorship that owns all businesses and Industry. Another gigantic conspiracy like the one that protects Hillary and Obama from all your phony conspiracies. You better order some more tin foil....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did DumBama try to shutdown power plants that used coal, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama tax roll-your-own cigarette shops out of business, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not also stop American Indians from mail order cigarette sales, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not close down the Gulf until a court ordered him to reopen it, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not close down car dealerships across the country, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not force auto companies to take bailout money even though they didn't need it, yes or no?
> 
> Did he try to take over our healthcare industry, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not force food vendors to put calorie count on all food items sold, yes or no?
> 
> Did Blooming Idiot not try to stop vendors from selling soda in large cups, yes or no?
> 
> Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out
> 
> Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The left is for health care reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
Click to expand...



A $15 dollar minimum wage = 25 cents.

.


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are right LOL. Most Democrats are communists who want a dictatorship that owns all businesses and Industry. Another gigantic conspiracy like the one that protects Hillary and Obama from all your phony conspiracies. You better order some more tin foil....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did DumBama try to shutdown power plants that used coal, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama tax roll-your-own cigarette shops out of business, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not also stop American Indians from mail order cigarette sales, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not close down the Gulf until a court ordered him to reopen it, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not close down car dealerships across the country, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not force auto companies to take bailout money even though they didn't need it, yes or no?
> 
> Did he try to take over our healthcare industry, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not force food vendors to put calorie count on all food items sold, yes or no?
> 
> Did Blooming Idiot not try to stop vendors from selling soda in large cups, yes or no?
> 
> Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out
> 
> Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The left is for health care reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A $15 dollar minimum wage = 25 cents.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

 fifteen dollars is a cost of living adjustment.  the right wing complains about a Minimum wage.


----------



## Wyatt earp

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did DumBama try to shutdown power plants that used coal, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama tax roll-your-own cigarette shops out of business, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not also stop American Indians from mail order cigarette sales, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not close down the Gulf until a court ordered him to reopen it, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not close down car dealerships across the country, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not force auto companies to take bailout money even though they didn't need it, yes or no?
> 
> Did he try to take over our healthcare industry, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not force food vendors to put calorie count on all food items sold, yes or no?
> 
> Did Blooming Idiot not try to stop vendors from selling soda in large cups, yes or no?
> 
> Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out
> 
> Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered
> 
> 
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The left is for health care reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A $15 dollar minimum wage = 25 cents.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fifteen dollars is a cost of living adjustment.  the right wing complains about a Minimum wage.
Click to expand...


Fifteen dollar minimum wage is chump change we need a ninety cent minimum wage to get ahead.


.


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The left is for health care reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A $15 dollar minimum wage = 25 cents.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fifteen dollars is a cost of living adjustment.  the right wing complains about a Minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fifteen dollar minimum wage is chump change we need a ninety cent minimum wage to get ahead.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour equivalent, regardless.  there is absolutely no reason to subsidize employers with Cheap labor in a First World economy.

go ahead and automate.  

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, is more cost effective than means tested welfare.


----------



## Wyatt earp

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> 
> 
> The left is for health care reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A $15 dollar minimum wage = 25 cents.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fifteen dollars is a cost of living adjustment.  the right wing complains about a Minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fifteen dollar minimum wage is chump change we need a ninety cent minimum wage to get ahead.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour equivalent, regardless.  there is absolutely no reason to subsidize employers with Cheap labor in a First World economy.
> 
> go ahead and automate.
> 
> unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, is more cost effective than means tested welfare.
Click to expand...

No social services cost twenty cents an hour .


----------



## danielpalos

Upgrading Ellis Island means people will go There and not Here.


----------



## sartre play

Could be it has not been well thought out? don't hear much here about how people living close to the border feel about it . or cost verses gain, just people demanding it built or not built.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialist regulate business and industry, communistd own them, dingbat. Republicans let them run wild so they can make corrupt killing and then we have to pay for it. Every time they get eight years it happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.  Reagan had the greatest economy in history.  Trump lowered regulations and removed the ones DumBama put in, and we have record unemployment in a half-century.  But watch what happens when Democrats begin leadership of Congress.  That's when everything will start to go to hell again just like the last time they took over Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan's economy was the typical GOP scam, tripled the debt in supposedly Good Times and then well have you ever heard of the s&l crisis bubble bust scandal? That was the worst financial meltdown since 1929 until 2008. And his ridiculous tax rates on the richest have given us the worst inequality and worst upward mobility in our history, just keeps getting worse and worse, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Reagan did was look into the future.  Jobs have been leaving this country since the mid 70's or some even earlier.  What Reagan did was give incentive to keep more jobs here.  You can't take most of people's money and expect more to risk capital, start businesses, only for government to take most of their money.
> 
> Yes, the Democrats played a very large part in the housing meltdown.  The plans were instituted by Bill Clinton, and the fuse was lit at that point.  The real problem is Republicans didn't do enough to stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Democrats made it possible for minorities to get mortgages, ending redlining. Then GOP Regulators under Bush let their Pals in independent financial institutions go nuts, giving mortgages to anyone breathing. Toxic assets great deal great job scumbag Republicans and silly Dupe's like you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dummy.  Banks only lend money according to government regulation set out by HUD which is the boss of Fanny and Freddy.
Click to expand...

Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 and 4, and independent financial institutions went nuts with basically no regulation from their Pals in the Bush Administration, brainwashed dunderhead.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.  Reagan had the greatest economy in history.  Trump lowered regulations and removed the ones DumBama put in, and we have record unemployment in a half-century.  But watch what happens when Democrats begin leadership of Congress.  That's when everything will start to go to hell again just like the last time they took over Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan's economy was the typical GOP scam, tripled the debt in supposedly Good Times and then well have you ever heard of the s&l crisis bubble bust scandal? That was the worst financial meltdown since 1929 until 2008. And his ridiculous tax rates on the richest have given us the worst inequality and worst upward mobility in our history, just keeps getting worse and worse, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Reagan did was look into the future.  Jobs have been leaving this country since the mid 70's or some even earlier.  What Reagan did was give incentive to keep more jobs here.  You can't take most of people's money and expect more to risk capital, start businesses, only for government to take most of their money.
> 
> Yes, the Democrats played a very large part in the housing meltdown.  The plans were instituted by Bill Clinton, and the fuse was lit at that point.  The real problem is Republicans didn't do enough to stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Democrats made it possible for minorities to get mortgages, ending redlining. Then GOP Regulators under Bush let their Pals in independent financial institutions go nuts, giving mortgages to anyone breathing. Toxic assets great deal great job scumbag Republicans and silly Dupe's like you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dummy.  Banks only lend money according to government regulation set out by HUD which is the boss of Fanny and Freddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 and 4, and independent financial institutions went nuts with basically no regulation from their Pals in the Bush Administration, brainwashed dunderhead.
Click to expand...


Comprehension problems I see.  So one more time:  F and F set the loan standard for banks that want to make loans that can be sold on the market.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialist regulate business and industry, communistd own them, dingbat. Republicans let them run wild so they can make corrupt killing and then we have to pay for it. Every time they get eight years it happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.  Reagan had the greatest economy in history.  Trump lowered regulations and removed the ones DumBama put in, and we have record unemployment in a half-century.  But watch what happens when Democrats begin leadership of Congress.  That's when everything will start to go to hell again just like the last time they took over Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are you are blaming the powerless Democrats 2007 until 2008 for the largest financial meltdown since 1929? Hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  You blamed George Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because all the damage was done 2003 to 2006 or 7. all about crony regulators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's all about government being involved with private business.  Trust me, banks would never lend a dime to unworthy borrowers unless the government told them to.  But then we'd have to hear people cry how they couldn't get a home loan because of race or income.  Democrats fixed that alright.
Click to expand...

Banks and especially independent financial institutions will do anything they think they can get away with... Read something for Christ's sake... And then regular people will have to pay for their crimes. The GOP does it every time d u h. Try reading some actual journalism, GOP propaganda chump of the greedy idiot Rich GOP...


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan's economy was the typical GOP scam, tripled the debt in supposedly Good Times and then well have you ever heard of the s&l crisis bubble bust scandal? That was the worst financial meltdown since 1929 until 2008. And his ridiculous tax rates on the richest have given us the worst inequality and worst upward mobility in our history, just keeps getting worse and worse, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Reagan did was look into the future.  Jobs have been leaving this country since the mid 70's or some even earlier.  What Reagan did was give incentive to keep more jobs here.  You can't take most of people's money and expect more to risk capital, start businesses, only for government to take most of their money.
> 
> Yes, the Democrats played a very large part in the housing meltdown.  The plans were instituted by Bill Clinton, and the fuse was lit at that point.  The real problem is Republicans didn't do enough to stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Democrats made it possible for minorities to get mortgages, ending redlining. Then GOP Regulators under Bush let their Pals in independent financial institutions go nuts, giving mortgages to anyone breathing. Toxic assets great deal great job scumbag Republicans and silly Dupe's like you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dummy.  Banks only lend money according to government regulation set out by HUD which is the boss of Fanny and Freddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 and 4, and independent financial institutions went nuts with basically no regulation from their Pals in the Bush Administration, brainwashed dunderhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comprehension problems I see.  So one more time:  F and F set the loan standard for banks that want to make loans that can be sold on the market.
Click to expand...

Until GOP deregulation and Anything goes GOP crony regulators. God you're full of crap.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Reagan did was look into the future.  Jobs have been leaving this country since the mid 70's or some even earlier.  What Reagan did was give incentive to keep more jobs here.  You can't take most of people's money and expect more to risk capital, start businesses, only for government to take most of their money.
> 
> Yes, the Democrats played a very large part in the housing meltdown.  The plans were instituted by Bill Clinton, and the fuse was lit at that point.  The real problem is Republicans didn't do enough to stop it.
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats made it possible for minorities to get mortgages, ending redlining. Then GOP Regulators under Bush let their Pals in independent financial institutions go nuts, giving mortgages to anyone breathing. Toxic assets great deal great job scumbag Republicans and silly Dupe's like you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dummy.  Banks only lend money according to government regulation set out by HUD which is the boss of Fanny and Freddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 and 4, and independent financial institutions went nuts with basically no regulation from their Pals in the Bush Administration, brainwashed dunderhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comprehension problems I see.  So one more time:  F and F set the loan standard for banks that want to make loans that can be sold on the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until GOP deregulation and Anything goes GOP crony regulators. God you're full of crap.
Click to expand...


Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending


----------



## bripat9643

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Reagan did was look into the future.  Jobs have been leaving this country since the mid 70's or some even earlier.  What Reagan did was give incentive to keep more jobs here.  You can't take most of people's money and expect more to risk capital, start businesses, only for government to take most of their money.
> 
> Yes, the Democrats played a very large part in the housing meltdown.  The plans were instituted by Bill Clinton, and the fuse was lit at that point.  The real problem is Republicans didn't do enough to stop it.
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats made it possible for minorities to get mortgages, ending redlining. Then GOP Regulators under Bush let their Pals in independent financial institutions go nuts, giving mortgages to anyone breathing. Toxic assets great deal great job scumbag Republicans and silly Dupe's like you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dummy.  Banks only lend money according to government regulation set out by HUD which is the boss of Fanny and Freddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 and 4, and independent financial institutions went nuts with basically no regulation from their Pals in the Bush Administration, brainwashed dunderhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comprehension problems I see.  So one more time:  F and F set the loan standard for banks that want to make loans that can be sold on the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until GOP deregulation and Anything goes GOP crony regulators. God you're full of crap.
Click to expand...

What "deregulation?"


----------



## Richard-H

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The vast majority of illegal immigrants arrive here by jet, so at best it would be ineffective.
> 
> 2. The wall would have to be an engineering miracle to cover the entire U.S. - Mexico border. It's costs would be astronomical.
> 
> 3. It probably would not stop much illegal immigration at the U.S. - Mexico border. They'd just find a way to climb over it or tunnel under it. No matter how deep you make the walls foundation, they can always dig deeper.
> 
> 4. The wall would provide a sense of false confidence that would result in the reduction of border patrols and we'd end up with MORE illegal immigrants crossing the U.S. - Mexican border than there are now.
> 
> 5. The wall is simply an idiotic idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hungary would debate you on every point, and unlike you, they have evidence to sustain their claim.
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
Click to expand...


That's because nobody really wants to go to Hungary all that much anyway.


----------



## Richard-H

Funny thing about walls:

I used to live in an apartment building that had 12 foot stone walls with razor wire loops all around the top.

One night at around 3 a.m. one of my drunk friends climbed over the wall, just because he thought it would be funny to wake me in the middle of the night.

Walls don't stop anyone if they're determined...or really drunk!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Richard-H said:


> Funny thing about walls:
> 
> I used to live in an apartment building that had 12 foot stone walls with razor wire loops all around the top.
> 
> One night at around 3 a.m. one of my drunk friends climbed over the wall, just because he thought it would be funny to wake me in the middle of the night.
> 
> Walls don't stop anyone if they're determined...or really drunk!



Was it also guarded by border security?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Richard-H

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are right LOL. Most Democrats are communists who want a dictatorship that owns all businesses and Industry. Another gigantic conspiracy like the one that protects Hillary and Obama from all your phony conspiracies. You better order some more tin foil....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did DumBama try to shutdown power plants that used coal, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama tax roll-your-own cigarette shops out of business, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not also stop American Indians from mail order cigarette sales, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not close down the Gulf until a court ordered him to reopen it, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not close down car dealerships across the country, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not force auto companies to take bailout money even though they didn't need it, yes or no?
> 
> Did he try to take over our healthcare industry, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not force food vendors to put calorie count on all food items sold, yes or no?
> 
> Did Blooming Idiot not try to stop vendors from selling soda in large cups, yes or no?
> 
> Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out
> 
> Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
Click to expand...


Have you ever considered that your political views are perhaps a bit childish?

Sorry 'bout your transaction fees, but basing you entire political opinions on your wallet is kind of unpatriotic!

BTW - I pay the same fees.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Richard-H said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The vast majority of illegal immigrants arrive here by jet, so at best it would be ineffective.
> 
> 2. The wall would have to be an engineering miracle to cover the entire U.S. - Mexico border. It's costs would be astronomical.
> 
> 3. It probably would not stop much illegal immigration at the U.S. - Mexico border. They'd just find a way to climb over it or tunnel under it. No matter how deep you make the walls foundation, they can always dig deeper.
> 
> 4. The wall would provide a sense of false confidence that would result in the reduction of border patrols and we'd end up with MORE illegal immigrants crossing the U.S. - Mexican border than there are now.
> 
> 5. The wall is simply an idiotic idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hungary would debate you on every point, and unlike you, they have evidence to sustain their claim.
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because nobody really wants to go to Hungary all that much anyway.
Click to expand...


Sure.  They built a wall because nobody wanted to go there.  


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Siete

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats made it possible for minorities to get mortgages, ending redlining. Then GOP Regulators under Bush let their Pals in independent financial institutions go nuts, giving mortgages to anyone breathing. Toxic assets great deal great job scumbag Republicans and silly Dupe's like you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dummy.  Banks only lend money according to government regulation set out by HUD which is the boss of Fanny and Freddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 and 4, and independent financial institutions went nuts with basically no regulation from their Pals in the Bush Administration, brainwashed dunderhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comprehension problems I see.  So one more time:  F and F set the loan standard for banks that want to make loans that can be sold on the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until GOP deregulation and Anything goes GOP crony regulators. God you're full of crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
Click to expand...



next contestant ..


----------



## Richard-H

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing about walls:
> 
> I used to live in an apartment building that had 12 foot stone walls with razor wire loops all around the top.
> 
> One night at around 3 a.m. one of my drunk friends climbed over the wall, just because he thought it would be funny to wake me in the middle of the night.
> 
> Walls don't stop anyone if they're determined...or really drunk!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was it also guarded by border security?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...


Well, yes, sort of. But my friend would not have been stopped by them.


----------



## Richard-H

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The vast majority of illegal immigrants arrive here by jet, so at best it would be ineffective.
> 
> 2. The wall would have to be an engineering miracle to cover the entire U.S. - Mexico border. It's costs would be astronomical.
> 
> 3. It probably would not stop much illegal immigration at the U.S. - Mexico border. They'd just find a way to climb over it or tunnel under it. No matter how deep you make the walls foundation, they can always dig deeper.
> 
> 4. The wall would provide a sense of false confidence that would result in the reduction of border patrols and we'd end up with MORE illegal immigrants crossing the U.S. - Mexican border than there are now.
> 
> 5. The wall is simply an idiotic idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hungary would debate you on every point, and unlike you, they have evidence to sustain their claim.
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because nobody really wants to go to Hungary all that much anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  They built a wall because nobody wanted to go there.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...


Hey, I'd like to go to Hungary, but not if there's a barbed wire fence in the way.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Richard-H said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing about walls:
> 
> I used to live in an apartment building that had 12 foot stone walls with razor wire loops all around the top.
> 
> One night at around 3 a.m. one of my drunk friends climbed over the wall, just because he thought it would be funny to wake me in the middle of the night.
> 
> Walls don't stop anyone if they're determined...or really drunk!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was it also guarded by border security?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, sort of. But my friend would not have been stopped by them.
Click to expand...


Then how are they reporting on 100% decrease in illegal immigration?  

Borders work, it's as simple as that.  

Where do Border Fences work? Everywhere


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Richard-H said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are right LOL. Most Democrats are communists who want a dictatorship that owns all businesses and Industry. Another gigantic conspiracy like the one that protects Hillary and Obama from all your phony conspiracies. You better order some more tin foil....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did DumBama try to shutdown power plants that used coal, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama tax roll-your-own cigarette shops out of business, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not also stop American Indians from mail order cigarette sales, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not close down the Gulf until a court ordered him to reopen it, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not close down car dealerships across the country, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not force auto companies to take bailout money even though they didn't need it, yes or no?
> 
> Did he try to take over our healthcare industry, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not force food vendors to put calorie count on all food items sold, yes or no?
> 
> Did Blooming Idiot not try to stop vendors from selling soda in large cups, yes or no?
> 
> Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out
> 
> Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered that your political views are perhaps a bit childish?
> 
> Sorry 'bout your transaction fees, but basing you entire political opinions on your wallet is kind of unpatriotic!
> 
> BTW - I pay the same fees.
Click to expand...


You and I wouldn't be paying those fees if Democrats stayed out of the private market.  What's unpatriotic about that?


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are right LOL. Most Democrats are communists who want a dictatorship that owns all businesses and Industry. Another gigantic conspiracy like the one that protects Hillary and Obama from all your phony conspiracies. You better order some more tin foil....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did DumBama try to shutdown power plants that used coal, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama tax roll-your-own cigarette shops out of business, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not also stop American Indians from mail order cigarette sales, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not close down the Gulf until a court ordered him to reopen it, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not close down car dealerships across the country, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not force auto companies to take bailout money even though they didn't need it, yes or no?
> 
> Did he try to take over our healthcare industry, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not force food vendors to put calorie count on all food items sold, yes or no?
> 
> Did Blooming Idiot not try to stop vendors from selling soda in large cups, yes or no?
> 
> Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out
> 
> Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered that your political views are perhaps a bit childish?
> 
> Sorry 'bout your transaction fees, but basing you entire political opinions on your wallet is kind of unpatriotic!
> 
> BTW - I pay the same fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and I wouldn't be paying those fees if Democrats stayed out of the private market.  What's unpatriotic about that?
Click to expand...

They had a reason to do it. Which you and I don't know LOL


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are right LOL. Most Democrats are communists who want a dictatorship that owns all businesses and Industry. Another gigantic conspiracy like the one that protects Hillary and Obama from all your phony conspiracies. You better order some more tin foil....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did DumBama try to shutdown power plants that used coal, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama tax roll-your-own cigarette shops out of business, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not also stop American Indians from mail order cigarette sales, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not close down the Gulf until a court ordered him to reopen it, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not close down car dealerships across the country, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not force auto companies to take bailout money even though they didn't need it, yes or no?
> 
> Did he try to take over our healthcare industry, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not force food vendors to put calorie count on all food items sold, yes or no?
> 
> Did Blooming Idiot not try to stop vendors from selling soda in large cups, yes or no?
> 
> Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out
> 
> Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered that your political views are perhaps a bit childish?
> 
> Sorry 'bout your transaction fees, but basing you entire political opinions on your wallet is kind of unpatriotic!
> 
> BTW - I pay the same fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and I wouldn't be paying those fees if Democrats stayed out of the private market.  What's unpatriotic about that?
Click to expand...

The coal industry is dying a fitting death at this point and yes there are plenty of people who want alternative energy clean energy instead of coal. Only idiots don't. Oops brainwashed functional idiots.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did DumBama try to shutdown power plants that used coal, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama tax roll-your-own cigarette shops out of business, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not also stop American Indians from mail order cigarette sales, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not close down the Gulf until a court ordered him to reopen it, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not close down car dealerships across the country, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not force auto companies to take bailout money even though they didn't need it, yes or no?
> 
> Did he try to take over our healthcare industry, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not force food vendors to put calorie count on all food items sold, yes or no?
> 
> Did Blooming Idiot not try to stop vendors from selling soda in large cups, yes or no?
> 
> Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out
> 
> Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered
> 
> 
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered that your political views are perhaps a bit childish?
> 
> Sorry 'bout your transaction fees, but basing you entire political opinions on your wallet is kind of unpatriotic!
> 
> BTW - I pay the same fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and I wouldn't be paying those fees if Democrats stayed out of the private market.  What's unpatriotic about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had a reason to do it. Which you and I don't know LOL
Click to expand...


We both know.  

Democrats cater to their own at the expense of the opposition.  Irresponsible people vote Democrat. Responsible people vote Republican.  So Ears goal was to make it better for irresponsible people at the expense of responsible people.


----------



## Lesh

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Democrats cater to their own at the expense of the opposition. Irresponsible people vote Democrat. Responsible people vote Republican. So Ears goal was to make it better for irresponsible people at the expense of responsible people.



Quit sucking your own ass. It's unseemly


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered that your political views are perhaps a bit childish?
> 
> Sorry 'bout your transaction fees, but basing you entire political opinions on your wallet is kind of unpatriotic!
> 
> BTW - I pay the same fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and I wouldn't be paying those fees if Democrats stayed out of the private market.  What's unpatriotic about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had a reason to do it. Which you and I don't know LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We both know.
> 
> Democrats cater to their own at the expense of the opposition.  Irresponsible people vote Democrat. Responsible people vote Republican.  So Ears goal was to make it better for irresponsible people at the expense of responsible people.
Click to expand...

Why how much is a transfer? LOL. the difference is Democrats care about their fellow man and Republicans are. brainwashed racist bigot haters LOL...


----------



## bripat9643

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did DumBama try to shutdown power plants that used coal, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama tax roll-your-own cigarette shops out of business, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not also stop American Indians from mail order cigarette sales, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not close down the Gulf until a court ordered him to reopen it, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not close down car dealerships across the country, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not force auto companies to take bailout money even though they didn't need it, yes or no?
> 
> Did he try to take over our healthcare industry, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not force food vendors to put calorie count on all food items sold, yes or no?
> 
> Did Blooming Idiot not try to stop vendors from selling soda in large cups, yes or no?
> 
> Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out
> 
> Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered
> 
> 
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered that your political views are perhaps a bit childish?
> 
> Sorry 'bout your transaction fees, but basing you entire political opinions on your wallet is kind of unpatriotic!
> 
> BTW - I pay the same fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and I wouldn't be paying those fees if Democrats stayed out of the private market.  What's unpatriotic about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The coal industry is dying a fitting death at this point and yes there are plenty of people who want alternative energy clean energy instead of coal. Only idiots don't. Oops brainwashed functional idiots.
Click to expand...


They don't want it unless the taxpayers subsidize it.


----------



## bripat9643

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered that your political views are perhaps a bit childish?
> 
> Sorry 'bout your transaction fees, but basing you entire political opinions on your wallet is kind of unpatriotic!
> 
> BTW - I pay the same fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and I wouldn't be paying those fees if Democrats stayed out of the private market.  What's unpatriotic about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had a reason to do it. Which you and I don't know LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We both know.
> 
> Democrats cater to their own at the expense of the opposition.  Irresponsible people vote Democrat. Responsible people vote Republican.  So Ears goal was to make it better for irresponsible people at the expense of responsible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why how much is a transfer? LOL. the difference is Democrats care about their fellow man and Republicans are. brainwashed racist bigot haters LOL...
Click to expand...

Democrats don't give a rats ass about their fellow man, especially their fellow Americans.  They prove that every day when they support illegal immigration.


----------



## francoHFW

bripat9643 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered that your political views are perhaps a bit childish?
> 
> Sorry 'bout your transaction fees, but basing you entire political opinions on your wallet is kind of unpatriotic!
> 
> BTW - I pay the same fees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and I wouldn't be paying those fees if Democrats stayed out of the private market.  What's unpatriotic about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had a reason to do it. Which you and I don't know LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We both know.
> 
> Democrats cater to their own at the expense of the opposition.  Irresponsible people vote Democrat. Responsible people vote Republican.  So Ears goal was to make it better for irresponsible people at the expense of responsible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why how much is a transfer? LOL. the difference is Democrats care about their fellow man and Republicans are. brainwashed racist bigot haters LOL...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats don't give a rats ass about their fellow man, especially their fellow Americans.  They prove that every day when they support illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

 the hell they do, but they are for an ID card and the Republicans know it but they always use it for political gain to fear monger that as well. The wall is a bad joke.


----------



## francoHFW

bripat9643 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered that your political views are perhaps a bit childish?
> 
> Sorry 'bout your transaction fees, but basing you entire political opinions on your wallet is kind of unpatriotic!
> 
> BTW - I pay the same fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and I wouldn't be paying those fees if Democrats stayed out of the private market.  What's unpatriotic about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The coal industry is dying a fitting death at this point and yes there are plenty of people who want alternative energy clean energy instead of coal. Only idiots don't. Oops brainwashed functional idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't want it unless the taxpayers subsidize it.
Click to expand...

A very good investment in comparison with a lot of stuff. To be phased out.


----------



## bripat9643

francoHFW said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and I wouldn't be paying those fees if Democrats stayed out of the private market.  What's unpatriotic about that?
> 
> 
> 
> They had a reason to do it. Which you and I don't know LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We both know.
> 
> Democrats cater to their own at the expense of the opposition.  Irresponsible people vote Democrat. Responsible people vote Republican.  So Ears goal was to make it better for irresponsible people at the expense of responsible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why how much is a transfer? LOL. the difference is Democrats care about their fellow man and Republicans are. brainwashed racist bigot haters LOL...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats don't give a rats ass about their fellow man, especially their fellow Americans.  They prove that every day when they support illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the hell they do, but they are for an ID card and the Republicans know it but they always use it for political gain to fear monger that as well. The wall is a bad joke.
Click to expand...


They are for an ID card unless it's used for voting, right? 

What a total fraud.


----------



## bripat9643

francoHFW said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered that your political views are perhaps a bit childish?
> 
> Sorry 'bout your transaction fees, but basing you entire political opinions on your wallet is kind of unpatriotic!
> 
> BTW - I pay the same fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and I wouldn't be paying those fees if Democrats stayed out of the private market.  What's unpatriotic about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The coal industry is dying a fitting death at this point and yes there are plenty of people who want alternative energy clean energy instead of coal. Only idiots don't. Oops brainwashed functional idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't want it unless the taxpayers subsidize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A very good investment in comparison with a lot of stuff. To be phased out.
Click to expand...

A coal fired power plant is a much better investment.  It will last a minimum of 40 years, and provide reliable power the whole time.


----------



## francoHFW

bripat9643 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> They had a reason to do it. Which you and I don't know LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We both know.
> 
> Democrats cater to their own at the expense of the opposition.  Irresponsible people vote Democrat. Responsible people vote Republican.  So Ears goal was to make it better for irresponsible people at the expense of responsible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why how much is a transfer? LOL. the difference is Democrats care about their fellow man and Republicans are. brainwashed racist bigot haters LOL...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats don't give a rats ass about their fellow man, especially their fellow Americans.  They prove that every day when they support illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the hell they do, but they are for an ID card and the Republicans know it but they always use it for political gain to fear monger that as well. The wall is a bad joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are for an ID card unless it's used for voting, right?
> 
> What a total fraud.
Click to expand...

The illegal voters fraud? They should be separate I guess is the upshot. Less communist that way dot-dot.


----------



## XponentialChaos

I have no problem with right-wing idiots using funding the wall themselves.  

Please make this happen BrokeLoser


----------



## Asclepias

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


B.

You idiots cant figure out that it wont work. Mexico wont pay for it and no Drumpf shouldnt have a memorial erected in his name that passes as a wall.  Thats all Drumpf really wants. A legacy.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered that your political views are perhaps a bit childish?
> 
> Sorry 'bout your transaction fees, but basing you entire political opinions on your wallet is kind of unpatriotic!
> 
> BTW - I pay the same fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and I wouldn't be paying those fees if Democrats stayed out of the private market.  What's unpatriotic about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had a reason to do it. Which you and I don't know LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We both know.
> 
> Democrats cater to their own at the expense of the opposition.  Irresponsible people vote Democrat. Responsible people vote Republican.  So Ears goal was to make it better for irresponsible people at the expense of responsible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why how much is a transfer? LOL. the difference is Democrats care about their fellow man and Republicans are. brainwashed racist bigot haters LOL...
Click to expand...


It’s about 3% of the balance, but that’s irrelevant.  The point is these control freaks use politics to buy votes at the expense of others.  The are not for America, they are for power and their constituents only.  The hell with the rest of the people.  


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats cater to their own at the expense of the opposition. Irresponsible people vote Democrat. Responsible people vote Republican. So Ears goal was to make it better for irresponsible people at the expense of responsible people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quit sucking your own ass. It's unseemly
Click to expand...


Truth hurts......don’t it?  


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## jillian

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


A wall is stupid. Rates of illegal immigration were already dropping when president obama was in office. It exists as a unicorn to bigoted ignorant trumpkins

All while the Donald has illegal immigrants on his staff. 

Ignorant twist


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> They had a reason to do it. Which you and I don't know LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We both know.
> 
> Democrats cater to their own at the expense of the opposition.  Irresponsible people vote Democrat. Responsible people vote Republican.  So Ears goal was to make it better for irresponsible people at the expense of responsible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why how much is a transfer? LOL. the difference is Democrats care about their fellow man and Republicans are. brainwashed racist bigot haters LOL...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats don't give a rats ass about their fellow man, especially their fellow Americans.  They prove that every day when they support illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the hell they do, but they are for an ID card and the Republicans know it but they always use it for political gain to fear monger that as well. The wall is a bad joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are for an ID card unless it's used for voting, right?
> 
> What a total fraud.
Click to expand...

Free id. to vote!


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered that your political views are perhaps a bit childish?
> 
> Sorry 'bout your transaction fees, but basing you entire political opinions on your wallet is kind of unpatriotic!
> 
> BTW - I pay the same fees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and I wouldn't be paying those fees if Democrats stayed out of the private market.  What's unpatriotic about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The coal industry is dying a fitting death at this point and yes there are plenty of people who want alternative energy clean energy instead of coal. Only idiots don't. Oops brainwashed functional idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't want it unless the taxpayers subsidize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A very good investment in comparison with a lot of stuff. To be phased out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A coal fired power plant is a much better investment.  It will last a minimum of 40 years, and provide reliable power the whole time.
Click to expand...

no illegals for you in your home; only the emissions from the plant, in Your neighborhood.


----------



## bripat9643

Asclepias said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> B.
> 
> You idiots cant figure out that it wont work. Mexico wont pay for it and no Drumpf shouldnt have a memorial erected in his name that passes as a wall.  Thats all Drumpf really wants. A legacy.
Click to expand...

We figured out that everyone who says it won't work is a lying douchebag dumbass.


----------



## Lesh

jillian said:


> All while the Donald has illegal immigrants on his staff.



In fact the Bedminster facility HELPED them get fake IDs


----------



## basquebromance

"Despite the large Caravans that WERE forming and heading to our Country, people have not been able to get through our newly built Walls, makeshift Walls & Fences, or Border Patrol Officers & Military. They are now staying in Mexico or going back to their original countries .....Ice, Border Patrol and our Military have done a FANTASTIC job of securing our Southern Border. A Great Wall would be, however, a far easier & less expensive solution. We have already built large new sections & fully renovated others, making them like new. The Democrats, for strictly political reasons and because they have been pulled so far left, do NOT want Border Security. They want Open Borders for anyone to come in. This brings large scale crime and disease. Our Southern Border is now Secure and will remain that way 

I look forward to my meeting with Chuck Schumer & Nancy Pelosi. In 2006, Democrats voted for a Wall, and they were right to do so. Today, they no longer want Border Security. They will fight it at all cost, and Nancy must get votes for Speaker. But the Wall will get built

People do not yet realize how much of the Wall, including really effective renovation, has already been built. If the Democrats do not give us the votes to secure our Country, the Military will build the remaining sections of the Wall. They know how important it is!" - President Trump


----------



## danielpalos

basquebromance said:


> "Despite the large Caravans that WERE forming and heading to our Country, people have not been able to get through our newly built Walls, makeshift Walls & Fences, or Border Patrol Officers & Military. They are now staying in Mexico or going back to their original countries .....Ice, Border Patrol and our Military have done a FANTASTIC job of securing our Southern Border. A Great Wall would be, however, a far easier & less expensive solution. We have already built large new sections & fully renovated others, making them like new. The Democrats, for strictly political reasons and because they have been pulled so far left, do NOT want Border Security. They want Open Borders for anyone to come in. This brings large scale crime and disease. Our Southern Border is now Secure and will remain that way
> 
> I look forward to my meeting with Chuck Schumer & Nancy Pelosi. In 2006, Democrats voted for a Wall, and they were right to do so. Today, they no longer want Border Security. They will fight it at all cost, and Nancy must get votes for Speaker. But the Wall will get built
> 
> People do not yet realize how much of the Wall, including really effective renovation, has already been built. If the Democrats do not give us the votes to secure our Country, the Military will build the remaining sections of the Wall. They know how important it is!" - President Trump


We don't have a common defense problem we have a refugee problem on our southern border; our welfare clause is general and we have a commerce clause.


----------



## Lesh

So the Caravan issue turned put to be a noting burger ...and the wall is a boondoggle.

Got it


----------



## Lesh

Trump doesn't give a SHIT about the Wall. Doesn't know or care what it would cost to build it.

Doesn't care if it will be effective...doesn't know if it will be effective

And CERTAINLY doesn't care about the people who's land would be taken to build it.

He wants it because his BASE wants it.

Full stop


----------



## danielpalos

it could take Centuries before our "great walls of America", make money.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Timmy said:


> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .



So keep letting illegals in and then keep increasing the size and cost of the fucking government because we keep letting illegals into the country.  That's your plan?

I can agree with going after people who hire illegals with stiff fines but we should also file federal charges for any state government that actively harbors these criminals


----------



## Lesh

Better plan. Crack down on businesses that HIRE them. That's why they come here stupid


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> Better plan. Crack down on businesses that HIRE them. That's why they come here stupid


What happened to individual liberty and freedom of association and contract?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lesh said:


> Better plan. Crack down on businesses that HIRE them. That's why they come here stupid



Can't you read?

I posted this

*I can agree with going after people who hire illegals with stiff fines*

Why don't you slow down when you read.  You can move your lips and follow along with your finger if you have to.  Don't worry no one will laugh if you do


----------



## danielpalos

We have a Commerce Clause, we should generating revenue not losing revenue.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> Trump doesn't give a SHIT about the Wall. Doesn't know or care what it would cost to build it.
> 
> Doesn't care if it will be effective...doesn't know if it will be effective
> 
> And CERTAINLY doesn't care about the people who's land would be taken to build it.
> 
> He wants it because his BASE wants it.
> 
> Full stop



Well isn’t that what a representative is supposed to do, carry out the wishes of their constituents?  


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## danielpalos

we have a refugee problem on our southern border not a common defense problem.


----------



## Asclepias

bripat9643 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> B.
> 
> You idiots cant figure out that it wont work. Mexico wont pay for it and no Drumpf shouldnt have a memorial erected in his name that passes as a wall.  Thats all Drumpf really wants. A legacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We figured out that everyone who says it won't work is a lying douchebag dumbass.
Click to expand...

We figured out that everyone that wants a wall is a brainless twit being lead around by the nose by an orange carnival barker and future convict.


----------



## Lesh

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Well isn’t that what a representative is supposed to do, carry out the wishes of their constituents?



Wait...so you understand that Trump really doesn't know if the wall would work...or what it's true costs are...and you don't care?

Things are starting to get clearer


----------



## mudwhistle

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


It's wacist.


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> Trump doesn't give a SHIT about the Wall. Doesn't know or care what it would cost to build it.
> 
> Doesn't care if it will be effective...doesn't know if it will be effective
> 
> And CERTAINLY doesn't care about the people who's land would be taken to build it.
> 
> He wants it because his BASE wants it.
> 
> Full stop


Doing what his base wants is the hallmark of principled politician.   Democrats believe they should ignore the reasons their constituents voted for them.  You just admitted that.

Douchebags like are the ones who don't care what the wall costs.  You don't care about any land taken to build it, and you know it will be effective.  You don't want it because you want to turn this country into Mexico.  You're  a traitor to your country.


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well isn’t that what a representative is supposed to do, carry out the wishes of their constituents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...so you understand that Trump really doesn't know if the wall would work...or what it's true costs are...and you don't care?
> 
> Things are starting to get clearer
Click to expand...

We all know that walls work, moron.  It has been proven over and over.  Only the brain-dead refuse to admit it.

The "true cost" of the wall is negative.  It will save us massive amounts of money.


----------



## Asclepias

bripat9643 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well isn’t that what a representative is supposed to do, carry out the wishes of their constituents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...so you understand that Trump really doesn't know if the wall would work...or what it's true costs are...and you don't care?
> 
> Things are starting to get clearer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all know that walls work, moron.  It has been proven over and over.  Only the brain-dead refuse to admit it.
> 
> The "true cost" of the wall is negative.  It will save us massive amounts of money.
Click to expand...

If this wall actually worked when will this money saving come in? Before or after the produce rots in the fields? How many more handouts is the government going to have to give to the farmers?

Alabama Illegal Immigrant Crackdown Destroys Farm Business


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well isn’t that what a representative is supposed to do, carry out the wishes of their constituents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...so you understand that Trump really doesn't know if the wall would work...or what it's true costs are...and you don't care?
> 
> Things are starting to get clearer
Click to expand...


He knows the wall will work because it’s worked in other places tried.  You on the other hand claim it won’t without anything to support your claim.  

However there is more evidence that the wall will work, and that is the Democrats fighting so hard to stop it.  You see, if the Democrats really thought the wall would be a failure, the would have given minimal effort to stop it.  They would have been able to use the wall as a campaign issue for many years to come.  


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Lesh

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump doesn't give a SHIT about the Wall. Doesn't know or care what it would cost to build it.
> 
> Doesn't care if it will be effective...doesn't know if it will be effective
> 
> And CERTAINLY doesn't care about the people who's land would be taken to build it.
> 
> He wants it because his BASE wants it.
> 
> Full stop
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well isn’t that what a representative is supposed to do, carry out the wishes of their constituents?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...

Sorry dude...you just exposed yourself.

You KNOW Trump hasn't a clue and ya don't fukken care


----------



## Rocko

*Why is building the wall wrong?
*
Trick question! It's not!


----------



## Lesh

It's certainly a stupid waste of tens of billions


----------



## bripat9643

Asclepias said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> B.
> 
> You idiots cant figure out that it wont work. Mexico wont pay for it and no Drumpf shouldnt have a memorial erected in his name that passes as a wall.  Thats all Drumpf really wants. A legacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We figured out that everyone who says it won't work is a lying douchebag dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We figured out that everyone that wants a wall is a brainless twit being lead around by the nose by an orange carnival barker and future convict.
Click to expand...

You didn't "figure it out."  That's what your party propaganda organs told you to think.


----------



## Asclepias

bripat9643 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> B.
> 
> You idiots cant figure out that it wont work. Mexico wont pay for it and no Drumpf shouldnt have a memorial erected in his name that passes as a wall.  Thats all Drumpf really wants. A legacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We figured out that everyone who says it won't work is a lying douchebag dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We figured out that everyone that wants a wall is a brainless twit being lead around by the nose by an orange carnival barker and future convict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't "figure it out."  That's what your party propaganda organs told you to think.
Click to expand...

I figured it out. I watched idiots like you get up and reveal themselves as lacking the intellectual ability to think for themselves without Briefbart or Faux news.


----------



## bripat9643

Asclepias said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> B.
> 
> You idiots cant figure out that it wont work. Mexico wont pay for it and no Drumpf shouldnt have a memorial erected in his name that passes as a wall.  Thats all Drumpf really wants. A legacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We figured out that everyone who says it won't work is a lying douchebag dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We figured out that everyone that wants a wall is a brainless twit being lead around by the nose by an orange carnival barker and future convict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't "figure it out."  That's what your party propaganda organs told you to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I figured it out. I watched idiots like you get up and reveal themselves as lacking the intellectual ability to think for themselves without Briefbart or Faux news.
Click to expand...

More party propaganda.


----------



## Geaux4it

POTUS was a classic WINNER today... Mowed down Schumer and Pelosi in classic fashion

Build the wall Chuck or I'm shutting her down

-Geaux


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Geaux4it said:


> POTUS was a classic WINNER today... Mowed down Schumer and Pelosi in classic fashion
> 
> Build the wall Chuck or I'm shutting her down
> 
> -Geaux



Which is what we were looking for the last two years.  Why now?


----------



## bripat9643

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> POTUS was a classic WINNER today... Mowed down Schumer and Pelosi in classic fashion
> 
> Build the wall Chuck or I'm shutting her down
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what we were looking for the last two years.  Why now?
Click to expand...

It's his last chance before he Dims take over Congress.  He should have done it instead of passing that huge spending boondoggle with the increase in the military budget.  He got his priorities screwed up because he has so many generals in his administration.


----------



## Geaux4it

Trump was smart to open it up to media. That way Chucky and Skankles couldn't lie about it later

-Geaux


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bripat9643 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> POTUS was a classic WINNER today... Mowed down Schumer and Pelosi in classic fashion
> 
> Build the wall Chuck or I'm shutting her down
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what we were looking for the last two years.  Why now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's his last chance before he Dims take over Congress.  He should have done it instead of passing that huge spending boondoggle with the increase in the military budget.  He got his priorities screwed up because he has so many generals in his administration.
Click to expand...


I think he wanted to get so much done he forgot what got him elected.  Originally he wanted 38 billion for the wall and now is fighting just to get 5 billion which is less than a tenth of what we spend on food stamps in just one year.  

He should go back to demanding the 38 billion, and let the Democrats negotiate down from there.


----------



## Lakhota

Nancy Pelosi sums up Trump's wall...


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

> *Why is Building the Wall Wrong?*


Because, the left cannot undo a wall.  

They can undo a hiring surge for border patrol agents.  They can change the protocol for border patrol to allow all their voters to sneak in.  They can shut down electronic monitoring to open the floodgates.

The wall is FUCKING PERMANENT and they know they will lose forever and the communist revolution will never happen.


BUILD THE FUCKING WALL!!!


----------



## Asclepias

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> *Why is Building the Wall Wrong?*
> 
> 
> 
> Because, the left cannot undo a wall.
> 
> They can undo a hiring surge for border patrol agents.  They can change the protocol for border patrol to allow all their voters to sneak in.  They can shut down electronic monitoring to open the floodgates.
> 
> The wall is FUCKING PERMANENT and they know they will lose forever and the communist revolution will never happen.
> 
> 
> BUILD THE FUCKING WALL!!!
Click to expand...

No. A wall is not permanent.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Asclepias said:


> No. A wall is not permanent.


Okay.  We'll settle for 50 years, like the that wall you showed.


----------



## Asclepias

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. A wall is not permanent.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  We'll settle for 50 years, like the that want you showed.
Click to expand...

Nope. I am not paying a dime for some dumb ass wall Drumpf promised Mexico would pay for.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Asclepias said:


> Nope. I am not paying a dime for some dumb ass wall Drumpf promised Mexico would pay for.


Good.

I am not paying a dime either.  Let's all have a tax revolt.  Fine by me.



.


----------



## Flopper

oreo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It won't work.*   You build a 1000 wall there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it as soon as it's built.
> 
> This 2-1/2 minute video at the end will describe the 240 tunnels they've already found in the San Diego region alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly to an alert.  Anything that can be seen---can & will always be compromised.  _Something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> _
> _Now your Ass Clown turned down a proposal by Chuck Schummer & Nancy Pelosi to do just that.  Add more border security and technology to the border, if Trump would go along with a DACA (dreamer bill).  Trump refused it--he wants his worthless piece of shit wall--that no congress is going to fund.  If Republicans wouldn't do it, Democrats sure won't.
> _
Click to expand...

Put in simple term it won't solve the problem because most illegal immigrants in the US did not sneak across the border.  Long before the wall is complete, we will be cutting holes for drainage, wildlife crossings and replacing parts with fencing.  It's a solution for a crisis that does not exist.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Asclepias said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why is Building the Wall Wrong?*
> 
> 
> 
> Because, the left cannot undo a wall.
> 
> They can undo a hiring surge for border patrol agents.  They can change the protocol for border patrol to allow all their voters to sneak in.  They can shut down electronic monitoring to open the floodgates.
> 
> The wall is FUCKING PERMANENT and they know they will lose forever and the communist revolution will never happen.
> 
> 
> BUILD THE FUCKING WALL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. A wall is not permanent.
Click to expand...


So who’s going to take it down?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lakhota said:


> Nancy Pelosi sums up Trump's wall...



Oh, so now the left is using that childish ploy for a wall too?  It didn’t work with guns now did it?   

Liberals are so funny.  They really believe their strategies are not so obviously transparent.  


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> *Why is Building the Wall Wrong?*
> 
> 
> 
> Because, the left cannot undo a wall.
> 
> They can undo a hiring surge for border patrol agents.  They can change the protocol for border patrol to allow all their voters to sneak in.  They can shut down electronic monitoring to open the floodgates.
> 
> The wall is FUCKING PERMANENT and they know they will lose forever and the communist revolution will never happen.
> 
> 
> BUILD THE FUCKING WALL!!!
Click to expand...

Wasting money is all the right wing knows how to do.  We don't have a common defense problem on our southern border, it is a refugee problem.

this is the federal power that is actually delegated to Congress: _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization._


----------



## Geaux4it

Flopper said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It won't work.*   You build a 1000 wall there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it as soon as it's built.
> 
> This 2-1/2 minute video at the end will describe the 240 tunnels they've already found in the San Diego region alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly to an alert.  Anything that can be seen---can & will always be compromised.  _Something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> _
> _Now your Ass Clown turned down a proposal by Chuck Schummer & Nancy Pelosi to do just that.  Add more border security and technology to the border, if Trump would go along with a DACA (dreamer bill).  Trump refused it--he wants his worthless piece of shit wall--that no congress is going to fund.  If Republicans wouldn't do it, Democrats sure won't.
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Put in simple term it won't solve the problem because most illegal immigrants in the US did not sneak across the border.  Long before the wall is complete, we will be cutting holes for drainage, wildlife crossings and replacing parts with fencing.  It's a solution for a crisis that does not exist.
Click to expand...

Nothing is 100% effective. I'll accept an 80% level of confidence the wall would reduce illegal crossings by 68%

-Geaux


----------



## bripat9643

Geaux4it said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It won't work.*   You build a 1000 wall there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it as soon as it's built.
> 
> This 2-1/2 minute video at the end will describe the 240 tunnels they've already found in the San Diego region alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly to an alert.  Anything that can be seen---can & will always be compromised.  _Something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> _
> _Now your Ass Clown turned down a proposal by Chuck Schummer & Nancy Pelosi to do just that.  Add more border security and technology to the border, if Trump would go along with a DACA (dreamer bill).  Trump refused it--he wants his worthless piece of shit wall--that no congress is going to fund.  If Republicans wouldn't do it, Democrats sure won't.
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Put in simple term it won't solve the problem because most illegal immigrants in the US did not sneak across the border.  Long before the wall is complete, we will be cutting holes for drainage, wildlife crossings and replacing parts with fencing.  It's a solution for a crisis that does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing is 100% effective. I'll accept an 80% level of confidence the wall would reduce illegal crossings by 68%
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

The empirical evidence shows that the wall will be 100% effective where it actually exists.


----------



## danielpalos

Geaux4it said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It won't work.*   You build a 1000 wall there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it as soon as it's built.
> 
> This 2-1/2 minute video at the end will describe the 240 tunnels they've already found in the San Diego region alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly to an alert.  Anything that can be seen---can & will always be compromised.  _Something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> _
> _Now your Ass Clown turned down a proposal by Chuck Schummer & Nancy Pelosi to do just that.  Add more border security and technology to the border, if Trump would go along with a DACA (dreamer bill).  Trump refused it--he wants his worthless piece of shit wall--that no congress is going to fund.  If Republicans wouldn't do it, Democrats sure won't.
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Put in simple term it won't solve the problem because most illegal immigrants in the US did not sneak across the border.  Long before the wall is complete, we will be cutting holes for drainage, wildlife crossings and replacing parts with fencing.  It's a solution for a crisis that does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing is 100% effective. I'll accept an 80% level of confidence the wall would reduce illegal crossings by 68%
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

How many people are being processed per day now?  Ellis Island could be upgraded to process tens of thousands.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It won't work.*   You build a 1000 wall there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it as soon as it's built.
> 
> This 2-1/2 minute video at the end will describe the 240 tunnels they've already found in the San Diego region alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly to an alert.  Anything that can be seen---can & will always be compromised.  _Something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> _
> _Now your Ass Clown turned down a proposal by Chuck Schummer & Nancy Pelosi to do just that.  Add more border security and technology to the border, if Trump would go along with a DACA (dreamer bill).  Trump refused it--he wants his worthless piece of shit wall--that no congress is going to fund.  If Republicans wouldn't do it, Democrats sure won't.
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Put in simple term it won't solve the problem because most illegal immigrants in the US did not sneak across the border.  Long before the wall is complete, we will be cutting holes for drainage, wildlife crossings and replacing parts with fencing.  It's a solution for a crisis that does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing is 100% effective. I'll accept an 80% level of confidence the wall would reduce illegal crossings by 68%
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The empirical evidence shows that the wall will be 100% effective where it actually exists.
Click to expand...

this is the federal power that is actually delegated to Congress: _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization._


----------



## Asclepias

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why is Building the Wall Wrong?*
> 
> 
> 
> Because, the left cannot undo a wall.
> 
> They can undo a hiring surge for border patrol agents.  They can change the protocol for border patrol to allow all their voters to sneak in.  They can shut down electronic monitoring to open the floodgates.
> 
> The wall is FUCKING PERMANENT and they know they will lose forever and the communist revolution will never happen.
> 
> 
> BUILD THE FUCKING WALL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. A wall is not permanent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who’s going to take it down?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...

Probably the Mexican illegals after laughing at it for a moment.


----------



## oreo

bripat9643 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It won't work.*   You build a 1000 wall there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it as soon as it's built.
> 
> This 2-1/2 minute video at the end will describe the 240 tunnels they've already found in the San Diego region alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly to an alert.  Anything that can be seen---can & will always be compromised.  _Something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> _
> _Now your Ass Clown turned down a proposal by Chuck Schummer & Nancy Pelosi to do just that.  Add more border security and technology to the border, if Trump would go along with a DACA (dreamer bill).  Trump refused it--he wants his worthless piece of shit wall--that no congress is going to fund.  If Republicans wouldn't do it, Democrats sure won't.
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Put in simple term it won't solve the problem because most illegal immigrants in the US did not sneak across the border.  Long before the wall is complete, we will be cutting holes for drainage, wildlife crossings and replacing parts with fencing.  It's a solution for a crisis that does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing is 100% effective. I'll accept an 80% level of confidence the wall would reduce illegal crossings by 68%
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The empirical evidence shows that the wall will be 100% effective where it actually exists.
Click to expand...



That's a crock of B.S,

The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly.  Something they can see, can and will always be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.

You had a Republican full house for two years, why in the hell do you think they didn't vote for it.

Here's 2-1/2 minutes of reasons.


----------



## bripat9643

oreo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It won't work.*   You build a 1000 wall there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it as soon as it's built.
> 
> This 2-1/2 minute video at the end will describe the 240 tunnels they've already found in the San Diego region alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly to an alert.  Anything that can be seen---can & will always be compromised.  _Something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> _
> _Now your Ass Clown turned down a proposal by Chuck Schummer & Nancy Pelosi to do just that.  Add more border security and technology to the border, if Trump would go along with a DACA (dreamer bill).  Trump refused it--he wants his worthless piece of shit wall--that no congress is going to fund.  If Republicans wouldn't do it, Democrats sure won't.
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Put in simple term it won't solve the problem because most illegal immigrants in the US did not sneak across the border.  Long before the wall is complete, we will be cutting holes for drainage, wildlife crossings and replacing parts with fencing.  It's a solution for a crisis that does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing is 100% effective. I'll accept an 80% level of confidence the wall would reduce illegal crossings by 68%
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The empirical evidence shows that the wall will be 100% effective where it actually exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a crock of B.S,
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly.  Something they can see, can and will always be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> You had a Republican full house for two years, why in the hell do you think they didn't vote for it.
> 
> Here's 2-1/2 minutes of reasons.
Click to expand...

If you have a wall, you don't have to respond quickly.  You have all the time in the world.  That's the whole point of the wall.  It's going to take someone at least 15 minutes to get over a 30 ft wall, and that's all the time needed for border patrol to drive up to the location and apprehend the offenders.  Without the wall, and offender can be 2-3 miles into US territory before border patrol arrives on the scene.

Building the wall also doesn't prevent you from deploying high tech motion detectors, drones, whatever.  In fact, the wall enhances the effectiveness of all other measures.

You shot down your own argument.


----------



## Lesh

To do what? Go to the airports where most illegals come in?

Or look for tunnels 100 miles away?


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> To do what? Go to the airports where most illegals come in?
> 
> Or look for tunnels 100 miles away?


40% of illegals are visa overstays.  What you're saying is that we should do nothing about the other 60%.  It boggles my mind as to why lefties believe that's a good argument.


----------



## basquebromance

"We voted for Trump to keep us safer and got Jared, working for the the diametrically opposite result."


----------



## bripat9643

basquebromance said:


> "We voted for Trump to keep us safer and got Jared, working for the the diametrically opposite result."


Didn't you take your Lithium today?


----------



## basquebromance

bripat9643 said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We voted for Trump to keep us safer and got Jared, working for the the diametrically opposite result."
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you take your Lithium today?
Click to expand...

just quoting Ann Coulter. i agree with her. this prison reform bill is nuts


----------



## bripat9643

basquebromance said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We voted for Trump to keep us safer and got Jared, working for the the diametrically opposite result."
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you take your Lithium today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just quoting Ann Coulter. i agree with her. this prison reform bill is nuts
Click to expand...

I like a lot of what Coulter says, but on some issues she's just a Nazi fruitcake.  She's the most hardcore drug warrior there is, and I think all drugs should be legal.


----------



## oreo

bripat9643 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> It won't work.*   You build a 1000 wall there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it as soon as it's built.
> 
> This 2-1/2 minute video at the end will describe the 240 tunnels they've already found in the San Diego region alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly to an alert.  Anything that can be seen---can & will always be compromised.  _Something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> _
> _Now your Ass Clown turned down a proposal by Chuck Schummer & Nancy Pelosi to do just that.  Add more border security and technology to the border, if Trump would go along with a DACA (dreamer bill).  Trump refused it--he wants his worthless piece of shit wall--that no congress is going to fund.  If Republicans wouldn't do it, Democrats sure won't.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> Put in simple term it won't solve the problem because most illegal immigrants in the US did not sneak across the border.  Long before the wall is complete, we will be cutting holes for drainage, wildlife crossings and replacing parts with fencing.  It's a solution for a crisis that does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing is 100% effective. I'll accept an 80% level of confidence the wall would reduce illegal crossings by 68%
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The empirical evidence shows that the wall will be 100% effective where it actually exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a crock of B.S,
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly.  Something they can see, can and will always be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> You had a Republican full house for two years, why in the hell do you think they didn't vote for it.
> 
> Here's 2-1/2 minutes of reasons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you have a wall, you don't have to respond quickly.  You have all the time in the world.  That's the whole point of the wall.  It's going to take someone at least 15 minutes to get over a 30 ft wall, and that's all the time needed for border patrol to drive up to the location and apprehend the offenders.  Without the wall, and offender can be 2-3 miles into US territory before border patrol arrives on the scene.
> 
> Building the wall also doesn't prevent you from deploying high tech motion detectors, drones, whatever.  In fact, the wall enhances the effectiveness of all other measures.
> 
> You shot down your own argument.
Click to expand...



You've got a wall, i've got a shovel, digging bars--and if that doesn't do it I will build stairs on the other side of your wall and use ropes blocks tackle & caribeaners, or just bring a ladder to get it over it.


----------



## Dale Smith

Yes, building the wall is W-R-O-N-G! How can you expect the commie leftards to build a voting bloc of needy, uneducated and unskilled  when you have a damn wall standing in their way?!?!?

What the hell is wrong with ya???


----------



## Flopper

Geaux4it said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It won't work.*   You build a 1000 wall there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it as soon as it's built.
> 
> This 2-1/2 minute video at the end will describe the 240 tunnels they've already found in the San Diego region alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly to an alert.  Anything that can be seen---can & will always be compromised.  _Something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> _
> _Now your Ass Clown turned down a proposal by Chuck Schummer & Nancy Pelosi to do just that.  Add more border security and technology to the border, if Trump would go along with a DACA (dreamer bill).  Trump refused it--he wants his worthless piece of shit wall--that no congress is going to fund.  If Republicans wouldn't do it, Democrats sure won't.
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Put in simple term it won't solve the problem because most illegal immigrants in the US did not sneak across the border.  Long before the wall is complete, we will be cutting holes for drainage, wildlife crossings and replacing parts with fencing.  It's a solution for a crisis that does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing is 100% effective. I'll accept an 80% level of confidence the wall would reduce illegal crossings by 68%
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

It is no more effective than reinforced fencing in most places. The key to effective border security is to provide the type of security needed where it is needed and when it is needed and that is certainly not a southern border wall.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> It won't work.*   You build a 1000 wall there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it as soon as it's built.
> 
> This 2-1/2 minute video at the end will describe the 240 tunnels they've already found in the San Diego region alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly to an alert.  Anything that can be seen---can & will always be compromised.  _Something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> _
> _Now your Ass Clown turned down a proposal by Chuck Schummer & Nancy Pelosi to do just that.  Add more border security and technology to the border, if Trump would go along with a DACA (dreamer bill).  Trump refused it--he wants his worthless piece of shit wall--that no congress is going to fund.  If Republicans wouldn't do it, Democrats sure won't.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> Put in simple term it won't solve the problem because most illegal immigrants in the US did not sneak across the border.  Long before the wall is complete, we will be cutting holes for drainage, wildlife crossings and replacing parts with fencing.  It's a solution for a crisis that does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing is 100% effective. I'll accept an 80% level of confidence the wall would reduce illegal crossings by 68%
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The empirical evidence shows that the wall will be 100% effective where it actually exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a crock of B.S,
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly.  Something they can see, can and will always be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> You had a Republican full house for two years, why in the hell do you think they didn't vote for it.
> 
> Here's 2-1/2 minutes of reasons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you have a wall, you don't have to respond quickly.  You have all the time in the world.  That's the whole point of the wall.  It's going to take someone at least 15 minutes to get over a 30 ft wall, and that's all the time needed for border patrol to drive up to the location and apprehend the offenders.  Without the wall, and offender can be 2-3 miles into US territory before border patrol arrives on the scene.
> 
> Building the wall also doesn't prevent you from deploying high tech motion detectors, drones, whatever.  In fact, the wall enhances the effectiveness of all other measures.
> 
> You shot down your own argument.
Click to expand...

we don't have a common defense problem, we have a refugee problem.

this is the federal power that is actually delegated to Congress: _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization._


----------



## Flopper

danielpalos said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It won't work.*   You build a 1000 wall there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it as soon as it's built.
> 
> This 2-1/2 minute video at the end will describe the 240 tunnels they've already found in the San Diego region alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly to an alert.  Anything that can be seen---can & will always be compromised.  _Something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> _
> _Now your Ass Clown turned down a proposal by Chuck Schummer & Nancy Pelosi to do just that.  Add more border security and technology to the border, if Trump would go along with a DACA (dreamer bill).  Trump refused it--he wants his worthless piece of shit wall--that no congress is going to fund.  If Republicans wouldn't do it, Democrats sure won't.
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Put in simple term it won't solve the problem because most illegal immigrants in the US did not sneak across the border.  Long before the wall is complete, we will be cutting holes for drainage, wildlife crossings and replacing parts with fencing.  It's a solution for a crisis that does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing is 100% effective. I'll accept an 80% level of confidence the wall would reduce illegal crossings by 68%
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many people are being processed per day now?  Ellis Island could be upgraded to process tens of thousands.
Click to expand...

Ellis Island would work really well to process the hundreds of thousands of immigrants crossing the Atlantic on steamships from Europe.


----------



## Richard-H

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are right LOL. Most Democrats are communists who want a dictatorship that owns all businesses and Industry. Another gigantic conspiracy like the one that protects Hillary and Obama from all your phony conspiracies. You better order some more tin foil....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did DumBama try to shutdown power plants that used coal, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama tax roll-your-own cigarette shops out of business, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not also stop American Indians from mail order cigarette sales, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not close down the Gulf until a court ordered him to reopen it, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not close down car dealerships across the country, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not force auto companies to take bailout money even though they didn't need it, yes or no?
> 
> Did he try to take over our healthcare industry, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not force food vendors to put calorie count on all food items sold, yes or no?
> 
> Did Blooming Idiot not try to stop vendors from selling soda in large cups, yes or no?
> 
> Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out
> 
> Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered that your political views are perhaps a bit childish?
> 
> Sorry 'bout your transaction fees, but basing you entire political opinions on your wallet is kind of unpatriotic!
> 
> BTW - I pay the same fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and I wouldn't be paying those fees if Democrats stayed out of the private market.  What's unpatriotic about that?
Click to expand...



If you feel that government should not be involved in the 'private market', then convince the 'private market' not to transact using U.S. federal dollars or that of any government that you do not want 'interfering'.

Your so called 'private market' only exists because of the government.

You, like so many conservatives, want and love money but do not have the slightest idea of what it is or where it comes from.

Hey, my dogs want and love milkbones. They don't know what they are or where they come from...

Intellectually you seem to be at the same level.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Richard-H said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did DumBama try to shutdown power plants that used coal, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama tax roll-your-own cigarette shops out of business, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not also stop American Indians from mail order cigarette sales, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not close down the Gulf until a court ordered him to reopen it, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not close down car dealerships across the country, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not force auto companies to take bailout money even though they didn't need it, yes or no?
> 
> Did he try to take over our healthcare industry, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not force food vendors to put calorie count on all food items sold, yes or no?
> 
> Did Blooming Idiot not try to stop vendors from selling soda in large cups, yes or no?
> 
> Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out
> 
> Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered
> 
> 
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered that your political views are perhaps a bit childish?
> 
> Sorry 'bout your transaction fees, but basing you entire political opinions on your wallet is kind of unpatriotic!
> 
> BTW - I pay the same fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and I wouldn't be paying those fees if Democrats stayed out of the private market.  What's unpatriotic about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel that government should not be involved in the 'private market', then convince the 'private market' not to transact using U.S. federal dollars or that of any government that you do not want 'interfering'.
> 
> Your so called 'private market' only exists because of the government.
> 
> You, like so many conservatives, want and love money but do not have the slightest idea of what it is or where it comes from.
> 
> Hey, my dogs want and love milkbones. They don't know what they are or where they come from...
> 
> Intellectually you seem to be at the same level.
Click to expand...


The government doesn't own the dollars they just print them.  The owners are the people who they are in the possession of.  

In the private market, money is created by the company owners and employees.  They give some of that money in taxation to the government.  In other words, the private sector supports the public sector, not the other way around.  So don't believe in this fallacy there would be no private market without the government.  Government cannot survive without the private market because the government doesn't produce sellable goods or services.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Asclepias said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why is Building the Wall Wrong?*
> 
> 
> 
> Because, the left cannot undo a wall.
> 
> They can undo a hiring surge for border patrol agents.  They can change the protocol for border patrol to allow all their voters to sneak in.  They can shut down electronic monitoring to open the floodgates.
> 
> The wall is FUCKING PERMANENT and they know they will lose forever and the communist revolution will never happen.
> 
> 
> BUILD THE FUCKING WALL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. A wall is not permanent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who’s going to take it down?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably the Mexican illegals after laughing at it for a moment.
Click to expand...


Sure, they are going to destruct a wall.  What do you suppose it's going to be made out of, sheet metal?


----------



## Dale Smith

Richard-H said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did DumBama try to shutdown power plants that used coal, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama tax roll-your-own cigarette shops out of business, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not also stop American Indians from mail order cigarette sales, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not close down the Gulf until a court ordered him to reopen it, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not close down car dealerships across the country, yes or no?
> 
> Did DumBama not force auto companies to take bailout money even though they didn't need it, yes or no?
> 
> Did he try to take over our healthcare industry, yes or no?
> 
> Did he not force food vendors to put calorie count on all food items sold, yes or no?
> 
> Did Blooming Idiot not try to stop vendors from selling soda in large cups, yes or no?
> 
> Mars Candy And Michelle Obama Are Making Candy Bars Smaller — And Twitter Is FREAKING Out
> 
> Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered
> 
> 
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered that your political views are perhaps a bit childish?
> 
> Sorry 'bout your transaction fees, but basing you entire political opinions on your wallet is kind of unpatriotic!
> 
> BTW - I pay the same fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and I wouldn't be paying those fees if Democrats stayed out of the private market.  What's unpatriotic about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel that government should not be involved in the 'private market', then convince the 'private market' not to transact using U.S. federal dollars or that of any government that you do not want 'interfering'.
> 
> Your so called 'private market' only exists because of the government.
> 
> You, like so many conservatives, want and love money but do not have the slightest idea of what it is or where it comes from.
> 
> Hey, my dogs want and love milkbones. They don't know what they are or where they come from...
> 
> Intellectually you seem to be at the same level.
Click to expand...


LMAO! You call federal reserve notes of debt "Money"? Paper scrip backed by nothing of an intrinsic value that can be printed to infinity are digitally created by a few keystrokes? Now, tell me what an intellectual heavyweight you believe yourself to be. I can't WAIT to read your reply.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dale Smith said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered that your political views are perhaps a bit childish?
> 
> Sorry 'bout your transaction fees, but basing you entire political opinions on your wallet is kind of unpatriotic!
> 
> BTW - I pay the same fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and I wouldn't be paying those fees if Democrats stayed out of the private market.  What's unpatriotic about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel that government should not be involved in the 'private market', then convince the 'private market' not to transact using U.S. federal dollars or that of any government that you do not want 'interfering'.
> 
> Your so called 'private market' only exists because of the government.
> 
> You, like so many conservatives, want and love money but do not have the slightest idea of what it is or where it comes from.
> 
> Hey, my dogs want and love milkbones. They don't know what they are or where they come from...
> 
> Intellectually you seem to be at the same level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO! You call federal reserve notes of debt "Money"? Paper scrip backed by nothing of an intrinsic value that can be printed to infinity are digitally created by a few keystrokes? Now, tell me what an intellectual heavyweight you believe yourself to be. I can't WAIT to read your reply.
Click to expand...


His reply will be _*"You didn't build that!" *_


----------



## Richard-H

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered that your political views are perhaps a bit childish?
> 
> Sorry 'bout your transaction fees, but basing you entire political opinions on your wallet is kind of unpatriotic!
> 
> BTW - I pay the same fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and I wouldn't be paying those fees if Democrats stayed out of the private market.  What's unpatriotic about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel that government should not be involved in the 'private market', then convince the 'private market' not to transact using U.S. federal dollars or that of any government that you do not want 'interfering'.
> 
> Your so called 'private market' only exists because of the government.
> 
> You, like so many conservatives, want and love money but do not have the slightest idea of what it is or where it comes from.
> 
> Hey, my dogs want and love milkbones. They don't know what they are or where they come from...
> 
> Intellectually you seem to be at the same level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government doesn't own the dollars they just print them.  The owners are the people who they are in the possession of.
> 
> In the private market, money is created by the company owners and employees.  They give some of that money in taxation to the government.  In other words, the private sector supports the public sector, not the other way around.  So don't believe in this fallacy there would be no private market without the government.  Government cannot survive without the private market because the government doesn't produce sellable goods or services.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. Government CAN produce goods and services. In our society they produce quite a lot of goods and services.

If you had a brain you'd know the all ownership and disposition of wealth is determined by the dominant military force. In this case The U.S. government.

The money that you possess is a U.S. government note stating what the U.S. government recognizes as your wealth - without the government your worth absolutely NADA . It is in fact the property of the government.

If you think that the private market could exist without government I suggest that you study the economy of the dark ages and see what happened when the government was destroyed in Western Europe. Or more recently Yeltsin era Russia when there was barely a government - and there was barely an economy.

Your 'private market' exists in a womb created by government.

But hey - enjoy those milkbones and don't think about what they are or where they come from...WOOF!


----------



## Richard-H

Dale Smith said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> No no no no no and no. Here's an idea give up cigarettes. The coal industry continues to implode just because of market forces. More people are employed in the alternative energy industry that in oil coal gas combined. Thank you Obama for making us competitive in the alternative energy industry with China and the EU. I know you are obsessed with solyndra oh, but that is basically the only corporation that failed. Hillary promised to help West Virginia into new industries. Now under Trump they are really screwed.all to save the rich from paying more like their fair share.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered that your political views are perhaps a bit childish?
> 
> Sorry 'bout your transaction fees, but basing you entire political opinions on your wallet is kind of unpatriotic!
> 
> BTW - I pay the same fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and I wouldn't be paying those fees if Democrats stayed out of the private market.  What's unpatriotic about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel that government should not be involved in the 'private market', then convince the 'private market' not to transact using U.S. federal dollars or that of any government that you do not want 'interfering'.
> 
> Your so called 'private market' only exists because of the government.
> 
> You, like so many conservatives, want and love money but do not have the slightest idea of what it is or where it comes from.
> 
> Hey, my dogs want and love milkbones. They don't know what they are or where they come from...
> 
> Intellectually you seem to be at the same level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO! You call federal reserve notes of debt "Money"? Paper scrip backed by nothing of an intrinsic value that can be printed to infinity are digitally created by a few keystrokes? Now, tell me what an intellectual heavyweight you believe yourself to be. I can't WAIT to read your reply.
Click to expand...


If you had a brain you'd know that U.S. currency is backed ultimately by all of the productive work of the American people, and to some extent of the world nowadays. It is a note stating the U.S. government's recognition of your wealth...i.e. your power to buy the above mentioned produce. Without that government your worth squat.


----------



## danielpalos

Flopper said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It won't work.*   You build a 1000 wall there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it as soon as it's built.
> 
> This 2-1/2 minute video at the end will describe the 240 tunnels they've already found in the San Diego region alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly to an alert.  Anything that can be seen---can & will always be compromised.  _Something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> _
> _Now your Ass Clown turned down a proposal by Chuck Schummer & Nancy Pelosi to do just that.  Add more border security and technology to the border, if Trump would go along with a DACA (dreamer bill).  Trump refused it--he wants his worthless piece of shit wall--that no congress is going to fund.  If Republicans wouldn't do it, Democrats sure won't.
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Put in simple term it won't solve the problem because most illegal immigrants in the US did not sneak across the border.  Long before the wall is complete, we will be cutting holes for drainage, wildlife crossings and replacing parts with fencing.  It's a solution for a crisis that does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing is 100% effective. I'll accept an 80% level of confidence the wall would reduce illegal crossings by 68%
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many people are being processed per day now?  Ellis Island could be upgraded to process tens of thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ellis Island would work really well to process the hundreds of thousands of immigrants crossing the Atlantic on steamships from Europe.
Click to expand...

Capitalism; What is that, sayeth the Right Wing.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


/----/ I just received this email.

Dear Cellblock2429,
Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi continue to put open borders and illegal immigrants over American citizens.
But this isn’t the first time they jeopardized America’s safety.
Look at the email I sent you almost a year ago when Chuck decided illegal immigrants come before HARD-WORKING AMERICANS.
Now Democrats are STILL playing political games at the expense of the American people and our national security. NO MORE!
Join the millions of patriots who are signing this written statement demanding Democrats finally put Americans first and FUND THE WALL:
*OFFICIAL WRITTEN STATEMENT TO FUND THE WALL*

*FROM:* Cellblock2429, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN
*TO:* Chuck Schumer & Nancy Pelosi

YOU HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU CARE MORE ABOUT PROTECTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND WIDE OPEN BORDERS THAN ME, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! IT’S TIME FOR YOU TO PUT AMERICA FIRST AND FULLY FUND THE WALL!

Sincerely,
An American Citizen
 Thank you
Donald J. Trump
President of the United States


----------



## basquebromance

the wall is a metaphor for trump's manhood, as pelosi said. no wonder he's having trouble erecting it!


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I just received this email.
> 
> Dear Cellblock2429,
> Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi continue to put open borders and illegal immigrants over American citizens.
> But this isn’t the first time they jeopardized America’s safety.
> Look at the email I sent you almost a year ago when Chuck decided illegal immigrants come before HARD-WORKING AMERICANS.
> Now Democrats are STILL playing political games at the expense of the American people and our national security. NO MORE!
> Join the millions of patriots who are signing this written statement demanding Democrats finally put Americans first and FUND THE WALL:
> *OFFICIAL WRITTEN STATEMENT TO FUND THE WALL*
> 
> *FROM:* Cellblock2429, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN
> *TO:* Chuck Schumer & Nancy Pelosi
> 
> YOU HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU CARE MORE ABOUT PROTECTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND WIDE OPEN BORDERS THAN ME, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! IT’S TIME FOR YOU TO PUT AMERICA FIRST AND FULLY FUND THE WALL!
> 
> Sincerely,
> James, An American Citizen
> Thank you
> Donald J. Trump
> President of the United States
Click to expand...

we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.


----------



## Dale Smith

Richard-H said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered that your political views are perhaps a bit childish?
> 
> Sorry 'bout your transaction fees, but basing you entire political opinions on your wallet is kind of unpatriotic!
> 
> BTW - I pay the same fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and I wouldn't be paying those fees if Democrats stayed out of the private market.  What's unpatriotic about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel that government should not be involved in the 'private market', then convince the 'private market' not to transact using U.S. federal dollars or that of any government that you do not want 'interfering'.
> 
> Your so called 'private market' only exists because of the government.
> 
> You, like so many conservatives, want and love money but do not have the slightest idea of what it is or where it comes from.
> 
> Hey, my dogs want and love milkbones. They don't know what they are or where they come from...
> 
> Intellectually you seem to be at the same level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO! You call federal reserve notes of debt "Money"? Paper scrip backed by nothing of an intrinsic value that can be printed to infinity are digitally created by a few keystrokes? Now, tell me what an intellectual heavyweight you believe yourself to be. I can't WAIT to read your reply.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had a brain you'd know that U.S. currency is backed ultimately by all of the productive work of the American people, and to some extent of the world nowadays. It is a note stating the U.S. government's recognition of your wealth...i.e. your power to buy the above mentioned produce. Without that government your worth squat.
Click to expand...



Yeah, our sweat equity moves these pieces of debt paper. I am sure that you are aware of the confiscation of the people's gold REAL MONEY) in lieu of paper I.O.Us after the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of your beloved "gubermint" in 1933 or face prison, correct? House Joint Resolution 192? The loss of allodial rights to property? How our labor was pledged as surety against the debt of USA.INC? I kinda doubt it. Keep on sucking the cock of your beloved federal "gubermint" which is nothing but a corporate entity that rather lamely attempts to act as a legitimate governmental body. You don't know shit from shinola.


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I just received this email.
> 
> Dear Cellblock2429,
> Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi continue to put open borders and illegal immigrants over American citizens.
> But this isn’t the first time they jeopardized America’s safety.
> Look at the email I sent you almost a year ago when Chuck decided illegal immigrants come before HARD-WORKING AMERICANS.
> Now Democrats are STILL playing political games at the expense of the American people and our national security. NO MORE!
> Join the millions of patriots who are signing this written statement demanding Democrats finally put Americans first and FUND THE WALL:
> *OFFICIAL WRITTEN STATEMENT TO FUND THE WALL*
> 
> *FROM:* Cellblock2429, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN
> *TO:* Chuck Schumer & Nancy Pelosi
> 
> YOU HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU CARE MORE ABOUT PROTECTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND WIDE OPEN BORDERS THAN ME, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! IT’S TIME FOR YOU TO PUT AMERICA FIRST AND FULLY FUND THE WALL!
> 
> Sincerely,
> James, An American Citizen
> Thank you
> Donald J. Trump
> President of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
Click to expand...

No refugees no problem. They are an unarmed invading force.


----------



## Geaux4it

oreo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It won't work.*   You build a 1000 wall there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it as soon as it's built.
> 
> This 2-1/2 minute video at the end will describe the 240 tunnels they've already found in the San Diego region alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly to an alert.  Anything that can be seen---can & will always be compromised.  _Something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> _
> _Now your Ass Clown turned down a proposal by Chuck Schummer & Nancy Pelosi to do just that.  Add more border security and technology to the border, if Trump would go along with a DACA (dreamer bill).  Trump refused it--he wants his worthless piece of shit wall--that no congress is going to fund.  If Republicans wouldn't do it, Democrats sure won't.
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Put in simple term it won't solve the problem because most illegal immigrants in the US did not sneak across the border.  Long before the wall is complete, we will be cutting holes for drainage, wildlife crossings and replacing parts with fencing.  It's a solution for a crisis that does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing is 100% effective. I'll accept an 80% level of confidence the wall would reduce illegal crossings by 68%
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The empirical evidence shows that the wall will be 100% effective where it actually exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a crock of B.S,
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly.  Something they can see, can and will always be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> You had a Republican full house for two years, why in the hell do you think they didn't vote for it.
> 
> Here's 2-1/2 minutes of reasons.
Click to expand...

*Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
President Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall along our Southern border will save countless innocent lives. Our Border Patrol agents have seen firsthand the success of a border wall in Yuma, Ariz. — which serves as a prime example of how investments in personnel, technology and a border wall can turn the tide against a flood of illegal immigration and secure our homeland. 

For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.

It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.

Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.


----------



## Asclepias

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why is Building the Wall Wrong?*
> 
> 
> 
> Because, the left cannot undo a wall.
> 
> They can undo a hiring surge for border patrol agents.  They can change the protocol for border patrol to allow all their voters to sneak in.  They can shut down electronic monitoring to open the floodgates.
> 
> The wall is FUCKING PERMANENT and they know they will lose forever and the communist revolution will never happen.
> 
> 
> BUILD THE FUCKING WALL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. A wall is not permanent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who’s going to take it down?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably the Mexican illegals after laughing at it for a moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, they are going to destruct a wall.  What do you suppose it's going to be made out of, sheet metal?
Click to expand...

Unless its made of vibranium it will be full of holes in about a month after being erected.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I just received this email.
> 
> Dear Cellblock2429,
> Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi continue to put open borders and illegal immigrants over American citizens.
> But this isn’t the first time they jeopardized America’s safety.
> Look at the email I sent you almost a year ago when Chuck decided illegal immigrants come before HARD-WORKING AMERICANS.
> Now Democrats are STILL playing political games at the expense of the American people and our national security. NO MORE!
> Join the millions of patriots who are signing this written statement demanding Democrats finally put Americans first and FUND THE WALL:
> *OFFICIAL WRITTEN STATEMENT TO FUND THE WALL*
> 
> *FROM:* Cellblock2429, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN
> *TO:* Chuck Schumer & Nancy Pelosi
> 
> YOU HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU CARE MORE ABOUT PROTECTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND WIDE OPEN BORDERS THAN ME, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! IT’S TIME FOR YOU TO PUT AMERICA FIRST AND FULLY FUND THE WALL!
> 
> Sincerely,
> James, An American Citizen
> Thank you
> Donald J. Trump
> President of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No refugees no problem. They are an unarmed invading force.
Click to expand...

/——/ We appreciate you taking the time to wand each of them with a metal detector for weapons. Thanks.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Richard-H said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no new alternative energy industries because nobody wants over priced unreliable energy unless it's subsidized by the taxpayer.
> 
> "Our last President screwed you people by making you lose your jobs, but as your next Democrat President, I'm going to help you get lower paying jobs to replace them."   When pigs fly.
> 
> The point is that Democrats want to run industry as you denied.  If it were up to them, everything would be ran by government just like Communist or Dictatorship countries.
> 
> I've been using credit cards for a very long time.  Until that big-eared bozo invaded the White House, I never had to pay a transfer fee on balances.  After DumBama attacked the credit card industry, I've had to in spite of my outstanding credit rating.
> 
> This is why Democrats should never have power in this country ever again.  They are dictators and Communists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered that your political views are perhaps a bit childish?
> 
> Sorry 'bout your transaction fees, but basing you entire political opinions on your wallet is kind of unpatriotic!
> 
> BTW - I pay the same fees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and I wouldn't be paying those fees if Democrats stayed out of the private market.  What's unpatriotic about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel that government should not be involved in the 'private market', then convince the 'private market' not to transact using U.S. federal dollars or that of any government that you do not want 'interfering'.
> 
> Your so called 'private market' only exists because of the government.
> 
> You, like so many conservatives, want and love money but do not have the slightest idea of what it is or where it comes from.
> 
> Hey, my dogs want and love milkbones. They don't know what they are or where they come from...
> 
> Intellectually you seem to be at the same level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government doesn't own the dollars they just print them.  The owners are the people who they are in the possession of.
> 
> In the private market, money is created by the company owners and employees.  They give some of that money in taxation to the government.  In other words, the private sector supports the public sector, not the other way around.  So don't believe in this fallacy there would be no private market without the government.  Government cannot survive without the private market because the government doesn't produce sellable goods or services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Government CAN produce goods and services. In our society they produce quite a lot of goods and services.
> 
> If you had a brain you'd know the all ownership and disposition of wealth is determined by the dominant military force. In this case The U.S. government.
> 
> The money that you possess is a U.S. government note stating what the U.S. government recognizes as your wealth - without the government your worth absolutely NADA . It is in fact the property of the government.
> 
> If you think that the private market could exist without government I suggest that you study the economy of the dark ages and see what happened when the government was destroyed in Western Europe. Or more recently Yeltsin era Russia when there was barely a government - and there was barely an economy.
> 
> Your 'private market' exists in a womb created by government.
> 
> But hey - enjoy those milkbones and don't think about what they are or where they come from...WOOF!
Click to expand...


I never said government doesn't play a role, but to insist that government IS THE REASON we have a private market is ridiculous. 

Government can produce goods and services as long as they have the money to do so.  They get their money from taxpayers.  Nobody is going to work for free and nobody is going to supply government with the necessary items to create product for free.  Government gets it's money from the private sector.  

Government works for the people and in return, the people pay the government just like consumers do in the private sector.


----------



## beautress

danielpalos said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I just received this email.
> 
> Dear Cellblock2429,
> Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi continue to put open borders and illegal immigrants over American citizens.
> But this isn’t the first time they jeopardized America’s safety.
> Look at the email I sent you almost a year ago when Chuck decided illegal immigrants come before HARD-WORKING AMERICANS.
> Now Democrats are STILL playing political games at the expense of the American people and our national security. NO MORE!
> Join the millions of patriots who are signing this written statement demanding Democrats finally put Americans first and FUND THE WALL:
> *OFFICIAL WRITTEN STATEMENT TO FUND THE WALL*
> 
> *FROM:* Cellblock2429, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN
> *TO:* Chuck Schumer & Nancy Pelosi
> 
> YOU HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU CARE MORE ABOUT PROTECTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND WIDE OPEN BORDERS THAN ME, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! IT’S TIME FOR YOU TO PUT AMERICA FIRST AND FULLY FUND THE WALL!
> 
> Sincerely,
> James, An American Citizen
> Thank you
> Donald J. Trump
> President of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
Click to expand...

No, we have an environmental problem, Dan. Millions of people a year flooding over our borders, a few with another 9/11 attack plans in their backpacks, and that takes a lot of additional landfills to accommodate them, which have to be paid for with half a dozen federal agencies involved in the oversight of America's water tables. In 1991, it took the state of Virginia $1 Billion Dollars to clean up a 25-mile area of water table lands that were affected by half a dozen parks in a 2 square mile radius that had infected animals brought there to have them pee and poop because their owners lived in apartments with no yard space for their pets. The particular organism in the excrement also infected a local population of wild mammals and birds. In humans, there was a greater than normal number of nonsmokers getting malignant lung cancer from the infected water table.

It's complicated, but our Latin neighbors have no compunctions in the past about dumping on our doorstep even more criminally insane criminals, insane asylum candidates, serial rapists, AIDs-infected night ladies, rowdies ready to join paramilitary groups and buy armaments, and poor people their higher classes refused to employ so they could have more money. I know we will educate, feed, clothe, hospitalize, experience citizen deaths until the serial murderers are caught, and enable to purchase housing for their families when they get here. But we will also have to get a lot more creative with trash disposal that each million accepted here will invoke. But with each kindness, groups replacing LaRaza which historically has planned political coups to remove themselves from the nation at large and/or take over border states and become a rogue nation replete with punishments for citizens that exceeds the cruelty of their DNA ancestors of the Mayan Inca tribes whose religion incorporates repugnant things done to children. Because we are a nation that allows freedom of religion, a religion demanding criminal behaviors would take advantage of our generosity, and once away from traditional Missions in Mexico, that wild side could reappear in this nation, which would please certain supportive entities from abroad whose goal is to snag everybody into their killing ways, female mutilations, and other unspeakable things.

We need to tell the world, that not only are we done, we will not tolerate disciplining wives with dismissible murder as the chief alternative, thankyouverymuch.


----------



## BluesLegend

Dale Smith said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered that your political views are perhaps a bit childish?
> 
> Sorry 'bout your transaction fees, but basing you entire political opinions on your wallet is kind of unpatriotic!
> 
> BTW - I pay the same fees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and I wouldn't be paying those fees if Democrats stayed out of the private market.  What's unpatriotic about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel that government should not be involved in the 'private market', then convince the 'private market' not to transact using U.S. federal dollars or that of any government that you do not want 'interfering'.
> 
> Your so called 'private market' only exists because of the government.
> 
> You, like so many conservatives, want and love money but do not have the slightest idea of what it is or where it comes from.
> 
> Hey, my dogs want and love milkbones. They don't know what they are or where they come from...
> 
> Intellectually you seem to be at the same level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO! You call federal reserve notes of debt "Money"? Paper scrip backed by nothing of an intrinsic value that can be printed to infinity are digitally created by a few keystrokes? Now, tell me what an intellectual heavyweight you believe yourself to be. I can't WAIT to read your reply.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had a brain you'd know that U.S. currency is backed ultimately by all of the productive work of the American people, and to some extent of the world nowadays. It is a note stating the U.S. government's recognition of your wealth...i.e. your power to buy the above mentioned produce. Without that government your worth squat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, our sweat equity moves these pieces of debt paper. I am sure that you are aware of the confiscation of the people's gold REAL MONEY) in lieu of paper I.O.Us after the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of your beloved "gubermint" in 1933 or face prison, correct? House Joint Resolution 192? The loss of allodial rights to property? How our labor was pledged as surety against the debt of USA.INC? I kinda doubt it. Keep on sucking the cock of your beloved federal "gubermint" which is nothing but a corporate entity that rather lamely attempts to act as a legitimate governmental body. You don't know shit from shinola.
Click to expand...


Yeah no country's currency has ever collapsed 500%, oh wait it has


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I just received this email.
> 
> Dear Cellblock2429,
> Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi continue to put open borders and illegal immigrants over American citizens.
> But this isn’t the first time they jeopardized America’s safety.
> Look at the email I sent you almost a year ago when Chuck decided illegal immigrants come before HARD-WORKING AMERICANS.
> Now Democrats are STILL playing political games at the expense of the American people and our national security. NO MORE!
> Join the millions of patriots who are signing this written statement demanding Democrats finally put Americans first and FUND THE WALL:
> *OFFICIAL WRITTEN STATEMENT TO FUND THE WALL*
> 
> *FROM:* Cellblock2429, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN
> *TO:* Chuck Schumer & Nancy Pelosi
> 
> YOU HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU CARE MORE ABOUT PROTECTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND WIDE OPEN BORDERS THAN ME, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! IT’S TIME FOR YOU TO PUT AMERICA FIRST AND FULLY FUND THE WALL!
> 
> Sincerely,
> James, An American Citizen
> Thank you
> Donald J. Trump
> President of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No refugees no problem. They are an unarmed invading force.
Click to expand...

we don't have a general warfare clause.  it is a general welfare clause.


----------



## danielpalos

beautress said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I just received this email.
> 
> Dear Cellblock2429,
> Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi continue to put open borders and illegal immigrants over American citizens.
> But this isn’t the first time they jeopardized America’s safety.
> Look at the email I sent you almost a year ago when Chuck decided illegal immigrants come before HARD-WORKING AMERICANS.
> Now Democrats are STILL playing political games at the expense of the American people and our national security. NO MORE!
> Join the millions of patriots who are signing this written statement demanding Democrats finally put Americans first and FUND THE WALL:
> *OFFICIAL WRITTEN STATEMENT TO FUND THE WALL*
> 
> *FROM:* Cellblock2429, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN
> *TO:* Chuck Schumer & Nancy Pelosi
> 
> YOU HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU CARE MORE ABOUT PROTECTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND WIDE OPEN BORDERS THAN ME, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! IT’S TIME FOR YOU TO PUT AMERICA FIRST AND FULLY FUND THE WALL!
> 
> Sincerely,
> James, An American Citizen
> Thank you
> Donald J. Trump
> President of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we have an environmental problem, Dan. Millions of people a year flooding over our borders, a few with another 9/11 attack plans in their backpacks, and that takes a lot of additional landfills to accommodate them, which have to be paid for with half a dozen federal agencies involved in the oversight of America's water tables. In 1991, it took the state of Virginia $1 Billion Dollars to clean up a 25-mile area of water table lands that were affected by half a dozen parks in a 2 square mile radius that had infected animals brought there to have them pee and poop because their owners lived in apartments with no yard space for their pets. The particular organism in the excrement also infected a local population of wild mammals and birds. In humans, there was a greater than normal number of nonsmokers getting malignant lung cancer from the infected water table.
> 
> It's complicated, but our Latin neighbors have no compunctions in the past about dumping on our doorstep even more criminally insane criminals, insane asylum candidates, serial rapists, AIDs-infected night ladies, rowdies ready to join paramilitary groups and buy armaments, and poor people their higher classes refused to employ so they could have more money. I know we will educate, feed, clothe, hospitalize, experience citizen deaths until the serial murderers are caught, and enable to purchase housing for their families when they get here. But we will also have to get a lot more creative with trash disposal that each million accepted here will invoke. But with each kindness, groups replacing LaRaza which historically has planned political coups to remove themselves from the nation at large and/or take over border states and become a rogue nation replete with punishments for citizens that exceeds the cruelty of their DNA ancestors of the Mayan Inca tribes whose religion incorporates repugnant things done to children. Because we are a nation that allows freedom of religion, a religion demanding criminal behaviors would take advantage of our generosity, and once away from traditional Missions in Mexico, that wild side could reappear in this nation, which would please certain supportive entities from abroad whose goal is to snag everybody into their killing ways, female mutilations, and other unspeakable things.
> 
> We need to tell the world, that not only are we done, we will not tolerate disciplining wives with dismissible murder as the chief alternative, thankyouverymuch.
Click to expand...

We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause. 

_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I just received this email.
> 
> Dear Cellblock2429,
> Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi continue to put open borders and illegal immigrants over American citizens.
> But this isn’t the first time they jeopardized America’s safety.
> Look at the email I sent you almost a year ago when Chuck decided illegal immigrants come before HARD-WORKING AMERICANS.
> Now Democrats are STILL playing political games at the expense of the American people and our national security. NO MORE!
> Join the millions of patriots who are signing this written statement demanding Democrats finally put Americans first and FUND THE WALL:
> *OFFICIAL WRITTEN STATEMENT TO FUND THE WALL*
> 
> *FROM:* Cellblock2429, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN
> *TO:* Chuck Schumer & Nancy Pelosi
> 
> YOU HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU CARE MORE ABOUT PROTECTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND WIDE OPEN BORDERS THAN ME, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! IT’S TIME FOR YOU TO PUT AMERICA FIRST AND FULLY FUND THE WALL!
> 
> Sincerely,
> James, An American Citizen
> Thank you
> Donald J. Trump
> President of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No refugees no problem. They are an unarmed invading force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't have a general warfare clause.  it is a general welfare clause.
Click to expand...

Protect and defend our country do you not understand?


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I just received this email.
> 
> Dear Cellblock2429,
> Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi continue to put open borders and illegal immigrants over American citizens.
> But this isn’t the first time they jeopardized America’s safety.
> Look at the email I sent you almost a year ago when Chuck decided illegal immigrants come before HARD-WORKING AMERICANS.
> Now Democrats are STILL playing political games at the expense of the American people and our national security. NO MORE!
> Join the millions of patriots who are signing this written statement demanding Democrats finally put Americans first and FUND THE WALL:
> *OFFICIAL WRITTEN STATEMENT TO FUND THE WALL*
> 
> *FROM:* Cellblock2429, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN
> *TO:* Chuck Schumer & Nancy Pelosi
> 
> YOU HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU CARE MORE ABOUT PROTECTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND WIDE OPEN BORDERS THAN ME, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! IT’S TIME FOR YOU TO PUT AMERICA FIRST AND FULLY FUND THE WALL!
> 
> Sincerely,
> James, An American Citizen
> Thank you
> Donald J. Trump
> President of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No refugees no problem. They are an unarmed invading force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't have a general warfare clause.  it is a general welfare clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protect and defend our country do you not understand?
Click to expand...

Our Constitution is Express not Implied.  Only the right wing believes in Everything for the general warfare and nothing for the general welfare.


----------



## beautress

danielpalos said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I just received this email.
> 
> Dear Cellblock2429,
> Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi continue to put open borders and illegal immigrants over American citizens.
> But this isn’t the first time they jeopardized America’s safety.
> Look at the email I sent you almost a year ago when Chuck decided illegal immigrants come before HARD-WORKING AMERICANS.
> Now Democrats are STILL playing political games at the expense of the American people and our national security. NO MORE!
> Join the millions of patriots who are signing this written statement demanding Democrats finally put Americans first and FUND THE WALL:
> *OFFICIAL WRITTEN STATEMENT TO FUND THE WALL*
> 
> *FROM:* Cellblock2429, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN
> *TO:* Chuck Schumer & Nancy Pelosi
> 
> YOU HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU CARE MORE ABOUT PROTECTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND WIDE OPEN BORDERS THAN ME, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! IT’S TIME FOR YOU TO PUT AMERICA FIRST AND FULLY FUND THE WALL!
> 
> Sincerely,
> James, An American Citizen
> Thank you
> Donald J. Trump
> President of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we have an environmental problem, Dan. Millions of people a year flooding over our borders, a few with another 9/11 attack plans in their backpacks, and that takes a lot of additional landfills to accommodate them, which have to be paid for with half a dozen federal agencies involved in the oversight of America's water tables. In 1991, it took the state of Virginia $1 Billion Dollars to clean up a 25-mile area of water table lands that were affected by half a dozen parks in a 2 square mile radius that had infected animals brought there to have them pee and poop because their owners lived in apartments with no yard space for their pets. The particular organism in the excrement also infected a local population of wild mammals and birds. In humans, there was a greater than normal number of nonsmokers getting malignant lung cancer from the infected water table.
> 
> It's complicated, but our Latin neighbors have no compunctions in the past about dumping on our doorstep even more criminally insane criminals, insane asylum candidates, serial rapists, AIDs-infected night ladies, rowdies ready to join paramilitary groups and buy armaments, and poor people their higher classes refused to employ so they could have more money. I know we will educate, feed, clothe, hospitalize, experience citizen deaths until the serial murderers are caught, and enable to purchase housing for their families when they get here. But we will also have to get a lot more creative with trash disposal that each million accepted here will invoke. But with each kindness, groups replacing LaRaza which historically has planned political coups to remove themselves from the nation at large and/or take over border states and become a rogue nation replete with punishments for citizens that exceeds the cruelty of their DNA ancestors of the Mayan Inca tribes whose religion incorporates repugnant things done to children. Because we are a nation that allows freedom of religion, a religion demanding criminal behaviors would take advantage of our generosity, and once away from traditional Missions in Mexico, that wild side could reappear in this nation, which would please certain supportive entities from abroad whose goal is to snag everybody into their killing ways, female mutilations, and other unspeakable things.
> 
> We need to tell the world, that not only are we done, we will not tolerate disciplining wives with dismissible murder as the chief alternative, thankyouverymuch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
Click to expand...

Quote: We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause. _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
​We already have rules established, Dan. It's just that the illegals do not respect them because they already have hundreds of miles of areas where they can sneak across with a 50-50 chance they will be undetected. Interpretation: for every 3,000,000 illegal crossers, 1,500,000 of them get it. And since it is already recorded that many crossers have already been escorted back to Mexico, by their 10th crossing at least one of those times they are undetected illegal crossers, all they need is a false id that resembles a green card when they get to a farm or factory where ids aren't looked upon too carefully.​​Why not just let it go, Dan. Most of us do not continue on if we lose 9 chances at much of anything. (Oops, I forgot about Vegas...) Well, anyhow, it only takes one open window to a place where persistence will also make them employed sooner or later.​


----------



## danielpalos

beautress said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I just received this email.
> 
> Dear Cellblock2429,
> Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi continue to put open borders and illegal immigrants over American citizens.
> But this isn’t the first time they jeopardized America’s safety.
> Look at the email I sent you almost a year ago when Chuck decided illegal immigrants come before HARD-WORKING AMERICANS.
> Now Democrats are STILL playing political games at the expense of the American people and our national security. NO MORE!
> Join the millions of patriots who are signing this written statement demanding Democrats finally put Americans first and FUND THE WALL:
> *OFFICIAL WRITTEN STATEMENT TO FUND THE WALL*
> 
> *FROM:* Cellblock2429, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN
> *TO:* Chuck Schumer & Nancy Pelosi
> 
> YOU HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU CARE MORE ABOUT PROTECTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND WIDE OPEN BORDERS THAN ME, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! IT’S TIME FOR YOU TO PUT AMERICA FIRST AND FULLY FUND THE WALL!
> 
> Sincerely,
> James, An American Citizen
> Thank you
> Donald J. Trump
> President of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we have an environmental problem, Dan. Millions of people a year flooding over our borders, a few with another 9/11 attack plans in their backpacks, and that takes a lot of additional landfills to accommodate them, which have to be paid for with half a dozen federal agencies involved in the oversight of America's water tables. In 1991, it took the state of Virginia $1 Billion Dollars to clean up a 25-mile area of water table lands that were affected by half a dozen parks in a 2 square mile radius that had infected animals brought there to have them pee and poop because their owners lived in apartments with no yard space for their pets. The particular organism in the excrement also infected a local population of wild mammals and birds. In humans, there was a greater than normal number of nonsmokers getting malignant lung cancer from the infected water table.
> 
> It's complicated, but our Latin neighbors have no compunctions in the past about dumping on our doorstep even more criminally insane criminals, insane asylum candidates, serial rapists, AIDs-infected night ladies, rowdies ready to join paramilitary groups and buy armaments, and poor people their higher classes refused to employ so they could have more money. I know we will educate, feed, clothe, hospitalize, experience citizen deaths until the serial murderers are caught, and enable to purchase housing for their families when they get here. But we will also have to get a lot more creative with trash disposal that each million accepted here will invoke. But with each kindness, groups replacing LaRaza which historically has planned political coups to remove themselves from the nation at large and/or take over border states and become a rogue nation replete with punishments for citizens that exceeds the cruelty of their DNA ancestors of the Mayan Inca tribes whose religion incorporates repugnant things done to children. Because we are a nation that allows freedom of religion, a religion demanding criminal behaviors would take advantage of our generosity, and once away from traditional Missions in Mexico, that wild side could reappear in this nation, which would please certain supportive entities from abroad whose goal is to snag everybody into their killing ways, female mutilations, and other unspeakable things.
> 
> We need to tell the world, that not only are we done, we will not tolerate disciplining wives with dismissible murder as the chief alternative, thankyouverymuch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote: We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause. _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> ​We already have rules established, Dan. It's just that the illegals do not respect them because they already have hundreds of miles of areas where they can sneak across with a 50-50 chance they will be undetected. Interpretation: for every 3,000,000 illegal crossers, 1,500,000 of them get it. And since it is already recorded that many crossers have already been escorted back to Mexico, by their 10th crossing at least one of those times they are undetected illegal crossers, all they need is a false id that resembles a green card when they get to a farm or factory where ids aren't looked upon too carefully.
> 
> Why not just let it go, Dan. Most of us do not continue on if we lose 9 chances at much of anything. (Oops, I forgot about Vegas...) Well, anyhow, it only takes one open window to a place where persistence will also make them employed sooner or later.​
Click to expand...

Ellis Island used to be able to process thousands per day.  There should be no refugees waiting for processing on our border.

_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I just received this email.
> 
> Dear Cellblock2429,
> Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi continue to put open borders and illegal immigrants over American citizens.
> But this isn’t the first time they jeopardized America’s safety.
> Look at the email I sent you almost a year ago when Chuck decided illegal immigrants come before HARD-WORKING AMERICANS.
> Now Democrats are STILL playing political games at the expense of the American people and our national security. NO MORE!
> Join the millions of patriots who are signing this written statement demanding Democrats finally put Americans first and FUND THE WALL:
> *OFFICIAL WRITTEN STATEMENT TO FUND THE WALL*
> 
> *FROM:* Cellblock2429, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN
> *TO:* Chuck Schumer & Nancy Pelosi
> 
> YOU HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU CARE MORE ABOUT PROTECTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND WIDE OPEN BORDERS THAN ME, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! IT’S TIME FOR YOU TO PUT AMERICA FIRST AND FULLY FUND THE WALL!
> 
> Sincerely,
> James, An American Citizen
> Thank you
> Donald J. Trump
> President of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No refugees no problem. They are an unarmed invading force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't have a general warfare clause.  it is a general welfare clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protect and defend our country do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied.  Only the right wing believes in Everything for the general warfare and nothing for the general welfare.
Click to expand...

Every President takes an oath to defend our country against all enemies here and abroad. Illegal immigrants are our enemy.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
> 
> 
> 
> No refugees no problem. They are an unarmed invading force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't have a general warfare clause.  it is a general welfare clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protect and defend our country do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied.  Only the right wing believes in Everything for the general warfare and nothing for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every President takes an oath to defend our country against all enemies here and abroad. Illegal immigrants are our enemy.
Click to expand...

only in right wing fantasy.  our welfare clause is general not common. 

this is an express power delegated to Congress:  To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization


----------



## beautress

danielpalos said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I just received this email.
> 
> Dear Cellblock2429,
> Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi continue to put open borders and illegal immigrants over American citizens.
> But this isn’t the first time they jeopardized America’s safety.
> Look at the email I sent you almost a year ago when Chuck decided illegal immigrants come before HARD-WORKING AMERICANS.
> Now Democrats are STILL playing political games at the expense of the American people and our national security. NO MORE!
> Join the millions of patriots who are signing this written statement demanding Democrats finally put Americans first and FUND THE WALL:
> *OFFICIAL WRITTEN STATEMENT TO FUND THE WALL*
> 
> *FROM:* Cellblock2429, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN
> *TO:* Chuck Schumer & Nancy Pelosi
> 
> YOU HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU CARE MORE ABOUT PROTECTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND WIDE OPEN BORDERS THAN ME, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! IT’S TIME FOR YOU TO PUT AMERICA FIRST AND FULLY FUND THE WALL!
> 
> Sincerely,
> James, An American Citizen
> Thank you
> Donald J. Trump
> President of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No refugees no problem. They are an unarmed invading force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't have a general warfare clause.  it is a general welfare clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protect and defend our country do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied.  Only the right wing believes in Everything for the general warfare and nothing for the general welfare.
Click to expand...

Quote: *" Only the right wing believes in Everything for the general warfare and nothing for the general welfare."*​Uh, 'scuse me. I know a lot of Republicans who do not own a gun nor care for war, many of whom are missing a body part due to having fought in one. You need to watch those generalized and glossed-over accusations. Even those of us Republicans who believe life starts at conception and should be protected, we are quite at peace on Sunday of sitting next to someone in the same pew who donated $20,000 to the local planned unborn citizen murder factory. And we make no retaliations whatever, because we may believe that forgiveness or punishment is God's job, not ours. However, this drain of unborn citizens is nearing the fifty-million mark, and we will pay a price as a people for this atrocity even if it breaks some of our hearts to think about all that suffering of youngsters who haven't been born yet and when they get here they'll already be gone.


----------



## beautress

danielpalos said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ I just received this email.
> 
> Dear Cellblock2429,
> Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi continue to put open borders and illegal immigrants over American citizens.
> But this isn’t the first time they jeopardized America’s safety.
> Look at the email I sent you almost a year ago when Chuck decided illegal immigrants come before HARD-WORKING AMERICANS.
> Now Democrats are STILL playing political games at the expense of the American people and our national security. NO MORE!
> Join the millions of patriots who are signing this written statement demanding Democrats finally put Americans first and FUND THE WALL:
> *OFFICIAL WRITTEN STATEMENT TO FUND THE WALL*
> 
> *FROM:* Cellblock2429, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN
> *TO:* Chuck Schumer & Nancy Pelosi
> 
> YOU HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU CARE MORE ABOUT PROTECTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND WIDE OPEN BORDERS THAN ME, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! IT’S TIME FOR YOU TO PUT AMERICA FIRST AND FULLY FUND THE WALL!
> 
> Sincerely,
> James, An American Citizen
> Thank you
> Donald J. Trump
> President of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we have an environmental problem, Dan. Millions of people a year flooding over our borders, a few with another 9/11 attack plans in their backpacks, and that takes a lot of additional landfills to accommodate them, which have to be paid for with half a dozen federal agencies involved in the oversight of America's water tables. In 1991, it took the state of Virginia $1 Billion Dollars to clean up a 25-mile area of water table lands that were affected by half a dozen parks in a 2 square mile radius that had infected animals brought there to have them pee and poop because their owners lived in apartments with no yard space for their pets. The particular organism in the excrement also infected a local population of wild mammals and birds. In humans, there was a greater than normal number of nonsmokers getting malignant lung cancer from the infected water table.
> 
> It's complicated, but our Latin neighbors have no compunctions in the past about dumping on our doorstep even more criminally insane criminals, insane asylum candidates, serial rapists, AIDs-infected night ladies, rowdies ready to join paramilitary groups and buy armaments, and poor people their higher classes refused to employ so they could have more money. I know we will educate, feed, clothe, hospitalize, experience citizen deaths until the serial murderers are caught, and enable to purchase housing for their families when they get here. But we will also have to get a lot more creative with trash disposal that each million accepted here will invoke. But with each kindness, groups replacing LaRaza which historically has planned political coups to remove themselves from the nation at large and/or take over border states and become a rogue nation replete with punishments for citizens that exceeds the cruelty of their DNA ancestors of the Mayan Inca tribes whose religion incorporates repugnant things done to children. Because we are a nation that allows freedom of religion, a religion demanding criminal behaviors would take advantage of our generosity, and once away from traditional Missions in Mexico, that wild side could reappear in this nation, which would please certain supportive entities from abroad whose goal is to snag everybody into their killing ways, female mutilations, and other unspeakable things.
> 
> We need to tell the world, that not only are we done, we will not tolerate disciplining wives with dismissible murder as the chief alternative, thankyouverymuch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote: We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause. _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> ​We already have rules established, Dan. It's just that the illegals do not respect them because they already have hundreds of miles of areas where they can sneak across with a 50-50 chance they will be undetected. Interpretation: for every 3,000,000 illegal crossers, 1,500,000 of them get it. And since it is already recorded that many crossers have already been escorted back to Mexico, by their 10th crossing at least one of those times they are undetected illegal crossers, all they need is a false id that resembles a green card when they get to a farm or factory where ids aren't looked upon too carefully.
> 
> Why not just let it go, Dan. Most of us do not continue on if we lose 9 chances at much of anything. (Oops, I forgot about Vegas...) Well, anyhow, it only takes one open window to a place where persistence will also make them employed sooner or later.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ellis Island used to be able to process thousands per day.  There should be no refugees waiting for processing on our border.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
Click to expand...

When you mention Ellis Island and what used to be, are you saying you don't care for the wait-your-turn policy on immigration? It's been in place for years, to help integrate people from a variety of nations to get a chance at the American Dream. Are you also in favor of allowing only one area of the world push its way in here?

I guess I do differ with you on that count. I love the Mexican people who live here, but I also enjoy knowing that as Americans, we have many nations touching us when a fair number from each country is allowed in.

Mexico unfortunately is the neighbor who sees an opportunity to overpopulate our nation rather than its own with people it wants nothing to do with. They send us car thieves, home invaders, patients with incurable mental and physical diseases, etc. for the sole purpose of benefitting financially from the money they send back to Mexico to support an economy that so entitles its rich it ignores and reduces its poor to a life of bitterness and poverty. AND they see an opening for America solving all their problems and making their rich classes richer than ever.

Our existing immigration policies stands for equal opportunities to a variety of people. The illegal practice of sending us only problems so far, allows a corrupt Mexico to sing "Don't worry, be happy" all day and all night. It is not fair to the unsung scientist who goes unappreciated in another country who's been waiting for 20 years for his ok to come here, and now, never can because his space has been filled 10,000 times with Mexico's problems.

We finally got one person elected to office who will deal like an adult with the moochers to the south, and what happens? Y'all go all out to kick him in the groin on a constant basis for things he did from the first time he sneezed as a child to frowning at a member of the ninnyhammer press.

Mexico will benefit by having to grow up enough to take care of their own. We will have to get all our druggy kids out of the slammer and put them in the orchards, so what. It'll benefit everyone concerned if we take away the border tit and make Mexico grow more beans.

Mexico is a moochie moochie.
It just wants to eat your cookie.
Say "Adios" to tribulation,
Singing "stupid gringos,- celebration."


----------



## Flopper

Geaux4it said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> It won't work.*   You build a 1000 wall there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it as soon as it's built.
> 
> This 2-1/2 minute video at the end will describe the 240 tunnels they've already found in the San Diego region alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly to an alert.  Anything that can be seen---can & will always be compromised.  _Something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> _
> _Now your Ass Clown turned down a proposal by Chuck Schummer & Nancy Pelosi to do just that.  Add more border security and technology to the border, if Trump would go along with a DACA (dreamer bill).  Trump refused it--he wants his worthless piece of shit wall--that no congress is going to fund.  If Republicans wouldn't do it, Democrats sure won't.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> Put in simple term it won't solve the problem because most illegal immigrants in the US did not sneak across the border.  Long before the wall is complete, we will be cutting holes for drainage, wildlife crossings and replacing parts with fencing.  It's a solution for a crisis that does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing is 100% effective. I'll accept an 80% level of confidence the wall would reduce illegal crossings by 68%
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The empirical evidence shows that the wall will be 100% effective where it actually exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a crock of B.S,
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly.  Something they can see, can and will always be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> You had a Republican full house for two years, why in the hell do you think they didn't vote for it.
> 
> Here's 2-1/2 minutes of reasons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
> President Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall along our Southern border will save countless innocent lives. Our Border Patrol agents have seen firsthand the success of a border wall in Yuma, Ariz. — which serves as a prime example of how investments in personnel, technology and a border wall can turn the tide against a flood of illegal immigration and secure our homeland.
> 
> For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.
> 
> It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
Click to expand...

First it's a fence and not wall and it certainly can crossed.


----------



## beautress

Flopper said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put in simple term it won't solve the problem because most illegal immigrants in the US did not sneak across the border.  Long before the wall is complete, we will be cutting holes for drainage, wildlife crossings and replacing parts with fencing.  It's a solution for a crisis that does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is 100% effective. I'll accept an 80% level of confidence the wall would reduce illegal crossings by 68%
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The empirical evidence shows that the wall will be 100% effective where it actually exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a crock of B.S,
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly.  Something they can see, can and will always be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> You had a Republican full house for two years, why in the hell do you think they didn't vote for it.
> 
> Here's 2-1/2 minutes of reasons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
> President Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall along our Southern border will save countless innocent lives. Our Border Patrol agents have seen firsthand the success of a border wall in Yuma, Ariz. — which serves as a prime example of how investments in personnel, technology and a border wall can turn the tide against a flood of illegal immigration and secure our homeland.
> 
> For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.
> 
> It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First it's a fence and not wall and it certainly can crossed.
Click to expand...

Oh, didn't you know? A stunt like that will bring instant electrocution because the wall will be electrified.


----------



## basquebromance

The Democrats know that if Trump achieves his signature Campaign Promise of Building a Wall he will win re-election in a glorious landslide.


----------



## Flopper

beautress said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have an environmental problem, Dan. Millions of people a year flooding over our borders, a few with another 9/11 attack plans in their backpacks, and that takes a lot of additional landfills to accommodate them, which have to be paid for with half a dozen federal agencies involved in the oversight of America's water tables. In 1991, it took the state of Virginia $1 Billion Dollars to clean up a 25-mile area of water table lands that were affected by half a dozen parks in a 2 square mile radius that had infected animals brought there to have them pee and poop because their owners lived in apartments with no yard space for their pets. The particular organism in the excrement also infected a local population of wild mammals and birds. In humans, there was a greater than normal number of nonsmokers getting malignant lung cancer from the infected water table.
> 
> It's complicated, but our Latin neighbors have no compunctions in the past about dumping on our doorstep even more criminally insane criminals, insane asylum candidates, serial rapists, AIDs-infected night ladies, rowdies ready to join paramilitary groups and buy armaments, and poor people their higher classes refused to employ so they could have more money. I know we will educate, feed, clothe, hospitalize, experience citizen deaths until the serial murderers are caught, and enable to purchase housing for their families when they get here. But we will also have to get a lot more creative with trash disposal that each million accepted here will invoke. But with each kindness, groups replacing LaRaza which historically has planned political coups to remove themselves from the nation at large and/or take over border states and become a rogue nation replete with punishments for citizens that exceeds the cruelty of their DNA ancestors of the Mayan Inca tribes whose religion incorporates repugnant things done to children. Because we are a nation that allows freedom of religion, a religion demanding criminal behaviors would take advantage of our generosity, and once away from traditional Missions in Mexico, that wild side could reappear in this nation, which would please certain supportive entities from abroad whose goal is to snag everybody into their killing ways, female mutilations, and other unspeakable things.
> 
> We need to tell the world, that not only are we done, we will not tolerate disciplining wives with dismissible murder as the chief alternative, thankyouverymuch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote: We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause. _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> ​We already have rules established, Dan. It's just that the illegals do not respect them because they already have hundreds of miles of areas where they can sneak across with a 50-50 chance they will be undetected. Interpretation: for every 3,000,000 illegal crossers, 1,500,000 of them get it. And since it is already recorded that many crossers have already been escorted back to Mexico, by their 10th crossing at least one of those times they are undetected illegal crossers, all they need is a false id that resembles a green card when they get to a farm or factory where ids aren't looked upon too carefully.
> 
> Why not just let it go, Dan. Most of us do not continue on if we lose 9 chances at much of anything. (Oops, I forgot about Vegas...) Well, anyhow, it only takes one open window to a place where persistence will also make them employed sooner or later.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ellis Island used to be able to process thousands per day.  There should be no refugees waiting for processing on our border.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you mention Ellis Island and what used to be, are you saying you don't care for the wait-your-turn policy on immigration? It's been in place for years, to help integrate people from a variety of nations to get a chance at the American Dream. Are you also in favor of allowing only one area of the world push its way in here?
> 
> I guess I do differ with you on that count. I love the Mexican people who live here, but I also enjoy knowing that as Americans, we have many nations touching us when a fair number from each country is allowed in.
> 
> Mexico unfortunately is the neighbor who sees an opportunity to overpopulate our nation rather than its own with people it wants nothing to do with. They send us car thieves, home invaders, patients with incurable mental and physical diseases, etc. for the sole purpose of benefitting financially from the money they send back to Mexico to support an economy that so entitles its rich it ignores and reduces its poor to a life of bitterness and poverty. AND they see an opening for America solving all their problems and making their rich classes richer than ever.
> 
> Our existing immigration policies stands for equal opportunities to a variety of people. The illegal practice of sending us only problems so far, allows a corrupt Mexico to sing "Don't worry, be happy" all day and all night. It is not fair to the unsung scientist who goes unappreciated in another country who's been waiting for 20 years for his ok to come here, and now, never can because his space has been filled 10,000 times with Mexico's problems.
> 
> We finally got one person elected to office who will deal like an adult with the moochers to the south, and what happens? Y'all go all out to kick him in the groin on a constant basis for things he did from the first time he sneezed as a child to frowning at a member of the ninnyhammer press.
> 
> Mexico will benefit by having to grow up enough to take care of their own. We will have to get all our druggy kids out of the slammer and put them in the orchards, so what. It'll benefit everyone concerned if we take away the border tit and make Mexico grow more beans.
> 
> Mexico is a moochie moochie.
> It just wants to eat your cookie.
> Say "Adios" to tribulation,
> Singing "stupid gringos,- celebration."
Click to expand...

*I keep seeing people saying Mexico is sending us their murders, rapists, thrives, home invaders, and the mental and physical disabled.  Exactly how is the government doing this.  Do they buy them plane tickets or maybe they drive them up to border and help them over fence.  *


----------



## bripat9643

beautress said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is 100% effective. I'll accept an 80% level of confidence the wall would reduce illegal crossings by 68%
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> The empirical evidence shows that the wall will be 100% effective where it actually exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a crock of B.S,
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly.  Something they can see, can and will always be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> You had a Republican full house for two years, why in the hell do you think they didn't vote for it.
> 
> Here's 2-1/2 minutes of reasons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
> President Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall along our Southern border will save countless innocent lives. Our Border Patrol agents have seen firsthand the success of a border wall in Yuma, Ariz. — which serves as a prime example of how investments in personnel, technology and a border wall can turn the tide against a flood of illegal immigration and secure our homeland.
> 
> For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.
> 
> It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First it's a fence and not wall and it certainly can crossed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, didn't you know? A stunt like that will bring instant electrocution because the wall will be electrified.
Click to expand...

The wall will most likely be built of concrete, so that's total bullshit.


----------



## Lesh

basquebromance said:


> The Democrats know that if Trump achieves his signature Campaign Promise of Building a Wall he will win re-election in a glorious landslide.


Build 2000 miles of wall in two years?

No funding. No land...No engineering

Guess he's cooked


----------



## beautress

Flopper said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have an environmental problem, Dan. Millions of people a year flooding over our borders, a few with another 9/11 attack plans in their backpacks, and that takes a lot of additional landfills to accommodate them, which have to be paid for with half a dozen federal agencies involved in the oversight of America's water tables. In 1991, it took the state of Virginia $1 Billion Dollars to clean up a 25-mile area of water table lands that were affected by half a dozen parks in a 2 square mile radius that had infected animals brought there to have them pee and poop because their owners lived in apartments with no yard space for their pets. The particular organism in the excrement also infected a local population of wild mammals and birds. In humans, there was a greater than normal number of nonsmokers getting malignant lung cancer from the infected water table.
> 
> It's complicated, but our Latin neighbors have no compunctions in the past about dumping on our doorstep even more criminally insane criminals, insane asylum candidates, serial rapists, AIDs-infected night ladies, rowdies ready to join paramilitary groups and buy armaments, and poor people their higher classes refused to employ so they could have more money. I know we will educate, feed, clothe, hospitalize, experience citizen deaths until the serial murderers are caught, and enable to purchase housing for their families when they get here. But we will also have to get a lot more creative with trash disposal that each million accepted here will invoke. But with each kindness, groups replacing LaRaza which historically has planned political coups to remove themselves from the nation at large and/or take over border states and become a rogue nation replete with punishments for citizens that exceeds the cruelty of their DNA ancestors of the Mayan Inca tribes whose religion incorporates repugnant things done to children. Because we are a nation that allows freedom of religion, a religion demanding criminal behaviors would take advantage of our generosity, and once away from traditional Missions in Mexico, that wild side could reappear in this nation, which would please certain supportive entities from abroad whose goal is to snag everybody into their killing ways, female mutilations, and other unspeakable things.
> 
> We need to tell the world, that not only are we done, we will not tolerate disciplining wives with dismissible murder as the chief alternative, thankyouverymuch.
> 
> 
> 
> We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote: We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause. _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> ​We already have rules established, Dan. It's just that the illegals do not respect them because they already have hundreds of miles of areas where they can sneak across with a 50-50 chance they will be undetected. Interpretation: for every 3,000,000 illegal crossers, 1,500,000 of them get it. And since it is already recorded that many crossers have already been escorted back to Mexico, by their 10th crossing at least one of those times they are undetected illegal crossers, all they need is a false id that resembles a green card when they get to a farm or factory where ids aren't looked upon too carefully.
> 
> Why not just let it go, Dan. Most of us do not continue on if we lose 9 chances at much of anything. (Oops, I forgot about Vegas...) Well, anyhow, it only takes one open window to a place where persistence will also make them employed sooner or later.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ellis Island used to be able to process thousands per day.  There should be no refugees waiting for processing on our border.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you mention Ellis Island and what used to be, are you saying you don't care for the wait-your-turn policy on immigration? It's been in place for years, to help integrate people from a variety of nations to get a chance at the American Dream. Are you also in favor of allowing only one area of the world push its way in here?
> 
> I guess I do differ with you on that count. I love the Mexican people who live here, but I also enjoy knowing that as Americans, we have many nations touching us when a fair number from each country is allowed in.
> 
> Mexico unfortunately is the neighbor who sees an opportunity to overpopulate our nation rather than its own with people it wants nothing to do with. They send us car thieves, home invaders, patients with incurable mental and physical diseases, etc. for the sole purpose of benefitting financially from the money they send back to Mexico to support an economy that so entitles its rich it ignores and reduces its poor to a life of bitterness and poverty. AND they see an opening for America solving all their problems and making their rich classes richer than ever.
> 
> Our existing immigration policies stands for equal opportunities to a variety of people. The illegal practice of sending us only problems so far, allows a corrupt Mexico to sing "Don't worry, be happy" all day and all night. It is not fair to the unsung scientist who goes unappreciated in another country who's been waiting for 20 years for his ok to come here, and now, never can because his space has been filled 10,000 times with Mexico's problems.
> 
> We finally got one person elected to office who will deal like an adult with the moochers to the south, and what happens? Y'all go all out to kick him in the groin on a constant basis for things he did from the first time he sneezed as a child to frowning at a member of the ninnyhammer press.
> 
> Mexico will benefit by having to grow up enough to take care of their own. We will have to get all our druggy kids out of the slammer and put them in the orchards, so what. It'll benefit everyone concerned if we take away the border tit and make Mexico grow more beans.
> 
> Mexico is a moochie moochie.
> It just wants to eat your cookie.
> Say "Adios" to tribulation,
> Singing "stupid gringos,- celebration."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I keep seeing people saying Mexico is sending us their murders, rapists, thrives, home invaders, and the mental and physical disabled.  Exactly how is the government doing this.  Do they buy them plane tickets or maybe they drive them up to border and help them over fence.  *
Click to expand...

Quote*: I keep seeing people saying Mexico is sending us their murders, rapists, thrives, home invaders, and the mental and physical disabled.  Exactly how is the government doing this.  Do they buy them plane tickets or maybe they drive them up to border and help them over fence.*​Thank you for asking, Mr. Flopper. It will take me several weeks to gather the kind of information you would like verified, because the dismal criminally-controlled border situation is exacerbated by cultural differences of our neighbors to the south and how they deal with criminal behaviors. You will not get much specific from such government agencies as the U. S. Bureau of Diplomatic Security - Mexico 2016 Crime & Safety Report: Nuevo Laredo

I gathered from my reading and understanding of the scant not to mention vague explanations in the above report is what I know about border doings came from two years of living near the border at age 13-14, when my dad was a Superintendent of Schools one year and a Principal of another the following year. Things were a lot different back then, but my father, who had been a Marine who served in WWII and the Korean War, took a loving approach to children of different backgrounds, to be sure they received good educations. This did little to endear him to prejudicial parents of the late 50s and early 60s, but earned him the respect of Christians in the two communities he served, who took a positive position towards those fleeing truly scary people in Mexico, although there were only 2 Mexican families in the community and one a few years before who all died because a centipede climbed into the coffee pot, rendering it poisonous to everyone in the family since it was their custom to serve coffee to children. It was sad to hear about. That said, over half the irst community that was not too far from Laredo were of Spanish descent, and the rest were ranchers, a pharmacist, and teachers.. At that time, we received the first Salk vaccines, and nobody was refused, and we were in line alphabetically, which is how the teachers decided fairness should be on their turf. 

Anyhow, I got the impression that border crossings were not that frequent, and often, it was just common knowledge that Mexican sheriffs routinely took unwanted criminals and their families to the border with the warning they would be shot on sight if they returned to Mexico.. We did visit the market place at Neuva Laredo that year, and the border crossing guards on both sides were polite and collected a dollar and fifty cents from Dad. We ate at a nice place, then went to the marketplace that were pretty, colorful,  and bright, and you had to haggle, except I just couldn't, to my brother's disgust as I recollect.

So that and the hush-hush diplomatic link above aren't much to go on, and you can disparage hearsay all you want to, but all I can say is that's the way it was--and everybody knew it about the Mexican Police.

I'll try and filter through all that nebulous material and locate a statement or two, but I'm sure you would likely pick things your side of the fence would like to hear, so I leave you to explore the link on this issue.

Quotes from the Bureau report:

Mexico 2016 Crime & Safety Report: Nuevo Laredo
Travel Health and Safety; Transportation Security; Stolen items; Theft; Kidnapping; Narcoterrorism; Drug Trafficking; Murder; Extortion; Rape/Sexual Violence; Riots/Civil Unrest; Floods; Financial Security
Western Hemisphere > Mexico; Western Hemisphere > Mexico > Nuevo Laredo
4/12/2016
*Overall Crime and Safety Situation *

Post Crime Rating: Critical

While the violence and kidnapping rates remained level in 2015 compared to the previous two years, the security environment did not improve substantially. The absence of a municipal police force and the inability to form a reliable, vetted state police force capable of maintaining law and order (without federal support) remain glaring signs that Nuevo Laredo, and Tamaulipas in general, has a ways to go before the security situation can be deemed improved. The situation in northeast Mexico remains fluid; the location and timing of armed engagements cannot be predicted.

Crime Threats

This region remains a critical threat environment for crime. Although the primary security threat within the region stems from the Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs), street crime and thefts within urban areas is common. Since 2006, the government has engaged in an extensive effort to combat TCOs, which have been engaged in a struggle with each other for control of lucrative drug trafficking routes. In order to prevent and combat violence, the government has deployed military troops and federal police throughout the country. The vast majority of those killed have been members of TCOs and, to a lesser extent, the federal forces who are fighting them; however, innocent bystanders have been killed in shootouts either between TCOs and law enforcement or between rival TCOs. 

Violent crime (kidnappings, extortions, homicides, sexual assaults, personal robberies, residential break-ins) and non-violent crimes (financial scams, vehicle thefts, petty drug crimes) continue to be a serious concern for those living or transiting Tamaulipas. In 2015, firefights tool place throughout the Consular District (Nuevo Laredo, Piedras Negras). Gun battles have occurred in broad daylight, on public streets, and close to public venues. ​I think the Mexican police are cited as being the cause of so much graft at the border, and in introspect of the things I read about them, it seems to me to be a matter of the Mexican government's errors of omission--they do not make requirements of their police, so the police who are there can pick and choose safe neighborhoods to patrol and leave the killers alone so they do not be killed. That's what I gathered, and in no way is a reflection of what was actually said for the rest of the page. What horrifies us is having to put up with bullies of that civilization by the masses, their helplessness in the face of druglord greed, and the sadness of the women who lose their men who were trying to protect their families from drug cartel crazies.

Good night. It's past my bedtime, and my Spanish language of 20 years ago sans any practice keeps me from trying Spanish speaking news, where most of the specifics are most likely carried there. Also, this issue tears at my heart, because nothing is fair about being a person without a country that nurtures its people. Nothing.


----------



## beautress

bripat9643 said:


> The wall will most likely be built of concrete, so that's total bullshit.



I stand corrected, Mr. bripat.


----------



## oreo

beautress said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is 100% effective. I'll accept an 80% level of confidence the wall would reduce illegal crossings by 68%
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> The empirical evidence shows that the wall will be 100% effective where it actually exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a crock of B.S,
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly.  Something they can see, can and will always be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> You had a Republican full house for two years, why in the hell do you think they didn't vote for it.
> 
> Here's 2-1/2 minutes of reasons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
> President Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall along our Southern border will save countless innocent lives. Our Border Patrol agents have seen firsthand the success of a border wall in Yuma, Ariz. — which serves as a prime example of how investments in personnel, technology and a border wall can turn the tide against a flood of illegal immigration and secure our homeland.
> 
> For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.
> 
> It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First it's a fence and not wall and it certainly can crossed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, didn't you know? A stunt like that will bring instant electrocution because the wall will be electrified.
Click to expand...


Rubber tires have no problems with electricity---   Furthermore I doubt a 1000 mile wall is going to have electricity within a 1000 miles to plug into.  I think some of you people are doing your own _WALLLLLLLL_ design.  An electric 1000 wall has never been discussed.  So I assume you're getting your idea's from the usual suspect.


----------



## oreo

bripat9643 said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The empirical evidence shows that the wall will be 100% effective where it actually exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a crock of B.S,
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly.  Something they can see, can and will always be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> You had a Republican full house for two years, why in the hell do you think they didn't vote for it.
> 
> Here's 2-1/2 minutes of reasons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
> President Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall along our Southern border will save countless innocent lives. Our Border Patrol agents have seen firsthand the success of a border wall in Yuma, Ariz. — which serves as a prime example of how investments in personnel, technology and a border wall can turn the tide against a flood of illegal immigration and secure our homeland.
> 
> For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.
> 
> 
> 
> It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First it's a fence and not wall and it certainly can crossed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, didn't you know? A stunt like that will bring instant electrocution because the wall will be electrified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall will most likely be built of concrete, so that's total bullshit.
Click to expand...




bripat9643 said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The empirical evidence shows that the wall will be 100% effective where it actually exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a crock of B.S,
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly.  Something they can see, can and will always be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> You had a Republican full house for two years, why in the hell do you think they didn't vote for it.
> 
> Here's 2-1/2 minutes of reasons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
> President Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall along our Southern border will save countless innocent lives. Our Border Patrol agents have seen firsthand the success of a border wall in Yuma, Ariz. — which serves as a prime example of how investments in personnel, technology and a border wall can turn the tide against a flood of illegal immigration and secure our homeland.
> 
> For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.
> 
> It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First it's a fence and not wall and it certainly can crossed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, didn't you know? A stunt like that will bring instant electrocution because the wall will be electrified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall will most likely be built of concrete, so that's total bullshit.
Click to expand...


Ever see a jackhammer go through cement like a hot knife through butter?  Ever heard of a cement saw?  These items with a sludge hammer can make a very big hole in any cement wall within minutes.


And let's not forget about those tunnels.





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


----------



## cnm




----------



## oreo

cnm said:


>




Yeah I don't think we've ever seen a President use extortion to fulfill a campaign promise when his promise went very bad.  The Mexican President told him to F-off at least  3 times during the campaign season, but Trump's half brained base apparently never heard that message.


----------



## beautress

Well, dear leftist locksteppers, 

Your plan worked. You brought out their best stench in Mexico. And you know how they showed it?

They've been spilling sewage into the Pacific Ocean by breaking a cesspool pipe for the city of Tijuana, and the current is taking it all along the Southern California Coastline. You lefties know how to bring out the best in your dud ideas that you can trust Mexico to take care of its own people.

Spill in Mexico sending millions of gallons of sewage into coastal waters off California




​And as long as you're badmouthing President Donald and First Lady Melania Trump to death, they're going to keep it coming. It's been spewing out Tijuana since December 7 with no end in sight. Y'all oughta go out there and sniff around the S. Cal beaches, as if their fires weren't enough. Oh, and sewage IS flammable in some concentrations. Why should the neighbors respect our nation if you continue the drivel of disrespect for this American President. You're playing dirty, and you're getting really smelly and infectious dirt for it.

.​


----------



## beautress

oreo said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The empirical evidence shows that the wall will be 100% effective where it actually exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a crock of B.S,
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly.  Something they can see, can and will always be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> You had a Republican full house for two years, why in the hell do you think they didn't vote for it.
> 
> Here's 2-1/2 minutes of reasons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
> President Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall along our Southern border will save countless innocent lives. Our Border Patrol agents have seen firsthand the success of a border wall in Yuma, Ariz. — which serves as a prime example of how investments in personnel, technology and a border wall can turn the tide against a flood of illegal immigration and secure our homeland.
> 
> For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.
> 
> It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First it's a fence and not wall and it certainly can crossed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, didn't you know? A stunt like that will bring instant electrocution because the wall will be electrified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rubber tires have no problems with electricity---   Furthermore I doubt a 1000 mile wall is going to have electricity within a 1000 miles to plug into.  I think some of you people are doing your own _WALLLLLLLL_ design.  An electric 1000 wall has never been discussed.  So I assume you're getting your idea's from the usual suspect.
Click to expand...

Apparently you're not reading this thread's posts, Mr. Oreo. Mr. Bripat already made that clear, and I accepted his critique because he was correct. I know very little about wall construction, and thanks to this thread, I'm understanding the great challenge that building the Great Wall to force Mexico to take care of its own masses of people is going to be a huge challenge. If Mexico doesn't stop the flow, we need to declare war against them and take them out and give their masses the relief they are not getting due to lack of employment and zero opportunities for them there. They haven't been in a rush to take care of the Pacific Ocean, either, and they are killing a lot of fish with human wastes they're sending up the Pacific Coast according to this article: Spill in Mexico sending millions of gallons of sewage into coastal waters off California


----------



## beautress

More articles about our neighbors to the south sending sewage our way and demanding the big bucks (Fifty Thousand apiece) for not admitting the caravan of 15,000 illegal migrants.

https://www.latimes.com/resizer/DKV...4/turbine/sd-1544638794-ae6b0pjbee-snap-image

Spill in Mexico sending millions of gallons of sewage into coastal waters off California

Oh, and those poor, poor, mistreated migrants in Tijuana? They want America to pay them $50,000.00 American dollars apiece
for not letting them cross the borders. I don't think America owes them anything.
Migrant group demands Trump either let them in or pay them each $50G to turn around: report​


----------



## bripat9643

oreo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a crock of B.S,
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly.  Something they can see, can and will always be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> You had a Republican full house for two years, why in the hell do you think they didn't vote for it.
> 
> Here's 2-1/2 minutes of reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
> President Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall along our Southern border will save countless innocent lives. Our Border Patrol agents have seen firsthand the success of a border wall in Yuma, Ariz. — which serves as a prime example of how investments in personnel, technology and a border wall can turn the tide against a flood of illegal immigration and secure our homeland.
> 
> For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.
> 
> 
> 
> It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First it's a fence and not wall and it certainly can crossed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, didn't you know? A stunt like that will bring instant electrocution because the wall will be electrified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall will most likely be built of concrete, so that's total bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a crock of B.S,
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly.  Something they can see, can and will always be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> You had a Republican full house for two years, why in the hell do you think they didn't vote for it.
> 
> Here's 2-1/2 minutes of reasons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
> President Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall along our Southern border will save countless innocent lives. Our Border Patrol agents have seen firsthand the success of a border wall in Yuma, Ariz. — which serves as a prime example of how investments in personnel, technology and a border wall can turn the tide against a flood of illegal immigration and secure our homeland.
> 
> For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.
> 
> It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First it's a fence and not wall and it certainly can crossed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, didn't you know? A stunt like that will bring instant electrocution because the wall will be electrified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall will most likely be built of concrete, so that's total bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever see a jackhammer go through cement like a hot knife through butter?  Ever heard of a cement saw?  These items with a sludge hammer can make a very big hole in any cement wall within minutes.
> 
> 
> And let's not forget about those tunnels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
Click to expand...

Yeah, those ignorant peasants who can't even afford bus fare to Tijuana have money to buy a jack hammer, an air compressor and a truck to haul them in.  It's still going to take at least 30 minutes to set it up and then create the hole.  The border patrol will be there in 5 minutes to detain them.

Did you ever hear of mental retardation?  You should go see your doctor to have yourself tested for it.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have an environmental problem, Dan. Millions of people a year flooding over our borders, a few with another 9/11 attack plans in their backpacks, and that takes a lot of additional landfills to accommodate them, which have to be paid for with half a dozen federal agencies involved in the oversight of America's water tables. In 1991, it took the state of Virginia $1 Billion Dollars to clean up a 25-mile area of water table lands that were affected by half a dozen parks in a 2 square mile radius that had infected animals brought there to have them pee and poop because their owners lived in apartments with no yard space for their pets. The particular organism in the excrement also infected a local population of wild mammals and birds. In humans, there was a greater than normal number of nonsmokers getting malignant lung cancer from the infected water table.
> 
> It's complicated, but our Latin neighbors have no compunctions in the past about dumping on our doorstep even more criminally insane criminals, insane asylum candidates, serial rapists, AIDs-infected night ladies, rowdies ready to join paramilitary groups and buy armaments, and poor people their higher classes refused to employ so they could have more money. I know we will educate, feed, clothe, hospitalize, experience citizen deaths until the serial murderers are caught, and enable to purchase housing for their families when they get here. But we will also have to get a lot more creative with trash disposal that each million accepted here will invoke. But with each kindness, groups replacing LaRaza which historically has planned political coups to remove themselves from the nation at large and/or take over border states and become a rogue nation replete with punishments for citizens that exceeds the cruelty of their DNA ancestors of the Mayan Inca tribes whose religion incorporates repugnant things done to children. Because we are a nation that allows freedom of religion, a religion demanding criminal behaviors would take advantage of our generosity, and once away from traditional Missions in Mexico, that wild side could reappear in this nation, which would please certain supportive entities from abroad whose goal is to snag everybody into their killing ways, female mutilations, and other unspeakable things.
> 
> We need to tell the world, that not only are we done, we will not tolerate disciplining wives with dismissible murder as the chief alternative, thankyouverymuch.
> 
> 
> 
> We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote: We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause. _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> ​We already have rules established, Dan. It's just that the illegals do not respect them because they already have hundreds of miles of areas where they can sneak across with a 50-50 chance they will be undetected. Interpretation: for every 3,000,000 illegal crossers, 1,500,000 of them get it. And since it is already recorded that many crossers have already been escorted back to Mexico, by their 10th crossing at least one of those times they are undetected illegal crossers, all they need is a false id that resembles a green card when they get to a farm or factory where ids aren't looked upon too carefully.
> 
> Why not just let it go, Dan. Most of us do not continue on if we lose 9 chances at much of anything. (Oops, I forgot about Vegas...) Well, anyhow, it only takes one open window to a place where persistence will also make them employed sooner or later.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ellis Island used to be able to process thousands per day.  There should be no refugees waiting for processing on our border.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you mention Ellis Island and what used to be, are you saying you don't care for the wait-your-turn policy on immigration? It's been in place for years, to help integrate people from a variety of nations to get a chance at the American Dream. Are you also in favor of allowing only one area of the world push its way in here?
> 
> I guess I do differ with you on that count. I love the Mexican people who live here, but I also enjoy knowing that as Americans, we have many nations touching us when a fair number from each country is allowed in.
> 
> Mexico unfortunately is the neighbor who sees an opportunity to overpopulate our nation rather than its own with people it wants nothing to do with. They send us car thieves, home invaders, patients with incurable mental and physical diseases, etc. for the sole purpose of benefitting financially from the money they send back to Mexico to support an economy that so entitles its rich it ignores and reduces its poor to a life of bitterness and poverty. AND they see an opening for America solving all their problems and making their rich classes richer than ever.
> 
> Our existing immigration policies stands for equal opportunities to a variety of people. The illegal practice of sending us only problems so far, allows a corrupt Mexico to sing "Don't worry, be happy" all day and all night. It is not fair to the unsung scientist who goes unappreciated in another country who's been waiting for 20 years for his ok to come here, and now, never can because his space has been filled 10,000 times with Mexico's problems.
> 
> We finally got one person elected to office who will deal like an adult with the moochers to the south, and what happens? Y'all go all out to kick him in the groin on a constant basis for things he did from the first time he sneezed as a child to frowning at a member of the ninnyhammer press.
> 
> Mexico will benefit by having to grow up enough to take care of their own. We will have to get all our druggy kids out of the slammer and put them in the orchards, so what. It'll benefit everyone concerned if we take away the border tit and make Mexico grow more beans.
> 
> Mexico is a moochie moochie.
> It just wants to eat your cookie.
> Say "Adios" to tribulation,
> Singing "stupid gringos,- celebration."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I keep seeing people saying Mexico is sending us their murders, rapists, thrives, home invaders, and the mental and physical disabled.  Exactly how is the government doing this.  Do they buy them plane tickets or maybe they drive them up to border and help them over fence.  *
Click to expand...

/----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.


----------



## beautress

From the youtube folks: The Trump-Pelosi-Schumer discussion on the Wall: Schumer and Pelosi utterly failed their strident effort to make President Trump look bad, above ALL ELSE! Pelosi outdid her most shrill diatribe yet. Edit: the full video is about 17 minutes long.
​


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bripat9643 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
> President Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall along our Southern border will save countless innocent lives. Our Border Patrol agents have seen firsthand the success of a border wall in Yuma, Ariz. — which serves as a prime example of how investments in personnel, technology and a border wall can turn the tide against a flood of illegal immigration and secure our homeland.
> 
> For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.
> 
> 
> 
> It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> 
> 
> First it's a fence and not wall and it certainly can crossed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, didn't you know? A stunt like that will bring instant electrocution because the wall will be electrified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall will most likely be built of concrete, so that's total bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
> President Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall along our Southern border will save countless innocent lives. Our Border Patrol agents have seen firsthand the success of a border wall in Yuma, Ariz. — which serves as a prime example of how investments in personnel, technology and a border wall can turn the tide against a flood of illegal immigration and secure our homeland.
> 
> For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.
> 
> It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First it's a fence and not wall and it certainly can crossed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, didn't you know? A stunt like that will bring instant electrocution because the wall will be electrified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall will most likely be built of concrete, so that's total bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever see a jackhammer go through cement like a hot knife through butter?  Ever heard of a cement saw?  These items with a sludge hammer can make a very big hole in any cement wall within minutes.
> 
> 
> And let's not forget about those tunnels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, those ignorant peasants who can't even afford bus fare to Tijuana have money to buy a jack hammer, an air compressor and a truck to haul them in.  It's still going to take at least 30 minutes to set it up and then create the hole.  The border patrol will be there in 5 minutes to detain them.
> 
> Did you ever hear of mental retardation?  You should go see your doctor to have yourself tested for it.
Click to expand...


They'll use the $50,000 each that Trump is going to give them.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

oreo said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The empirical evidence shows that the wall will be 100% effective where it actually exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a crock of B.S,
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly.  Something they can see, can and will always be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> You had a Republican full house for two years, why in the hell do you think they didn't vote for it.
> 
> Here's 2-1/2 minutes of reasons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
> President Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall along our Southern border will save countless innocent lives. Our Border Patrol agents have seen firsthand the success of a border wall in Yuma, Ariz. — which serves as a prime example of how investments in personnel, technology and a border wall can turn the tide against a flood of illegal immigration and secure our homeland.
> 
> For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.
> 
> It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First it's a fence and not wall and it certainly can crossed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, didn't you know? A stunt like that will bring instant electrocution because the wall will be electrified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rubber tires have no problems with electricity---   Furthermore I doubt a 1000 mile wall is going to have electricity within a 1000 miles to plug into.  I think some of you people are doing your own _WALLLLLLLL_ design.  An electric 1000 wall has never been discussed.  So I assume you're getting your idea's from the usual suspect.
Click to expand...


Correct, we won't have a state of the art wall thanks to Democrats.  The more money for the wall we have, the better and more effective wall.  But the problem isn't the ability of a wall, the problem is Democrats.


----------



## August West

An illegal that was in Pittsburgh was deported for the 4th time last year. When asked how he was getting into the country illegally he said he used forged documents. The wall would be a monument to Republican stupidity.


----------



## ColonelAngus

Timmy said:


> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .



After the fact.

Wall stops it from inception.

We don’t need more immigration we need the immigrants we want and need.


----------



## Geaux4it

These illegals are not welcome here. Build the wall and drastically reduce illegal crossings thus reducing the burden on ICE and the courts

-Geaux


----------



## ColonelAngus

Building a wall will WORK in stopping illegal immigrants on.

That’s why the left doesn’t want it.

Period.


----------



## Lesh

IF the wall could be built (2000 miles across land not currently owned by the government) and IF it were 100% effective (which is beyond unlikely) that would do NOTHING about the 60% of illegals who enter the country through other means.

Does that sound like a reasonable way to spend 30-50 billion dollars?

Sure. Build the fucking thing. Make me look like a genius.


----------



## danielpalos

beautress said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
> 
> 
> 
> No refugees no problem. They are an unarmed invading force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't have a general warfare clause.  it is a general welfare clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protect and defend our country do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied.  Only the right wing believes in Everything for the general warfare and nothing for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote: *" Only the right wing believes in Everything for the general warfare and nothing for the general welfare."*​Uh, 'scuse me. I know a lot of Republicans who do not own a gun nor care for war, many of whom are missing a body part due to having fought in one. You need to watch those generalized and glossed-over accusations. Even those of us Republicans who believe life starts at conception and should be protected, we are quite at peace on Sunday of sitting next to someone in the same pew who donated $20,000 to the local planned unborn citizen murder factory. And we make no retaliations whatever, because we may believe that forgiveness or punishment is God's job, not ours. However, this drain of unborn citizens is nearing the fifty-million mark, and we will pay a price as a people for this atrocity even if it breaks some of our hearts to think about all that suffering of youngsters who haven't been born yet and when they get here they'll already be gone.
Click to expand...

nobody takes the right wing seriously about natural rights.  mining the border is what the right wing would rather do.


----------



## bripat9643

August West said:


> An illegal that was in Pittsburgh was deported for the 4th time last year. When asked how he was getting into the country illegally he said he used forged documents. The wall would be a monument to Republican stupidity.


So one guy who got around the wall proves it won't reduce illegal immigration?

Only a complete imbecile would draw such a conclusion.


----------



## danielpalos

beautress said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have an environmental problem, Dan. Millions of people a year flooding over our borders, a few with another 9/11 attack plans in their backpacks, and that takes a lot of additional landfills to accommodate them, which have to be paid for with half a dozen federal agencies involved in the oversight of America's water tables. In 1991, it took the state of Virginia $1 Billion Dollars to clean up a 25-mile area of water table lands that were affected by half a dozen parks in a 2 square mile radius that had infected animals brought there to have them pee and poop because their owners lived in apartments with no yard space for their pets. The particular organism in the excrement also infected a local population of wild mammals and birds. In humans, there was a greater than normal number of nonsmokers getting malignant lung cancer from the infected water table.
> 
> It's complicated, but our Latin neighbors have no compunctions in the past about dumping on our doorstep even more criminally insane criminals, insane asylum candidates, serial rapists, AIDs-infected night ladies, rowdies ready to join paramilitary groups and buy armaments, and poor people their higher classes refused to employ so they could have more money. I know we will educate, feed, clothe, hospitalize, experience citizen deaths until the serial murderers are caught, and enable to purchase housing for their families when they get here. But we will also have to get a lot more creative with trash disposal that each million accepted here will invoke. But with each kindness, groups replacing LaRaza which historically has planned political coups to remove themselves from the nation at large and/or take over border states and become a rogue nation replete with punishments for citizens that exceeds the cruelty of their DNA ancestors of the Mayan Inca tribes whose religion incorporates repugnant things done to children. Because we are a nation that allows freedom of religion, a religion demanding criminal behaviors would take advantage of our generosity, and once away from traditional Missions in Mexico, that wild side could reappear in this nation, which would please certain supportive entities from abroad whose goal is to snag everybody into their killing ways, female mutilations, and other unspeakable things.
> 
> We need to tell the world, that not only are we done, we will not tolerate disciplining wives with dismissible murder as the chief alternative, thankyouverymuch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote: We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause. _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> ​We already have rules established, Dan. It's just that the illegals do not respect them because they already have hundreds of miles of areas where they can sneak across with a 50-50 chance they will be undetected. Interpretation: for every 3,000,000 illegal crossers, 1,500,000 of them get it. And since it is already recorded that many crossers have already been escorted back to Mexico, by their 10th crossing at least one of those times they are undetected illegal crossers, all they need is a false id that resembles a green card when they get to a farm or factory where ids aren't looked upon too carefully.
> 
> Why not just let it go, Dan. Most of us do not continue on if we lose 9 chances at much of anything. (Oops, I forgot about Vegas...) Well, anyhow, it only takes one open window to a place where persistence will also make them employed sooner or later.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ellis Island used to be able to process thousands per day.  There should be no refugees waiting for processing on our border.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you mention Ellis Island and what used to be, are you saying you don't care for the wait-your-turn policy on immigration? It's been in place for years, to help integrate people from a variety of nations to get a chance at the American Dream. Are you also in favor of allowing only one area of the world push its way in here?
> 
> I guess I do differ with you on that count. I love the Mexican people who live here, but I also enjoy knowing that as Americans, we have many nations touching us when a fair number from each country is allowed in.
> 
> Mexico unfortunately is the neighbor who sees an opportunity to overpopulate our nation rather than its own with people it wants nothing to do with. They send us car thieves, home invaders, patients with incurable mental and physical diseases, etc. for the sole purpose of benefitting financially from the money they send back to Mexico to support an economy that so entitles its rich it ignores and reduces its poor to a life of bitterness and poverty. AND they see an opening for America solving all their problems and making their rich classes richer than ever.
> 
> Our existing immigration policies stands for equal opportunities to a variety of people. The illegal practice of sending us only problems so far, allows a corrupt Mexico to sing "Don't worry, be happy" all day and all night. It is not fair to the unsung scientist who goes unappreciated in another country who's been waiting for 20 years for his ok to come here, and now, never can because his space has been filled 10,000 times with Mexico's problems.
> 
> We finally got one person elected to office who will deal like an adult with the moochers to the south, and what happens? Y'all go all out to kick him in the groin on a constant basis for things he did from the first time he sneezed as a child to frowning at a member of the ninnyhammer press.
> 
> Mexico will benefit by having to grow up enough to take care of their own. We will have to get all our druggy kids out of the slammer and put them in the orchards, so what. It'll benefit everyone concerned if we take away the border tit and make Mexico grow more beans.
> 
> Mexico is a moochie moochie.
> It just wants to eat your cookie.
> Say "Adios" to tribulation,
> Singing "stupid gringos,- celebration."
Click to expand...

Ellis Island was first come first served.


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> IF the wall could be built (2000 miles across land not currently owned by the government) and IF it were 100% effective (which is beyond unlikely) that would do NOTHING about the 60% of illegals who enter the country through other means.
> 
> Does that sound like a reasonable way to spend 30-50 billion dollars?
> 
> Sure. Build the fucking thing. Make me look like a genius.


Only about 40% of illegals enter by other means, moron.  Eliminating 60% of illegal immigration for $30 billion is a bargain.

Only a brain transplant could make you look like a genius.


----------



## danielpalos

beautress said:


> Well, dear leftist locksteppers,
> 
> Your plan worked. You brought out their best stench in Mexico. And you know how they showed it?
> 
> They've been spilling sewage into the Pacific Ocean by breaking a cesspool pipe for the city of Tijuana, and the current is taking it all along the Southern California Coastline. You lefties know how to bring out the best in your dud ideas that you can trust Mexico to take care of its own people.
> 
> Spill in Mexico sending millions of gallons of sewage into coastal waters off California
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​And as long as you're badmouthing President Donald and First Lady Melania Trump to death, they're going to keep it coming. It's been spewing out Tijuana since December 7 with no end in sight. Y'all oughta go out there and sniff around the S. Cal beaches, as if their fires weren't enough. Oh, and sewage IS flammable in some concentrations. Why should the neighbors respect our nation if you continue the drivel of disrespect for this American President. You're playing dirty, and you're getting really smelly and infectious dirt for it.
> 
> .​


Which party is relaxing environmental rules?


----------



## bripat9643

ColonelAngus said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After the fact.
> 
> Wall stops it from inception.
> 
> We don’t need more immigration we need the immigrants we want and need.
Click to expand...

Deporting illegals after the fact is 100 times more difficult than keeping them out in the first place.  The snowflakes have even gloated about how it's impossible to evict them all.  Whenever they talk about penalizing employers or any of their other useless measures, they are lying.  Even of those measures were tried, the left would fight them every step of the way.


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause. _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> ​We already have rules established, Dan. It's just that the illegals do not respect them because they already have hundreds of miles of areas where they can sneak across with a 50-50 chance they will be undetected. Interpretation: for every 3,000,000 illegal crossers, 1,500,000 of them get it. And since it is already recorded that many crossers have already been escorted back to Mexico, by their 10th crossing at least one of those times they are undetected illegal crossers, all they need is a false id that resembles a green card when they get to a farm or factory where ids aren't looked upon too carefully.
> 
> Why not just let it go, Dan. Most of us do not continue on if we lose 9 chances at much of anything. (Oops, I forgot about Vegas...) Well, anyhow, it only takes one open window to a place where persistence will also make them employed sooner or later.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ellis Island used to be able to process thousands per day.  There should be no refugees waiting for processing on our border.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you mention Ellis Island and what used to be, are you saying you don't care for the wait-your-turn policy on immigration? It's been in place for years, to help integrate people from a variety of nations to get a chance at the American Dream. Are you also in favor of allowing only one area of the world push its way in here?
> 
> I guess I do differ with you on that count. I love the Mexican people who live here, but I also enjoy knowing that as Americans, we have many nations touching us when a fair number from each country is allowed in.
> 
> Mexico unfortunately is the neighbor who sees an opportunity to overpopulate our nation rather than its own with people it wants nothing to do with. They send us car thieves, home invaders, patients with incurable mental and physical diseases, etc. for the sole purpose of benefitting financially from the money they send back to Mexico to support an economy that so entitles its rich it ignores and reduces its poor to a life of bitterness and poverty. AND they see an opening for America solving all their problems and making their rich classes richer than ever.
> 
> Our existing immigration policies stands for equal opportunities to a variety of people. The illegal practice of sending us only problems so far, allows a corrupt Mexico to sing "Don't worry, be happy" all day and all night. It is not fair to the unsung scientist who goes unappreciated in another country who's been waiting for 20 years for his ok to come here, and now, never can because his space has been filled 10,000 times with Mexico's problems.
> 
> We finally got one person elected to office who will deal like an adult with the moochers to the south, and what happens? Y'all go all out to kick him in the groin on a constant basis for things he did from the first time he sneezed as a child to frowning at a member of the ninnyhammer press.
> 
> Mexico will benefit by having to grow up enough to take care of their own. We will have to get all our druggy kids out of the slammer and put them in the orchards, so what. It'll benefit everyone concerned if we take away the border tit and make Mexico grow more beans.
> 
> Mexico is a moochie moochie.
> It just wants to eat your cookie.
> Say "Adios" to tribulation,
> Singing "stupid gringos,- celebration."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I keep seeing people saying Mexico is sending us their murders, rapists, thrives, home invaders, and the mental and physical disabled.  Exactly how is the government doing this.  Do they buy them plane tickets or maybe they drive them up to border and help them over fence.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
> In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.
Click to expand...

Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.


----------



## Flopper

Lesh said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats know that if Trump achieves his signature Campaign Promise of Building a Wall he will win re-election in a glorious landslide.
> 
> 
> 
> Build 2000 miles of wall in two years?
> 
> No funding. No land...No engineering
> 
> Guess he's cooked
Click to expand...

Trump doesn't need to do anything but say, "I've built a great beautiful wall" and his followers will believe him.


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause. _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> ​We already have rules established, Dan. It's just that the illegals do not respect them because they already have hundreds of miles of areas where they can sneak across with a 50-50 chance they will be undetected. Interpretation: for every 3,000,000 illegal crossers, 1,500,000 of them get it. And since it is already recorded that many crossers have already been escorted back to Mexico, by their 10th crossing at least one of those times they are undetected illegal crossers, all they need is a false id that resembles a green card when they get to a farm or factory where ids aren't looked upon too carefully.
> 
> Why not just let it go, Dan. Most of us do not continue on if we lose 9 chances at much of anything. (Oops, I forgot about Vegas...) Well, anyhow, it only takes one open window to a place where persistence will also make them employed sooner or later.​
> 
> 
> 
> Ellis Island used to be able to process thousands per day.  There should be no refugees waiting for processing on our border.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you mention Ellis Island and what used to be, are you saying you don't care for the wait-your-turn policy on immigration? It's been in place for years, to help integrate people from a variety of nations to get a chance at the American Dream. Are you also in favor of allowing only one area of the world push its way in here?
> 
> I guess I do differ with you on that count. I love the Mexican people who live here, but I also enjoy knowing that as Americans, we have many nations touching us when a fair number from each country is allowed in.
> 
> Mexico unfortunately is the neighbor who sees an opportunity to overpopulate our nation rather than its own with people it wants nothing to do with. They send us car thieves, home invaders, patients with incurable mental and physical diseases, etc. for the sole purpose of benefitting financially from the money they send back to Mexico to support an economy that so entitles its rich it ignores and reduces its poor to a life of bitterness and poverty. AND they see an opening for America solving all their problems and making their rich classes richer than ever.
> 
> Our existing immigration policies stands for equal opportunities to a variety of people. The illegal practice of sending us only problems so far, allows a corrupt Mexico to sing "Don't worry, be happy" all day and all night. It is not fair to the unsung scientist who goes unappreciated in another country who's been waiting for 20 years for his ok to come here, and now, never can because his space has been filled 10,000 times with Mexico's problems.
> 
> We finally got one person elected to office who will deal like an adult with the moochers to the south, and what happens? Y'all go all out to kick him in the groin on a constant basis for things he did from the first time he sneezed as a child to frowning at a member of the ninnyhammer press.
> 
> Mexico will benefit by having to grow up enough to take care of their own. We will have to get all our druggy kids out of the slammer and put them in the orchards, so what. It'll benefit everyone concerned if we take away the border tit and make Mexico grow more beans.
> 
> Mexico is a moochie moochie.
> It just wants to eat your cookie.
> Say "Adios" to tribulation,
> Singing "stupid gringos,- celebration."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I keep seeing people saying Mexico is sending us their murders, rapists, thrives, home invaders, and the mental and physical disabled.  Exactly how is the government doing this.  Do they buy them plane tickets or maybe they drive them up to border and help them over fence.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
> In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
Click to expand...

How does upgrading Ellis Island help keep out the illegal welfare recipients.


----------



## Flopper

oreo said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The empirical evidence shows that the wall will be 100% effective where it actually exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a crock of B.S,
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly.  Something they can see, can and will always be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> You had a Republican full house for two years, why in the hell do you think they didn't vote for it.
> 
> Here's 2-1/2 minutes of reasons.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
> President Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall along our Southern border will save countless innocent lives. Our Border Patrol agents have seen firsthand the success of a border wall in Yuma, Ariz. — which serves as a prime example of how investments in personnel, technology and a border wall can turn the tide against a flood of illegal immigration and secure our homeland.
> 
> For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.
> 
> It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First it's a fence and not wall and it certainly can crossed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, didn't you know? A stunt like that will bring instant electrocution because the wall will be electrified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rubber tires have no problems with electricity---   Furthermore I doubt a 1000 mile wall is going to have electricity within a 1000 miles to plug into.  I think some of you people are doing your own _WALLLLLLLL_ design.  An electric 1000 wall has never been discussed.  So I assume you're getting your idea's from the usual suspect.
Click to expand...

He said he was going to put solar cells on it so there will be all the electricity needed.


----------



## bripat9643

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ellis Island used to be able to process thousands per day.  There should be no refugees waiting for processing on our border.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> 
> 
> 
> When you mention Ellis Island and what used to be, are you saying you don't care for the wait-your-turn policy on immigration? It's been in place for years, to help integrate people from a variety of nations to get a chance at the American Dream. Are you also in favor of allowing only one area of the world push its way in here?
> 
> I guess I do differ with you on that count. I love the Mexican people who live here, but I also enjoy knowing that as Americans, we have many nations touching us when a fair number from each country is allowed in.
> 
> Mexico unfortunately is the neighbor who sees an opportunity to overpopulate our nation rather than its own with people it wants nothing to do with. They send us car thieves, home invaders, patients with incurable mental and physical diseases, etc. for the sole purpose of benefitting financially from the money they send back to Mexico to support an economy that so entitles its rich it ignores and reduces its poor to a life of bitterness and poverty. AND they see an opening for America solving all their problems and making their rich classes richer than ever.
> 
> Our existing immigration policies stands for equal opportunities to a variety of people. The illegal practice of sending us only problems so far, allows a corrupt Mexico to sing "Don't worry, be happy" all day and all night. It is not fair to the unsung scientist who goes unappreciated in another country who's been waiting for 20 years for his ok to come here, and now, never can because his space has been filled 10,000 times with Mexico's problems.
> 
> We finally got one person elected to office who will deal like an adult with the moochers to the south, and what happens? Y'all go all out to kick him in the groin on a constant basis for things he did from the first time he sneezed as a child to frowning at a member of the ninnyhammer press.
> 
> Mexico will benefit by having to grow up enough to take care of their own. We will have to get all our druggy kids out of the slammer and put them in the orchards, so what. It'll benefit everyone concerned if we take away the border tit and make Mexico grow more beans.
> 
> Mexico is a moochie moochie.
> It just wants to eat your cookie.
> Say "Adios" to tribulation,
> Singing "stupid gringos,- celebration."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I keep seeing people saying Mexico is sending us their murders, rapists, thrives, home invaders, and the mental and physical disabled.  Exactly how is the government doing this.  Do they buy them plane tickets or maybe they drive them up to border and help them over fence.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
> In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does upgrading Ellis Island help keep out the illegal welfare recipients.
Click to expand...

Don't pay any attention to him.  He's constantly babbling nonsense.


----------



## Lesh

bripat9643 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you mention Ellis Island and what used to be, are you saying you don't care for the wait-your-turn policy on immigration? It's been in place for years, to help integrate people from a variety of nations to get a chance at the American Dream. Are you also in favor of allowing only one area of the world push its way in here?
> 
> I guess I do differ with you on that count. I love the Mexican people who live here, but I also enjoy knowing that as Americans, we have many nations touching us when a fair number from each country is allowed in.
> 
> Mexico unfortunately is the neighbor who sees an opportunity to overpopulate our nation rather than its own with people it wants nothing to do with. They send us car thieves, home invaders, patients with incurable mental and physical diseases, etc. for the sole purpose of benefitting financially from the money they send back to Mexico to support an economy that so entitles its rich it ignores and reduces its poor to a life of bitterness and poverty. AND they see an opening for America solving all their problems and making their rich classes richer than ever.
> 
> Our existing immigration policies stands for equal opportunities to a variety of people. The illegal practice of sending us only problems so far, allows a corrupt Mexico to sing "Don't worry, be happy" all day and all night. It is not fair to the unsung scientist who goes unappreciated in another country who's been waiting for 20 years for his ok to come here, and now, never can because his space has been filled 10,000 times with Mexico's problems.
> 
> We finally got one person elected to office who will deal like an adult with the moochers to the south, and what happens? Y'all go all out to kick him in the groin on a constant basis for things he did from the first time he sneezed as a child to frowning at a member of the ninnyhammer press.
> 
> Mexico will benefit by having to grow up enough to take care of their own. We will have to get all our druggy kids out of the slammer and put them in the orchards, so what. It'll benefit everyone concerned if we take away the border tit and make Mexico grow more beans.
> 
> Mexico is a moochie moochie.
> It just wants to eat your cookie.
> Say "Adios" to tribulation,
> Singing "stupid gringos,- celebration."
> 
> 
> 
> *I keep seeing people saying Mexico is sending us their murders, rapists, thrives, home invaders, and the mental and physical disabled.  Exactly how is the government doing this.  Do they buy them plane tickets or maybe they drive them up to border and help them over fence.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
> In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does upgrading Ellis Island help keep out the illegal welfare recipients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't pay any attention to him.  He's constantly babbling nonsense.
Click to expand...

Trump? Yea. No kidding


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause. _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> ​We already have rules established, Dan. It's just that the illegals do not respect them because they already have hundreds of miles of areas where they can sneak across with a 50-50 chance they will be undetected. Interpretation: for every 3,000,000 illegal crossers, 1,500,000 of them get it. And since it is already recorded that many crossers have already been escorted back to Mexico, by their 10th crossing at least one of those times they are undetected illegal crossers, all they need is a false id that resembles a green card when they get to a farm or factory where ids aren't looked upon too carefully.
> 
> Why not just let it go, Dan. Most of us do not continue on if we lose 9 chances at much of anything. (Oops, I forgot about Vegas...) Well, anyhow, it only takes one open window to a place where persistence will also make them employed sooner or later.​
> 
> 
> 
> Ellis Island used to be able to process thousands per day.  There should be no refugees waiting for processing on our border.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you mention Ellis Island and what used to be, are you saying you don't care for the wait-your-turn policy on immigration? It's been in place for years, to help integrate people from a variety of nations to get a chance at the American Dream. Are you also in favor of allowing only one area of the world push its way in here?
> 
> I guess I do differ with you on that count. I love the Mexican people who live here, but I also enjoy knowing that as Americans, we have many nations touching us when a fair number from each country is allowed in.
> 
> Mexico unfortunately is the neighbor who sees an opportunity to overpopulate our nation rather than its own with people it wants nothing to do with. They send us car thieves, home invaders, patients with incurable mental and physical diseases, etc. for the sole purpose of benefitting financially from the money they send back to Mexico to support an economy that so entitles its rich it ignores and reduces its poor to a life of bitterness and poverty. AND they see an opening for America solving all their problems and making their rich classes richer than ever.
> 
> Our existing immigration policies stands for equal opportunities to a variety of people. The illegal practice of sending us only problems so far, allows a corrupt Mexico to sing "Don't worry, be happy" all day and all night. It is not fair to the unsung scientist who goes unappreciated in another country who's been waiting for 20 years for his ok to come here, and now, never can because his space has been filled 10,000 times with Mexico's problems.
> 
> We finally got one person elected to office who will deal like an adult with the moochers to the south, and what happens? Y'all go all out to kick him in the groin on a constant basis for things he did from the first time he sneezed as a child to frowning at a member of the ninnyhammer press.
> 
> Mexico will benefit by having to grow up enough to take care of their own. We will have to get all our druggy kids out of the slammer and put them in the orchards, so what. It'll benefit everyone concerned if we take away the border tit and make Mexico grow more beans.
> 
> Mexico is a moochie moochie.
> It just wants to eat your cookie.
> Say "Adios" to tribulation,
> Singing "stupid gringos,- celebration."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I keep seeing people saying Mexico is sending us their murders, rapists, thrives, home invaders, and the mental and physical disabled.  Exactly how is the government doing this.  Do they buy them plane tickets or maybe they drive them up to border and help them over fence.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
> In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
Click to expand...


Not letting the criminal immigrants in is most cost effective.


----------



## Andylusion

Flopper said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a crock of B.S,
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly.  Something they can see, can and will always be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> You had a Republican full house for two years, why in the hell do you think they didn't vote for it.
> 
> Here's 2-1/2 minutes of reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
> President Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall along our Southern border will save countless innocent lives. Our Border Patrol agents have seen firsthand the success of a border wall in Yuma, Ariz. — which serves as a prime example of how investments in personnel, technology and a border wall can turn the tide against a flood of illegal immigration and secure our homeland.
> 
> For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.
> 
> It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First it's a fence and not wall and it certainly can crossed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, didn't you know? A stunt like that will bring instant electrocution because the wall will be electrified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rubber tires have no problems with electricity---   Furthermore I doubt a 1000 mile wall is going to have electricity within a 1000 miles to plug into.  I think some of you people are doing your own _WALLLLLLLL_ design.  An electric 1000 wall has never been discussed.  So I assume you're getting your idea's from the usual suspect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said he was going to put solar cells on it so there will be all the electricity needed.
Click to expand...


Fascinating.
I wonder how much that would cost, to have an electric fence charged by solar cells.

Of course with government contractors, it would be 10x the cost of retail... but interesting concept nonetheless.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ellis Island used to be able to process thousands per day.  There should be no refugees waiting for processing on our border.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> 
> 
> 
> When you mention Ellis Island and what used to be, are you saying you don't care for the wait-your-turn policy on immigration? It's been in place for years, to help integrate people from a variety of nations to get a chance at the American Dream. Are you also in favor of allowing only one area of the world push its way in here?
> 
> I guess I do differ with you on that count. I love the Mexican people who live here, but I also enjoy knowing that as Americans, we have many nations touching us when a fair number from each country is allowed in.
> 
> Mexico unfortunately is the neighbor who sees an opportunity to overpopulate our nation rather than its own with people it wants nothing to do with. They send us car thieves, home invaders, patients with incurable mental and physical diseases, etc. for the sole purpose of benefitting financially from the money they send back to Mexico to support an economy that so entitles its rich it ignores and reduces its poor to a life of bitterness and poverty. AND they see an opening for America solving all their problems and making their rich classes richer than ever.
> 
> Our existing immigration policies stands for equal opportunities to a variety of people. The illegal practice of sending us only problems so far, allows a corrupt Mexico to sing "Don't worry, be happy" all day and all night. It is not fair to the unsung scientist who goes unappreciated in another country who's been waiting for 20 years for his ok to come here, and now, never can because his space has been filled 10,000 times with Mexico's problems.
> 
> We finally got one person elected to office who will deal like an adult with the moochers to the south, and what happens? Y'all go all out to kick him in the groin on a constant basis for things he did from the first time he sneezed as a child to frowning at a member of the ninnyhammer press.
> 
> Mexico will benefit by having to grow up enough to take care of their own. We will have to get all our druggy kids out of the slammer and put them in the orchards, so what. It'll benefit everyone concerned if we take away the border tit and make Mexico grow more beans.
> 
> Mexico is a moochie moochie.
> It just wants to eat your cookie.
> Say "Adios" to tribulation,
> Singing "stupid gringos,- celebration."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I keep seeing people saying Mexico is sending us their murders, rapists, thrives, home invaders, and the mental and physical disabled.  Exactly how is the government doing this.  Do they buy them plane tickets or maybe they drive them up to border and help them over fence.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
> In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does upgrading Ellis Island help keep out the illegal welfare recipients.
Click to expand...

They will get their documents over there.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ellis Island used to be able to process thousands per day.  There should be no refugees waiting for processing on our border.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> 
> 
> 
> When you mention Ellis Island and what used to be, are you saying you don't care for the wait-your-turn policy on immigration? It's been in place for years, to help integrate people from a variety of nations to get a chance at the American Dream. Are you also in favor of allowing only one area of the world push its way in here?
> 
> I guess I do differ with you on that count. I love the Mexican people who live here, but I also enjoy knowing that as Americans, we have many nations touching us when a fair number from each country is allowed in.
> 
> Mexico unfortunately is the neighbor who sees an opportunity to overpopulate our nation rather than its own with people it wants nothing to do with. They send us car thieves, home invaders, patients with incurable mental and physical diseases, etc. for the sole purpose of benefitting financially from the money they send back to Mexico to support an economy that so entitles its rich it ignores and reduces its poor to a life of bitterness and poverty. AND they see an opening for America solving all their problems and making their rich classes richer than ever.
> 
> Our existing immigration policies stands for equal opportunities to a variety of people. The illegal practice of sending us only problems so far, allows a corrupt Mexico to sing "Don't worry, be happy" all day and all night. It is not fair to the unsung scientist who goes unappreciated in another country who's been waiting for 20 years for his ok to come here, and now, never can because his space has been filled 10,000 times with Mexico's problems.
> 
> We finally got one person elected to office who will deal like an adult with the moochers to the south, and what happens? Y'all go all out to kick him in the groin on a constant basis for things he did from the first time he sneezed as a child to frowning at a member of the ninnyhammer press.
> 
> Mexico will benefit by having to grow up enough to take care of their own. We will have to get all our druggy kids out of the slammer and put them in the orchards, so what. It'll benefit everyone concerned if we take away the border tit and make Mexico grow more beans.
> 
> Mexico is a moochie moochie.
> It just wants to eat your cookie.
> Say "Adios" to tribulation,
> Singing "stupid gringos,- celebration."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I keep seeing people saying Mexico is sending us their murders, rapists, thrives, home invaders, and the mental and physical disabled.  Exactly how is the government doing this.  Do they buy them plane tickets or maybe they drive them up to border and help them over fence.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
> In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not letting the criminal immigrants in is most cost effective.
Click to expand...

they have to be processed to determine that.


----------



## Asclepias

Ray From Cleveland said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a crock of B.S,
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly.  Something they can see, can and will always be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> You had a Republican full house for two years, why in the hell do you think they didn't vote for it.
> 
> Here's 2-1/2 minutes of reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
> President Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall along our Southern border will save countless innocent lives. Our Border Patrol agents have seen firsthand the success of a border wall in Yuma, Ariz. — which serves as a prime example of how investments in personnel, technology and a border wall can turn the tide against a flood of illegal immigration and secure our homeland.
> 
> For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.
> 
> It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First it's a fence and not wall and it certainly can crossed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, didn't you know? A stunt like that will bring instant electrocution because the wall will be electrified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rubber tires have no problems with electricity---   Furthermore I doubt a 1000 mile wall is going to have electricity within a 1000 miles to plug into.  I think some of you people are doing your own _WALLLLLLLL_ design.  An electric 1000 wall has never been discussed.  So I assume you're getting your idea's from the usual suspect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, we won't have a state of the art wall thanks to Democrats.  The more money for the wall we have, the better and more effective wall.  But the problem isn't the ability of a wall, the problem is Democrats.
Click to expand...

I thought the problem was that Mexico said they werent going to pay for the wall like Drumpf promised?


----------



## Asclepias

Flopper said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats know that if Trump achieves his signature Campaign Promise of Building a Wall he will win re-election in a glorious landslide.
> 
> 
> 
> Build 2000 miles of wall in two years?
> 
> No funding. No land...No engineering
> 
> Guess he's cooked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump doesn't need to do anything but say, "I've built a great beautiful wall" and his followers will believe him.
Click to expand...

Youre right. If Drumpf just said the wall was completed and Mexico paid for it all this would go away. I can just imagine Drumpfs followers marching along side an invisible wall shouting "we told you so!!"


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you mention Ellis Island and what used to be, are you saying you don't care for the wait-your-turn policy on immigration? It's been in place for years, to help integrate people from a variety of nations to get a chance at the American Dream. Are you also in favor of allowing only one area of the world push its way in here?
> 
> I guess I do differ with you on that count. I love the Mexican people who live here, but I also enjoy knowing that as Americans, we have many nations touching us when a fair number from each country is allowed in.
> 
> Mexico unfortunately is the neighbor who sees an opportunity to overpopulate our nation rather than its own with people it wants nothing to do with. They send us car thieves, home invaders, patients with incurable mental and physical diseases, etc. for the sole purpose of benefitting financially from the money they send back to Mexico to support an economy that so entitles its rich it ignores and reduces its poor to a life of bitterness and poverty. AND they see an opening for America solving all their problems and making their rich classes richer than ever.
> 
> Our existing immigration policies stands for equal opportunities to a variety of people. The illegal practice of sending us only problems so far, allows a corrupt Mexico to sing "Don't worry, be happy" all day and all night. It is not fair to the unsung scientist who goes unappreciated in another country who's been waiting for 20 years for his ok to come here, and now, never can because his space has been filled 10,000 times with Mexico's problems.
> 
> We finally got one person elected to office who will deal like an adult with the moochers to the south, and what happens? Y'all go all out to kick him in the groin on a constant basis for things he did from the first time he sneezed as a child to frowning at a member of the ninnyhammer press.
> 
> Mexico will benefit by having to grow up enough to take care of their own. We will have to get all our druggy kids out of the slammer and put them in the orchards, so what. It'll benefit everyone concerned if we take away the border tit and make Mexico grow more beans.
> 
> Mexico is a moochie moochie.
> It just wants to eat your cookie.
> Say "Adios" to tribulation,
> Singing "stupid gringos,- celebration."
> 
> 
> 
> *I keep seeing people saying Mexico is sending us their murders, rapists, thrives, home invaders, and the mental and physical disabled.  Exactly how is the government doing this.  Do they buy them plane tickets or maybe they drive them up to border and help them over fence.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
> In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not letting the criminal immigrants in is most cost effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they have to be processed to determine that.
Click to expand...


No they don't you just don't let them in unless they a VISA from the US consulate in their home country
No Visa no entry


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I keep seeing people saying Mexico is sending us their murders, rapists, thrives, home invaders, and the mental and physical disabled.  Exactly how is the government doing this.  Do they buy them plane tickets or maybe they drive them up to border and help them over fence.  *
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
> In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not letting the criminal immigrants in is most cost effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they have to be processed to determine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't you just don't let them in unless they a VISA from the US consulate in their home country
> No Visa no entry
Click to expand...

all they need do is ask.  Upgrading Ellis Island can process tens of thousand per day and ensure all foreign nationals have a federal id.


----------



## beautress

Andylusion said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
> President Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall along our Southern border will save countless innocent lives. Our Border Patrol agents have seen firsthand the success of a border wall in Yuma, Ariz. — which serves as a prime example of how investments in personnel, technology and a border wall can turn the tide against a flood of illegal immigration and secure our homeland.
> 
> For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.
> 
> It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> 
> 
> First it's a fence and not wall and it certainly can crossed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, didn't you know? A stunt like that will bring instant electrocution because the wall will be electrified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rubber tires have no problems with electricity---   Furthermore I doubt a 1000 mile wall is going to have electricity within a 1000 miles to plug into.  I think some of you people are doing your own _WALLLLLLLL_ design.  An electric 1000 wall has never been discussed.  So I assume you're getting your idea's from the usual suspect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said he was going to put solar cells on it so there will be all the electricity needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascinating.
> I wonder how much that would cost, to have an electric fence charged by solar cells.
> 
> Of course with government contractors, it would be 10x the cost of retail... but interesting concept nonetheless.
Click to expand...

One of the annoyingly conservative things about Republicans is our tendency to accept low bids from competent contractors who charge low prices and do good work.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
> In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.
> 
> 
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not letting the criminal immigrants in is most cost effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they have to be processed to determine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't you just don't let them in unless they a VISA from the US consulate in their home country
> No Visa no entry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all they need do is ask.  Upgrading Ellis Island can process tens of thousand per day and ensure all foreign nationals have a federal id.
Click to expand...


No.

They have to APPLY for a Visa at the US consulate in their country.
It will be approved or denied by that consulate

If approved then the person has permission to enter the country and stay as long as the Visa is valid

If denied the person will not be allowed in

There is no need to allow people into the country before they have permission


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not letting the criminal immigrants in is most cost effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they have to be processed to determine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't you just don't let them in unless they a VISA from the US consulate in their home country
> No Visa no entry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all they need do is ask.  Upgrading Ellis Island can process tens of thousand per day and ensure all foreign nationals have a federal id.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> They have to APPLY for a Visa at the US consulate in their country.
> It will be approved or denied by that consulate
> 
> If approved then the person has permission to enter the country and stay as long as the Visa is valid
> 
> If denied the person will not be allowed in
> 
> There is no need to allow people into the country before they have permission
Click to expand...

Not if they show up on your border.  They should be going to Ellis Island.


----------



## beautress

Naptime!  Just as soon as the aches go away.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not letting the criminal immigrants in is most cost effective.
> 
> 
> 
> they have to be processed to determine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't you just don't let them in unless they a VISA from the US consulate in their home country
> No Visa no entry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all they need do is ask.  Upgrading Ellis Island can process tens of thousand per day and ensure all foreign nationals have a federal id.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> They have to APPLY for a Visa at the US consulate in their country.
> It will be approved or denied by that consulate
> 
> If approved then the person has permission to enter the country and stay as long as the Visa is valid
> 
> If denied the person will not be allowed in.
> 
> There is no need to allow people into the country before they have permission
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if they show up on your border.  They should be going to Ellis Island.
Click to expand...

If they show up on the border we do not have to let them in. They can all go back to their own country and apply for a Visa like they should have done in the first place

And Ellis Island is nothing but a tourist attraction these days shit it's probably cheaper to build a wall than it will be to get that place turned back into a working government office


----------



## danielpalos

beautress said:


> Naptime!  Just as soon as the aches go away.


full body massage with happy ending, is what you really need.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Apply for a U.S. Visa |    Business/Tourist Visa   - Tunisia (English)


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they have to be processed to determine that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't you just don't let them in unless they a VISA from the US consulate in their home country
> No Visa no entry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all they need do is ask.  Upgrading Ellis Island can process tens of thousand per day and ensure all foreign nationals have a federal id.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> They have to APPLY for a Visa at the US consulate in their country.
> It will be approved or denied by that consulate
> 
> If approved then the person has permission to enter the country and stay as long as the Visa is valid
> 
> If denied the person will not be allowed in.
> 
> There is no need to allow people into the country before they have permission
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if they show up on your border.  They should be going to Ellis Island.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they show up on the border we do not have to let them in. They can all go back to their own country and apply for a Visa like they should have done in the first place
> 
> And Ellis Island is nothing but a tourist attraction these days shit it's probably cheaper to build a wall than it will be to get that place turned back into a working government office
Click to expand...

this is the power delegated to Congress:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
_
Ellis Island is simply more cost effective.  

Capitalism, What is That Sayeth the Right Wing. 

We could be generating revenue from foreign nationals to pay for upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> Apply for a U.S. Visa |    Business/Tourist Visa   - Tunisia (English)


asylum or refugee status may be done in person.  online if they are Good.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't you just don't let them in unless they a VISA from the US consulate in their home country
> No Visa no entry
> 
> 
> 
> all they need do is ask.  Upgrading Ellis Island can process tens of thousand per day and ensure all foreign nationals have a federal id.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> They have to APPLY for a Visa at the US consulate in their country.
> It will be approved or denied by that consulate
> 
> If approved then the person has permission to enter the country and stay as long as the Visa is valid
> 
> If denied the person will not be allowed in.
> 
> There is no need to allow people into the country before they have permission
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if they show up on your border.  They should be going to Ellis Island.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they show up on the border we do not have to let them in. They can all go back to their own country and apply for a Visa like they should have done in the first place
> 
> And Ellis Island is nothing but a tourist attraction these days shit it's probably cheaper to build a wall than it will be to get that place turned back into a working government office
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is the power delegated to Congress:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> Ellis Island is simply more cost effective.
> 
> Capitalism, What is That Sayeth the Right Wing.
> 
> We could be generating revenue from foreign nationals to pay for upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure.
Click to expand...


No it is more cost effective to have people APPLY FOR A FUCKING VISA in their own country.

No Ellis island needed.

Show up at the fucking border with a fucking travel visa and be let in for the length of time the fucking visa is valid
Show u at the fucking border without a fucking travel visa and you don't get in.  PERIOD

No buildings needed, no additional staff, no major renovations of a fucking tourist site needed


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> all they need do is ask.  Upgrading Ellis Island can process tens of thousand per day and ensure all foreign nationals have a federal id.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> They have to APPLY for a Visa at the US consulate in their country.
> It will be approved or denied by that consulate
> 
> If approved then the person has permission to enter the country and stay as long as the Visa is valid
> 
> If denied the person will not be allowed in.
> 
> There is no need to allow people into the country before they have permission
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if they show up on your border.  They should be going to Ellis Island.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they show up on the border we do not have to let them in. They can all go back to their own country and apply for a Visa like they should have done in the first place
> 
> And Ellis Island is nothing but a tourist attraction these days shit it's probably cheaper to build a wall than it will be to get that place turned back into a working government office
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is the power delegated to Congress:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> Ellis Island is simply more cost effective.
> 
> Capitalism, What is That Sayeth the Right Wing.
> 
> We could be generating revenue from foreign nationals to pay for upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is more cost effective to have people APPLY FOR A FUCKING VISA in their own country.
> 
> No Ellis island needed.
> 
> Show up at the fucking border with a fucking travel visa and be let in for the length of time the fucking visa is valid
> Show u at the fucking border without a fucking travel visa and you don't get in.  PERIOD
> 
> No buildings needed, no additional staff, no major renovations of a fucking tourist site needed
Click to expand...

simple bigotry is no solution to our refugee problem.  

This is our supreme law of the land:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
_
Upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure is more cost effective.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> They have to APPLY for a Visa at the US consulate in their country.
> It will be approved or denied by that consulate
> 
> If approved then the person has permission to enter the country and stay as long as the Visa is valid
> 
> If denied the person will not be allowed in.
> 
> There is no need to allow people into the country before they have permission
> 
> 
> 
> Not if they show up on your border.  They should be going to Ellis Island.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they show up on the border we do not have to let them in. They can all go back to their own country and apply for a Visa like they should have done in the first place
> 
> And Ellis Island is nothing but a tourist attraction these days shit it's probably cheaper to build a wall than it will be to get that place turned back into a working government office
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is the power delegated to Congress:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> Ellis Island is simply more cost effective.
> 
> Capitalism, What is That Sayeth the Right Wing.
> 
> We could be generating revenue from foreign nationals to pay for upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is more cost effective to have people APPLY FOR A FUCKING VISA in their own country.
> 
> No Ellis island needed.
> 
> Show up at the fucking border with a fucking travel visa and be let in for the length of time the fucking visa is valid
> Show u at the fucking border without a fucking travel visa and you don't get in.  PERIOD
> 
> No buildings needed, no additional staff, no major renovations of a fucking tourist site needed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simple bigotry is no solution to our refugee problem.
> 
> This is our supreme law of the land:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> Upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure is more cost effective.
Click to expand...


This has nothing to do with citizenship.

It's about who we let in and who we don't

People can apply for a green card from their home country as well

Green Cards and Permanent Residence in the U.S. | USAGov

we already have the shit in place to handle both tourist visa and green card applications no extra shit is needed


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
> In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.
> 
> 
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not letting the criminal immigrants in is most cost effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they have to be processed to determine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't you just don't let them in unless they a VISA from the US consulate in their home country
> No Visa no entry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all they need do is ask.  Upgrading Ellis Island can process tens of thousand per day and ensure all foreign nationals have a federal id.
Click to expand...

We don't want them here. What part of that do you not understand?


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't you just don't let them in unless they a VISA from the US consulate in their home country
> No Visa no entry
> 
> 
> 
> all they need do is ask.  Upgrading Ellis Island can process tens of thousand per day and ensure all foreign nationals have a federal id.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> They have to APPLY for a Visa at the US consulate in their country.
> It will be approved or denied by that consulate
> 
> If approved then the person has permission to enter the country and stay as long as the Visa is valid
> 
> If denied the person will not be allowed in.
> 
> There is no need to allow people into the country before they have permission
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if they show up on your border.  They should be going to Ellis Island.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they show up on the border we do not have to let them in. They can all go back to their own country and apply for a Visa like they should have done in the first place
> 
> And Ellis Island is nothing but a tourist attraction these days shit it's probably cheaper to build a wall than it will be to get that place turned back into a working government office
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is the power delegated to Congress:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> Ellis Island is simply more cost effective.
> 
> Capitalism, What is That Sayeth the Right Wing.
> 
> We could be generating revenue from foreign nationals to pay for upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure.
Click to expand...

We can't generate revenue from welfare mothers and non-skilled workers.


----------



## Slyhunter

If you aren't an employer with money or with a high tech skill we don't fucking want you here.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if they show up on your border.  They should be going to Ellis Island.
> 
> 
> 
> If they show up on the border we do not have to let them in. They can all go back to their own country and apply for a Visa like they should have done in the first place
> 
> And Ellis Island is nothing but a tourist attraction these days shit it's probably cheaper to build a wall than it will be to get that place turned back into a working government office
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is the power delegated to Congress:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> Ellis Island is simply more cost effective.
> 
> Capitalism, What is That Sayeth the Right Wing.
> 
> We could be generating revenue from foreign nationals to pay for upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is more cost effective to have people APPLY FOR A FUCKING VISA in their own country.
> 
> No Ellis island needed.
> 
> Show up at the fucking border with a fucking travel visa and be let in for the length of time the fucking visa is valid
> Show u at the fucking border without a fucking travel visa and you don't get in.  PERIOD
> 
> No buildings needed, no additional staff, no major renovations of a fucking tourist site needed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simple bigotry is no solution to our refugee problem.
> 
> This is our supreme law of the land:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> Upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure is more cost effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with citizenship.
> 
> It's about who we let in and who we don't
> 
> People can apply for a green card from their home country as well
> 
> Green Cards and Permanent Residence in the U.S. | USAGov
> 
> we already have the shit in place to handle both tourist visa and green card applications no extra shit is needed
Click to expand...

Capitalism; what is that, sayeth the right wing.

an uniform Rule of Naturalization must cover asylum and refugees. 

Anyone can be a tourist with a federal id, renewable annually.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not letting the criminal immigrants in is most cost effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they have to be processed to determine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't you just don't let them in unless they a VISA from the US consulate in their home country
> No Visa no entry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all they need do is ask.  Upgrading Ellis Island can process tens of thousand per day and ensure all foreign nationals have a federal id.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't want them here. What part of that do you not understand?
Click to expand...

lol.  sounds arbitrary and capricious.  this is our supreme law of the land:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
_
Upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure is simply more cost effective for processing purposes.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they show up on the border we do not have to let them in. They can all go back to their own country and apply for a Visa like they should have done in the first place
> 
> And Ellis Island is nothing but a tourist attraction these days shit it's probably cheaper to build a wall than it will be to get that place turned back into a working government office
> 
> 
> 
> this is the power delegated to Congress:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> Ellis Island is simply more cost effective.
> 
> Capitalism, What is That Sayeth the Right Wing.
> 
> We could be generating revenue from foreign nationals to pay for upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is more cost effective to have people APPLY FOR A FUCKING VISA in their own country.
> 
> No Ellis island needed.
> 
> Show up at the fucking border with a fucking travel visa and be let in for the length of time the fucking visa is valid
> Show u at the fucking border without a fucking travel visa and you don't get in.  PERIOD
> 
> No buildings needed, no additional staff, no major renovations of a fucking tourist site needed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simple bigotry is no solution to our refugee problem.
> 
> This is our supreme law of the land:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> Upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure is more cost effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with citizenship.
> 
> It's about who we let in and who we don't
> 
> People can apply for a green card from their home country as well
> 
> Green Cards and Permanent Residence in the U.S. | USAGov
> 
> we already have the shit in place to handle both tourist visa and green card applications no extra shit is needed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism; what is that, sayeth the right wing.
> 
> an uniform Rule of Naturalization must cover asylum and refugees.
> 
> Anyone can be a tourist with a federal id, renewable annually.
Click to expand...


We don't need Ellis Island

And these people aren't refugees. 

And yes if you're not a fucking citizen you have to have permission to come here


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not letting the criminal immigrants in is most cost effective.
> 
> 
> 
> they have to be processed to determine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't you just don't let them in unless they a VISA from the US consulate in their home country
> No Visa no entry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all they need do is ask.  Upgrading Ellis Island can process tens of thousand per day and ensure all foreign nationals have a federal id.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't want them here. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  sounds arbitrary and capricious.  this is our supreme law of the land:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> Upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure is simply more cost effective for processing purposes.
Click to expand...

 no it's not no matter how many times you say it.


----------



## dblack

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above



E - It's wrong because it's phony populist grandstanding. It's like minimum wage: a symbolic gesture that stirs up the dimwits. And, like minimum wage, it will do no good, yet will have lasting negative impact. The wall will stand as testament to our dip into fascism.

But, if we are stupid enough to build it, it will be fun to tear down. Hopefully Pink Floyd will still be around to play at the ceremony.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> all they need do is ask.  Upgrading Ellis Island can process tens of thousand per day and ensure all foreign nationals have a federal id.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> They have to APPLY for a Visa at the US consulate in their country.
> It will be approved or denied by that consulate
> 
> If approved then the person has permission to enter the country and stay as long as the Visa is valid
> 
> If denied the person will not be allowed in.
> 
> There is no need to allow people into the country before they have permission
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if they show up on your border.  They should be going to Ellis Island.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they show up on the border we do not have to let them in. They can all go back to their own country and apply for a Visa like they should have done in the first place
> 
> And Ellis Island is nothing but a tourist attraction these days shit it's probably cheaper to build a wall than it will be to get that place turned back into a working government office
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is the power delegated to Congress:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> Ellis Island is simply more cost effective.
> 
> Capitalism, What is That Sayeth the Right Wing.
> 
> We could be generating revenue from foreign nationals to pay for upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can't generate revenue from welfare mothers and non-skilled workers.
Click to expand...

any right wing fantasy can work, in a vacuum of special pleading.

solving our illegal problem on a permanent in a market friendly manner is what we are discussing.


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> They have to APPLY for a Visa at the US consulate in their country.
> It will be approved or denied by that consulate
> 
> If approved then the person has permission to enter the country and stay as long as the Visa is valid
> 
> If denied the person will not be allowed in.
> 
> There is no need to allow people into the country before they have permission
> 
> 
> 
> Not if they show up on your border.  They should be going to Ellis Island.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they show up on the border we do not have to let them in. They can all go back to their own country and apply for a Visa like they should have done in the first place
> 
> And Ellis Island is nothing but a tourist attraction these days shit it's probably cheaper to build a wall than it will be to get that place turned back into a working government office
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is the power delegated to Congress:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> Ellis Island is simply more cost effective.
> 
> Capitalism, What is That Sayeth the Right Wing.
> 
> We could be generating revenue from foreign nationals to pay for upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can't generate revenue from welfare mothers and non-skilled workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> any right wing fantasy can work, in a vacuum of special pleading.
> 
> solving our illegal problem on a permanent in a market friendly manner is what we are discussing.
Click to expand...

automated smg's on the border will work.


----------



## Asclepias

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not letting the criminal immigrants in is most cost effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they have to be processed to determine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't you just don't let them in unless they a VISA from the US consulate in their home country
> No Visa no entry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all they need do is ask.  Upgrading Ellis Island can process tens of thousand per day and ensure all foreign nationals have a federal id.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't want them here. What part of that do you not understand?
Click to expand...

For me the part where you think that matters.  No one cares what you dont want here.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is the power delegated to Congress:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> Ellis Island is simply more cost effective.
> 
> Capitalism, What is That Sayeth the Right Wing.
> 
> We could be generating revenue from foreign nationals to pay for upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is more cost effective to have people APPLY FOR A FUCKING VISA in their own country.
> 
> No Ellis island needed.
> 
> Show up at the fucking border with a fucking travel visa and be let in for the length of time the fucking visa is valid
> Show u at the fucking border without a fucking travel visa and you don't get in.  PERIOD
> 
> No buildings needed, no additional staff, no major renovations of a fucking tourist site needed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simple bigotry is no solution to our refugee problem.
> 
> This is our supreme law of the land:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> Upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure is more cost effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with citizenship.
> 
> It's about who we let in and who we don't
> 
> People can apply for a green card from their home country as well
> 
> Green Cards and Permanent Residence in the U.S. | USAGov
> 
> we already have the shit in place to handle both tourist visa and green card applications no extra shit is needed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism; what is that, sayeth the right wing.
> 
> an uniform Rule of Naturalization must cover asylum and refugees.
> 
> Anyone can be a tourist with a federal id, renewable annually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't need Ellis Island
> 
> And these people aren't refugees.
> 
> And yes if you're not a fucking citizen you have to have permission to come here
Click to expand...

The facility should be upgraded to handle these issues. 

this is our supreme law of the land: _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_


----------



## Lesh

Slyhunter said:


> We don't want them here. What part of that do you not understand?



WHy?

I don't want the downward pressure on wages that happens because of the fact that businesses take advantage of their status.

I get the feeling you have a more "visceral" reason for opposing illegal immigration


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they have to be processed to determine that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't you just don't let them in unless they a VISA from the US consulate in their home country
> No Visa no entry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all they need do is ask.  Upgrading Ellis Island can process tens of thousand per day and ensure all foreign nationals have a federal id.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't want them here. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  sounds arbitrary and capricious.  this is our supreme law of the land:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> Upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure is simply more cost effective for processing purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it's not no matter how many times you say it.
Click to expand...

I cited our federal Constitution. 

Only the right wing is frivolous in their arguments and authority.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is more cost effective to have people APPLY FOR A FUCKING VISA in their own country.
> 
> No Ellis island needed.
> 
> Show up at the fucking border with a fucking travel visa and be let in for the length of time the fucking visa is valid
> Show u at the fucking border without a fucking travel visa and you don't get in.  PERIOD
> 
> No buildings needed, no additional staff, no major renovations of a fucking tourist site needed
> 
> 
> 
> simple bigotry is no solution to our refugee problem.
> 
> This is our supreme law of the land:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> Upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure is more cost effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with citizenship.
> 
> It's about who we let in and who we don't
> 
> People can apply for a green card from their home country as well
> 
> Green Cards and Permanent Residence in the U.S. | USAGov
> 
> we already have the shit in place to handle both tourist visa and green card applications no extra shit is needed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism; what is that, sayeth the right wing.
> 
> an uniform Rule of Naturalization must cover asylum and refugees.
> 
> Anyone can be a tourist with a federal id, renewable annually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't need Ellis Island
> 
> And these people aren't refugees.
> 
> And yes if you're not a fucking citizen you have to have permission to come here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facility should be upgraded to handle these issues.
> 
> this is our supreme law of the land: _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
Click to expand...


If stupid were money you'd be the richest idiot on the planet


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if they show up on your border.  They should be going to Ellis Island.
> 
> 
> 
> If they show up on the border we do not have to let them in. They can all go back to their own country and apply for a Visa like they should have done in the first place
> 
> And Ellis Island is nothing but a tourist attraction these days shit it's probably cheaper to build a wall than it will be to get that place turned back into a working government office
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is the power delegated to Congress:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> Ellis Island is simply more cost effective.
> 
> Capitalism, What is That Sayeth the Right Wing.
> 
> We could be generating revenue from foreign nationals to pay for upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can't generate revenue from welfare mothers and non-skilled workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> any right wing fantasy can work, in a vacuum of special pleading.
> 
> solving our illegal problem on a permanent in a market friendly manner is what we are discussing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> automated smg's on the border will work.
Click to expand...

the right wing doesn't care about natural rights and That is Why we don't take them seriously in abortion threads.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> simple bigotry is no solution to our refugee problem.
> 
> This is our supreme law of the land:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> Upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure is more cost effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with citizenship.
> 
> It's about who we let in and who we don't
> 
> People can apply for a green card from their home country as well
> 
> Green Cards and Permanent Residence in the U.S. | USAGov
> 
> we already have the shit in place to handle both tourist visa and green card applications no extra shit is needed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism; what is that, sayeth the right wing.
> 
> an uniform Rule of Naturalization must cover asylum and refugees.
> 
> Anyone can be a tourist with a federal id, renewable annually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't need Ellis Island
> 
> And these people aren't refugees.
> 
> And yes if you're not a fucking citizen you have to have permission to come here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facility should be upgraded to handle these issues.
> 
> this is our supreme law of the land: _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If stupid were money you'd be the richest idiot on the planet
Click to expand...

nothing but hearsay and soothsay?  you are going to need a superior or a supreme argument.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't you just don't let them in unless they a VISA from the US consulate in their home country
> No Visa no entry
> 
> 
> 
> all they need do is ask.  Upgrading Ellis Island can process tens of thousand per day and ensure all foreign nationals have a federal id.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't want them here. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  sounds arbitrary and capricious.  this is our supreme law of the land:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> Upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure is simply more cost effective for processing purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it's not no matter how many times you say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I cited our federal Constitution.
> 
> Only the right wing is frivolous in their arguments and authority.
Click to expand...

We already have a process of naturalization



People can apply for permanent residency if they are eligible.
If they are not eligible they don't get in

It really is that fucking simple


----------



## litman

crybaby trump has lied so much that our idiot righties really believe him not understanding he is a consistent liar. What we do know is that more illegal Latino have left in the last several years than have crossed the border. We know that 42% of illegals fly into our country.  As for as the drugs go it will not even slow the drugs down.  As long as their is a huge market for them they will be coming into or made in this country, The only hope is to use high teck to slow down the drugs coming across the broader. Ever heard of drones.  Here is a hint, just because the idiot in the Whitehouse says something it is most likely to be a lie and this one about the wall is his biggest lie.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> all they need do is ask.  Upgrading Ellis Island can process tens of thousand per day and ensure all foreign nationals have a federal id.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't want them here. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  sounds arbitrary and capricious.  this is our supreme law of the land:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> Upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure is simply more cost effective for processing purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it's not no matter how many times you say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I cited our federal Constitution.
> 
> Only the right wing is frivolous in their arguments and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already have a process of naturalization
> 
> 
> 
> People can apply for permanent residency if they are eligible.
> If they are not eligible they don't get in
> 
> It really is that fucking simple
Click to expand...

why do we need a wall if it is so simple?  

Upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure will relieve pressure on our borders.


----------



## Slyhunter

Lesh said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't want them here. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHy?
> 
> I don't want the downward pressure on wages that happens because of the fact that businesses take advantage of their status.
> 
> I get the feeling you have a more "visceral" reason for opposing illegal immigration
Click to expand...

I don't want the competition for bottom level jobs. I want to be able to support my family. Hard to do with illegals driving down wages.
I don't want them here to poop out a baby and collect welfare for it. They're coming here getting pregnant and going to bankrupt our country trying to provide for them all.
When I was in college I hated competing with them for seats. It's one thing competing with those who can afford to pay and get high grades but it's a different story when they are getting in via student loans and grants and don't have the grades. Dumbing down the system.


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't want them here. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  sounds arbitrary and capricious.  this is our supreme law of the land:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> Upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure is simply more cost effective for processing purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it's not no matter how many times you say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I cited our federal Constitution.
> 
> Only the right wing is frivolous in their arguments and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already have a process of naturalization
> 
> 
> 
> People can apply for permanent residency if they are eligible.
> If they are not eligible they don't get in
> 
> It really is that fucking simple
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do we need a wall if it is so simple?
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure will relieve pressure on our borders.
Click to expand...

185 million people want to move to America. We don't have room for them. Especially when most of them want to get on our social welfare system.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't want them here. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHy?
> 
> I don't want the downward pressure on wages that happens because of the fact that businesses take advantage of their status.
> 
> I get the feeling you have a more "visceral" reason for opposing illegal immigration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't want the competition for bottom level jobs. I want to be able to support my family. Hard to do with illegals driving down wages.
> I don't want them here to poop out a baby and collect welfare for it. They're coming here getting pregnant and going to bankrupt our country trying to provide for them all.
> When I was in college I hated competing with them for seats. It's one thing competing with those who can afford to pay and get high grades but it's a different story when they are getting in via student loans and grants and don't have the grades. Dumbing down the system.
Click to expand...

We should be manufacturing, manufacturing jobs by establishing new Cities in more optimum locations.  It is one solution to global weather changes.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  sounds arbitrary and capricious.  this is our supreme law of the land:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> Upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure is simply more cost effective for processing purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> no it's not no matter how many times you say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I cited our federal Constitution.
> 
> Only the right wing is frivolous in their arguments and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already have a process of naturalization
> 
> 
> 
> People can apply for permanent residency if they are eligible.
> If they are not eligible they don't get in
> 
> It really is that fucking simple
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do we need a wall if it is so simple?
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure will relieve pressure on our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 185 million people want to move to America. We don't have room for them. Especially when most of them want to get on our social welfare system.
Click to expand...

we need to upgrade our laws so we make money and not lose money. 

let's say, all foreign nationals are considered tourists and their id., is renewable annually.

We don't need to ask why if they can be market friendly. 

Asylum seekers and refugees must still be processed in a market friendly manner that does not increase, humanitarian forms of misery.


----------



## oreo

Flopper said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a crock of B.S,
> 
> The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations that can respond quickly.  Something they can see, can and will always be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> You had a Republican full house for two years, why in the hell do you think they didn't vote for it.
> 
> Here's 2-1/2 minutes of reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
> President Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall along our Southern border will save countless innocent lives. Our Border Patrol agents have seen firsthand the success of a border wall in Yuma, Ariz. — which serves as a prime example of how investments in personnel, technology and a border wall can turn the tide against a flood of illegal immigration and secure our homeland.
> 
> For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.
> 
> It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First it's a fence and not wall and it certainly can crossed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, didn't you know? A stunt like that will bring instant electrocution because the wall will be electrified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rubber tires have no problems with electricity---   Furthermore I doubt a 1000 mile wall is going to have electricity within a 1000 miles to plug into.  I think some of you people are doing your own _WALLLLLLLL_ design.  An electric 1000 wall has never been discussed.  So I assume you're getting your idea's from the usual suspect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said he was going to put solar cells on it so there will be all the electricity needed.
Click to expand...


I don't remember that one, nor do I believe that they wouldnt be put out of commission if they were ever to be set up.


----------



## oreo

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ellis Island used to be able to process thousands per day.  There should be no refugees waiting for processing on our border.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> 
> 
> 
> When you mention Ellis Island and what used to be, are you saying you don't care for the wait-your-turn policy on immigration? It's been in place for years, to help integrate people from a variety of nations to get a chance at the American Dream. Are you also in favor of allowing only one area of the world push its way in here?
> 
> I guess I do differ with you on that count. I love the Mexican people who live here, but I also enjoy knowing that as Americans, we have many nations touching us when a fair number from each country is allowed in.
> 
> Mexico unfortunately is the neighbor who sees an opportunity to overpopulate our nation rather than its own with people it wants nothing to do with. They send us car thieves, home invaders, patients with incurable mental and physical diseases, etc. for the sole purpose of benefitting financially from the money they send back to Mexico to support an economy that so entitles its rich it ignores and reduces its poor to a life of bitterness and poverty. AND they see an opening for America solving all their problems and making their rich classes richer than ever.
> 
> Our existing immigration policies stands for equal opportunities to a variety of people. The illegal practice of sending us only problems so far, allows a corrupt Mexico to sing "Don't worry, be happy" all day and all night. It is not fair to the unsung scientist who goes unappreciated in another country who's been waiting for 20 years for his ok to come here, and now, never can because his space has been filled 10,000 times with Mexico's problems.
> 
> We finally got one person elected to office who will deal like an adult with the moochers to the south, and what happens? Y'all go all out to kick him in the groin on a constant basis for things he did from the first time he sneezed as a child to frowning at a member of the ninnyhammer press.
> 
> Mexico will benefit by having to grow up enough to take care of their own. We will have to get all our druggy kids out of the slammer and put them in the orchards, so what. It'll benefit everyone concerned if we take away the border tit and make Mexico grow more beans.
> 
> Mexico is a moochie moochie.
> It just wants to eat your cookie.
> Say "Adios" to tribulation,
> Singing "stupid gringos,- celebration."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I keep seeing people saying Mexico is sending us their murders, rapists, thrives, home invaders, and the mental and physical disabled.  Exactly how is the government doing this.  Do they buy them plane tickets or maybe they drive them up to border and help them over fence.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
> In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does upgrading Ellis Island help keep out the illegal welfare recipients.
Click to expand...


News flash illegals are not eligible for welfare, they never have been, nor are they eligible to vote.

And the very last place they're going to show up at is a Welfare office or voting precinct to say here I am, ready for deportation.


----------



## oreo

bripat9643 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF the wall could be built (2000 miles across land not currently owned by the government) and IF it were 100% effective (which is beyond unlikely) that would do NOTHING about the 60% of illegals who enter the country through other means.
> 
> Does that sound like a reasonable way to spend 30-50 billion dollars?
> 
> Sure. Build the fucking thing. Make me look like a genius.
> 
> 
> 
> Only about 40% of illegals enter by other means, moron.  Eliminating 60% of illegal immigration for $30 billion is a bargain.
> 
> Only a brain transplant could make you look like a genius.
Click to expand...


Do Illegals buy food, cars, T.V's, electronics, furniture, clothing, go to restaurants, movies and participate in stimulating this economy?

You might want to subtract the amount you believe to be the cost of illegal immigration and offset that by what they actually purchase in this country. Then there's always the problem with migrant farm workers.
Perspective | Illegal immigrants help fuel U.S. farms. Does affordable produce depend on them?

In reality our biggest cost to illegal immigration is education.

Look it up yourself.


----------



## Cellblock2429

oreo said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you mention Ellis Island and what used to be, are you saying you don't care for the wait-your-turn policy on immigration? It's been in place for years, to help integrate people from a variety of nations to get a chance at the American Dream. Are you also in favor of allowing only one area of the world push its way in here?
> 
> I guess I do differ with you on that count. I love the Mexican people who live here, but I also enjoy knowing that as Americans, we have many nations touching us when a fair number from each country is allowed in.
> 
> Mexico unfortunately is the neighbor who sees an opportunity to overpopulate our nation rather than its own with people it wants nothing to do with. They send us car thieves, home invaders, patients with incurable mental and physical diseases, etc. for the sole purpose of benefitting financially from the money they send back to Mexico to support an economy that so entitles its rich it ignores and reduces its poor to a life of bitterness and poverty. AND they see an opening for America solving all their problems and making their rich classes richer than ever.
> 
> Our existing immigration policies stands for equal opportunities to a variety of people. The illegal practice of sending us only problems so far, allows a corrupt Mexico to sing "Don't worry, be happy" all day and all night. It is not fair to the unsung scientist who goes unappreciated in another country who's been waiting for 20 years for his ok to come here, and now, never can because his space has been filled 10,000 times with Mexico's problems.
> 
> We finally got one person elected to office who will deal like an adult with the moochers to the south, and what happens? Y'all go all out to kick him in the groin on a constant basis for things he did from the first time he sneezed as a child to frowning at a member of the ninnyhammer press.
> 
> Mexico will benefit by having to grow up enough to take care of their own. We will have to get all our druggy kids out of the slammer and put them in the orchards, so what. It'll benefit everyone concerned if we take away the border tit and make Mexico grow more beans.
> 
> Mexico is a moochie moochie.
> It just wants to eat your cookie.
> Say "Adios" to tribulation,
> Singing "stupid gringos,- celebration."
> 
> 
> 
> *I keep seeing people saying Mexico is sending us their murders, rapists, thrives, home invaders, and the mental and physical disabled.  Exactly how is the government doing this.  Do they buy them plane tickets or maybe they drive them up to border and help them over fence.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
> In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does upgrading Ellis Island help keep out the illegal welfare recipients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> News flash illegals are not eligible for welfare, they never have been, nor are they eligible to vote.
> 
> And the very last place they're going to show up at is a Welfare office or voting precinct to say here I am, ready for deportation.
Click to expand...

/----/ Just got my Google back from the repair shop: Most Illegal Immigrant Families Collect Welfare - Judicial Watch


----------



## Slyhunter

oreo said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you mention Ellis Island and what used to be, are you saying you don't care for the wait-your-turn policy on immigration? It's been in place for years, to help integrate people from a variety of nations to get a chance at the American Dream. Are you also in favor of allowing only one area of the world push its way in here?
> 
> I guess I do differ with you on that count. I love the Mexican people who live here, but I also enjoy knowing that as Americans, we have many nations touching us when a fair number from each country is allowed in.
> 
> Mexico unfortunately is the neighbor who sees an opportunity to overpopulate our nation rather than its own with people it wants nothing to do with. They send us car thieves, home invaders, patients with incurable mental and physical diseases, etc. for the sole purpose of benefitting financially from the money they send back to Mexico to support an economy that so entitles its rich it ignores and reduces its poor to a life of bitterness and poverty. AND they see an opening for America solving all their problems and making their rich classes richer than ever.
> 
> Our existing immigration policies stands for equal opportunities to a variety of people. The illegal practice of sending us only problems so far, allows a corrupt Mexico to sing "Don't worry, be happy" all day and all night. It is not fair to the unsung scientist who goes unappreciated in another country who's been waiting for 20 years for his ok to come here, and now, never can because his space has been filled 10,000 times with Mexico's problems.
> 
> We finally got one person elected to office who will deal like an adult with the moochers to the south, and what happens? Y'all go all out to kick him in the groin on a constant basis for things he did from the first time he sneezed as a child to frowning at a member of the ninnyhammer press.
> 
> Mexico will benefit by having to grow up enough to take care of their own. We will have to get all our druggy kids out of the slammer and put them in the orchards, so what. It'll benefit everyone concerned if we take away the border tit and make Mexico grow more beans.
> 
> Mexico is a moochie moochie.
> It just wants to eat your cookie.
> Say "Adios" to tribulation,
> Singing "stupid gringos,- celebration."
> 
> 
> 
> *I keep seeing people saying Mexico is sending us their murders, rapists, thrives, home invaders, and the mental and physical disabled.  Exactly how is the government doing this.  Do they buy them plane tickets or maybe they drive them up to border and help them over fence.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
> In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does upgrading Ellis Island help keep out the illegal welfare recipients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> News flash illegals are not eligible for welfare, they never have been, nor are they eligible to vote.
> 
> And the very last place they're going to show up at is a Welfare office or voting precinct to say here I am, ready for deportation.
Click to expand...

They have a baby, their baby gets welfare, the illegal spends the money.


----------



## oreo

Cellblock2429 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I keep seeing people saying Mexico is sending us their murders, rapists, thrives, home invaders, and the mental and physical disabled.  Exactly how is the government doing this.  Do they buy them plane tickets or maybe they drive them up to border and help them over fence.  *
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
> In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does upgrading Ellis Island help keep out the illegal welfare recipients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> W
> News flash illegals are not eligible for welfare, they never have been, nor are they eligible to vote.
> 
> And the very last place they're going to show up at is a Welfare office or voting precinct to say here I am, ready for deportation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Just my Google back from the repair shop: Most Illegal Immigrant Families Collect Welfare - Judicial Watch
Click to expand...


What makes you eligible to be here--did you come over on the Mayflower?  We're all immigrants to this nation, with the exception of the American Indian.  Mexico used to own the entire southwest of this country before we invaded them and took away from them.  Now you're on your high horse about looking down at a very large population in this country that was here long before the white man ever showed up.

The point is that a 40' high--1000 mile wall is not going to stop anyone from getting in.  Most fly in on visa's and overstay there visa, and there's not too many in relation that can come up with $3,000 USD to pay a coyote to bring them over, much less want to risk their lives crossing a desert to clean someone's house or pick cherries.

There are consequences to your hateful rhetoric.  Starting in Maine and moving across the country
Maine farmers worry about workers’ future under Trump immigration policy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...ory.html?utm_term=.79e77a6bdaf0&noredirect=on
https://www.southwestfarmpress.com/...on-issues-threaten-agricultures-profitability

https://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

oreo said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you mention Ellis Island and what used to be, are you saying you don't care for the wait-your-turn policy on immigration? It's been in place for years, to help integrate people from a variety of nations to get a chance at the American Dream. Are you also in favor of allowing only one area of the world push its way in here?
> 
> I guess I do differ with you on that count. I love the Mexican people who live here, but I also enjoy knowing that as Americans, we have many nations touching us when a fair number from each country is allowed in.
> 
> Mexico unfortunately is the neighbor who sees an opportunity to overpopulate our nation rather than its own with people it wants nothing to do with. They send us car thieves, home invaders, patients with incurable mental and physical diseases, etc. for the sole purpose of benefitting financially from the money they send back to Mexico to support an economy that so entitles its rich it ignores and reduces its poor to a life of bitterness and poverty. AND they see an opening for America solving all their problems and making their rich classes richer than ever.
> 
> Our existing immigration policies stands for equal opportunities to a variety of people. The illegal practice of sending us only problems so far, allows a corrupt Mexico to sing "Don't worry, be happy" all day and all night. It is not fair to the unsung scientist who goes unappreciated in another country who's been waiting for 20 years for his ok to come here, and now, never can because his space has been filled 10,000 times with Mexico's problems.
> 
> We finally got one person elected to office who will deal like an adult with the moochers to the south, and what happens? Y'all go all out to kick him in the groin on a constant basis for things he did from the first time he sneezed as a child to frowning at a member of the ninnyhammer press.
> 
> Mexico will benefit by having to grow up enough to take care of their own. We will have to get all our druggy kids out of the slammer and put them in the orchards, so what. It'll benefit everyone concerned if we take away the border tit and make Mexico grow more beans.
> 
> Mexico is a moochie moochie.
> It just wants to eat your cookie.
> Say "Adios" to tribulation,
> Singing "stupid gringos,- celebration."
> 
> 
> 
> *I keep seeing people saying Mexico is sending us their murders, rapists, thrives, home invaders, and the mental and physical disabled.  Exactly how is the government doing this.  Do they buy them plane tickets or maybe they drive them up to border and help them over fence.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
> In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does upgrading Ellis Island help keep out the illegal welfare recipients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> News flash illegals are not eligible for welfare, they never have been, nor are they eligible to vote.
> 
> And the very last place they're going to show up at is a Welfare office or voting precinct to say here I am, ready for deportation.
Click to expand...


So what happens when they show up at the emergency room?  They pay cash or are asked for their proof of status?


----------



## Flopper

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ellis Island used to be able to process thousands per day.  There should be no refugees waiting for processing on our border.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> 
> 
> 
> When you mention Ellis Island and what used to be, are you saying you don't care for the wait-your-turn policy on immigration? It's been in place for years, to help integrate people from a variety of nations to get a chance at the American Dream. Are you also in favor of allowing only one area of the world push its way in here?
> 
> I guess I do differ with you on that count. I love the Mexican people who live here, but I also enjoy knowing that as Americans, we have many nations touching us when a fair number from each country is allowed in.
> 
> Mexico unfortunately is the neighbor who sees an opportunity to overpopulate our nation rather than its own with people it wants nothing to do with. They send us car thieves, home invaders, patients with incurable mental and physical diseases, etc. for the sole purpose of benefitting financially from the money they send back to Mexico to support an economy that so entitles its rich it ignores and reduces its poor to a life of bitterness and poverty. AND they see an opening for America solving all their problems and making their rich classes richer than ever.
> 
> Our existing immigration policies stands for equal opportunities to a variety of people. The illegal practice of sending us only problems so far, allows a corrupt Mexico to sing "Don't worry, be happy" all day and all night. It is not fair to the unsung scientist who goes unappreciated in another country who's been waiting for 20 years for his ok to come here, and now, never can because his space has been filled 10,000 times with Mexico's problems.
> 
> We finally got one person elected to office who will deal like an adult with the moochers to the south, and what happens? Y'all go all out to kick him in the groin on a constant basis for things he did from the first time he sneezed as a child to frowning at a member of the ninnyhammer press.
> 
> Mexico will benefit by having to grow up enough to take care of their own. We will have to get all our druggy kids out of the slammer and put them in the orchards, so what. It'll benefit everyone concerned if we take away the border tit and make Mexico grow more beans.
> 
> Mexico is a moochie moochie.
> It just wants to eat your cookie.
> Say "Adios" to tribulation,
> Singing "stupid gringos,- celebration."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I keep seeing people saying Mexico is sending us their murders, rapists, thrives, home invaders, and the mental and physical disabled.  Exactly how is the government doing this.  Do they buy them plane tickets or maybe they drive them up to border and help them over fence.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
> In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not letting the criminal immigrants in is most cost effective.
Click to expand...

Eliminating the reasons they want to come is even more cost effective.


----------



## Slyhunter

oreo said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
> In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.
> 
> 
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does upgrading Ellis Island help keep out the illegal welfare recipients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> W
> News flash illegals are not eligible for welfare, they never have been, nor are they eligible to vote.
> 
> And the very last place they're going to show up at is a Welfare office or voting precinct to say here I am, ready for deportation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Just my Google back from the repair shop: Most Illegal Immigrant Families Collect Welfare - Judicial Watch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you eligible to be here--did you come over on the Mayflower?  We're all immigrants to this nation, with the exception of the American Indian.  Mexico used to own the entire southwest of this country before we invaded them and took away from them.  Now you're on your high horse about looking down at a very large population in this country that was here long before the white man ever showed up.
> 
> The point is that a 40' high--1000 mile wall is not going to stop anyone from getting in.  Most fly in on visa's and overstay there visa, and there's not too many in relation that can come up with $3,000 USD to pay a coyote to bring them over, much less want to risk their lives crossing a desert to clean someone's house or pick cherries.
> 
> There are consequences to your hateful rhetoric.  Starting in Maine and moving across the country
> Maine farmers worry about workers’ future under Trump immigration policy
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...ory.html?utm_term=.79e77a6bdaf0&noredirect=on
> https://www.southwestfarmpress.com/...on-issues-threaten-agricultures-profitability
> 
> https://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/
Click to expand...

185 million people living below the poverty line wants to move to America, should we let them all in?


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you mention Ellis Island and what used to be, are you saying you don't care for the wait-your-turn policy on immigration? It's been in place for years, to help integrate people from a variety of nations to get a chance at the American Dream. Are you also in favor of allowing only one area of the world push its way in here?
> 
> I guess I do differ with you on that count. I love the Mexican people who live here, but I also enjoy knowing that as Americans, we have many nations touching us when a fair number from each country is allowed in.
> 
> Mexico unfortunately is the neighbor who sees an opportunity to overpopulate our nation rather than its own with people it wants nothing to do with. They send us car thieves, home invaders, patients with incurable mental and physical diseases, etc. for the sole purpose of benefitting financially from the money they send back to Mexico to support an economy that so entitles its rich it ignores and reduces its poor to a life of bitterness and poverty. AND they see an opening for America solving all their problems and making their rich classes richer than ever.
> 
> Our existing immigration policies stands for equal opportunities to a variety of people. The illegal practice of sending us only problems so far, allows a corrupt Mexico to sing "Don't worry, be happy" all day and all night. It is not fair to the unsung scientist who goes unappreciated in another country who's been waiting for 20 years for his ok to come here, and now, never can because his space has been filled 10,000 times with Mexico's problems.
> 
> We finally got one person elected to office who will deal like an adult with the moochers to the south, and what happens? Y'all go all out to kick him in the groin on a constant basis for things he did from the first time he sneezed as a child to frowning at a member of the ninnyhammer press.
> 
> Mexico will benefit by having to grow up enough to take care of their own. We will have to get all our druggy kids out of the slammer and put them in the orchards, so what. It'll benefit everyone concerned if we take away the border tit and make Mexico grow more beans.
> 
> Mexico is a moochie moochie.
> It just wants to eat your cookie.
> Say "Adios" to tribulation,
> Singing "stupid gringos,- celebration."
> 
> 
> 
> *I keep seeing people saying Mexico is sending us their murders, rapists, thrives, home invaders, and the mental and physical disabled.  Exactly how is the government doing this.  Do they buy them plane tickets or maybe they drive them up to border and help them over fence.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
> In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not letting the criminal immigrants in is most cost effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eliminating the reasons they want to come is even more cost effective.
Click to expand...

unrealistic to think you are going to get rid of the safety net for American citizens and the minimum wage so Americans can live like Hondurans.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

litman said:


> As for as the drugs go it will not even slow the drugs down. As long as their is a huge market for them they will be coming into or made in this country,



_*Donald Trump tied the heroin epidemic gripping suburban white communities to the issue central to the campaign: border security and illegal immigration.

We’ve all heard of poppy fields blooming in Afghanistan, but is Trump right that heroin is entering the United States largely through the southern border?

Yes. Even though Southwest Asia supplies heroin to most of the rest of the world, nearly all of the heroin available in the United States comes from Mexico and South America.*_

Trump is right: Heroin is coming in through southern border


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't want them here. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHy?
> 
> I don't want the downward pressure on wages that happens because of the fact that businesses take advantage of their status.
> 
> I get the feeling you have a more "visceral" reason for opposing illegal immigration
Click to expand...


Yes, businesses will look to pay the lowest wage possible.  However when you have people coming here and willing to work for that wage (or lower) then it does suppress wages. 

No business can operate without workers.  If the wage offered does not attract workers, then the business needs to offer more, and keep offering more until they get takers for the money.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Asclepias said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not letting the criminal immigrants in is most cost effective.
> 
> 
> 
> they have to be processed to determine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't you just don't let them in unless they a VISA from the US consulate in their home country
> No Visa no entry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all they need do is ask.  Upgrading Ellis Island can process tens of thousand per day and ensure all foreign nationals have a federal id.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't want them here. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For me the part where you think that matters.  No one cares what you dont want here.
Click to expand...


Trump does.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Asclepias said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.*
> President Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall along our Southern border will save countless innocent lives. Our Border Patrol agents have seen firsthand the success of a border wall in Yuma, Ariz. — which serves as a prime example of how investments in personnel, technology and a border wall can turn the tide against a flood of illegal immigration and secure our homeland.
> 
> For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.
> 
> It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> 
> 
> First it's a fence and not wall and it certainly can crossed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, didn't you know? A stunt like that will bring instant electrocution because the wall will be electrified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rubber tires have no problems with electricity---   Furthermore I doubt a 1000 mile wall is going to have electricity within a 1000 miles to plug into.  I think some of you people are doing your own _WALLLLLLLL_ design.  An electric 1000 wall has never been discussed.  So I assume you're getting your idea's from the usual suspect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, we won't have a state of the art wall thanks to Democrats.  The more money for the wall we have, the better and more effective wall.  But the problem isn't the ability of a wall, the problem is Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought the problem was that Mexico said they werent going to pay for the wall like Drumpf promised?
Click to expand...


It's the left that keeps bringing that up--not us on the right.  We don't care how it's built or who pays for it, as long as it's built.


----------



## bripat9643

oreo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF the wall could be built (2000 miles across land not currently owned by the government) and IF it were 100% effective (which is beyond unlikely) that would do NOTHING about the 60% of illegals who enter the country through other means.
> 
> Does that sound like a reasonable way to spend 30-50 billion dollars?
> 
> Sure. Build the fucking thing. Make me look like a genius.
> 
> 
> 
> Only about 40% of illegals enter by other means, moron.  Eliminating 60% of illegal immigration for $30 billion is a bargain.
> 
> Only a brain transplant could make you look like a genius.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do Illegals buy food, cars, T.V's, electronics, furniture, clothing, go to restaurants, movies and participate in stimulating this economy?
> 
> You might want to subtract the amount you believe to be the cost of illegal immigration and offset that by what they actually purchase in this country. Then there's always the problem with migrant farm workers.
> Perspective | Illegal immigrants help fuel U.S. farms. Does affordable produce depend on them?
> 
> In reality our biggest cost to illegal immigration is education.
> 
> Look it up yourself.
Click to expand...

They consume what they purchase.  How does that benefit me?  Meanwhile, they are sucking on the government tit or taking a job from a native born American.  

We benefit nothing from ignorant peasants from Mexico willing to work for below market wages.  

Nothing.


----------



## bripat9643

oreo said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
> In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.
> 
> 
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does upgrading Ellis Island help keep out the illegal welfare recipients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> W
> News flash illegals are not eligible for welfare, they never have been, nor are they eligible to vote.
> 
> And the very last place they're going to show up at is a Welfare office or voting precinct to say here I am, ready for deportation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Just my Google back from the repair shop: Most Illegal Immigrant Families Collect Welfare - Judicial Watch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you eligible to be here--did you come over on the Mayflower?  We're all immigrants to this nation, with the exception of the American Indian.  Mexico used to own the entire southwest of this country before we invaded them and took away from them.  Now you're on your high horse about looking down at a very large population in this country that was here long before the white man ever showed up.
> 
> The point is that a 40' high--1000 mile wall is not going to stop anyone from getting in.  Most fly in on visa's and overstay there visa, and there's not too many in relation that can come up with $3,000 USD to pay a coyote to bring them over, much less want to risk their lives crossing a desert to clean someone's house or pick cherries.
> 
> There are consequences to your hateful rhetoric.  Starting in Maine and moving across the country
> Maine farmers worry about workers’ future under Trump immigration policy
> Alabama law drives out illegal immigrants but also has unexpected consequences
> Immigration issues threaten agriculture's profitability
> 
> https://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/
Click to expand...

I'm not an immigrant.  I was born here.


----------



## Asclepias

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> First it's a fence and not wall and it certainly can crossed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, didn't you know? A stunt like that will bring instant electrocution because the wall will be electrified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rubber tires have no problems with electricity---   Furthermore I doubt a 1000 mile wall is going to have electricity within a 1000 miles to plug into.  I think some of you people are doing your own _WALLLLLLLL_ design.  An electric 1000 wall has never been discussed.  So I assume you're getting your idea's from the usual suspect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, we won't have a state of the art wall thanks to Democrats.  The more money for the wall we have, the better and more effective wall.  But the problem isn't the ability of a wall, the problem is Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought the problem was that Mexico said they werent going to pay for the wall like Drumpf promised?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the left that keeps bringing that up--not us on the right.  We don't care how it's built or who pays for it, as long as it's built.
Click to expand...

Drumpf brought that up and he is on the right. I didnt ask you what you care about. I'm asking what fool is going to allow Drumpf to claim Mexico is going to pay for it and then pretend they dont care?


----------



## Asclepias

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they have to be processed to determine that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't you just don't let them in unless they a VISA from the US consulate in their home country
> No Visa no entry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all they need do is ask.  Upgrading Ellis Island can process tens of thousand per day and ensure all foreign nationals have a federal id.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't want them here. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For me the part where you think that matters.  No one cares what you dont want here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump does.
Click to expand...

So?  I said no one. Drumpf is a nobody.


----------



## bripat9643

oreo said:


> The point is that a 40' high--1000 mile wall is not going to stop anyone from getting in.  Most fly in on visa's and overstay there visa, and there's not too many in relation that can come up with $3,000 USD to pay a coyote to bring them over, much less want to risk their lives crossing a desert to clean someone's house or pick cherries.


Bullshit.  The empirical evidence shows that it will stop 99.9% of the people who try to cross where the wall exists.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you mention Ellis Island and what used to be, are you saying you don't care for the wait-your-turn policy on immigration? It's been in place for years, to help integrate people from a variety of nations to get a chance at the American Dream. Are you also in favor of allowing only one area of the world push its way in here?
> 
> I guess I do differ with you on that count. I love the Mexican people who live here, but I also enjoy knowing that as Americans, we have many nations touching us when a fair number from each country is allowed in.
> 
> Mexico unfortunately is the neighbor who sees an opportunity to overpopulate our nation rather than its own with people it wants nothing to do with. They send us car thieves, home invaders, patients with incurable mental and physical diseases, etc. for the sole purpose of benefitting financially from the money they send back to Mexico to support an economy that so entitles its rich it ignores and reduces its poor to a life of bitterness and poverty. AND they see an opening for America solving all their problems and making their rich classes richer than ever.
> 
> Our existing immigration policies stands for equal opportunities to a variety of people. The illegal practice of sending us only problems so far, allows a corrupt Mexico to sing "Don't worry, be happy" all day and all night. It is not fair to the unsung scientist who goes unappreciated in another country who's been waiting for 20 years for his ok to come here, and now, never can because his space has been filled 10,000 times with Mexico's problems.
> 
> We finally got one person elected to office who will deal like an adult with the moochers to the south, and what happens? Y'all go all out to kick him in the groin on a constant basis for things he did from the first time he sneezed as a child to frowning at a member of the ninnyhammer press.
> 
> Mexico will benefit by having to grow up enough to take care of their own. We will have to get all our druggy kids out of the slammer and put them in the orchards, so what. It'll benefit everyone concerned if we take away the border tit and make Mexico grow more beans.
> 
> Mexico is a moochie moochie.
> It just wants to eat your cookie.
> Say "Adios" to tribulation,
> Singing "stupid gringos,- celebration."
> 
> 
> 
> *I keep seeing people saying Mexico is sending us their murders, rapists, thrives, home invaders, and the mental and physical disabled.  Exactly how is the government doing this.  Do they buy them plane tickets or maybe they drive them up to border and help them over fence.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
> In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not letting the criminal immigrants in is most cost effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eliminating the reasons they want to come is even more cost effective.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we could turn this country into a shit hole like Mexico.  Good plan.


----------



## Cellblock2429

oreo said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
> In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.
> 
> 
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does upgrading Ellis Island help keep out the illegal welfare recipients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> W
> News flash illegals are not eligible for welfare, they never have been, nor are they eligible to vote.
> 
> And the very last place they're going to show up at is a Welfare office or voting precinct to say here I am, ready for deportation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Just my Google back from the repair shop: Most Illegal Immigrant Families Collect Welfare - Judicial Watch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you eligible to be here--did you come over on the Mayflower?  We're all immigrants to this nation, with the exception of the American Indian.  Mexico used to own the entire southwest of this country before we invaded them and took away from them.  Now you're on your high horse about looking down at a very large population in this country that was here long before the white man ever showed up.
> 
> The point is that a 40' high--1000 mile wall is not going to stop anyone from getting in.  Most fly in on visa's and overstay there visa, and there's not too many in relation that can come up with $3,000 USD to pay a coyote to bring them over, much less want to risk their lives crossing a desert to clean someone's house or pick cherries.
> 
> There are consequences to your hateful rhetoric.  Starting in Maine and moving across the country
> Maine farmers worry about workers’ future under Trump immigration policy
> Alabama law drives out illegal immigrants but also has unexpected consequences
> Immigration issues threaten agriculture's profitability
> 
> Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org
Click to expand...

/——/ “We're all immigrants to this nation, with the exception of the American Indian.” 
So called Nativd Americans migrated over from Russia.


----------



## Flopper

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> all they need do is ask.  Upgrading Ellis Island can process tens of thousand per day and ensure all foreign nationals have a federal id.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> They have to APPLY for a Visa at the US consulate in their country.
> It will be approved or denied by that consulate
> 
> If approved then the person has permission to enter the country and stay as long as the Visa is valid
> 
> If denied the person will not be allowed in.
> 
> There is no need to allow people into the country before they have permission
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if they show up on your border.  They should be going to Ellis Island.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they show up on the border we do not have to let them in. They can all go back to their own country and apply for a Visa like they should have done in the first place
> 
> And Ellis Island is nothing but a tourist attraction these days shit it's probably cheaper to build a wall than it will be to get that place turned back into a working government office
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is the power delegated to Congress:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> Ellis Island is simply more cost effective.
> 
> Capitalism, What is That Sayeth the Right Wing.
> 
> We could be generating revenue from foreign nationals to pay for upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is more cost effective to have people APPLY FOR A FUCKING VISA in their own country.
> 
> No Ellis island needed.
> 
> Show up at the fucking border with a fucking travel visa and be let in for the length of time the fucking visa is valid
> Show u at the fucking border without a fucking travel visa and you don't get in.  PERIOD
> 
> No buildings needed, no additional staff, no major renovations of a fucking tourist site needed
Click to expand...

If you are living in Central America which is where most of our asylum cases are coming from, you probably will not be able to get a US Tourist Visa that would allow you to apply for asylum in the US.

In order to get a tourist visa, you must satisfy a US Consulate that you have a valid reason for being in the US and you have sufficient funds to live in the US for that period of time without working in the US.  Since it takes at least 45 days and often up to 180 days, almost none of the people applying for asylum could do that.  Secondly, you  have to convince the consulate that you would return home if your petition for asylum failed.  That could be really hard since a petition for asylum is based on your fear for your life if you return home.

*So no, they can't just get a visa.  *


----------



## Flopper

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is more cost effective to have people APPLY FOR A FUCKING VISA in their own country.
> 
> No Ellis island needed.
> 
> Show up at the fucking border with a fucking travel visa and be let in for the length of time the fucking visa is valid
> Show u at the fucking border without a fucking travel visa and you don't get in.  PERIOD
> 
> No buildings needed, no additional staff, no major renovations of a fucking tourist site needed
> 
> 
> 
> simple bigotry is no solution to our refugee problem.
> 
> This is our supreme law of the land:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> Upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure is more cost effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with citizenship.
> 
> It's about who we let in and who we don't
> 
> People can apply for a green card from their home country as well
> 
> Green Cards and Permanent Residence in the U.S. | USAGov
> 
> we already have the shit in place to handle both tourist visa and green card applications no extra shit is needed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism; what is that, sayeth the right wing.
> 
> an uniform Rule of Naturalization must cover asylum and refugees.
> 
> Anyone can be a tourist with a federal id, renewable annually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't need Ellis Island
> 
> And these people aren't refugees.
> 
> And yes if you're not a fucking citizen you have to have permission to come here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facility should be upgraded to handle these issues.
> 
> this is our supreme law of the land: _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
Click to expand...

Making Ellis Island a port of entry for immigrants is stupid for a dozen reasons.  First of all, Ellis Island was establish as a processing center for immigrants crossing the Atlantic by ship.  Practically no one does that any more.  The government would have to provide transportation from other points such airports for millions of people. In order to force people to apply for asylum at Ellis Island instead of other ports of entry, the law would have changed.  Lastly, Ellis Island  would be not be large enough to handle everyone entering with visas, over 15 million a year so at existing ports of entry they would still be handling visas but in addition provide transportation to Ellis Island.

In short, if I understand what you're proposing, it would be very expensive, a huge inconvenience, and would accomplish nothing.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I keep seeing people saying Mexico is sending us their murders, rapists, thrives, home invaders, and the mental and physical disabled.  Exactly how is the government doing this.  Do they buy them plane tickets or maybe they drive them up to border and help them over fence.  *
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
> In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does upgrading Ellis Island help keep out the illegal welfare recipients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> News flash illegals are not eligible for welfare, they never have been, nor are they eligible to vote.
> 
> And the very last place they're going to show up at is a Welfare office or voting precinct to say here I am, ready for deportation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what happens when they show up at the emergency room?  They pay cash or are asked for their proof of status?
Click to expand...

It is essentially the same as it is in almost all countries.  The ER will attempt to stabilize the medical condition regardless of your citizenship.  They will of course ask identification, insurance, or credit card but they will accept whatever you give them.  In most countries today, ERs are required to except people regardless of who they are or their ability to pay.   Considering how much Americans travel, that should be good news.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> litman said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for as the drugs go it will not even slow the drugs down. As long as their is a huge market for them they will be coming into or made in this country,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Donald Trump tied the heroin epidemic gripping suburban white communities to the issue central to the campaign: border security and illegal immigration.
> 
> We’ve all heard of poppy fields blooming in Afghanistan, but is Trump right that heroin is entering the United States largely through the southern border?
> 
> Yes. Even though Southwest Asia supplies heroin to most of the rest of the world, nearly all of the heroin available in the United States comes from Mexico and South America.*_
> 
> Trump is right: Heroin is coming in through southern border
Click to expand...

But what does that have to do with building a wall.  Most of the drugs that come across the border do so by planes, motor vehicles and boats which will continue with or without a wall.


----------



## dblack

A wall is a bold statement that says, "We're afraid, and authoritarian government makes us feel all tingly inside."


----------



## Slyhunter

Asclepias said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't you just don't let them in unless they a VISA from the US consulate in their home country
> No Visa no entry
> 
> 
> 
> all they need do is ask.  Upgrading Ellis Island can process tens of thousand per day and ensure all foreign nationals have a federal id.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't want them here. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For me the part where you think that matters.  No one cares what you dont want here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  I said no one. Drumpf is a nobody.
Click to expand...

You're a nobody, Trump is President of the Best country on the planet.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> A wall is a bold statement that says, "We're afraid, and authoritarian government makes us feel all tingly inside."


What you just said is that you're a jackass who doesn't care about the truth.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wall is a bold statement that says, "We're afraid, and authoritarian government makes us feel all tingly inside."
> 
> 
> 
> What you just said is that you're a jackass who doesn't care about the truth.
Click to expand...


Naw - what I said is that you wall cowards are bunch of pathetic pussies.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wall is a bold statement that says, "We're afraid, and authoritarian government makes us feel all tingly inside."
> 
> 
> 
> What you just said is that you're a jackass who doesn't care about the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw - what I said is that you wall cowards are bunch of pathetic pussies.
Click to expand...

Why don't you go stick your head in an oven and turn on the gas.  Are you a coward?


----------



## Flopper

Slyhunter said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> all they need do is ask.  Upgrading Ellis Island can process tens of thousand per day and ensure all foreign nationals have a federal id.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't want them here. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For me the part where you think that matters.  No one cares what you dont want here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  I said no one. Drumpf is a nobody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a nobody, Trump is President of the Best country on the planet.
Click to expand...

Saying make America great again means it's no longer great, yet you say it's the best country on the planet.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Open the border to bounty hunting.  There  won't be many illegals or drug couriers.


----------



## Muhammed

Tax Man said:


> What is so silly is the reich totally ignores the largest immigration problem is expired visa's. There are more of them than people crossing without permission or documentation.


The Trump administration deports those people, dumbass. And no, the overstays are not the biggest illegal immigration problem, it's the career criminals who never even go through customs are by far the worst problem of the two.

Idiots like you think fixing half the holes will stop a boat from sinking.

Fuckin' dumbasses.


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> Open the border to bounty hunting.  There  won't be many illegals or drug couriers.


nobody takes the right wing seriously about natural rights in abortion threads.


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Open the border to bounty hunting.  There  won't be many illegals or drug couriers.
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about natural rights in abortion threads.
Click to expand...

You keep saying that. Apparently you don't realize this isn't an abortion thread.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Tipsycatlover said:


> Open the border to bounty hunting.  There  won't be many illegals or drug couriers.



Actually if they changed the violation to a first degree felony punishable for a minimum of five years in prison, we would get rid of 90% of the ones here already plus nobody else would want to come in.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> A wall is a bold statement that says, "We're afraid, and authoritarian government makes us feel all tingly inside."



That's so ridiculous.  That's like saying we have a military because we are afraid or a police department.  

If you want our culture and way of life changed, just move south of the border.  You'll be happier than a clam.  The reason these countries are shitholes is not because of the land itself, it's because of the people that live there.  Why would you want to bring those people here????


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> litman said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for as the drugs go it will not even slow the drugs down. As long as their is a huge market for them they will be coming into or made in this country,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Donald Trump tied the heroin epidemic gripping suburban white communities to the issue central to the campaign: border security and illegal immigration.
> 
> We’ve all heard of poppy fields blooming in Afghanistan, but is Trump right that heroin is entering the United States largely through the southern border?
> 
> Yes. Even though Southwest Asia supplies heroin to most of the rest of the world, nearly all of the heroin available in the United States comes from Mexico and South America.*_
> 
> Trump is right: Heroin is coming in through southern border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But what does that have to do with building a wall.  Most of the drugs that come across the border do so by planes, motor vehicles and boats which will continue with or without a wall.
Click to expand...


What does that piece say?  It says most of our heroine comes across that southern border.  No, it isn't flown from Mexico, it doesn't come on a boat, and it's not coming from customs.  It's coming from a wall-less border and that needs to be stopped.  If they can get it here other ways, then it will be a hell of a lot harder which means they would have to charge more money, and likely more people getting busted for it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ You're way too young (9 maybe on your next birthday) to remember this. But Mexico can send us their undesirables just like Castro did. (Watch the movie Scarface if your parents will allow it.) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift
> In 1980, the boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter. When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings.
> 
> 
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does upgrading Ellis Island help keep out the illegal welfare recipients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> News flash illegals are not eligible for welfare, they never have been, nor are they eligible to vote.
> 
> And the very last place they're going to show up at is a Welfare office or voting precinct to say here I am, ready for deportation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what happens when they show up at the emergency room?  They pay cash or are asked for their proof of status?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is essentially the same as it is in almost all countries.  The ER will attempt to stabilize the medical condition regardless of your citizenship.  They will of course ask identification, insurance, or credit card but they will accept whatever you give them.  In most countries today, ERs are required to except people regardless of who they are or their ability to pay.   Considering how much Americans travel, that should be good news.
Click to expand...


Correct, and when the provide those services with no pay, they have to pass the loss onto people who can pay or have insurance which raises costs on all of us.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Asclepias said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't you just don't let them in unless they a VISA from the US consulate in their home country
> No Visa no entry
> 
> 
> 
> all they need do is ask.  Upgrading Ellis Island can process tens of thousand per day and ensure all foreign nationals have a federal id.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't want them here. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For me the part where you think that matters.  No one cares what you dont want here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  I said no one. Drumpf is a nobody.
Click to expand...


Only in your mind.  For the rest of us, he's the President of the United States, and what he says goes unlike what you or I say.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Asclepias said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, didn't you know? A stunt like that will bring instant electrocution because the wall will be electrified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rubber tires have no problems with electricity---   Furthermore I doubt a 1000 mile wall is going to have electricity within a 1000 miles to plug into.  I think some of you people are doing your own _WALLLLLLLL_ design.  An electric 1000 wall has never been discussed.  So I assume you're getting your idea's from the usual suspect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, we won't have a state of the art wall thanks to Democrats.  The more money for the wall we have, the better and more effective wall.  But the problem isn't the ability of a wall, the problem is Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought the problem was that Mexico said they werent going to pay for the wall like Drumpf promised?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the left that keeps bringing that up--not us on the right.  We don't care how it's built or who pays for it, as long as it's built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drumpf brought that up and he is on the right. I didnt ask you what you care about. I'm asking what fool is going to allow Drumpf to claim Mexico is going to pay for it and then pretend they dont care?
Click to expand...


I guess the same fools that were promised their healthcare insurance would go down by $2,500 a year.  The same fools that thought they would be able to keep their insurance, doctor or healthcare facility.  The same fools that thought nobody making less than $250,000 a year would see any kind of tax increase. 

And how do you know who is paying for something that isn't even there yet?


----------



## beautress

Ran across this when looking for more pan flute Christmas music! 
​


----------



## beautress

Navy Seals and Special Forces test out 8 different new walls (prototypes) Great video!
​


----------



## beautress

The wall from Border Patrol's Public Safety standpoint and a compilation of other views as well:

​


----------



## dblack

Fear!!!!!


----------



## beautress

Solar powered border wall...pays for itself with solar power.
​


----------



## oreo

Cellblock2429 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  We should have this problem on our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> How does upgrading Ellis Island help keep out the illegal welfare recipients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> W
> News flash illegals are not eligible for welfare, they never have been, nor are they eligible to vote.
> 
> And the very last place they're going to show up at is a Welfare office or voting precinct to say here I am, ready for deportation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Just my Google back from the repair shop: Most Illegal Immigrant Families Collect Welfare - Judicial Watch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you eligible to be here--did you come over on the Mayflower?  We're all immigrants to this nation, with the exception of the American Indian.  Mexico used to own the entire southwest of this country before we invaded them and took away from them.  Now you're on your high horse about looking down at a very large population in this country that was here long before the white man ever showed up.
> 
> The point is that a 40' high--1000 mile wall is not going to stop anyone from getting in.  Most fly in on visa's and overstay there visa, and there's not too many in relation that can come up with $3,000 USD to pay a coyote to bring them over, much less want to risk their lives crossing a desert to clean someone's house or pick cherries.
> 
> There are consequences to your hateful rhetoric.  Starting in Maine and moving across the country
> Maine farmers worry about workers’ future under Trump immigration policy
> Alabama law drives out illegal immigrants but also has unexpected consequences
> Immigration issues threaten agriculture's profitability
> 
> Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ “We're all immigrants to this nation, with the exception of the American Indian.”
> So called Nativd Americans migrated over from Russia.
Click to expand...



So do  you want to kick out American Indians too--  You're the person who's in charge of who is supposed to be here, and who's not.


----------



## Slyhunter

Why was Schumer for the wall in 2006 and not now?


----------



## oreo

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> litman said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for as the drugs go it will not even slow the drugs down. As long as their is a huge market for them they will be coming into or made in this country,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Donald Trump tied the heroin epidemic gripping suburban white communities to the issue central to the campaign: border security and illegal immigration.
> 
> We’ve all heard of poppy fields blooming in Afghanistan, but is Trump right that heroin is entering the United States largely through the southern border?
> 
> Yes. Even though Southwest Asia supplies heroin to most of the rest of the world, nearly all of the heroin available in the United States comes from Mexico and South America.*_
> 
> Trump is right: Heroin is coming in through southern border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But what does that have to do with building a wall.  Most of the drugs that come across the border do so by planes, motor vehicles and boats which will continue with or without a wall.
Click to expand...



Very true but you won't convince a right winger of that.  They think most drugs are coming across southern border by mules crossing a desert.  A great show on NETFLIX right now is Narco's.  It starts with Narco's Mexico, then the 2nd season is Pablo Escobar.


----------



## beautress

Slyhunter said:


> Why was Schumer for the wall in 2006 and not now?


He's high on advancing his radical agenda that includes getting rid of the Constitution.


----------



## Asclepias

Slyhunter said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> all they need do is ask.  Upgrading Ellis Island can process tens of thousand per day and ensure all foreign nationals have a federal id.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't want them here. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For me the part where you think that matters.  No one cares what you dont want here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  I said no one. Drumpf is a nobody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a nobody, Trump is President of the Best country on the planet.
Click to expand...

Drumpf is nobody. He is president (I just threw up in my mouth a little) of a country he even says is not the best.


----------



## Asclepias

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> all they need do is ask.  Upgrading Ellis Island can process tens of thousand per day and ensure all foreign nationals have a federal id.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't want them here. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For me the part where you think that matters.  No one cares what you dont want here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  I said no one. Drumpf is a nobody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only in your mind.  For the rest of us, he's the President of the United States, and what he says goes unlike what you or I say.
Click to expand...

Well he said Mexico was going to pay for the wall. How is that going?


----------



## Asclepias

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rubber tires have no problems with electricity---   Furthermore I doubt a 1000 mile wall is going to have electricity within a 1000 miles to plug into.  I think some of you people are doing your own _WALLLLLLLL_ design.  An electric 1000 wall has never been discussed.  So I assume you're getting your idea's from the usual suspect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, we won't have a state of the art wall thanks to Democrats.  The more money for the wall we have, the better and more effective wall.  But the problem isn't the ability of a wall, the problem is Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought the problem was that Mexico said they werent going to pay for the wall like Drumpf promised?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the left that keeps bringing that up--not us on the right.  We don't care how it's built or who pays for it, as long as it's built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drumpf brought that up and he is on the right. I didnt ask you what you care about. I'm asking what fool is going to allow Drumpf to claim Mexico is going to pay for it and then pretend they dont care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the same fools that were promised their healthcare insurance would go down by $2,500 a year.  The same fools that thought they would be able to keep their insurance, doctor or healthcare facility.  The same fools that thought nobody making less than $250,000 a year would see any kind of tax increase.
> 
> And how do you know who is paying for something that isn't even there yet?
Click to expand...

I know because Mexico has said several times they were not going to pay for the wall.  Where is your proof they are?


----------



## AveryJarhman

#TheLargerIssue #Fatherlessness #ChildNeglectMaltreatment #MentalHealth *#Solutions
*
 

Peace.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Asclepias said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, we won't have a state of the art wall thanks to Democrats.  The more money for the wall we have, the better and more effective wall.  But the problem isn't the ability of a wall, the problem is Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the problem was that Mexico said they werent going to pay for the wall like Drumpf promised?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the left that keeps bringing that up--not us on the right.  We don't care how it's built or who pays for it, as long as it's built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drumpf brought that up and he is on the right. I didnt ask you what you care about. I'm asking what fool is going to allow Drumpf to claim Mexico is going to pay for it and then pretend they dont care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the same fools that were promised their healthcare insurance would go down by $2,500 a year.  The same fools that thought they would be able to keep their insurance, doctor or healthcare facility.  The same fools that thought nobody making less than $250,000 a year would see any kind of tax increase.
> 
> And how do you know who is paying for something that isn't even there yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know because Mexico has said several times they were not going to pay for the wall.  Where is your proof they are?
Click to expand...


I don't have proof of anything just like you.  Since we send aid to Mexico (like so many other countries) and many of their citizens are sending home US tax dollars back to Mexico, Trump has the ability to make Mexico pay in other ways.  He can institute a tax on money sent back or he could reduce or stop funding to Mexico.  But since I'm not Trump, I can't tell you what he has in mind.  Just simply pointing out that Mexico doesn't actually have to send us a check to get them to pay for it.


----------



## Cellblock2429

oreo said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does upgrading Ellis Island help keep out the illegal welfare recipients.
> 
> 
> 
> W
> News flash illegals are not eligible for welfare, they never have been, nor are they eligible to vote.
> 
> And the very last place they're going to show up at is a Welfare office or voting precinct to say here I am, ready for deportation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Just my Google back from the repair shop: Most Illegal Immigrant Families Collect Welfare - Judicial Watch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you eligible to be here--did you come over on the Mayflower?  We're all immigrants to this nation, with the exception of the American Indian.  Mexico used to own the entire southwest of this country before we invaded them and took away from them.  Now you're on your high horse about looking down at a very large population in this country that was here long before the white man ever showed up.
> 
> The point is that a 40' high--1000 mile wall is not going to stop anyone from getting in.  Most fly in on visa's and overstay there visa, and there's not too many in relation that can come up with $3,000 USD to pay a coyote to bring them over, much less want to risk their lives crossing a desert to clean someone's house or pick cherries.
> 
> There are consequences to your hateful rhetoric.  Starting in Maine and moving across the country
> Maine farmers worry about workers’ future under Trump immigration policy
> Alabama law drives out illegal immigrants but also has unexpected consequences
> Immigration issues threaten agriculture's profitability
> 
> Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ “We're all immigrants to this nation, with the exception of the American Indian.”
> So called Nativd Americans migrated over from Russia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So do  you want to kick out American Indians too--  You're the person who's in charge of who is supposed to be here, and who's not.
Click to expand...

/——/ I only want to kick out the illegal immigrants you blithering idiot. You’re too stupid to understand the difference between legal and illegal. Ask your Soecial Ed teacher to dumb it down for you. Moron. And Ancestry.com shows my ancestors came over in 1726. You bafoon.


----------



## Cellblock2429

oreo said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> litman said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for as the drugs go it will not even slow the drugs down. As long as their is a huge market for them they will be coming into or made in this country,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Donald Trump tied the heroin epidemic gripping suburban white communities to the issue central to the campaign: border security and illegal immigration.
> 
> We’ve all heard of poppy fields blooming in Afghanistan, but is Trump right that heroin is entering the United States largely through the southern border?
> 
> Yes. Even though Southwest Asia supplies heroin to most of the rest of the world, nearly all of the heroin available in the United States comes from Mexico and South America.*_
> 
> Trump is right: Heroin is coming in through southern border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But what does that have to do with building a wall.  Most of the drugs that come across the border do so by planes, motor vehicles and boats which will continue with or without a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Very true but you won't convince a right winger of that.  They think most drugs are coming across southern border by mules crossing a desert.  A great show on NETFLIX right now is Narco's.  It starts with Narco's Mexico, then the 2nd season is Pablo Escobar.
Click to expand...

/——/ The Wall will slow the drug mules and make it harder. Is Narco a decent show? I watched one on Netflix El Chapo that was in Spanish. I had to read the subtitles. It was OK.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Open the border to bounty hunting.  There  won't be many illegals or drug couriers.
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about natural rights in abortion threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying that. Apparently you don't realize this isn't an abortion thread.
Click to expand...

lol.  it is about natural rights.  nobody takes the right wing seriously about natural rights, not even in abortion threads.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wall is a bold statement that says, "We're afraid, and authoritarian government makes us feel all tingly inside."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's so ridiculous.  That's like saying we have a military because we are afraid or a police department.
> 
> If you want our culture and way of life changed, just move south of the border.  You'll be happier than a clam.  The reason these countries are shitholes is not because of the land itself, it's because of the people that live there.  Why would you want to bring those people here????
Click to expand...

People are people.  What a difference a Constitution can make.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Asclepias said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't want them here. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> 
> 
> For me the part where you think that matters.  No one cares what you dont want here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  I said no one. Drumpf is a nobody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a nobody, Trump is President of the Best country on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drumpf is nobody. He is president (I just threw up in my mouth a little) of a country he even says is not the best.
Click to expand...

/—-/ Stop lying. It was Fredo Cuomo  who said America was never that great.


----------



## beautress

Asclepias said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't want them here. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> 
> 
> For me the part where you think that matters.  No one cares what you dont want here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  I said no one. Drumpf is a nobody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only in your mind.  For the rest of us, he's the President of the United States, and what he says goes unlike what you or I say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well he said Mexico was going to pay for the wall. How is that going?
Click to expand...

Just as Trump planned. Their self-righteous indignation makes them nonparticipants, but they are now going to do something about helping the pisanos become first class citizens finally. That was the ultimate goal, and it took pissing off the barracudas in Mexico until they did something about the real problem.

*Blue ribbon for President Trump.*


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> For me the part where you think that matters.  No one cares what you dont want here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  I said no one. Drumpf is a nobody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a nobody, Trump is President of the Best country on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drumpf is nobody. He is president (I just threw up in my mouth a little) of a country he even says is not the best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /—-/ Stop lying. It was Fredo Cuomo  who said America was never that great.
Click to expand...

Roman aqueducts and roads are still functional in some places.


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump does.
> 
> 
> 
> So?  I said no one. Drumpf is a nobody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a nobody, Trump is President of the Best country on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drumpf is nobody. He is president (I just threw up in my mouth a little) of a country he even says is not the best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /—-/ Stop lying. It was Fredo Cuomo  who said America was never that great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Roman aqueducts and roads are still functional in some places.
Click to expand...

/----/ non sequitur


----------



## danielpalos

a wall solves nothing; we could be upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure and growing our economy.


----------



## Rustic

danielpalos said:


> a wall solves nothing; we could be upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure and growing our economy.


Like I said, nothing good comes over our open southern border illegally... absolutely nothing


----------



## MrShangles

Tax Man said:


> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS



I must’ve missed were it said just come on in without checking in, and you don’t have to follow our laws, could you point that out for me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## danielpalos

Rustic said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a wall solves nothing; we could be upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure and growing our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, nothing good comes over our open southern border illegally... absolutely nothing
Click to expand...

who cares what you say?  hearsay and soothsay means nothing in any serious argument.


----------



## bripat9643

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the problem was that Mexico said they werent going to pay for the wall like Drumpf promised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the left that keeps bringing that up--not us on the right.  We don't care how it's built or who pays for it, as long as it's built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drumpf brought that up and he is on the right. I didnt ask you what you care about. I'm asking what fool is going to allow Drumpf to claim Mexico is going to pay for it and then pretend they dont care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the same fools that were promised their healthcare insurance would go down by $2,500 a year.  The same fools that thought they would be able to keep their insurance, doctor or healthcare facility.  The same fools that thought nobody making less than $250,000 a year would see any kind of tax increase.
> 
> And how do you know who is paying for something that isn't even there yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know because Mexico has said several times they were not going to pay for the wall.  Where is your proof they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have proof of anything just like you.  Since we send aid to Mexico (like so many other countries) and many of their citizens are sending home US tax dollars back to Mexico, Trump has the ability to make Mexico pay in other ways.  He can institute a tax on money sent back or he could reduce or stop funding to Mexico.  But since I'm not Trump, I can't tell you what he has in mind.  Just simply pointing out that Mexico doesn't actually have to send us a check to get them to pay for it.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how many ways you explain that Trump can make Mexico pay, if you don't tell them exactly what they want, that Mexico is going to write Trump a check up front, they will continue to stamp their foot and insist that Trump lied.  It's just a game.  Don't get sucked into it.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the left that keeps bringing that up--not us on the right.  We don't care how it's built or who pays for it, as long as it's built.
> 
> 
> 
> Drumpf brought that up and he is on the right. I didnt ask you what you care about. I'm asking what fool is going to allow Drumpf to claim Mexico is going to pay for it and then pretend they dont care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the same fools that were promised their healthcare insurance would go down by $2,500 a year.  The same fools that thought they would be able to keep their insurance, doctor or healthcare facility.  The same fools that thought nobody making less than $250,000 a year would see any kind of tax increase.
> 
> And how do you know who is paying for something that isn't even there yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know because Mexico has said several times they were not going to pay for the wall.  Where is your proof they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have proof of anything just like you.  Since we send aid to Mexico (like so many other countries) and many of their citizens are sending home US tax dollars back to Mexico, Trump has the ability to make Mexico pay in other ways.  He can institute a tax on money sent back or he could reduce or stop funding to Mexico.  But since I'm not Trump, I can't tell you what he has in mind.  Just simply pointing out that Mexico doesn't actually have to send us a check to get them to pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter how many ways you explain that Trump can make Mexico pay, if you don't tell them exactly what they want, that Mexico is going to write Trump a check up front, they will continue to stamp their foot and insist that Trump lied.  It's just a game.  Don't get sucked into it.
Click to expand...


Agreed. I don't get the fixation on these sorts of issues. Everyone knows a Trump is a bullshitter and a blowhard. His supporters don't care. Pointing it out to them isn't going to change their views.


----------



## MrShangles

Timmy said:


> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .



You might be correct but we’ve been hearing this for years now but none of those great ideas have been put into use and probably never will, so we need a wall to slow the invasion down, they can still come through the door can’t they ( what’s wrong with that?)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rustic

danielpalos said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a wall solves nothing; we could be upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure and growing our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, nothing good comes over our open southern border illegally... absolutely nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who cares what you say?  hearsay and soothsay means nothing in any serious argument.
Click to expand...

What is good that comes over Our open southern border illegally?


----------



## danielpalos

Rustic said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a wall solves nothing; we could be upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure and growing our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, nothing good comes over our open southern border illegally... absolutely nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who cares what you say?  hearsay and soothsay means nothing in any serious argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is good that comes over Our open southern border illegally?
Click to expand...

free trade and less regulation, right wingers.  bear true witness to your own propaganda!


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> a wall solves nothing; we could be upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure and growing our economy.


/----/ You should have told Obozo that a wall solves nothing,  and saved him a lot of money.
Obama building a wall around his new DC house


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a wall solves nothing; we could be upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure and growing our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ You should have told Obozo that a wall solves nothing,  and saved him a lot of money.
> Obama building a wall around his new DC house
Click to expand...

he can't generate revenue from foreign nationals for the public treasury. 

and, a retaining wall can work wonders for any flora.


----------



## Rustic

danielpalos said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a wall solves nothing; we could be upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure and growing our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, nothing good comes over our open southern border illegally... absolutely nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who cares what you say?  hearsay and soothsay means nothing in any serious argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is good that comes over Our open southern border illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> free trade and less regulation, right wingers.  bear true witness to your own propaganda!
Click to expand...


----------



## danielpalos

nothing but memes, from the right wing?


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drumpf brought that up and he is on the right. I didnt ask you what you care about. I'm asking what fool is going to allow Drumpf to claim Mexico is going to pay for it and then pretend they dont care?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the same fools that were promised their healthcare insurance would go down by $2,500 a year.  The same fools that thought they would be able to keep their insurance, doctor or healthcare facility.  The same fools that thought nobody making less than $250,000 a year would see any kind of tax increase.
> 
> And how do you know who is paying for something that isn't even there yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know because Mexico has said several times they were not going to pay for the wall.  Where is your proof they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have proof of anything just like you.  Since we send aid to Mexico (like so many other countries) and many of their citizens are sending home US tax dollars back to Mexico, Trump has the ability to make Mexico pay in other ways.  He can institute a tax on money sent back or he could reduce or stop funding to Mexico.  But since I'm not Trump, I can't tell you what he has in mind.  Just simply pointing out that Mexico doesn't actually have to send us a check to get them to pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter how many ways you explain that Trump can make Mexico pay, if you don't tell them exactly what they want, that Mexico is going to write Trump a check up front, they will continue to stamp their foot and insist that Trump lied.  It's just a game.  Don't get sucked into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. I don't get the fixation on these sorts of issues. Everyone knows a Trump is a bullshitter and a blowhard. His supporters don't care. Pointing it out to them isn't going to change their views.
Click to expand...

This isn't about Trump bullshitting, it's about snowflakes ignoring the explanation.


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a wall solves nothing; we could be upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure and growing our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, nothing good comes over our open southern border illegally... absolutely nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who cares what you say?  hearsay and soothsay means nothing in any serious argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is good that comes over Our open southern border illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> free trade and less regulation, right wingers.  bear true witness to your own propaganda!
Click to expand...

/----/ You deserve recognition for being a blithering idiot. 
Congratulations.


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a wall solves nothing; we could be upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure and growing our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, nothing good comes over our open southern border illegally... absolutely nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who cares what you say?  hearsay and soothsay means nothing in any serious argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is good that comes over Our open southern border illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> free trade and less regulation, right wingers.  bear true witness to your own propaganda!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ You deserve recognition for being a blithering idiot.
> Congratulations.
> View attachment 234642
Click to expand...

nothing but fallacy and memes, from the right wing. 

they need better arguments at lower cost.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

What is the cost of every illegal to the US? It is around $75k each per annum I believe and there are 11 million here? So that equates to $825bn per annum? Hmmmm....maybe a $25bn wall is worth it?


----------



## danielpalos

AzogtheDefiler said:


> What is the cost of every illegal to the US? It is around $75k each per annum I believe and there are 11 million here? So that equates to $825bn per annum? Hmmmm....maybe a $25bn wall is worth it?


abolishing our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror would save more and be more market friendly.


----------



## Slyhunter

Asclepias said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, we won't have a state of the art wall thanks to Democrats.  The more money for the wall we have, the better and more effective wall.  But the problem isn't the ability of a wall, the problem is Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the problem was that Mexico said they werent going to pay for the wall like Drumpf promised?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the left that keeps bringing that up--not us on the right.  We don't care how it's built or who pays for it, as long as it's built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drumpf brought that up and he is on the right. I didnt ask you what you care about. I'm asking what fool is going to allow Drumpf to claim Mexico is going to pay for it and then pretend they dont care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the same fools that were promised their healthcare insurance would go down by $2,500 a year.  The same fools that thought they would be able to keep their insurance, doctor or healthcare facility.  The same fools that thought nobody making less than $250,000 a year would see any kind of tax increase.
> 
> And how do you know who is paying for something that isn't even there yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know because Mexico has said several times they were not going to pay for the wall.  Where is your proof they are?
Click to expand...

Trump says the money we saved on the new trade deal more than pays for the wall.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

danielpalos said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the cost of every illegal to the US? It is around $75k each per annum I believe and there are 11 million here? So that equates to $825bn per annum? Hmmmm....maybe a $25bn wall is worth it?
> 
> 
> 
> abolishing our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror would save more and be more market friendly.
Click to expand...


You don't think there is any crime, drugs or terror threats in the US?


----------



## danielpalos

AzogtheDefiler said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the cost of every illegal to the US? It is around $75k each per annum I believe and there are 11 million here? So that equates to $825bn per annum? Hmmmm....maybe a $25bn wall is worth it?
> 
> 
> 
> abolishing our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror would save more and be more market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think there is any crime, drugs or terror threats in the US?
Click to expand...

not with Tax Cut economics and refusing to pay really really serious Tax Rates for your alleged Wars.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

danielpalos said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the cost of every illegal to the US? It is around $75k each per annum I believe and there are 11 million here? So that equates to $825bn per annum? Hmmmm....maybe a $25bn wall is worth it?
> 
> 
> 
> abolishing our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror would save more and be more market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think there is any crime, drugs or terror threats in the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not with Tax Cut economics and refusing to pay really really serious Tax Rates for your alleged Wars.
Click to expand...


??? Pretty sure Trump just INCREASED the military budget.


----------



## danielpalos

AzogtheDefiler said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the cost of every illegal to the US? It is around $75k each per annum I believe and there are 11 million here? So that equates to $825bn per annum? Hmmmm....maybe a $25bn wall is worth it?
> 
> 
> 
> abolishing our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror would save more and be more market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think there is any crime, drugs or terror threats in the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not with Tax Cut economics and refusing to pay really really serious Tax Rates for your alleged Wars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ??? Pretty sure Trump just INCREASED the military budget.
Click to expand...

by financing government and tax cut economics for the Rich?

Only the Right Wing praises the alleged virtues of tax cut economics.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

danielpalos said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the cost of every illegal to the US? It is around $75k each per annum I believe and there are 11 million here? So that equates to $825bn per annum? Hmmmm....maybe a $25bn wall is worth it?
> 
> 
> 
> abolishing our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror would save more and be more market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think there is any crime, drugs or terror threats in the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not with Tax Cut economics and refusing to pay really really serious Tax Rates for your alleged Wars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ??? Pretty sure Trump just INCREASED the military budget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> by financing government and tax cut economics for the Rich?
> 
> Only the Right Wing praises the alleged virtues of tax cut economics.
Click to expand...


Budget came from both Democrats and GOP alike. Nice try. You’re looking very bad here.


----------



## danielpalos

AzogtheDefiler said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> abolishing our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror would save more and be more market friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think there is any crime, drugs or terror threats in the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not with Tax Cut economics and refusing to pay really really serious Tax Rates for your alleged Wars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ??? Pretty sure Trump just INCREASED the military budget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> by financing government and tax cut economics for the Rich?
> 
> Only the Right Wing praises the alleged virtues of tax cut economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Budget came from both Democrats and GOP alike. Nice try. You’re looking very bad here.
Click to expand...

the budget comes from the administration.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

danielpalos said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think there is any crime, drugs or terror threats in the US?
> 
> 
> 
> not with Tax Cut economics and refusing to pay really really serious Tax Rates for your alleged Wars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ??? Pretty sure Trump just INCREASED the military budget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> by financing government and tax cut economics for the Rich?
> 
> Only the Right Wing praises the alleged virtues of tax cut economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Budget came from both Democrats and GOP alike. Nice try. You’re looking very bad here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the budget comes from the administration.
Click to expand...


Nope as you recall he almost didn’t sign it. It was a bipartisan effort.


----------



## danielpalos

AzogtheDefiler said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> not with Tax Cut economics and refusing to pay really really serious Tax Rates for your alleged Wars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ??? Pretty sure Trump just INCREASED the military budget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> by financing government and tax cut economics for the Rich?
> 
> Only the Right Wing praises the alleged virtues of tax cut economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Budget came from both Democrats and GOP alike. Nice try. You’re looking very bad here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the budget comes from the administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope as you recall he almost didn’t sign it. It was a bipartisan effort.
Click to expand...

the left is not for tax cut economics.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

danielpalos said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ??? Pretty sure Trump just INCREASED the military budget.
> 
> 
> 
> by financing government and tax cut economics for the Rich?
> 
> Only the Right Wing praises the alleged virtues of tax cut economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Budget came from both Democrats and GOP alike. Nice try. You’re looking very bad here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the budget comes from the administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope as you recall he almost didn’t sign it. It was a bipartisan effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the left is not for tax cut economics.
Click to expand...


Just for higher taxes and overspend.


----------



## Pete7469

It would work.

So bed wetters oppose it, like everything else that is in our best interest.


----------



## danielpalos

AzogtheDefiler said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> by financing government and tax cut economics for the Rich?
> 
> Only the Right Wing praises the alleged virtues of tax cut economics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Budget came from both Democrats and GOP alike. Nice try. You’re looking very bad here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the budget comes from the administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope as you recall he almost didn’t sign it. It was a bipartisan effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the left is not for tax cut economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just for higher taxes and overspend.
Click to expand...

better than this: U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> litman said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for as the drugs go it will not even slow the drugs down. As long as their is a huge market for them they will be coming into or made in this country,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Donald Trump tied the heroin epidemic gripping suburban white communities to the issue central to the campaign: border security and illegal immigration.
> 
> We’ve all heard of poppy fields blooming in Afghanistan, but is Trump right that heroin is entering the United States largely through the southern border?
> 
> Yes. Even though Southwest Asia supplies heroin to most of the rest of the world, nearly all of the heroin available in the United States comes from Mexico and South America.*_
> 
> Trump is right: Heroin is coming in through southern border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But what does that have to do with building a wall.  Most of the drugs that come across the border do so by planes, motor vehicles and boats which will continue with or without a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that piece say?  It says most of our heroine comes across that southern border.  No, it isn't flown from Mexico, it doesn't come on a boat, and it's not coming from customs.  It's coming from a wall-less border and that needs to be stopped.  If they can get it here other ways, then it will be a hell of a lot harder which means they would have to charge more money, and likely more people getting busted for it.
Click to expand...

Nope:
The majority of illegal drugs entering the United States enter in an assortment of vehicles, with drugs hidden in secret compartments in door panels or the roof, gas tanks, tires and even engines.

Cargo trains, tractor-trailers and passenger buses have been used to move illegal drugs. Trucks and trains carrying fresh produce such as watermelons, limes and other fruits bring in millions of pounds of illegal drugs.

The next most common method of bringing drugs into the US is cargo ships and planes.

The least likely method for bring drug enter into the US is individuals carrying them across the border. One semi properly outfitted can bring in more drugs than 50 backpackers. One ship cargo container can bring in more drugs than a 700  backpackers.  It's a matter of economic.  Meeting the demand for drugs in the US with back packers coming across the border would be both impossible and far more expense than other methods. This is why building walls or other barriers along the border would have very little impact on drug importation.  

The profit margin on illegal drugs is so high, you could close the entire southern border and all it would do is raise the price of drugs to cover the added cost of alternative transportation.
By Land, Sea or Catapult: How Smugglers Get Drugs Across the Border


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> litman said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for as the drugs go it will not even slow the drugs down. As long as their is a huge market for them they will be coming into or made in this country,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Donald Trump tied the heroin epidemic gripping suburban white communities to the issue central to the campaign: border security and illegal immigration.
> 
> We’ve all heard of poppy fields blooming in Afghanistan, but is Trump right that heroin is entering the United States largely through the southern border?
> 
> Yes. Even though Southwest Asia supplies heroin to most of the rest of the world, nearly all of the heroin available in the United States comes from Mexico and South America.*_
> 
> Trump is right: Heroin is coming in through southern border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But what does that have to do with building a wall.  Most of the drugs that come across the border do so by planes, motor vehicles and boats which will continue with or without a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that piece say?  It says most of our heroine comes across that southern border.  No, it isn't flown from Mexico, it doesn't come on a boat, and it's not coming from customs.  It's coming from a wall-less border and that needs to be stopped.  If they can get it here other ways, then it will be a hell of a lot harder which means they would have to charge more money, and likely more people getting busted for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope:
> The majority of illegal drugs entering the United States enter in an assortment of vehicles, with drugs hidden in secret compartments in door panels or the roof, gas tanks, tires and even engines.
> 
> Cargo trains, tractor-trailers and passenger buses have been used to move illegal drugs. Trucks and trains carrying fresh produce such as watermelons, limes and other fruits bring in millions of pounds of illegal drugs.
> 
> The next most common method of bringing drugs into the US is cargo ships and planes.
> 
> The least likely method for bring drug enter into the US is individuals carrying them across the border. One semi properly outfitted can bring in more drugs than 50 backpackers. One ship cargo container can bring in more drugs than a 700  backpackers.  It's a matter of economic.  Meeting the demand for drugs in the US with back packers coming across the border would be both impossible and far more expense than other methods. This is why building walls or other barriers along the border would have very little impact on drug importation.
> 
> The profit margin on illegal drugs is so high, you could close the entire southern border and all it would do is raise the price of drugs to cover the added cost of alternative transportation.
> By Land, Sea or Catapult: How Smugglers Get Drugs Across the Border
Click to expand...


I couldn't get to the article because it's a pay site.  However I never said drugs didn't come in other ways, and the title of the article seems to indicate all our borders, not just the south.  

The easiest and safest way to get drugs across our southern border is to simply walk across.  However even that presents some kind of risk, so now they are using drones to get the drugs across.  If they bust a drone, nobody ends up in prison.  They just lose a lot of money.  Right now that's the problem they are trying to find a cure for.  

People using vehicles to get drugs across are taking a huge risk because of dogs.  Dogs can sniff out drugs from anywhere.  I've never seen it myself, but I understand they have a dock by the border just in case they need to unload it for inspection, and they will.


----------



## basquebromance

Trump needs to sign a EO that states No Immigration for a 10 year period, Legal or Illegal nobody gets in. We're up to our necks in deadbeats


----------



## dblack

basquebromance said:


> Trump needs to sign a EO that states No Immigration for a 10 year period, Legal or Illegal nobody gets in. We're up to our necks in deadbeats



I agree with the last sentence. But the immigrants aren't the deadbeats. I've worked in construction and seen the utter opposite of the caricature you're creating. They worked twice as hard for half the money. That's why the rednecks don't want them around.


----------



## Rustic

dblack said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump needs to sign a EO that states No Immigration for a 10 year period, Legal or Illegal nobody gets in. We're up to our necks in deadbeats
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the last sentence. But the immigrants aren't the deadbeats. I've worked in construction and seen the utter opposite of the caricature you're creating. They worked twice as hard for half the money. That's why the rednecks don't want them around.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump needs to sign a EO that states No Immigration for a 10 year period, Legal or Illegal nobody gets in. We're up to our necks in deadbeats
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the last sentence. But the immigrants aren't the deadbeats. I've worked in construction and seen the utter opposite of the caricature you're creating. They worked twice as hard for half the money. That's why the rednecks don't want them around.
Click to expand...


Or they don't want them around because they work for half the money.  If your employer can pay somebody else half the money they pay you, WTF do they need you around for?  They'll just get rid of you and hire another one of them.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

basquebromance said:


> Trump needs to sign a EO that states No Immigration for a 10 year period, Legal or Illegal nobody gets in. We're up to our necks in deadbeats



My plan is better:  Being here illegally is a first degree felony.  It carries a minimum of five years in prison.  Want to see 20 million people leave the country within a week?  That's the law that would do it.


----------



## danielpalos

basquebromance said:


> Trump needs to sign a EO that states No Immigration for a 10 year period, Legal or Illegal nobody gets in. We're up to our necks in deadbeats


We have a Constitution.  This is our supreme law of the land:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

_


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the problem was that Mexico said they werent going to pay for the wall like Drumpf promised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the left that keeps bringing that up--not us on the right.  We don't care how it's built or who pays for it, as long as it's built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drumpf brought that up and he is on the right. I didnt ask you what you care about. I'm asking what fool is going to allow Drumpf to claim Mexico is going to pay for it and then pretend they dont care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the same fools that were promised their healthcare insurance would go down by $2,500 a year.  The same fools that thought they would be able to keep their insurance, doctor or healthcare facility.  The same fools that thought nobody making less than $250,000 a year would see any kind of tax increase.
> 
> And how do you know who is paying for something that isn't even there yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know because Mexico has said several times they were not going to pay for the wall.  Where is your proof they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have proof of anything just like you.  Since we send aid to Mexico (like so many other countries) and many of their citizens are sending home US tax dollars back to Mexico, Trump has the ability to make Mexico pay in other ways.  He can institute a tax on money sent back or he could reduce or stop funding to Mexico.  But since I'm not Trump, I can't tell you what he has in mind.  Just simply pointing out that Mexico doesn't actually have to send us a check to get them to pay for it.
Click to expand...

No, Trump does not have the ability to institute any tax, only congress can do that and a democrat house is not about to introduce such a tax bill.


----------



## Flopper

MrShangles said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might be correct but we’ve been hearing this for years now but none of those great ideas have been put into use and probably never will, so we need a wall to slow the invasion down, they can still come through the door can’t they ( what’s wrong with that?)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Let's have a bit of a reality check.  Trump is entering into his last two years and how much of that wall has he completed. He has completed some prototypes and has completely a few sections of wall that were started years ago but 99% of the border still lacks any Trump wall.  With a democratic house for next two years, any funding he gets is going to be minimal.  Also, he can't expect any groundswell support from the public since 70% do not consider a wall a priority.

If Trump was actually interested in really improving border security, he would be talking about a barrier and not wall.  Every time he says Wall, democrats turn a deft ear to him because they know that a wall is not the best barrier in most regions.  He would also be taking about a complete solution which the democrats want to pursuit.  Apparently all Trump can see is a great beautiful wall with big T on it.

Secondly, the construction of a border wall across the southern border would take at least 7 or 8 years and that's with an uninterrupted flow of funds which ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Lakhota

> *Why is Building the Wall Wrong?*



It prevents the free flow of wildlife.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> MrShangles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might be correct but we’ve been hearing this for years now but none of those great ideas have been put into use and probably never will, so we need a wall to slow the invasion down, they can still come through the door can’t they ( what’s wrong with that?)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's have a bit of a reality check.  Trump is entering into his last two years and how much of that wall has he completed. He has completed some prototypes and has completely a few sections of wall that were started years ago but 99% of the border still lacks any Trump wall.  With a democratic house for next two years, any funding he gets is going to be minimal.  Also, he can't expect any groundswell support from the public since 70% do not consider a wall a priority.
> 
> If Trump was actually interested in really improving border security, he would be talking about a barrier and not wall.  Every time he says Wall, democrats turn a deft ear to him because they know that a wall is not the best barrier in most regions.  He would also be taking about a complete solution which the democrats want to pursuit.  Apparently all Trump can see is a great beautiful wall with big T on it.
> 
> Secondly, the construction of a border wall across the southern border would take at least 7 or 8 years and that's with an uninterrupted flow of funds which ain't gonna happen.
Click to expand...


He could also be reelected and the Republican Congress gain more strength.  Trump wants something the Democrats can't easily take down.  Democrats are scared to death of that because they don't want to stop the flow of illegals.  Their main goal is to wipe out the white race when it comes to voting, and a wall would greatly interfere with those long-term plans.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the left that keeps bringing that up--not us on the right.  We don't care how it's built or who pays for it, as long as it's built.
> 
> 
> 
> Drumpf brought that up and he is on the right. I didnt ask you what you care about. I'm asking what fool is going to allow Drumpf to claim Mexico is going to pay for it and then pretend they dont care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the same fools that were promised their healthcare insurance would go down by $2,500 a year.  The same fools that thought they would be able to keep their insurance, doctor or healthcare facility.  The same fools that thought nobody making less than $250,000 a year would see any kind of tax increase.
> 
> And how do you know who is paying for something that isn't even there yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know because Mexico has said several times they were not going to pay for the wall.  Where is your proof they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have proof of anything just like you.  Since we send aid to Mexico (like so many other countries) and many of their citizens are sending home US tax dollars back to Mexico, Trump has the ability to make Mexico pay in other ways.  He can institute a tax on money sent back or he could reduce or stop funding to Mexico.  But since I'm not Trump, I can't tell you what he has in mind.  Just simply pointing out that Mexico doesn't actually have to send us a check to get them to pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Trump does not have the ability to institute any tax, only congress can do that and a democrat house is not about to introduce such a tax bill.
Click to expand...


This may be true.  The Democrats are trying to sellout the country as soon as possible.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> litman said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for as the drugs go it will not even slow the drugs down. As long as their is a huge market for them they will be coming into or made in this country,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Donald Trump tied the heroin epidemic gripping suburban white communities to the issue central to the campaign: border security and illegal immigration.
> 
> We’ve all heard of poppy fields blooming in Afghanistan, but is Trump right that heroin is entering the United States largely through the southern border?
> 
> Yes. Even though Southwest Asia supplies heroin to most of the rest of the world, nearly all of the heroin available in the United States comes from Mexico and South America.*_
> 
> Trump is right: Heroin is coming in through southern border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But what does that have to do with building a wall.  Most of the drugs that come across the border do so by planes, motor vehicles and boats which will continue with or without a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that piece say?  It says most of our heroine comes across that southern border.  No, it isn't flown from Mexico, it doesn't come on a boat, and it's not coming from customs.  It's coming from a wall-less border and that needs to be stopped.  If they can get it here other ways, then it will be a hell of a lot harder which means they would have to charge more money, and likely more people getting busted for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope:
> The majority of illegal drugs entering the United States enter in an assortment of vehicles, with drugs hidden in secret compartments in door panels or the roof, gas tanks, tires and even engines.
> 
> Cargo trains, tractor-trailers and passenger buses have been used to move illegal drugs. Trucks and trains carrying fresh produce such as watermelons, limes and other fruits bring in millions of pounds of illegal drugs.
> 
> The next most common method of bringing drugs into the US is cargo ships and planes.
> 
> The least likely method for bring drug enter into the US is individuals carrying them across the border. One semi properly outfitted can bring in more drugs than 50 backpackers. One ship cargo container can bring in more drugs than a 700  backpackers.  It's a matter of economic.  Meeting the demand for drugs in the US with back packers coming across the border would be both impossible and far more expense than other methods. This is why building walls or other barriers along the border would have very little impact on drug importation.
> 
> The profit margin on illegal drugs is so high, you could close the entire southern border and all it would do is raise the price of drugs to cover the added cost of alternative transportation.
> By Land, Sea or Catapult: How Smugglers Get Drugs Across the Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't get to the article because it's a pay site.  However I never said drugs didn't come in other ways, and the title of the article seems to indicate all our borders, not just the south.
> 
> The easiest and safest way to get drugs across our southern border is to simply walk across.  However even that presents some kind of risk, so now they are using drones to get the drugs across.  If they bust a drone, nobody ends up in prison.  They just lose a lot of money.  Right now that's the problem they are trying to find a cure for.
> 
> People using vehicles to get drugs across are taking a huge risk because of dogs.  Dogs can sniff out drugs from anywhere.  I've never seen it myself, but I understand they have a dock by the border just in case they need to unload it for inspection, and they will.
Click to expand...

The profit margin and size of the market make it impossible to stop the flow of drugs or even seriously reduce the supply at our borders.  If you build a higher wall the cartels will use longer ladders.  If you dig a deeper base, they will dig deeper tunnels.  And if you build an impenetrable barrier, they will just go around it. 

The answer to reducing the drug trade is not by building taller barriers , but working on both sides of the border to reduce both demand and supply.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Donald Trump tied the heroin epidemic gripping suburban white communities to the issue central to the campaign: border security and illegal immigration.
> 
> We’ve all heard of poppy fields blooming in Afghanistan, but is Trump right that heroin is entering the United States largely through the southern border?
> 
> Yes. Even though Southwest Asia supplies heroin to most of the rest of the world, nearly all of the heroin available in the United States comes from Mexico and South America.*_
> 
> Trump is right: Heroin is coming in through southern border
> 
> 
> 
> But what does that have to do with building a wall.  Most of the drugs that come across the border do so by planes, motor vehicles and boats which will continue with or without a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that piece say?  It says most of our heroine comes across that southern border.  No, it isn't flown from Mexico, it doesn't come on a boat, and it's not coming from customs.  It's coming from a wall-less border and that needs to be stopped.  If they can get it here other ways, then it will be a hell of a lot harder which means they would have to charge more money, and likely more people getting busted for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope:
> The majority of illegal drugs entering the United States enter in an assortment of vehicles, with drugs hidden in secret compartments in door panels or the roof, gas tanks, tires and even engines.
> 
> Cargo trains, tractor-trailers and passenger buses have been used to move illegal drugs. Trucks and trains carrying fresh produce such as watermelons, limes and other fruits bring in millions of pounds of illegal drugs.
> 
> The next most common method of bringing drugs into the US is cargo ships and planes.
> 
> The least likely method for bring drug enter into the US is individuals carrying them across the border. One semi properly outfitted can bring in more drugs than 50 backpackers. One ship cargo container can bring in more drugs than a 700  backpackers.  It's a matter of economic.  Meeting the demand for drugs in the US with back packers coming across the border would be both impossible and far more expense than other methods. This is why building walls or other barriers along the border would have very little impact on drug importation.
> 
> The profit margin on illegal drugs is so high, you could close the entire southern border and all it would do is raise the price of drugs to cover the added cost of alternative transportation.
> By Land, Sea or Catapult: How Smugglers Get Drugs Across the Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't get to the article because it's a pay site.  However I never said drugs didn't come in other ways, and the title of the article seems to indicate all our borders, not just the south.
> 
> The easiest and safest way to get drugs across our southern border is to simply walk across.  However even that presents some kind of risk, so now they are using drones to get the drugs across.  If they bust a drone, nobody ends up in prison.  They just lose a lot of money.  Right now that's the problem they are trying to find a cure for.
> 
> People using vehicles to get drugs across are taking a huge risk because of dogs.  Dogs can sniff out drugs from anywhere.  I've never seen it myself, but I understand they have a dock by the border just in case they need to unload it for inspection, and they will.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The profit margin and size of the market make it impossible to stop the flow of drugs or even seriously reduce the supply at our borders.  If you build a higher wall the cartels will use longer ladders.  If you dig a deeper base, they will dig deeper tunnels.  And if you build an impenetrable barrier, they will just go around it.
> 
> The answer to reducing the drug trade is not by building taller barriers , but working on both sides of the border to reduce both demand and supply.
Click to expand...


Which you and I know will never happen.  If a wall would do no good, our border agencies would not support it.  Tunnels don't take a few days to build.  They take months to build.  Even then,if a tunnel is detected and then destroyed, that's a lot of money down the tube.  Authorities find tunnels all the time, and new technology is coming along every day.  Drones can be used to find people who magically appear or disappear.


----------



## bodecea

Build the wall...as soon as we get the check from Mexico.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drumpf brought that up and he is on the right. I didnt ask you what you care about. I'm asking what fool is going to allow Drumpf to claim Mexico is going to pay for it and then pretend they dont care?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the same fools that were promised their healthcare insurance would go down by $2,500 a year.  The same fools that thought they would be able to keep their insurance, doctor or healthcare facility.  The same fools that thought nobody making less than $250,000 a year would see any kind of tax increase.
> 
> And how do you know who is paying for something that isn't even there yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know because Mexico has said several times they were not going to pay for the wall.  Where is your proof they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have proof of anything just like you.  Since we send aid to Mexico (like so many other countries) and many of their citizens are sending home US tax dollars back to Mexico, Trump has the ability to make Mexico pay in other ways.  He can institute a tax on money sent back or he could reduce or stop funding to Mexico.  But since I'm not Trump, I can't tell you what he has in mind.  Just simply pointing out that Mexico doesn't actually have to send us a check to get them to pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Trump does not have the ability to institute any tax, only congress can do that and a democrat house is not about to introduce such a tax bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This may be true.  The Democrats are trying to sellout the country as soon as possible.
Click to expand...

Mexican Americans sending money to families back home reduces illegal Mexican immigration. Reductions in poverty and better wages have dramatically reduced Mexican illegal immigration.  Individuals helping families in their home country is far more efficient than US aid which often ends up feeding the bureaucracy rather feeding people.

Taxing remittances would likely have little impact on funds transferred because there are so many ways on the Internet to transfer funds using offshore agencies.  However, even if Trump got his tax past a democrat controlled house and somehow all the taxes could be collected, the amount raised would only be about 1.6 billion far short of the estimated 25 to 31 billion Trump would need for his 1000 mile wall.  

I'm sure a tax on remittances would be a winner for Trump in his rallies but the reality is it would do little to finance his wall and would have little effect on remittances.  But it sure would sound good at rallies and that's what is important to Trump.
A Tax on Remittances Won't Pay for a Border Wall


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what does that have to do with building a wall.  Most of the drugs that come across the border do so by planes, motor vehicles and boats which will continue with or without a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that piece say?  It says most of our heroine comes across that southern border.  No, it isn't flown from Mexico, it doesn't come on a boat, and it's not coming from customs.  It's coming from a wall-less border and that needs to be stopped.  If they can get it here other ways, then it will be a hell of a lot harder which means they would have to charge more money, and likely more people getting busted for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope:
> The majority of illegal drugs entering the United States enter in an assortment of vehicles, with drugs hidden in secret compartments in door panels or the roof, gas tanks, tires and even engines.
> 
> Cargo trains, tractor-trailers and passenger buses have been used to move illegal drugs. Trucks and trains carrying fresh produce such as watermelons, limes and other fruits bring in millions of pounds of illegal drugs.
> 
> The next most common method of bringing drugs into the US is cargo ships and planes.
> 
> The least likely method for bring drug enter into the US is individuals carrying them across the border. One semi properly outfitted can bring in more drugs than 50 backpackers. One ship cargo container can bring in more drugs than a 700  backpackers.  It's a matter of economic.  Meeting the demand for drugs in the US with back packers coming across the border would be both impossible and far more expense than other methods. This is why building walls or other barriers along the border would have very little impact on drug importation.
> 
> The profit margin on illegal drugs is so high, you could close the entire southern border and all it would do is raise the price of drugs to cover the added cost of alternative transportation.
> By Land, Sea or Catapult: How Smugglers Get Drugs Across the Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't get to the article because it's a pay site.  However I never said drugs didn't come in other ways, and the title of the article seems to indicate all our borders, not just the south.
> 
> The easiest and safest way to get drugs across our southern border is to simply walk across.  However even that presents some kind of risk, so now they are using drones to get the drugs across.  If they bust a drone, nobody ends up in prison.  They just lose a lot of money.  Right now that's the problem they are trying to find a cure for.
> 
> People using vehicles to get drugs across are taking a huge risk because of dogs.  Dogs can sniff out drugs from anywhere.  I've never seen it myself, but I understand they have a dock by the border just in case they need to unload it for inspection, and they will.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The profit margin and size of the market make it impossible to stop the flow of drugs or even seriously reduce the supply at our borders.  If you build a higher wall the cartels will use longer ladders.  If you dig a deeper base, they will dig deeper tunnels.  And if you build an impenetrable barrier, they will just go around it.
> 
> The answer to reducing the drug trade is not by building taller barriers , but working on both sides of the border to reduce both demand and supply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which you and I know will never happen.  If a wall would do no good, our border agencies would not support it.  Tunnels don't take a few days to build.  They take months to build.  Even then,if a tunnel is detected and then destroyed, that's a lot of money down the tube.  Authorities find tunnels all the time, and new technology is coming along every day.  Drones can be used to find people who magically appear or disappear.
Click to expand...

a reason to ask for a budget increase and a "steady paycheck"?


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what does that have to do with building a wall.  Most of the drugs that come across the border do so by planes, motor vehicles and boats which will continue with or without a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that piece say?  It says most of our heroine comes across that southern border.  No, it isn't flown from Mexico, it doesn't come on a boat, and it's not coming from customs.  It's coming from a wall-less border and that needs to be stopped.  If they can get it here other ways, then it will be a hell of a lot harder which means they would have to charge more money, and likely more people getting busted for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope:
> The majority of illegal drugs entering the United States enter in an assortment of vehicles, with drugs hidden in secret compartments in door panels or the roof, gas tanks, tires and even engines.
> 
> Cargo trains, tractor-trailers and passenger buses have been used to move illegal drugs. Trucks and trains carrying fresh produce such as watermelons, limes and other fruits bring in millions of pounds of illegal drugs.
> 
> The next most common method of bringing drugs into the US is cargo ships and planes.
> 
> The least likely method for bring drug enter into the US is individuals carrying them across the border. One semi properly outfitted can bring in more drugs than 50 backpackers. One ship cargo container can bring in more drugs than a 700  backpackers.  It's a matter of economic.  Meeting the demand for drugs in the US with back packers coming across the border would be both impossible and far more expense than other methods. This is why building walls or other barriers along the border would have very little impact on drug importation.
> 
> The profit margin on illegal drugs is so high, you could close the entire southern border and all it would do is raise the price of drugs to cover the added cost of alternative transportation.
> By Land, Sea or Catapult: How Smugglers Get Drugs Across the Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't get to the article because it's a pay site.  However I never said drugs didn't come in other ways, and the title of the article seems to indicate all our borders, not just the south.
> 
> The easiest and safest way to get drugs across our southern border is to simply walk across.  However even that presents some kind of risk, so now they are using drones to get the drugs across.  If they bust a drone, nobody ends up in prison.  They just lose a lot of money.  Right now that's the problem they are trying to find a cure for.
> 
> People using vehicles to get drugs across are taking a huge risk because of dogs.  Dogs can sniff out drugs from anywhere.  I've never seen it myself, but I understand they have a dock by the border just in case they need to unload it for inspection, and they will.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The profit margin and size of the market make it impossible to stop the flow of drugs or even seriously reduce the supply at our borders.  If you build a higher wall the cartels will use longer ladders.  If you dig a deeper base, they will dig deeper tunnels.  And if you build an impenetrable barrier, they will just go around it.
> 
> The answer to reducing the drug trade is not by building taller barriers , but working on both sides of the border to reduce both demand and supply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which you and I know will never happen.  If a wall would do no good, our border agencies would not support it.  Tunnels don't take a few days to build.  They take months to build.  Even then,if a tunnel is detected and then destroyed, that's a lot of money down the tube.  Authorities find tunnels all the time, and new technology is coming along every day.  Drones can be used to find people who magically appear or disappear.
Click to expand...

Comments by border agents do support a wall, however I have noticed those comments have often been referring to a wall at a particular location, not a wall spanning the border.  Border agents have also pointed out that a reinforced fence that can be seen through is preferably in places.

I agree with most of these comments.  There are places where a wall would be appropriate but other places a reinforced fence where agents can easily see the other side is much more appropriate.  Then there are other places such as reservation land that should have only electronic monitoring.  My objection not having a barrier, it's having a one size fits all solution that I object to.  The cost will be far too high and will cause more problems than it prevents.

Looking a the reduction in illegal immigrants over the past 10 years in the US, security improvements at the border, and opposition by democrats, it seems very unlikely that Trump's wall would ever be completed if ever really got started..


----------



## pismoe

Timmy said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so silly is the reich totally ignores the largest immigration problem is expired visa's. There are more of them than people crossing without permission or documentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40%. Of illegals came in legally and overstay.  Wall does nothing for that .
Click to expand...

--------------------------------------  so what , it only stops close to 60 percent .   Sounds like a good deal to me  Timmy .


----------



## pismoe

Timmy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were an illegal, I’d just save some money, fly to Vancouver and walk across the border up there.  Better weather….and you don’t risk stepping in that turd known as Texas
> 
> 
> 
> First you would have to get a visa to enter Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like that’s hard?  By the way , Canada takes in lots of immigrants from those scary countries where terrorists come from .  Where’s the Canada wall?
Click to expand...

----------------------------------   'canooks' are stupid and there is opposition to taking in third worlders in 'canada'  Timmy .


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that piece say?  It says most of our heroine comes across that southern border.  No, it isn't flown from Mexico, it doesn't come on a boat, and it's not coming from customs.  It's coming from a wall-less border and that needs to be stopped.  If they can get it here other ways, then it will be a hell of a lot harder which means they would have to charge more money, and likely more people getting busted for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope:
> The majority of illegal drugs entering the United States enter in an assortment of vehicles, with drugs hidden in secret compartments in door panels or the roof, gas tanks, tires and even engines.
> 
> Cargo trains, tractor-trailers and passenger buses have been used to move illegal drugs. Trucks and trains carrying fresh produce such as watermelons, limes and other fruits bring in millions of pounds of illegal drugs.
> 
> The next most common method of bringing drugs into the US is cargo ships and planes.
> 
> The least likely method for bring drug enter into the US is individuals carrying them across the border. One semi properly outfitted can bring in more drugs than 50 backpackers. One ship cargo container can bring in more drugs than a 700  backpackers.  It's a matter of economic.  Meeting the demand for drugs in the US with back packers coming across the border would be both impossible and far more expense than other methods. This is why building walls or other barriers along the border would have very little impact on drug importation.
> 
> The profit margin on illegal drugs is so high, you could close the entire southern border and all it would do is raise the price of drugs to cover the added cost of alternative transportation.
> By Land, Sea or Catapult: How Smugglers Get Drugs Across the Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't get to the article because it's a pay site.  However I never said drugs didn't come in other ways, and the title of the article seems to indicate all our borders, not just the south.
> 
> The easiest and safest way to get drugs across our southern border is to simply walk across.  However even that presents some kind of risk, so now they are using drones to get the drugs across.  If they bust a drone, nobody ends up in prison.  They just lose a lot of money.  Right now that's the problem they are trying to find a cure for.
> 
> People using vehicles to get drugs across are taking a huge risk because of dogs.  Dogs can sniff out drugs from anywhere.  I've never seen it myself, but I understand they have a dock by the border just in case they need to unload it for inspection, and they will.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The profit margin and size of the market make it impossible to stop the flow of drugs or even seriously reduce the supply at our borders.  If you build a higher wall the cartels will use longer ladders.  If you dig a deeper base, they will dig deeper tunnels.  And if you build an impenetrable barrier, they will just go around it.
> 
> The answer to reducing the drug trade is not by building taller barriers , but working on both sides of the border to reduce both demand and supply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which you and I know will never happen.  If a wall would do no good, our border agencies would not support it.  Tunnels don't take a few days to build.  They take months to build.  Even then,if a tunnel is detected and then destroyed, that's a lot of money down the tube.  Authorities find tunnels all the time, and new technology is coming along every day.  Drones can be used to find people who magically appear or disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Comments by border agents do support a wall, however I have noticed those comments have often been referring to a wall at a particular location, not a wall spanning the border.  Border agents have also pointed out that a reinforced fence that can be seen through is preferably in places.
> 
> I agree with most of these comments.  There are places where a wall would be appropriate but other places a reinforced fence where agents can easily see the other side is much more appropriate.  Then there are other places such as reservation land that should have only electronic monitoring.  My objection not having a barrier, it's having a one size fits all solution that I object to.  The cost will be far too high and will cause more problems than it prevents.
> 
> Looking a the reduction in illegal immigrants over the past 10 years in the US, security improvements at the border, and opposition by democrats, it seems very unlikely that Trump's wall would ever be completed if ever really got started..
Click to expand...


It will be just fine, but as we both know, the Democrats don't want to stop illegals.  They certainly don't want something they can't remove easily like a fence.  

Trump is only asking 5 billion dollars.  That's down from his original request of 32 billion.  It's not the money, it's the fact that the wall will prove to be a great success.  And even if the 5 billion is granted, it's only enough to put the wall in places that are easy to pass.  Some places the terrain makes it impossible to get in.  Trump has acknowledged that in his last live televised meeting between him, Shoemaker and Piglosi.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the same fools that were promised their healthcare insurance would go down by $2,500 a year.  The same fools that thought they would be able to keep their insurance, doctor or healthcare facility.  The same fools that thought nobody making less than $250,000 a year would see any kind of tax increase.
> 
> And how do you know who is paying for something that isn't even there yet?
> 
> 
> 
> I know because Mexico has said several times they were not going to pay for the wall.  Where is your proof they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have proof of anything just like you.  Since we send aid to Mexico (like so many other countries) and many of their citizens are sending home US tax dollars back to Mexico, Trump has the ability to make Mexico pay in other ways.  He can institute a tax on money sent back or he could reduce or stop funding to Mexico.  But since I'm not Trump, I can't tell you what he has in mind.  Just simply pointing out that Mexico doesn't actually have to send us a check to get them to pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Trump does not have the ability to institute any tax, only congress can do that and a democrat house is not about to introduce such a tax bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This may be true.  The Democrats are trying to sellout the country as soon as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mexican Americans sending money to families back home reduces illegal Mexican immigration. Reductions in poverty and better wages have dramatically reduced Mexican illegal immigration.  Individuals helping families in their home country is far more efficient than US aid which often ends up feeding the bureaucracy rather feeding people.
> 
> Taxing remittances would likely have little impact on funds transferred because there are so many ways on the Internet to transfer funds using offshore agencies.  However, even if Trump got his tax past a democrat controlled house and somehow all the taxes could be collected, the amount raised would only be about 1.6 billion far short of the estimated 25 to 31 billion Trump would need for his 1000 mile wall.
> 
> I'm sure a tax on remittances would be a winner for Trump in his rallies but the reality is it would do little to finance his wall and would have little effect on remittances.  But it sure would sound good at rallies and that's what is important to Trump.
> A Tax on Remittances Won't Pay for a Border Wall
Click to expand...


1.6 billion a year is 16 billion in ten years.  In 20 years, 32 billion.


----------



## sartre play

if we stop paying attention to the 20% who want little to no exclusion of illegals and we stop paying attention to the 30% that want the solid 100 mile wall + all illegals thrown out . and let the 50% that want to work on something that is cost effective,+ with a little thoughtful humanity thrown in. bet its possible to come up with some thing that works to a degree that we can all live with. wont happen because we are going to keep it an on going  political fight.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sartre play said:


> if we stop paying attention to the 20% who want little to no exclusion of illegals and we stop paying attention to the 30% that want the solid 100 mile wall + all illegals thrown out . and let the 50% that want to work on something that is cost effective,+ with a little thoughtful humanity thrown in. bet its possible to come up with some thing that works to a degree that we can all live with. wont happen because we are going to keep it an on going  political fight.



It is political and has been for years.  The Democrats want to wipe out the white race, so they want as many of these people here as possible.  The establishment right wants them here to in order to satisfy businesses.  

Once a wall is built, it's there forever.   That's what bugs Democrats the most about it.  It's not a temporary barrier, it's not one that can easily be bypassed.  It's a wall that nobody will be able to penetrate and Democrats (no matter how much power they get in the future) won't be able to tear it down.


----------



## Lesh

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It is political and has been for years. The Democrats want to wipe out the white race



Shhhhh... you're not supposed to let your inner racist out like that


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is political and has been for years. The Democrats want to wipe out the white race
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shhhhh... you're not supposed to let your inner racist out like that
Click to expand...


What's racist about it?  It's what the Democrats are trying to do.


----------



## pismoe

WHITES oughta get tough and start laughing at those that call them racist .   Quite often its the name callers that are anti white racists . And young kids also have to learn to laugh and to Fight the Public School Teachers and other anti white racists because the numbers of anti white racists increase everyday because of third world importation of more 'third world' anti white racists into  the USA .


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

pismoe said:


> WHITES oughta get tough and start laughing at those that call them racist .   Quite often its the name callers that are anti white racists . And young kids also have to learn to laugh and to Fight the Public School Teachers and other anti white racists because the numbers of anti white racists increase everyday because of third world importation of more 'third world' anti white racists into  the USA .



We've always laughed at them and still do.


----------



## Lesh

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It is political and has been for years. The Democrats want to wipe out the white race,



Good thing you tell us that you're not racist. Otherwise we'd never know...


----------



## bripat9643

Lakhota said:


> *Why is Building the Wall Wrong?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It prevents the free flow of wildlife.
Click to expand...

I think the Rio Grande river does that.


----------



## pismoe

is Lesh concerned with widdle animal border jumpers . ---  SCOTUS to Environmentalists: Sorry Guys, But Trump is Allowed to Build a Border Wall  ---   check this out Lesh .


----------



## Lesh

My concern is more to do with landowners who will have their land taken away from them.

But then down there...they are mostly Republicans so they get what they deserve.

I actually hope the wall gets built so we can finally see what a monumental boondoggle it was


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> My concern is more to do with landowners who will have their land taken away from them.
> 
> But then down there...they are mostly Republicans so they get what they deserve.
> 
> I actually hope the wall gets built so we can finally see what a monumental boondoggle it was



Obviously your leaders think the opposite.  That's why they are fighting it so hard.  They know what a success it will be just like all the other places it's been done.


----------



## pismoe

Lesh said:


> My concern is more to do with landowners who will have their land taken away from them.
> 
> But then down there...they are mostly Republicans so they get what they deserve.
> 
> I actually hope the wall gets built so we can finally see what a monumental boondoggle it was


----------------------------as far as landowners land , well . there is Eminent Domain and something called the 'Roosevelt Reservation'  which is Federal Land that runs along the Border  Lesh .


----------



## Thinker101

Lesh said:


> My concern is more to do with landowners who will have their land taken away from them.
> 
> But then down there...they are mostly Republicans so they get what they deserve.
> 
> I actually hope the wall gets built so we can finally see what a monumental boondoggle it was



You mean land taken away by drug cartels and over run with illegals?  That land?


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what does that have to do with building a wall.  Most of the drugs that come across the border do so by planes, motor vehicles and boats which will continue with or without a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that piece say?  It says most of our heroine comes across that southern border.  No, it isn't flown from Mexico, it doesn't come on a boat, and it's not coming from customs.  It's coming from a wall-less border and that needs to be stopped.  If they can get it here other ways, then it will be a hell of a lot harder which means they would have to charge more money, and likely more people getting busted for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope:
> The majority of illegal drugs entering the United States enter in an assortment of vehicles, with drugs hidden in secret compartments in door panels or the roof, gas tanks, tires and even engines.
> 
> Cargo trains, tractor-trailers and passenger buses have been used to move illegal drugs. Trucks and trains carrying fresh produce such as watermelons, limes and other fruits bring in millions of pounds of illegal drugs.
> 
> The next most common method of bringing drugs into the US is cargo ships and planes.
> 
> The least likely method for bring drug enter into the US is individuals carrying them across the border. One semi properly outfitted can bring in more drugs than 50 backpackers. One ship cargo container can bring in more drugs than a 700  backpackers.  It's a matter of economic.  Meeting the demand for drugs in the US with back packers coming across the border would be both impossible and far more expense than other methods. This is why building walls or other barriers along the border would have very little impact on drug importation.
> 
> The profit margin on illegal drugs is so high, you could close the entire southern border and all it would do is raise the price of drugs to cover the added cost of alternative transportation.
> By Land, Sea or Catapult: How Smugglers Get Drugs Across the Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't get to the article because it's a pay site.  However I never said drugs didn't come in other ways, and the title of the article seems to indicate all our borders, not just the south.
> 
> The easiest and safest way to get drugs across our southern border is to simply walk across.  However even that presents some kind of risk, so now they are using drones to get the drugs across.  If they bust a drone, nobody ends up in prison.  They just lose a lot of money.  Right now that's the problem they are trying to find a cure for.
> 
> People using vehicles to get drugs across are taking a huge risk because of dogs.  Dogs can sniff out drugs from anywhere.  I've never seen it myself, but I understand they have a dock by the border just in case they need to unload it for inspection, and they will.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The profit margin and size of the market make it impossible to stop the flow of drugs or even seriously reduce the supply at our borders.  If you build a higher wall the cartels will use longer ladders.  If you dig a deeper base, they will dig deeper tunnels.  And if you build an impenetrable barrier, they will just go around it.
> 
> The answer to reducing the drug trade is not by building taller barriers , but working on both sides of the border to reduce both demand and supply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which you and I know will never happen.  If a wall would do no good, our border agencies would not support it.  Tunnels don't take a few days to build.  They take months to build.  Even then,if a tunnel is detected and then destroyed, that's a lot of money down the tube.  Authorities find tunnels all the time, and new technology is coming along every day.  Drones can be used to find people who magically appear or disappear.
Click to expand...

I never claimed a wall would do no good.  I said it is not the best solution for all parts of the border.  It is way too costly, an environmental disaster, and democrats will block funding whenever they have the power to do so.  Plus, illegal immigration has been declining for years and is likely to continue.  By the time this wall is completed in about 10 years we will have a bill for 25 to 30 billion dollars for a monument that is not needed and most people never wanted.


----------



## Flopper

pismoe said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> My concern is more to do with landowners who will have their land taken away from them.
> 
> But then down there...they are mostly Republicans so they get what they deserve.
> 
> I actually hope the wall gets built so we can finally see what a monumental boondoggle it was
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------as far as landowners land , well . there is Eminent Domain and something called the 'Roosevelt Reservation'  which is Federal Land that runs along the Border  Lesh .
Click to expand...

Yes there is and there's over 300 land owners, and Indian Reservations most of which oppose having their property used for a wall and supporting roads and service areas. Add that to over a 100 environmental groups promising to enter suits and you have years of delays to add to delays caused by democrats blocking funding.  Trump will never live to see his big beautiful wall completed.  Guess he'll have to put his trademark on the Moscow Trump Tower.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that piece say?  It says most of our heroine comes across that southern border.  No, it isn't flown from Mexico, it doesn't come on a boat, and it's not coming from customs.  It's coming from a wall-less border and that needs to be stopped.  If they can get it here other ways, then it will be a hell of a lot harder which means they would have to charge more money, and likely more people getting busted for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope:
> The majority of illegal drugs entering the United States enter in an assortment of vehicles, with drugs hidden in secret compartments in door panels or the roof, gas tanks, tires and even engines.
> 
> Cargo trains, tractor-trailers and passenger buses have been used to move illegal drugs. Trucks and trains carrying fresh produce such as watermelons, limes and other fruits bring in millions of pounds of illegal drugs.
> 
> The next most common method of bringing drugs into the US is cargo ships and planes.
> 
> The least likely method for bring drug enter into the US is individuals carrying them across the border. One semi properly outfitted can bring in more drugs than 50 backpackers. One ship cargo container can bring in more drugs than a 700  backpackers.  It's a matter of economic.  Meeting the demand for drugs in the US with back packers coming across the border would be both impossible and far more expense than other methods. This is why building walls or other barriers along the border would have very little impact on drug importation.
> 
> The profit margin on illegal drugs is so high, you could close the entire southern border and all it would do is raise the price of drugs to cover the added cost of alternative transportation.
> By Land, Sea or Catapult: How Smugglers Get Drugs Across the Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't get to the article because it's a pay site.  However I never said drugs didn't come in other ways, and the title of the article seems to indicate all our borders, not just the south.
> 
> The easiest and safest way to get drugs across our southern border is to simply walk across.  However even that presents some kind of risk, so now they are using drones to get the drugs across.  If they bust a drone, nobody ends up in prison.  They just lose a lot of money.  Right now that's the problem they are trying to find a cure for.
> 
> People using vehicles to get drugs across are taking a huge risk because of dogs.  Dogs can sniff out drugs from anywhere.  I've never seen it myself, but I understand they have a dock by the border just in case they need to unload it for inspection, and they will.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The profit margin and size of the market make it impossible to stop the flow of drugs or even seriously reduce the supply at our borders.  If you build a higher wall the cartels will use longer ladders.  If you dig a deeper base, they will dig deeper tunnels.  And if you build an impenetrable barrier, they will just go around it.
> 
> The answer to reducing the drug trade is not by building taller barriers , but working on both sides of the border to reduce both demand and supply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which you and I know will never happen.  If a wall would do no good, our border agencies would not support it.  Tunnels don't take a few days to build.  They take months to build.  Even then,if a tunnel is detected and then destroyed, that's a lot of money down the tube.  Authorities find tunnels all the time, and new technology is coming along every day.  Drones can be used to find people who magically appear or disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never claimed a wall would do no good.  I said it is not the best solution for all parts of the border.  It is way too costly, an environmental disaster, and democrats will block funding whenever they have the power to do so.  Plus, illegal immigration has been declining for years and is likely to continue.  By the time this wall is completed in about 10 years we will have a bill for 25 to 30 billion dollars for a monument that is not needed and most people never wanted.
Click to expand...


So what you're saying is we just have to put up with illegal drugs, people illegally coming into our country, people who bring down our wages and are changing the language of this country, all because of the left.  

Gee........it's almost like they planned it this way.  Imagine that!


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that piece say?  It says most of our heroine comes across that southern border.  No, it isn't flown from Mexico, it doesn't come on a boat, and it's not coming from customs.  It's coming from a wall-less border and that needs to be stopped.  If they can get it here other ways, then it will be a hell of a lot harder which means they would have to charge more money, and likely more people getting busted for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope:
> The majority of illegal drugs entering the United States enter in an assortment of vehicles, with drugs hidden in secret compartments in door panels or the roof, gas tanks, tires and even engines.
> 
> Cargo trains, tractor-trailers and passenger buses have been used to move illegal drugs. Trucks and trains carrying fresh produce such as watermelons, limes and other fruits bring in millions of pounds of illegal drugs.
> 
> The next most common method of bringing drugs into the US is cargo ships and planes.
> 
> The least likely method for bring drug enter into the US is individuals carrying them across the border. One semi properly outfitted can bring in more drugs than 50 backpackers. One ship cargo container can bring in more drugs than a 700  backpackers.  It's a matter of economic.  Meeting the demand for drugs in the US with back packers coming across the border would be both impossible and far more expense than other methods. This is why building walls or other barriers along the border would have very little impact on drug importation.
> 
> The profit margin on illegal drugs is so high, you could close the entire southern border and all it would do is raise the price of drugs to cover the added cost of alternative transportation.
> By Land, Sea or Catapult: How Smugglers Get Drugs Across the Border
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't get to the article because it's a pay site.  However I never said drugs didn't come in other ways, and the title of the article seems to indicate all our borders, not just the south.
> 
> The easiest and safest way to get drugs across our southern border is to simply walk across.  However even that presents some kind of risk, so now they are using drones to get the drugs across.  If they bust a drone, nobody ends up in prison.  They just lose a lot of money.  Right now that's the problem they are trying to find a cure for.
> 
> People using vehicles to get drugs across are taking a huge risk because of dogs.  Dogs can sniff out drugs from anywhere.  I've never seen it myself, but I understand they have a dock by the border just in case they need to unload it for inspection, and they will.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The profit margin and size of the market make it impossible to stop the flow of drugs or even seriously reduce the supply at our borders.  If you build a higher wall the cartels will use longer ladders.  If you dig a deeper base, they will dig deeper tunnels.  And if you build an impenetrable barrier, they will just go around it.
> 
> The answer to reducing the drug trade is not by building taller barriers , but working on both sides of the border to reduce both demand and supply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which you and I know will never happen.  If a wall would do no good, our border agencies would not support it.  Tunnels don't take a few days to build.  They take months to build.  Even then,if a tunnel is detected and then destroyed, that's a lot of money down the tube.  Authorities find tunnels all the time, and new technology is coming along every day.  Drones can be used to find people who magically appear or disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never claimed a wall would do no good.  I said it is not the best solution for all parts of the border.  It is way too costly, an environmental disaster, and democrats will block funding whenever they have the power to do so.  Plus, illegal immigration has been declining for years and is likely to continue.  By the time this wall is completed in about 10 years we will have a bill for 25 to 30 billion dollars for a monument that is not needed and most people never wanted.
Click to expand...

Build it where it does make sense. 5 billion builds it in areas where it is most needed and would be most useful.


----------



## Lesh

Thinker101 said:


> You mean land taken away by drug cartels and over run with illegals? That land?



Nope. I mean land taken away from farmers and ranchers...mostly Republicans by the way


----------



## Asclepias

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope:
> The majority of illegal drugs entering the United States enter in an assortment of vehicles, with drugs hidden in secret compartments in door panels or the roof, gas tanks, tires and even engines.
> 
> Cargo trains, tractor-trailers and passenger buses have been used to move illegal drugs. Trucks and trains carrying fresh produce such as watermelons, limes and other fruits bring in millions of pounds of illegal drugs.
> 
> The next most common method of bringing drugs into the US is cargo ships and planes.
> 
> The least likely method for bring drug enter into the US is individuals carrying them across the border. One semi properly outfitted can bring in more drugs than 50 backpackers. One ship cargo container can bring in more drugs than a 700  backpackers.  It's a matter of economic.  Meeting the demand for drugs in the US with back packers coming across the border would be both impossible and far more expense than other methods. This is why building walls or other barriers along the border would have very little impact on drug importation.
> 
> The profit margin on illegal drugs is so high, you could close the entire southern border and all it would do is raise the price of drugs to cover the added cost of alternative transportation.
> By Land, Sea or Catapult: How Smugglers Get Drugs Across the Border
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't get to the article because it's a pay site.  However I never said drugs didn't come in other ways, and the title of the article seems to indicate all our borders, not just the south.
> 
> The easiest and safest way to get drugs across our southern border is to simply walk across.  However even that presents some kind of risk, so now they are using drones to get the drugs across.  If they bust a drone, nobody ends up in prison.  They just lose a lot of money.  Right now that's the problem they are trying to find a cure for.
> 
> People using vehicles to get drugs across are taking a huge risk because of dogs.  Dogs can sniff out drugs from anywhere.  I've never seen it myself, but I understand they have a dock by the border just in case they need to unload it for inspection, and they will.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The profit margin and size of the market make it impossible to stop the flow of drugs or even seriously reduce the supply at our borders.  If you build a higher wall the cartels will use longer ladders.  If you dig a deeper base, they will dig deeper tunnels.  And if you build an impenetrable barrier, they will just go around it.
> 
> The answer to reducing the drug trade is not by building taller barriers , but working on both sides of the border to reduce both demand and supply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which you and I know will never happen.  If a wall would do no good, our border agencies would not support it.  Tunnels don't take a few days to build.  They take months to build.  Even then,if a tunnel is detected and then destroyed, that's a lot of money down the tube.  Authorities find tunnels all the time, and new technology is coming along every day.  Drones can be used to find people who magically appear or disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never claimed a wall would do no good.  I said it is not the best solution for all parts of the border.  It is way too costly, an environmental disaster, and democrats will block funding whenever they have the power to do so.  Plus, illegal immigration has been declining for years and is likely to continue.  By the time this wall is completed in about 10 years we will have a bill for 25 to 30 billion dollars for a monument that is not needed and most people never wanted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is we just have to put up with illegal drugs, people illegally coming into our country, people who bring down our wages and are changing the language of this country, all because of the left.
> 
> Gee........it's almost like they planned it this way.  Imagine that!
Click to expand...

Changing the language? Are you really serious with that post?


----------



## pismoe

Enviros lose in Supreme Court as TRUMP can build Trump Border Wall as he can ignore 'eviromentalists'   crying and whining .   ---   Trump can ignore environmental laws to build border wall after Supreme Court declines to hear suit   ---


----------



## pismoe

Lesh said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean land taken away by drug cartels and over run with illegals? That land?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I mean land taken away from farmers and ranchers...mostly Republicans by the way
Click to expand...

-------------------------------   concerning forfeited ranch and farmland , the USA has Eminent Domain i think and the USA can build RailRoads Right of Way , Highways , Freeways , Roads and Border WALLS .


----------



## Lesh

Exactly. They use the force of the government to take away land that has belonged to farmers and ranchers for generations...and if they want to build this wall...they'll do that


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope:
> The majority of illegal drugs entering the United States enter in an assortment of vehicles, with drugs hidden in secret compartments in door panels or the roof, gas tanks, tires and even engines.
> 
> Cargo trains, tractor-trailers and passenger buses have been used to move illegal drugs. Trucks and trains carrying fresh produce such as watermelons, limes and other fruits bring in millions of pounds of illegal drugs.
> 
> The next most common method of bringing drugs into the US is cargo ships and planes.
> 
> The least likely method for bring drug enter into the US is individuals carrying them across the border. One semi properly outfitted can bring in more drugs than 50 backpackers. One ship cargo container can bring in more drugs than a 700  backpackers.  It's a matter of economic.  Meeting the demand for drugs in the US with back packers coming across the border would be both impossible and far more expense than other methods. This is why building walls or other barriers along the border would have very little impact on drug importation.
> 
> The profit margin on illegal drugs is so high, you could close the entire southern border and all it would do is raise the price of drugs to cover the added cost of alternative transportation.
> By Land, Sea or Catapult: How Smugglers Get Drugs Across the Border
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't get to the article because it's a pay site.  However I never said drugs didn't come in other ways, and the title of the article seems to indicate all our borders, not just the south.
> 
> The easiest and safest way to get drugs across our southern border is to simply walk across.  However even that presents some kind of risk, so now they are using drones to get the drugs across.  If they bust a drone, nobody ends up in prison.  They just lose a lot of money.  Right now that's the problem they are trying to find a cure for.
> 
> People using vehicles to get drugs across are taking a huge risk because of dogs.  Dogs can sniff out drugs from anywhere.  I've never seen it myself, but I understand they have a dock by the border just in case they need to unload it for inspection, and they will.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The profit margin and size of the market make it impossible to stop the flow of drugs or even seriously reduce the supply at our borders.  If you build a higher wall the cartels will use longer ladders.  If you dig a deeper base, they will dig deeper tunnels.  And if you build an impenetrable barrier, they will just go around it.
> 
> The answer to reducing the drug trade is not by building taller barriers , but working on both sides of the border to reduce both demand and supply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which you and I know will never happen.  If a wall would do no good, our border agencies would not support it.  Tunnels don't take a few days to build.  They take months to build.  Even then,if a tunnel is detected and then destroyed, that's a lot of money down the tube.  Authorities find tunnels all the time, and new technology is coming along every day.  Drones can be used to find people who magically appear or disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never claimed a wall would do no good.  I said it is not the best solution for all parts of the border.  It is way too costly, an environmental disaster, and democrats will block funding whenever they have the power to do so.  Plus, illegal immigration has been declining for years and is likely to continue.  By the time this wall is completed in about 10 years we will have a bill for 25 to 30 billion dollars for a monument that is not needed and most people never wanted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is we just have to put up with illegal drugs, people illegally coming into our country, people who bring down our wages and are changing the language of this country, all because of the left.
> 
> Gee........it's almost like they planned it this way.  Imagine that!
Click to expand...

That is exactly what you have to do until we get a congress and president that will actually introduce realistic plans to fix the problem.  

You wanted somebody to lead the country that was not a politician, well you got one.  What people like you don't understand, is it takes real politician skills to accomplish anything in Washington.  Running around like bull in a china store issuing threats and insults doesn't get the job done.  It just infuriates the very people Trump needs.


----------



## toomuchtime_

Lesh said:


> Exactly. They use the force of the government to take away land that has belonged to farmers and ranchers for generations...and if they want to build this wall...they'll do that


The land will not be taken away but purchased, and in most cases the government pays a premium above the actual value of the land to facilitate the process, so it is a win win situation for all loyal Americans.


----------



## pismoe

ROOSEVELT Reservation .   ---   Roosevelt Reservation | Revolvy  ---


----------



## pismoe

and the ROOSEVELT Reservation runs the length of the Border and its 60 feet wide and is on USA Land .   I suppose that 60 feet is more then enough for the TRUMP WALL footprint or footers .   And from what i understand the Federal Government has Reserved and OWNED the ROOSEVELT Reservation and has owned it since 1907 Gents and Ladies .


----------



## Lesh

toomuchtime_ said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. They use the force of the government to take away land that has belonged to farmers and ranchers for generations...and if they want to build this wall...they'll do that
> 
> 
> 
> The land will not be taken away but purchased, and in most cases the government pays a premium above the actual value of the land to facilitate the process, so it is a win win situation for all loyal Americans.
Click to expand...

The government will take that land ...whether the owners want to sell it or not...and the government will set the price


----------



## basquebromance

its time to get shit done!


----------



## pismoe

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't get to the article because it's a pay site.  However I never said drugs didn't come in other ways, and the title of the article seems to indicate all our borders, not just the south.
> 
> The easiest and safest way to get drugs across our southern border is to simply walk across.  However even that presents some kind of risk, so now they are using drones to get the drugs across.  If they bust a drone, nobody ends up in prison.  They just lose a lot of money.  Right now that's the problem they are trying to find a cure for.
> 
> People using vehicles to get drugs across are taking a huge risk because of dogs.  Dogs can sniff out drugs from anywhere.  I've never seen it myself, but I understand they have a dock by the border just in case they need to unload it for inspection, and they will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The profit margin and size of the market make it impossible to stop the flow of drugs or even seriously reduce the supply at our borders.  If you build a higher wall the cartels will use longer ladders.  If you dig a deeper base, they will dig deeper tunnels.  And if you build an impenetrable barrier, they will just go around it.
> 
> The answer to reducing the drug trade is not by building taller barriers , but working on both sides of the border to reduce both demand and supply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which you and I know will never happen.  If a wall would do no good, our border agencies would not support it.  Tunnels don't take a few days to build.  They take months to build.  Even then,if a tunnel is detected and then destroyed, that's a lot of money down the tube.  Authorities find tunnels all the time, and new technology is coming along every day.  Drones can be used to find people who magically appear or disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never claimed a wall would do no good.  I said it is not the best solution for all parts of the border.  It is way too costly, an environmental disaster, and democrats will block funding whenever they have the power to do so.  Plus, illegal immigration has been declining for years and is likely to continue.  By the time this wall is completed in about 10 years we will have a bill for 25 to 30 billion dollars for a monument that is not needed and most people never wanted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is we just have to put up with illegal drugs, people illegally coming into our country, people who bring down our wages and are changing the language of this country, all because of the left.
> 
> Gee........it's almost like they planned it this way.  Imagine that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is exactly what you have to do until we get a congress and president that will actually introduce realistic plans to fix the problem.
> 
> You wanted somebody to lead the country that was not a politician, well you got one.  What people like you don't understand, is it takes real politician skills to accomplish anything in Washington.  Running around like bull in a china store issuing threats and insults doesn't get the job done.  It just infuriates the very people Trump needs.
Click to expand...

-------------------------------------   the TRUMP is doing fine .   He is much better at being an American style President and President of the USA than any of the wussy 'rino - repubs' that Trump ran against and 'hilary' that Trump also ran against .   Only exception might be Ted Cruz   Flopper .


----------



## Lesh

pismoe said:


> and the ROOSEVELT Reservation runs the length of the Border and its 60 feet wide and is on USA Land .   I suppose that 60 feet is more then enough for the TRUMP WALL footprint or footers .   And from what i understand the Federal Government has Reserved and OWNED the ROOSEVELT Reservation and has owned it since 1907 Gents and Ladies .


You don't seem t know much about engineering


----------



## toomuchtime_

Lesh said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. They use the force of the government to take away land that has belonged to farmers and ranchers for generations...and if they want to build this wall...they'll do that
> 
> 
> 
> The land will not be taken away but purchased, and in most cases the government pays a premium above the actual value of the land to facilitate the process, so it is a win win situation for all loyal Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government will take that land ...whether the owners want to sell it or not...and the government will set the price
Click to expand...

The government will buy the land and if the price it offers is thought to be too low, the seller has recourse to federal courts to sue for a better price, but as a practical matter, in these cases the government is nearly always willing to pay much more than it thinks the land is worth to facilitate the process and to avoid the cost of litigation.  If the land owners have competent representation, they will be paid well over market value for their land.


----------



## pismoe

Lesh said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. They use the force of the government to take away land that has belonged to farmers and ranchers for generations...and if they want to build this wall...they'll do that
> 
> 
> 
> The land will not be taken away but purchased, and in most cases the government pays a premium above the actual value of the land to facilitate the process, so it is a win win situation for all loyal Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government will take that land ...whether the owners want to sell it or not...and the government will set the price
Click to expand...

-------------------------------------   boo hoo , and thats the purpose of Eminent Domain and maybe the FED Government owned Roosevelt Reservation Lesh .


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't get to the article because it's a pay site.  However I never said drugs didn't come in other ways, and the title of the article seems to indicate all our borders, not just the south.
> 
> The easiest and safest way to get drugs across our southern border is to simply walk across.  However even that presents some kind of risk, so now they are using drones to get the drugs across.  If they bust a drone, nobody ends up in prison.  They just lose a lot of money.  Right now that's the problem they are trying to find a cure for.
> 
> People using vehicles to get drugs across are taking a huge risk because of dogs.  Dogs can sniff out drugs from anywhere.  I've never seen it myself, but I understand they have a dock by the border just in case they need to unload it for inspection, and they will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The profit margin and size of the market make it impossible to stop the flow of drugs or even seriously reduce the supply at our borders.  If you build a higher wall the cartels will use longer ladders.  If you dig a deeper base, they will dig deeper tunnels.  And if you build an impenetrable barrier, they will just go around it.
> 
> The answer to reducing the drug trade is not by building taller barriers , but working on both sides of the border to reduce both demand and supply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which you and I know will never happen.  If a wall would do no good, our border agencies would not support it.  Tunnels don't take a few days to build.  They take months to build.  Even then,if a tunnel is detected and then destroyed, that's a lot of money down the tube.  Authorities find tunnels all the time, and new technology is coming along every day.  Drones can be used to find people who magically appear or disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never claimed a wall would do no good.  I said it is not the best solution for all parts of the border.  It is way too costly, an environmental disaster, and democrats will block funding whenever they have the power to do so.  Plus, illegal immigration has been declining for years and is likely to continue.  By the time this wall is completed in about 10 years we will have a bill for 25 to 30 billion dollars for a monument that is not needed and most people never wanted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is we just have to put up with illegal drugs, people illegally coming into our country, people who bring down our wages and are changing the language of this country, all because of the left.
> 
> Gee........it's almost like they planned it this way.  Imagine that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is exactly what you have to do until we get a congress and president that will actually introduce realistic plans to fix the problem.
> 
> You wanted somebody to lead the country that was not a politician, well you got one.  What people like you don't understand, is it takes real politician skills to accomplish anything in Washington.  Running around like bull in a china store issuing threats and insults doesn't get the job done.  It just infuriates the very people Trump needs.
Click to expand...


To be honest I can’t remember a politician that got more accomplished in this short amount of time than Trump.  And let’s not forget those obstructionist Democrats who stopped the wall in the first place.  If we had the votes in the Senate, that wall would be a year or so in the making.  


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Asclepias said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't get to the article because it's a pay site.  However I never said drugs didn't come in other ways, and the title of the article seems to indicate all our borders, not just the south.
> 
> The easiest and safest way to get drugs across our southern border is to simply walk across.  However even that presents some kind of risk, so now they are using drones to get the drugs across.  If they bust a drone, nobody ends up in prison.  They just lose a lot of money.  Right now that's the problem they are trying to find a cure for.
> 
> People using vehicles to get drugs across are taking a huge risk because of dogs.  Dogs can sniff out drugs from anywhere.  I've never seen it myself, but I understand they have a dock by the border just in case they need to unload it for inspection, and they will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The profit margin and size of the market make it impossible to stop the flow of drugs or even seriously reduce the supply at our borders.  If you build a higher wall the cartels will use longer ladders.  If you dig a deeper base, they will dig deeper tunnels.  And if you build an impenetrable barrier, they will just go around it.
> 
> The answer to reducing the drug trade is not by building taller barriers , but working on both sides of the border to reduce both demand and supply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which you and I know will never happen.  If a wall would do no good, our border agencies would not support it.  Tunnels don't take a few days to build.  They take months to build.  Even then,if a tunnel is detected and then destroyed, that's a lot of money down the tube.  Authorities find tunnels all the time, and new technology is coming along every day.  Drones can be used to find people who magically appear or disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never claimed a wall would do no good.  I said it is not the best solution for all parts of the border.  It is way too costly, an environmental disaster, and democrats will block funding whenever they have the power to do so.  Plus, illegal immigration has been declining for years and is likely to continue.  By the time this wall is completed in about 10 years we will have a bill for 25 to 30 billion dollars for a monument that is not needed and most people never wanted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is we just have to put up with illegal drugs, people illegally coming into our country, people who bring down our wages and are changing the language of this country, all because of the left.
> 
> Gee........it's almost like they planned it this way.  Imagine that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Changing the language? Are you really serious with that post?
Click to expand...


You must be a younger person who does not remember when this country was an English speaking only country.  Today, bilingual signs are everywhere and you have to press 1 to speak to a phone representative in English.  


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Asclepias

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The profit margin and size of the market make it impossible to stop the flow of drugs or even seriously reduce the supply at our borders.  If you build a higher wall the cartels will use longer ladders.  If you dig a deeper base, they will dig deeper tunnels.  And if you build an impenetrable barrier, they will just go around it.
> 
> The answer to reducing the drug trade is not by building taller barriers , but working on both sides of the border to reduce both demand and supply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which you and I know will never happen.  If a wall would do no good, our border agencies would not support it.  Tunnels don't take a few days to build.  They take months to build.  Even then,if a tunnel is detected and then destroyed, that's a lot of money down the tube.  Authorities find tunnels all the time, and new technology is coming along every day.  Drones can be used to find people who magically appear or disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never claimed a wall would do no good.  I said it is not the best solution for all parts of the border.  It is way too costly, an environmental disaster, and democrats will block funding whenever they have the power to do so.  Plus, illegal immigration has been declining for years and is likely to continue.  By the time this wall is completed in about 10 years we will have a bill for 25 to 30 billion dollars for a monument that is not needed and most people never wanted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is we just have to put up with illegal drugs, people illegally coming into our country, people who bring down our wages and are changing the language of this country, all because of the left.
> 
> Gee........it's almost like they planned it this way.  Imagine that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Changing the language? Are you really serious with that post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be a younger person who does not remember when this country was an English speaking only country.  Today, bilingual signs are everywhere and you have to press 1 to speak to a phone representative in English.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...

You must be a fucking idiot. This country has *never* been english speaking only.   What kind of retard would make a claim like that and be serious about it?


----------



## pismoe

Lesh said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the ROOSEVELT Reservation runs the length of the Border and its 60 feet wide and is on USA Land .   I suppose that 60 feet is more then enough for the TRUMP WALL footprint or footers .   And from what i understand the Federal Government has Reserved and OWNED the ROOSEVELT Reservation and has owned it since 1907 Gents and Ladies .
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem t know much about engineering
Click to expand...

-------------------------------   and just for Grins -  ---      ---   check it out Lesh .


----------



## pismoe

Asclepias said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which you and I know will never happen.  If a wall would do no good, our border agencies would not support it.  Tunnels don't take a few days to build.  They take months to build.  Even then,if a tunnel is detected and then destroyed, that's a lot of money down the tube.  Authorities find tunnels all the time, and new technology is coming along every day.  Drones can be used to find people who magically appear or disappear.
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed a wall would do no good.  I said it is not the best solution for all parts of the border.  It is way too costly, an environmental disaster, and democrats will block funding whenever they have the power to do so.  Plus, illegal immigration has been declining for years and is likely to continue.  By the time this wall is completed in about 10 years we will have a bill for 25 to 30 billion dollars for a monument that is not needed and most people never wanted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is we just have to put up with illegal drugs, people illegally coming into our country, people who bring down our wages and are changing the language of this country, all because of the left.
> 
> Gee........it's almost like they planned it this way.  Imagine that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Changing the language? Are you really serious with that post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be a younger person who does not remember when this country was an English speaking only country.  Today, bilingual signs are everywhere and you have to press 1 to speak to a phone representative in English.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be a fucking idiot. This country has *never* been english speaking only.   What kind of retard would make a claim like that and be serious about it?
Click to expand...

-----------------------------------------   USA was a PRIMARILY English speaking nation with most communication done in English until the USA started being FLOODED with third worlders that were catered to by USA governrment in about 1965 or thereabouts  Ace .


----------



## Asclepias

pismoe said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed a wall would do no good.  I said it is not the best solution for all parts of the border.  It is way too costly, an environmental disaster, and democrats will block funding whenever they have the power to do so.  Plus, illegal immigration has been declining for years and is likely to continue.  By the time this wall is completed in about 10 years we will have a bill for 25 to 30 billion dollars for a monument that is not needed and most people never wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is we just have to put up with illegal drugs, people illegally coming into our country, people who bring down our wages and are changing the language of this country, all because of the left.
> 
> Gee........it's almost like they planned it this way.  Imagine that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Changing the language? Are you really serious with that post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be a younger person who does not remember when this country was an English speaking only country.  Today, bilingual signs are everywhere and you have to press 1 to speak to a phone representative in English.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be a fucking idiot. This country has *never* been english speaking only.   What kind of retard would make a claim like that and be serious about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------------------   USA was a PRIMARILY English speaking nation with most communication done in English until the USA started being FLOODED with third worlders that were catered to by USA governrment in about 1965 or thereabouts  Ace .
Click to expand...


You need to get your story straight. Was it an *english speaking country only* or *primarily english speaking nation*? You do know those are two different things even if it were true right?  Most people in the US spoke some NA language when US started. Youre white washing of the facts doesnt work with me.


----------



## pismoe

Lesh said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. They use the force of the government to take away land that has belonged to farmers and ranchers for generations...and if they want to build this wall...they'll do that
> 
> 
> 
> The land will not be taken away but purchased, and in most cases the government pays a premium above the actual value of the land to facilitate the process, so it is a win win situation for all loyal Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government will take that land ...whether the owners want to sell it or not...and the government will set the price
Click to expand...

-----------------------------------------------   MAYBE , thats the way government works in many cases .   Thats how it worked when 'mrobama' did his 'mandated' obama care .   And concerning Eminent Domain i think that Eminent Domain was how the RailRoads , Highways  , Freeways and  Roads were built as other examples of Eminent Domain  Lesh .


----------



## pismoe

Asclepias said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is we just have to put up with illegal drugs, people illegally coming into our country, people who bring down our wages and are changing the language of this country, all because of the left.
> 
> Gee........it's almost like they planned it this way.  Imagine that!
> 
> 
> 
> Changing the language? Are you really serious with that post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be a younger person who does not remember when this country was an English speaking only country.  Today, bilingual signs are everywhere and you have to press 1 to speak to a phone representative in English.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be a fucking idiot. This country has *never* been english speaking only.   What kind of retard would make a claim like that and be serious about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------------------   USA was a PRIMARILY English speaking nation with most communication done in English until the USA started being FLOODED with third worlders that were catered to by USA governrment in about 1965 or thereabouts  Ace .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to get your story straight. Was it an *english speaking country only* or *primarily english speaking nation*? You do know those are two different things even if it were true right?  Most people in the US spoke some NA language when US started. Youre white washing of the facts doesnt work with me.
Click to expand...

--------------------------------------------   not trying to teach YOU anything  as i think that YOU and a few others like YOU are unteachable Ace .


----------



## Slyhunter

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The profit margin and size of the market make it impossible to stop the flow of drugs or even seriously reduce the supply at our borders.  If you build a higher wall the cartels will use longer ladders.  If you dig a deeper base, they will dig deeper tunnels.  And if you build an impenetrable barrier, they will just go around it.
> 
> The answer to reducing the drug trade is not by building taller barriers , but working on both sides of the border to reduce both demand and supply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which you and I know will never happen.  If a wall would do no good, our border agencies would not support it.  Tunnels don't take a few days to build.  They take months to build.  Even then,if a tunnel is detected and then destroyed, that's a lot of money down the tube.  Authorities find tunnels all the time, and new technology is coming along every day.  Drones can be used to find people who magically appear or disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never claimed a wall would do no good.  I said it is not the best solution for all parts of the border.  It is way too costly, an environmental disaster, and democrats will block funding whenever they have the power to do so.  Plus, illegal immigration has been declining for years and is likely to continue.  By the time this wall is completed in about 10 years we will have a bill for 25 to 30 billion dollars for a monument that is not needed and most people never wanted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is we just have to put up with illegal drugs, people illegally coming into our country, people who bring down our wages and are changing the language of this country, all because of the left.
> 
> Gee........it's almost like they planned it this way.  Imagine that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is exactly what you have to do until we get a congress and president that will actually introduce realistic plans to fix the problem.
> 
> You wanted somebody to lead the country that was not a politician, well you got one.  What people like you don't understand, is it takes real politician skills to accomplish anything in Washington.  Running around like bull in a china store issuing threats and insults doesn't get the job done.  It just infuriates the very people Trump needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest I can’t remember a politician that got more accomplished in this short amount of time than Trump.  And let’s not forget those obstructionist Democrats who stopped the wall in the first place.  If we had the votes in the Senate, that wall would be a year or so in the making.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...

Imagine what could've been done if everyone got on board the Trump Train. I would love to see that movie.


----------



## Asclepias

pismoe said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Changing the language? Are you really serious with that post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a younger person who does not remember when this country was an English speaking only country.  Today, bilingual signs are everywhere and you have to press 1 to speak to a phone representative in English.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be a fucking idiot. This country has *never* been english speaking only.   What kind of retard would make a claim like that and be serious about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------------------   USA was a PRIMARILY English speaking nation with most communication done in English until the USA started being FLOODED with third worlders that were catered to by USA governrment in about 1965 or thereabouts  Ace .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to get your story straight. Was it an *english speaking country only* or *primarily english speaking nation*? You do know those are two different things even if it were true right?  Most people in the US spoke some NA language when US started. Youre white washing of the facts doesnt work with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> --------------------------------------------   not trying to teach YOU anything  as i think that YOU and a few others like YOU are unteachable Ace .
Click to expand...

You cant teach me anything because youre always saying something provably false.  Of course you are trying but you cant teach someone that knows more than you obviously do.


----------



## Slyhunter

Asclepias said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is we just have to put up with illegal drugs, people illegally coming into our country, people who bring down our wages and are changing the language of this country, all because of the left.
> 
> Gee........it's almost like they planned it this way.  Imagine that!
> 
> 
> 
> Changing the language? Are you really serious with that post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be a younger person who does not remember when this country was an English speaking only country.  Today, bilingual signs are everywhere and you have to press 1 to speak to a phone representative in English.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be a fucking idiot. This country has *never* been english speaking only.   What kind of retard would make a claim like that and be serious about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------------------   USA was a PRIMARILY English speaking nation with most communication done in English until the USA started being FLOODED with third worlders that were catered to by USA governrment in about 1965 or thereabouts  Ace .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to get your story straight. Was it an *english speaking country only* or *primarily english speaking nation*? You do know those are two different things even if it were true right?  Most people in the US spoke some NA language when US started. Youre white washing of the facts doesnt work with me.
Click to expand...


----------



## Asclepias

Slyhunter said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Changing the language? Are you really serious with that post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a younger person who does not remember when this country was an English speaking only country.  Today, bilingual signs are everywhere and you have to press 1 to speak to a phone representative in English.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be a fucking idiot. This country has *never* been english speaking only.   What kind of retard would make a claim like that and be serious about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------------------   USA was a PRIMARILY English speaking nation with most communication done in English until the USA started being FLOODED with third worlders that were catered to by USA governrment in about 1965 or thereabouts  Ace .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to get your story straight. Was it an *english speaking country only* or *primarily english speaking nation*? You do know those are two different things even if it were true right?  Most people in the US spoke some NA language when US started. Youre white washing of the facts doesnt work with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yeah so all whites are racist is the same as some whites are racist?  Its nitpicking to make a difference between those two?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> What is the cost of every illegal to the US? It is around $75k each per annum I believe and there are 11 million here? So that equates to $825bn per annum? Hmmmm....maybe a $25bn wall is worth it?



Undocumented foreigners are here due to the simple fact that they work, pay taxes, and create wealth through increased productivity at a lower wage.

Half of the Americans are dependent upon a government check to the point that they are broke both emotionally and financially from having to dance to the delight of a government that wants a dependent race in order to justify hiring and working cheap labor.


----------



## Lesh

pismoe said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the ROOSEVELT Reservation runs the length of the Border and its 60 feet wide and is on USA Land .   I suppose that 60 feet is more then enough for the TRUMP WALL footprint or footers .   And from what i understand the Federal Government has Reserved and OWNED the ROOSEVELT Reservation and has owned it since 1907 Gents and Ladies .
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem t know much about engineering
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------------   and just for Grins -  ---      ---   check it out Lesh .
Click to expand...

Thanks for showing your ignorance. NOthing there says you can build a wall in the 60 feet that is the Roosevelt Reservation.

You DO realize that if you build a wall that's 20 feet tall and made of steel and concrete you need a solid base...right.

What do o suppose the base is like within 60 feet of a river?

Yea...in a lot of places sand.


----------



## toomuchtime_

Lesh said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the ROOSEVELT Reservation runs the length of the Border and its 60 feet wide and is on USA Land .   I suppose that 60 feet is more then enough for the TRUMP WALL footprint or footers .   And from what i understand the Federal Government has Reserved and OWNED the ROOSEVELT Reservation and has owned it since 1907 Gents and Ladies .
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem t know much about engineering
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------------   and just for Grins -  ---      ---   check it out Lesh .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for showing your ignorance. NOthing there says you can build a wall in the 60 feet that is the Roosevelt Reservation.
> 
> You DO realize that if you build a wall that's 20 feet tall and made of steel and concrete you need a solid base...right.
> 
> What do o suppose the base is like within 60 feet of a river?
> 
> Yea...in a lot of places sand.
Click to expand...

If you had been keeping up with the story, you would know it's not going to be a wall but a smart fence about 40 feet high very similar to the fence Israel built on its border with Sinai.  Before that fence was completed tens of thousands of Africans were able to enter Israel illegally, but since it was completed, not one has been able to make it.


----------



## pismoe

I know what 60 feet is and besides that the PRESIDENT , the builder of HUGE building all over the world is in charge of details .     Trump has built on all sorts of terrain so as i said , i will let him and his experts decide the WALL  Plans and details Lesh .   [oh yee of little Faith , Lesh ]   [chuckle]


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the ROOSEVELT Reservation runs the length of the Border and its 60 feet wide and is on USA Land .   I suppose that 60 feet is more then enough for the TRUMP WALL footprint or footers .   And from what i understand the Federal Government has Reserved and OWNED the ROOSEVELT Reservation and has owned it since 1907 Gents and Ladies .
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem t know much about engineering
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -------------------------------   and just for Grins -  ---      ---   check it out Lesh .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for showing your ignorance. NOthing there says you can build a wall in the 60 feet that is the Roosevelt Reservation.
> 
> You DO realize that if you build a wall that's 20 feet tall and made of steel and concrete you need a solid base...right.
> 
> What do o suppose the base is like within 60 feet of a river?
> 
> Yea...in a lot of places sand.
Click to expand...


HTF do you think they build footers in a river and even lakes?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Asclepias said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which you and I know will never happen.  If a wall would do no good, our border agencies would not support it.  Tunnels don't take a few days to build.  They take months to build.  Even then,if a tunnel is detected and then destroyed, that's a lot of money down the tube.  Authorities find tunnels all the time, and new technology is coming along every day.  Drones can be used to find people who magically appear or disappear.
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed a wall would do no good.  I said it is not the best solution for all parts of the border.  It is way too costly, an environmental disaster, and democrats will block funding whenever they have the power to do so.  Plus, illegal immigration has been declining for years and is likely to continue.  By the time this wall is completed in about 10 years we will have a bill for 25 to 30 billion dollars for a monument that is not needed and most people never wanted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is we just have to put up with illegal drugs, people illegally coming into our country, people who bring down our wages and are changing the language of this country, all because of the left.
> 
> Gee........it's almost like they planned it this way.  Imagine that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Changing the language? Are you really serious with that post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be a younger person who does not remember when this country was an English speaking only country.  Today, bilingual signs are everywhere and you have to press 1 to speak to a phone representative in English.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be a fucking idiot. This country has *never* been english speaking only.   What kind of retard would make a claim like that and be serious about it?
Click to expand...


Like I said, you're probably a kid and have no memory of it.  Certainly there were areas of a race or ethnicity that spoke a native tongue, but generally, the country communicated in English only.  Phone representatives spoke English only.  Signs were in English only.  Ballots were in English only.  Schools were in English only.  ATM machines were English only.  

You see at one time, if you wanted to come to this country, it was a desire to assimilate--not have this country cater to you.


----------



## Asclepias

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed a wall would do no good.  I said it is not the best solution for all parts of the border.  It is way too costly, an environmental disaster, and democrats will block funding whenever they have the power to do so.  Plus, illegal immigration has been declining for years and is likely to continue.  By the time this wall is completed in about 10 years we will have a bill for 25 to 30 billion dollars for a monument that is not needed and most people never wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is we just have to put up with illegal drugs, people illegally coming into our country, people who bring down our wages and are changing the language of this country, all because of the left.
> 
> Gee........it's almost like they planned it this way.  Imagine that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Changing the language? Are you really serious with that post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be a younger person who does not remember when this country was an English speaking only country.  Today, bilingual signs are everywhere and you have to press 1 to speak to a phone representative in English.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be a fucking idiot. This country has *never* been english speaking only.   What kind of retard would make a claim like that and be serious about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, you're probably a kid and have no memory of it.  Certainly there were areas of a race or ethnicity that spoke a native tongue, but generally, the country communicated in English only.  Phone representatives spoke English only.  Signs were in English only.  Ballots were in English only.  Schools were in English only.  ATM machines were English only.
> 
> You see at one time, if you wanted to come to this country, it was a desire to assimilate--not have this country cater to you.
Click to expand...

White people are not "the country".  Even if they were, whites themselves spoke different languages like Irish, Italian, German, etc.  Your claim was that this was once an english speaking only country. Thats another fairytale you whites like to spread. Sorry but its just not true.


----------



## pismoe

pismoe said:


> I know what 60 feet is and besides that the PRESIDENT , the builder of HUGE building all over the world is in charge of details .     Trump has built on all sorts of terrain so as i said , i will let him and his experts decide the WALL  Plans and details Lesh .   [oh yee of little Faith , Lesh ]   [chuckle]


-------------------------------------------    yeah , WE  WALL building advocates got you 'anti wall builders' by the nutz as you fume and stew and become Frantic .  Only thing left is the money but knowing The TRUMP he may even have something up his sleeve concerning WALL Building money   Lesh .


----------



## Asclepias

pismoe said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know what 60 feet is and besides that the PRESIDENT , the builder of HUGE building all over the world is in charge of details .     Trump has built on all sorts of terrain so as i said , i will let him and his experts decide the WALL  Plans and details Lesh .   [oh yee of little Faith , Lesh ]   [chuckle]
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------    yeah , WE  WALL building advocates got you 'anti wall builders' by the nutz as you fume and stew and become Frantic .  Only thing left is the money but knowing The TRUMP he may even have something up his sleeve concerning WALL Building money   Lesh .
Click to expand...

Well he did say he was going to make Mexico pay for the wall. Maybe he has been negotiating with Mexico and they are close to cutting a check.


----------



## pismoe

No one cares about 'mexico' money at the moment .   If up to me i'd rather spend your money Ace .  We can punish 'mexico' later if'n we like  Ace .


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the cost of every illegal to the US? It is around $75k each per annum I believe and there are 11 million here? So that equates to $825bn per annum? Hmmmm....maybe a $25bn wall is worth it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented foreigners are here due to the simple fact that they work, pay taxes, and create wealth through increased productivity at a lower wage.
> 
> Half of the Americans are dependent upon a government check to the point that they are broke both emotionally and financially from having to dance to the delight of a government that wants a dependent race in order to justify hiring and working cheap labor.
Click to expand...


Do you have some proof of this crazy statement?


----------



## Asclepias

pismoe said:


> No one cares about 'mexico' money at the moment .   If up to me i'd rather spend your money Ace .  We can punish 'mexico' later if'n we like  Ace .


Plenty of people care that Drumpf conned his idiot supporters. Theres no need to punish Mexico if they are going to willingly cut a check like Drumpf claimed they would. Now if he has this in the form of a promissory note then we can punish Mexico.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Asclepias said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is we just have to put up with illegal drugs, people illegally coming into our country, people who bring down our wages and are changing the language of this country, all because of the left.
> 
> Gee........it's almost like they planned it this way.  Imagine that!
> 
> 
> 
> Changing the language? Are you really serious with that post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be a younger person who does not remember when this country was an English speaking only country.  Today, bilingual signs are everywhere and you have to press 1 to speak to a phone representative in English.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be a fucking idiot. This country has *never* been english speaking only.   What kind of retard would make a claim like that and be serious about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, you're probably a kid and have no memory of it.  Certainly there were areas of a race or ethnicity that spoke a native tongue, but generally, the country communicated in English only.  Phone representatives spoke English only.  Signs were in English only.  Ballots were in English only.  Schools were in English only.  ATM machines were English only.
> 
> You see at one time, if you wanted to come to this country, it was a desire to assimilate--not have this country cater to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> White people are not "the country".  Even if they were, whites themselves spoke different languages like Irish, Italian, German, etc.  Your claim was that this was once an english speaking only country. Thats another fairytale you whites like to spread. Sorry but its just not true.
Click to expand...


Oh it is true.  I was born in an ethnic neighborhood.  In our area, everybody spoke Polish.  But outside our little area, everybody spoke English.  

So I'm not talking about little corners of the country, I'm talking about the country as a whole.  We were never a bilingual country as whats happening today.


----------



## Asclepias

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Changing the language? Are you really serious with that post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a younger person who does not remember when this country was an English speaking only country.  Today, bilingual signs are everywhere and you have to press 1 to speak to a phone representative in English.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be a fucking idiot. This country has *never* been english speaking only.   What kind of retard would make a claim like that and be serious about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, you're probably a kid and have no memory of it.  Certainly there were areas of a race or ethnicity that spoke a native tongue, but generally, the country communicated in English only.  Phone representatives spoke English only.  Signs were in English only.  Ballots were in English only.  Schools were in English only.  ATM machines were English only.
> 
> You see at one time, if you wanted to come to this country, it was a desire to assimilate--not have this country cater to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> White people are not "the country".  Even if they were, whites themselves spoke different languages like Irish, Italian, German, etc.  Your claim was that this was once an english speaking only country. Thats another fairytale you whites like to spread. Sorry but its just not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it is true.  I was born in an ethnic neighborhood.  In our area, everybody spoke Polish.  But outside our little area, everybody spoke English.
> 
> So I'm not talking about little corners of the country, I'm talking about the country as a whole.  We were never a bilingual country as whats happening today.
Click to expand...

Sorry but your area wasnt the only area that spoke a different language. There thousands of other areas speaking a different language than english. True this country was never bilingual. Thats only two languages. People in the US spoke a variety of languages and this nation has never ever been an english only nation.


----------



## Lesh

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed a wall would do no good.  I said it is not the best solution for all parts of the border.  It is way too costly, an environmental disaster, and democrats will block funding whenever they have the power to do so.  Plus, illegal immigration has been declining for years and is likely to continue.  By the time this wall is completed in about 10 years we will have a bill for 25 to 30 billion dollars for a monument that is not needed and most people never wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is we just have to put up with illegal drugs, people illegally coming into our country, people who bring down our wages and are changing the language of this country, all because of the left.
> 
> Gee........it's almost like they planned it this way.  Imagine that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Changing the language? Are you really serious with that post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be a younger person who does not remember when this country was an English speaking only country.  Today, bilingual signs are everywhere and you have to press 1 to speak to a phone representative in English.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be a fucking idiot. This country has *never* been english speaking only.   What kind of retard would make a claim like that and be serious about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, you're probably a kid and have no memory of it.  Certainly there were areas of a race or ethnicity that spoke a native tongue, but generally, the country communicated in English only.  Phone representatives spoke English only.  Signs were in English only.  Ballots were in English only.  Schools were in English only.  ATM machines were English only.
> 
> You see at one time, if you wanted to come to this country, it was a desire to assimilate--not have this country cater to you.
Click to expand...

Ever since I was a kid there were bigots like yourself screaming "You're in America...speak English"!

That was in the 60s.

So no. Then as now it was spanish that was the "subject". Before that it was Italian,German,yiddish, Romanian....and on and on...


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Asclepias said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is we just have to put up with illegal drugs, people illegally coming into our country, people who bring down our wages and are changing the language of this country, all because of the left.
> 
> Gee........it's almost like they planned it this way.  Imagine that!
> 
> 
> 
> Changing the language? Are you really serious with that post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be a younger person who does not remember when this country was an English speaking only country.  Today, bilingual signs are everywhere and you have to press 1 to speak to a phone representative in English.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be a fucking idiot. This country has *never* been english speaking only.   What kind of retard would make a claim like that and be serious about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, you're probably a kid and have no memory of it.  Certainly there were areas of a race or ethnicity that spoke a native tongue, but generally, the country communicated in English only.  Phone representatives spoke English only.  Signs were in English only.  Ballots were in English only.  Schools were in English only.  ATM machines were English only.
> 
> You see at one time, if you wanted to come to this country, it was a desire to assimilate--not have this country cater to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> White people are not "the country".  Even if they were, whites themselves spoke different languages like Irish, Italian, German, etc.  Your claim was that this was once an english speaking only country. Thats another fairytale you whites like to spread. Sorry but its just not true.
Click to expand...


On English -  "Although the English language had barely penetrated into Wales, Ireland and the Scottish Highlands by the time of Shakespeare, just two hundred years later, in 1780, John Adams was confident enough to be able to claim (with a certain amount of foresight, but quite reasonably) that English was “destined to be in the next and succeeding centuries more generally the language of the world than Latin was in the last or French is in the present age”. In 1852, the German linguist, Jacob Grimm, called English "the language of the world", and predicted it was "destined to reign in future with still more extensive sway over all parts of the globe".

The History of English - Late Modern English (c. 1800 - Present)

While people spoke a plethora of languages, English was the de facto language of the New World.

Within six months of the ratification of the Constitution, a person must be white in order to become a United States Citizen.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the cost of every illegal to the US? It is around $75k each per annum I believe and there are 11 million here? So that equates to $825bn per annum? Hmmmm....maybe a $25bn wall is worth it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented foreigners are here due to the simple fact that they work, pay taxes, and create wealth through increased productivity at a lower wage.
> 
> Half of the Americans are dependent upon a government check to the point that they are broke both emotionally and financially from having to dance to the delight of a government that wants a dependent race in order to justify hiring and working cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have some proof of this crazy statement?
Click to expand...


What do claim is crazy?


----------



## Asclepias

Porter Rockwell said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Changing the language? Are you really serious with that post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a younger person who does not remember when this country was an English speaking only country.  Today, bilingual signs are everywhere and you have to press 1 to speak to a phone representative in English.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be a fucking idiot. This country has *never* been english speaking only.   What kind of retard would make a claim like that and be serious about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, you're probably a kid and have no memory of it.  Certainly there were areas of a race or ethnicity that spoke a native tongue, but generally, the country communicated in English only.  Phone representatives spoke English only.  Signs were in English only.  Ballots were in English only.  Schools were in English only.  ATM machines were English only.
> 
> You see at one time, if you wanted to come to this country, it was a desire to assimilate--not have this country cater to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> White people are not "the country".  Even if they were, whites themselves spoke different languages like Irish, Italian, German, etc.  Your claim was that this was once an english speaking only country. Thats another fairytale you whites like to spread. Sorry but its just not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On English -  "Although the English language had barely penetrated into Wales, Ireland and the Scottish Highlands by the time of Shakespeare, just two hundred years later, in 1780, John Adams was confident enough to be able to claim (with a certain amount of foresight, but quite reasonably) that English was “destined to be in the next and succeeding centuries more generally the language of the world than Latin was in the last or French is in the present age”. In 1852, the German linguist, Jacob Grimm, called English "the language of the world", and predicted it was "destined to reign in future with still more extensive sway over all parts of the globe".
> 
> The History of English - Late Modern English (c. 1800 - Present)
> 
> While people spoke a plethora of languages, English was the de facto language of the New World.
> 
> Within six months of the ratification of the Constitution, a person must be white in order to become a United States Citizen.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've read a lot about white people claiming this or that. Doesnt really change reality though. The US was never ever an english only speaking nation.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the cost of every illegal to the US? It is around $75k each per annum I believe and there are 11 million here? So that equates to $825bn per annum? Hmmmm....maybe a $25bn wall is worth it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented foreigners are here due to the simple fact that they work, pay taxes, and create wealth through increased productivity at a lower wage.
> 
> Half of the Americans are dependent upon a government check to the point that they are broke both emotionally and financially from having to dance to the delight of a government that wants a dependent race in order to justify hiring and working cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have some proof of this crazy statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do claim is crazy?
Click to expand...


Your entire statement:

Illegal comes in with Mrs. illegal and two children. Those children go to school, get healthcare, etc. That is not free. Mr. and Mrs. illegal need a place to live, food, clothes, etc. None of that is free. Some work, but they do so by breaking the law. Most get paid under the table. They don't create wealth except for their law breaking bosses. The process in insane. You're conflating lazy Americans (there are some) with hard working illegals (there are some). But they are illegal for a reason. If you want to change immigration policy then go through Congress but turning a blind eye is simply ignorant and foolish.


----------



## danielpalos

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the cost of every illegal to the US? It is around $75k each per annum I believe and there are 11 million here? So that equates to $825bn per annum? Hmmmm....maybe a $25bn wall is worth it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented foreigners are here due to the simple fact that they work, pay taxes, and create wealth through increased productivity at a lower wage.
> 
> Half of the Americans are dependent upon a government check to the point that they are broke both emotionally and financially from having to dance to the delight of a government that wants a dependent race in order to justify hiring and working cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have some proof of this crazy statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do claim is crazy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your entire statement:
> 
> Illegal comes in with Mrs. illegal and two children. Those children go to school, get healthcare, etc. That is not free. Mr. and Mrs. illegal need a place to live, food, clothes, etc. None of that is free. Some work, but they do so by breaking the law. Most get paid under the table. They don't create wealth except for their law breaking bosses. The process in insane. You're conflating lazy Americans (there are some) with hard working illegals (there are some). But they are illegal for a reason. If you want to change immigration policy then go through Congress but turning a blind eye is simply ignorant and foolish.
Click to expand...

Can you cite any specific, wall building power?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is we just have to put up with illegal drugs, people illegally coming into our country, people who bring down our wages and are changing the language of this country, all because of the left.
> 
> Gee........it's almost like they planned it this way.  Imagine that!
> 
> 
> 
> Changing the language? Are you really serious with that post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be a younger person who does not remember when this country was an English speaking only country.  Today, bilingual signs are everywhere and you have to press 1 to speak to a phone representative in English.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be a fucking idiot. This country has *never* been english speaking only.   What kind of retard would make a claim like that and be serious about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, you're probably a kid and have no memory of it.  Certainly there were areas of a race or ethnicity that spoke a native tongue, but generally, the country communicated in English only.  Phone representatives spoke English only.  Signs were in English only.  Ballots were in English only.  Schools were in English only.  ATM machines were English only.
> 
> You see at one time, if you wanted to come to this country, it was a desire to assimilate--not have this country cater to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever since I was a kid there were bigots like yourself screaming "You're in America...speak English"!
> 
> That was in the 60s.
> 
> So no. Then as now it was spanish that was the "subject". Before that it was Italian,German,yiddish, Romanian....and on and on...
Click to expand...


As I stated, there were small enclaves in our country where people spoke a language they were comfortable with, but let me ask: when was the last time you seen a bilingual sign in Italian, Polish, German or French?  When was the last time speaking any of those languages was a prerequisite for a government or private industry job?  When was the last time you called a company and you had to press 1 for English or 2 for French?  

The truth of the matter is these people came to our country and spoke English.  Those who didn't learned in order to "assimilate" into their new country.  They didn't come here marching to our borders carrying European flags insisting we allow them in or they had every right to be here.  

Europeans came here to be part of this country, not start their own little country within ours.  They catered to us.  We didn't have to cater to them.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the cost of every illegal to the US? It is around $75k each per annum I believe and there are 11 million here? So that equates to $825bn per annum? Hmmmm....maybe a $25bn wall is worth it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented foreigners are here due to the simple fact that they work, pay taxes, and create wealth through increased productivity at a lower wage.
> 
> Half of the Americans are dependent upon a government check to the point that they are broke both emotionally and financially from having to dance to the delight of a government that wants a dependent race in order to justify hiring and working cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have some proof of this crazy statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do claim is crazy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your entire statement:
> 
> Illegal comes in with Mrs. illegal and two children. Those children go to school, get healthcare, etc. That is not free. Mr. and Mrs. illegal need a place to live, food, clothes, etc. None of that is free. Some work, but they do so by breaking the law. Most get paid under the table. They don't create wealth except for their law breaking bosses. The process in insane. You're conflating lazy Americans (there are some) with hard working illegals (there are some). But they are illegal for a reason. If you want to change immigration policy then go through Congress but turning a blind eye is simply ignorant and foolish.
Click to expand...


First off, I'm not turning a blind eye to anything.  Are you?  Do you understand how a constitutional Republic works?

It is not the undocumented foreigners fault that children receive a free education at taxpayer expense.  That is your fault.  You're the one who voted to the politicians that made that possible.  Taking advantage of your civic apathy is on you, not those who avail themselves of it.

Your view is that somehow the foreigner stands in line collecting benefits, yet manages to steal your job.  and you think I'm crazy???

I'm a noob here and board rules prevented me from posting a link (which btw wasn't mine in the first place; it belonged to the poster I was quoting.)  Be that as it may, according to the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration, nearly three quarters of the people who are undocumented get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number and pay the same federal tax you do.  Besides that, ALL the other taxes cannot be avoided.  

You tell me there are "some" lazy Americans?  Are you kidding?  America represents 4 percent of the world's population.  They consume 80 percent of the world's opioid supply.  America has more people in prison than any nation on the planet.  The U.S. prison population is 22 percent of the world's population.  Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but those people are unemployable - and THAT is your fault.  Aren't you of the opinion that people should have a National ID Card and be subject to constant background checks?  Well guess what?  HALF of the American people are living off the government now.  SOMEBODY has to work.

Contrary to your opinion, NOBODY is obligated to obey an unconstitutional act.  The majority of Americans have spoken - whether we like it or not.


----------



## Slyhunter

Asclepias said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one cares about 'mexico' money at the moment .   If up to me i'd rather spend your money Ace .  We can punish 'mexico' later if'n we like  Ace .
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of people care that Drumpf conned his idiot supporters. Theres no need to punish Mexico if they are going to willingly cut a check like Drumpf claimed they would. Now if he has this in the form of a promissory note then we can punish Mexico.
Click to expand...

None of Trumps supported thought Mexico would write a check.
Just like when that other poster said English country he meant primarily English with no or little accommodations to those who spoke other languages.

You're still nitpicking.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Asclepias said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a younger person who does not remember when this country was an English speaking only country.  Today, bilingual signs are everywhere and you have to press 1 to speak to a phone representative in English.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a fucking idiot. This country has *never* been english speaking only.   What kind of retard would make a claim like that and be serious about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, you're probably a kid and have no memory of it.  Certainly there were areas of a race or ethnicity that spoke a native tongue, but generally, the country communicated in English only.  Phone representatives spoke English only.  Signs were in English only.  Ballots were in English only.  Schools were in English only.  ATM machines were English only.
> 
> You see at one time, if you wanted to come to this country, it was a desire to assimilate--not have this country cater to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> White people are not "the country".  Even if they were, whites themselves spoke different languages like Irish, Italian, German, etc.  Your claim was that this was once an english speaking only country. Thats another fairytale you whites like to spread. Sorry but its just not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On English -  "Although the English language had barely penetrated into Wales, Ireland and the Scottish Highlands by the time of Shakespeare, just two hundred years later, in 1780, John Adams was confident enough to be able to claim (with a certain amount of foresight, but quite reasonably) that English was “destined to be in the next and succeeding centuries more generally the language of the world than Latin was in the last or French is in the present age”. In 1852, the German linguist, Jacob Grimm, called English "the language of the world", and predicted it was "destined to reign in future with still more extensive sway over all parts of the globe".
> 
> The History of English - Late Modern English (c. 1800 - Present)
> 
> While people spoke a plethora of languages, English was the de facto language of the New World.
> 
> Within six months of the ratification of the Constitution, a person must be white in order to become a United States Citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I've read a lot about white people claiming this or that. Doesnt really change reality though. The US was never ever an english only speaking nation.
Click to expand...



Didn't say it was, but it was the language we used to communicate and it became a part of our cultural heritage.  At one time over 90 percent of the American people had a Bible in their homes.  There was no law mandating it.


----------



## Lesh

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Changing the language? Are you really serious with that post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a younger person who does not remember when this country was an English speaking only country.  Today, bilingual signs are everywhere and you have to press 1 to speak to a phone representative in English.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be a fucking idiot. This country has *never* been english speaking only.   What kind of retard would make a claim like that and be serious about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, you're probably a kid and have no memory of it.  Certainly there were areas of a race or ethnicity that spoke a native tongue, but generally, the country communicated in English only.  Phone representatives spoke English only.  Signs were in English only.  Ballots were in English only.  Schools were in English only.  ATM machines were English only.
> 
> You see at one time, if you wanted to come to this country, it was a desire to assimilate--not have this country cater to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever since I was a kid there were bigots like yourself screaming "You're in America...speak English"!
> 
> That was in the 60s.
> 
> So no. Then as now it was spanish that was the "subject". Before that it was Italian,German,yiddish, Romanian....and on and on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I stated, there were small enclaves in our country where people spoke a language they were comfortable with, but let me ask: when was the last time you seen a bilingual sign in Italian, Polish, German or French?  When was the last time speaking any of those languages was a prerequisite for a government or private industry job?  When was the last time you called a company and you had to press 1 for English or 2 for French?
> 
> The truth of the matter is these people came to our country and spoke English.  Those who didn't learned in order to "assimilate" into their new country.  They didn't come here marching to our borders carrying European flags insisting we allow them in or they had every right to be here.
> 
> Europeans came here to be part of this country, not start their own little country within ours.  They catered to us.  We didn't have to cater to them.[/QUOTE
> 
> Polish...yesterday in the Polish section of Linden NJ.
> And then there was all that Yiddish I saw in Brooklyn last month ]
Click to expand...


----------



## sartre play

LEGALY, only emergency health care is possible. But there is NO way welfare type agency's  have the skills to pick out the fake ID'S so YES ILEGAL'S get services that are only suppose to be for citizens.
many pay into the system because of they have to but because there illegal cant /don't get to take anything out. . how much money we make off of them I don't know. sure the big company's that hire them make money. home owners that use them save money. would be interesting to know the real figures. some parts of the country they are a real burden
. other areas the cheap farm, ranch, labor keeps prices down & profits up . need some Truthful information. not this hyper mix of fact & fiction.

 there is no doubt its a mess. don't get why rich powerful people & big corporations get special permits to bring in temp people, from Ireland, the middle east or any where else.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a fucking idiot. This country has *never* been english speaking only.   What kind of retard would make a claim like that and be serious about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, you're probably a kid and have no memory of it.  Certainly there were areas of a race or ethnicity that spoke a native tongue, but generally, the country communicated in English only.  Phone representatives spoke English only.  Signs were in English only.  Ballots were in English only.  Schools were in English only.  ATM machines were English only.
> 
> You see at one time, if you wanted to come to this country, it was a desire to assimilate--not have this country cater to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> White people are not "the country".  Even if they were, whites themselves spoke different languages like Irish, Italian, German, etc.  Your claim was that this was once an english speaking only country. Thats another fairytale you whites like to spread. Sorry but its just not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On English -  "Although the English language had barely penetrated into Wales, Ireland and the Scottish Highlands by the time of Shakespeare, just two hundred years later, in 1780, John Adams was confident enough to be able to claim (with a certain amount of foresight, but quite reasonably) that English was “destined to be in the next and succeeding centuries more generally the language of the world than Latin was in the last or French is in the present age”. In 1852, the German linguist, Jacob Grimm, called English "the language of the world", and predicted it was "destined to reign in future with still more extensive sway over all parts of the globe".
> 
> The History of English - Late Modern English (c. 1800 - Present)
> 
> While people spoke a plethora of languages, English was the de facto language of the New World.
> 
> Within six months of the ratification of the Constitution, a person must be white in order to become a United States Citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I've read a lot about white people claiming this or that. Doesnt really change reality though. The US was never ever an english only speaking nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say it was, but it was the language we used to communicate and it became a part of our cultural heritage.  At one time over 90 percent of the American people had a Bible in their homes.  There was no law mandating it.
Click to expand...

Used to be a bible in every hotel room. Things change.
Doesn't always change the way I or you want them to.


----------



## Slyhunter

sartre play said:


> LEGALY, only emergency health care is possible. But there is NO way welfare type agency's  have the skills to pick out the fake ID'S so YES ILEGAL'S get services that are only suppose to be for citizens.
> many pay into the system because of they have to but because there illegal cant /don't get to take anything out. . how much money we make off of them I don't know. sure the big company's that hire them make money. home owners that use them save money. would be interesting to know the real figures. some parts of the country they are a real burden
> . other areas the cheap farm, ranch, labor keeps prices down & profits up . need some Truthful information. not this hyper mix of fact & fiction.
> 
> there is no doubt its a mess. don't get why rich powerful people & big corporations get special permits to bring in temp people, from Ireland, the middle east or any where else.


Illegals don't have to create a fake id to get welfare. They only have to poop out an American and collect it on the behest of their spawn.


----------



## my2¢

I didn't think a wall was wrong until this Christmas season had me remember that Joseph, Mary and their infant were refugees when they fled from Israel to Egypt.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

danielpalos said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the cost of every illegal to the US? It is around $75k each per annum I believe and there are 11 million here? So that equates to $825bn per annum? Hmmmm....maybe a $25bn wall is worth it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented foreigners are here due to the simple fact that they work, pay taxes, and create wealth through increased productivity at a lower wage.
> 
> Half of the Americans are dependent upon a government check to the point that they are broke both emotionally and financially from having to dance to the delight of a government that wants a dependent race in order to justify hiring and working cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have some proof of this crazy statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do claim is crazy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your entire statement:
> 
> Illegal comes in with Mrs. illegal and two children. Those children go to school, get healthcare, etc. That is not free. Mr. and Mrs. illegal need a place to live, food, clothes, etc. None of that is free. Some work, but they do so by breaking the law. Most get paid under the table. They don't create wealth except for their law breaking bosses. The process in insane. You're conflating lazy Americans (there are some) with hard working illegals (there are some). But they are illegal for a reason. If you want to change immigration policy then go through Congress but turning a blind eye is simply ignorant and foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you cite any specific, wall building power?
Click to expand...


Like a picture of a mason? What do you mean?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the cost of every illegal to the US? It is around $75k each per annum I believe and there are 11 million here? So that equates to $825bn per annum? Hmmmm....maybe a $25bn wall is worth it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented foreigners are here due to the simple fact that they work, pay taxes, and create wealth through increased productivity at a lower wage.
> 
> Half of the Americans are dependent upon a government check to the point that they are broke both emotionally and financially from having to dance to the delight of a government that wants a dependent race in order to justify hiring and working cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have some proof of this crazy statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do claim is crazy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your entire statement:
> 
> Illegal comes in with Mrs. illegal and two children. Those children go to school, get healthcare, etc. That is not free. Mr. and Mrs. illegal need a place to live, food, clothes, etc. None of that is free. Some work, but they do so by breaking the law. Most get paid under the table. They don't create wealth except for their law breaking bosses. The process in insane. You're conflating lazy Americans (there are some) with hard working illegals (there are some). But they are illegal for a reason. If you want to change immigration policy then go through Congress but turning a blind eye is simply ignorant and foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, I'm not turning a blind eye to anything.  Are you?  Do you understand how a constitutional Republic works?
> 
> It is not the undocumented foreigners fault that children receive a free education at taxpayer expense.  That is your fault.  You're the one who voted to the politicians that made that possible.  Taking advantage of your civic apathy is on you, not those who avail themselves of it.
> 
> Your view is that somehow the foreigner stands in line collecting benefits, yet manages to steal your job.  and you think I'm crazy???
> 
> I'm a noob here and board rules prevented me from posting a link (which btw wasn't mine in the first place; it belonged to the poster I was quoting.)  Be that as it may, according to the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration, nearly three quarters of the people who are undocumented get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number and pay the same federal tax you do.  Besides that, ALL the other taxes cannot be avoided.
> 
> You tell me there are "some" lazy Americans?  Are you kidding?  America represents 4 percent of the world's population.  They consume 80 percent of the world's opioid supply.  America has more people in prison than any nation on the planet.  The U.S. prison population is 22 percent of the world's population.  Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but those people are unemployable - and THAT is your fault.  Aren't you of the opinion that people should have a National ID Card and be subject to constant background checks?  Well guess what?  HALF of the American people are living off the government now.  SOMEBODY has to work.
> 
> Contrary to your opinion, NOBODY is obligated to obey an unconstitutional act.  The majority of Americans have spoken - whether we like it or not.
Click to expand...


You make some valid pts but how is it my fault? LOL.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

sartre play said:


> LEGALY, only emergency health care is possible. But there is NO way welfare type agency's  have the skills to pick out the fake ID'S so YES ILEGAL'S get services that are only suppose to be for citizens.
> many pay into the system because of they have to but because there illegal cant /don't get to take anything out. . how much money we make off of them I don't know. sure the big company's that hire them make money. home owners that use them save money. would be interesting to know the real figures. some parts of the country they are a real burden
> . other areas the cheap farm, ranch, labor keeps prices down & profits up . need some Truthful information. not this hyper mix of fact & fiction.
> 
> there is no doubt its a mess. don't get why rich powerful people & big corporations get special permits to bring in temp people, from Ireland, the middle east or any where else.



I agree with a lot of what you're saying.  At the same time, it was the people who wanted strict immigration policies that led to the Orwellian National ID mindset.  Today we have National ID and people still complaining about fake IDs.  

If more Americans had an entrepreneurial spirit, a lot of these sides issues could be taken off the table.


----------



## dblack

Slyhunter said:


> sartre play said:
> 
> 
> 
> LEGALY, only emergency health care is possible. But there is NO way welfare type agency's  have the skills to pick out the fake ID'S so YES ILEGAL'S get services that are only suppose to be for citizens.
> many pay into the system because of they have to but because there illegal cant /don't get to take anything out. . how much money we make off of them I don't know. sure the big company's that hire them make money. home owners that use them save money. would be interesting to know the real figures. some parts of the country they are a real burden
> . other areas the cheap farm, ranch, labor keeps prices down & profits up . need some Truthful information. not this hyper mix of fact & fiction.
> 
> there is no doubt its a mess. don't get why rich powerful people & big corporations get special permits to bring in temp people, from Ireland, the middle east or any where else.
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals don't have to create a fake id to get welfare. They only have to poop out an American and collect it on the behest of their spawn.
Click to expand...

So fix THAT problem. There's no relevant justification for anchor babies. Let's change the law, and skip walling off our nation like a gulag.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undocumented foreigners are here due to the simple fact that they work, pay taxes, and create wealth through increased productivity at a lower wage.
> 
> Half of the Americans are dependent upon a government check to the point that they are broke both emotionally and financially from having to dance to the delight of a government that wants a dependent race in order to justify hiring and working cheap labor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have some proof of this crazy statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do claim is crazy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your entire statement:
> 
> Illegal comes in with Mrs. illegal and two children. Those children go to school, get healthcare, etc. That is not free. Mr. and Mrs. illegal need a place to live, food, clothes, etc. None of that is free. Some work, but they do so by breaking the law. Most get paid under the table. They don't create wealth except for their law breaking bosses. The process in insane. You're conflating lazy Americans (there are some) with hard working illegals (there are some). But they are illegal for a reason. If you want to change immigration policy then go through Congress but turning a blind eye is simply ignorant and foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, I'm not turning a blind eye to anything.  Are you?  Do you understand how a constitutional Republic works?
> 
> It is not the undocumented foreigners fault that children receive a free education at taxpayer expense.  That is your fault.  You're the one who voted to the politicians that made that possible.  Taking advantage of your civic apathy is on you, not those who avail themselves of it.
> 
> Your view is that somehow the foreigner stands in line collecting benefits, yet manages to steal your job.  and you think I'm crazy???
> 
> I'm a noob here and board rules prevented me from posting a link (which btw wasn't mine in the first place; it belonged to the poster I was quoting.)  Be that as it may, according to the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration, nearly three quarters of the people who are undocumented get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number and pay the same federal tax you do.  Besides that, ALL the other taxes cannot be avoided.
> 
> You tell me there are "some" lazy Americans?  Are you kidding?  America represents 4 percent of the world's population.  They consume 80 percent of the world's opioid supply.  America has more people in prison than any nation on the planet.  The U.S. prison population is 22 percent of the world's population.  Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but those people are unemployable - and THAT is your fault.  Aren't you of the opinion that people should have a National ID Card and be subject to constant background checks?  Well guess what?  HALF of the American people are living off the government now.  SOMEBODY has to work.
> 
> Contrary to your opinion, NOBODY is obligated to obey an unconstitutional act.  The majority of Americans have spoken - whether we like it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make some valid pts but how is it my fault? LOL.
Click to expand...


Most of the symptoms that you complained about were put into place by American voters that voted for those in control, who in turn, appointed judges and the heads of regulatory agencies to enforce the laws passed by those politicians you elected.

Our bad policies then resulted in a disenfranchisement of our own people.  For example:  The guy who gets a ding on his record gets locked out of the system.  His record is now his constant companion.  

Did you vote for the guys that supported National ID?  Since you're complaining about people working off of a fake ID, how did National ID legislation help immigration?  When does that  legislation stop affecting Americans who need to bury their past at some point and start over?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

my2¢ said:


> I didn't think a wall was wrong until this Christmas season had me remember that Joseph, Mary and their infant were refugees when they fled from Israel to Egypt.



And that's what Democrats were counting on.  It's why they make the association.  Brainwashing is their most valuable tool.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sartre play said:
> 
> 
> 
> LEGALY, only emergency health care is possible. But there is NO way welfare type agency's  have the skills to pick out the fake ID'S so YES ILEGAL'S get services that are only suppose to be for citizens.
> many pay into the system because of they have to but because there illegal cant /don't get to take anything out. . how much money we make off of them I don't know. sure the big company's that hire them make money. home owners that use them save money. would be interesting to know the real figures. some parts of the country they are a real burden
> . other areas the cheap farm, ranch, labor keeps prices down & profits up . need some Truthful information. not this hyper mix of fact & fiction.
> 
> there is no doubt its a mess. don't get why rich powerful people & big corporations get special permits to bring in temp people, from Ireland, the middle east or any where else.
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals don't have to create a fake id to get welfare. They only have to poop out an American and collect it on the behest of their spawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So fix THAT problem. There's no relevant justification for anchor babies. Let's change the law, and skip walling off our nation like a gulag.
Click to expand...


You know as well as I when Trump does that, the libs will be there to challenge it in court as a 14th amendment violation.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> sartre play said:
> 
> 
> 
> LEGALY, only emergency health care is possible. But there is NO way welfare type agency's  have the skills to pick out the fake ID'S so YES ILEGAL'S get services that are only suppose to be for citizens.
> many pay into the system because of they have to but because there illegal cant /don't get to take anything out. . how much money we make off of them I don't know. sure the big company's that hire them make money. home owners that use them save money. would be interesting to know the real figures. some parts of the country they are a real burden
> . other areas the cheap farm, ranch, labor keeps prices down & profits up . need some Truthful information. not this hyper mix of fact & fiction.
> 
> there is no doubt its a mess. don't get why rich powerful people & big corporations get special permits to bring in temp people, from Ireland, the middle east or any where else.
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals don't have to create a fake id to get welfare. They only have to poop out an American and collect it on the behest of their spawn.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but I have to call you on this:

The welfare is only intended for the American born child.  It is not for the parents and they cannot live off a poverty level check intended for one person.  Neither does that baby in any way anchor the parents here.  So, how come we're calling them anchor babies?

Undocumented parents are still subject to deportation - American born baby or not.  Some people will be advocating to change the law, but in reality, the law simply does not exist to make those you call anchor babies citizens.  Those children are here by virtue of the 14th Amendment and I know from reading posts here that I'm not alone in questioning the validity of the 14th Amendment.  It simply does not pass constitutional muster.  It will be up to the voters to study the history of that Amendment, expose it, and then resist it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sartre play said:
> 
> 
> 
> LEGALY, only emergency health care is possible. But there is NO way welfare type agency's  have the skills to pick out the fake ID'S so YES ILEGAL'S get services that are only suppose to be for citizens.
> many pay into the system because of they have to but because there illegal cant /don't get to take anything out. . how much money we make off of them I don't know. sure the big company's that hire them make money. home owners that use them save money. would be interesting to know the real figures. some parts of the country they are a real burden
> . other areas the cheap farm, ranch, labor keeps prices down & profits up . need some Truthful information. not this hyper mix of fact & fiction.
> 
> there is no doubt its a mess. don't get why rich powerful people & big corporations get special permits to bring in temp people, from Ireland, the middle east or any where else.
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals don't have to create a fake id to get welfare. They only have to poop out an American and collect it on the behest of their spawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So fix THAT problem. There's no relevant justification for anchor babies. Let's change the law, and skip walling off our nation like a gulag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know as well as I when Trump does that, the libs will be there to challenge it in court as a 14th amendment violation.
Click to expand...


Put the 14th Amendment on trial.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, you're probably a kid and have no memory of it.  Certainly there were areas of a race or ethnicity that spoke a native tongue, but generally, the country communicated in English only.  Phone representatives spoke English only.  Signs were in English only.  Ballots were in English only.  Schools were in English only.  ATM machines were English only.
> 
> You see at one time, if you wanted to come to this country, it was a desire to assimilate--not have this country cater to you.
> 
> 
> 
> White people are not "the country".  Even if they were, whites themselves spoke different languages like Irish, Italian, German, etc.  Your claim was that this was once an english speaking only country. Thats another fairytale you whites like to spread. Sorry but its just not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On English -  "Although the English language had barely penetrated into Wales, Ireland and the Scottish Highlands by the time of Shakespeare, just two hundred years later, in 1780, John Adams was confident enough to be able to claim (with a certain amount of foresight, but quite reasonably) that English was “destined to be in the next and succeeding centuries more generally the language of the world than Latin was in the last or French is in the present age”. In 1852, the German linguist, Jacob Grimm, called English "the language of the world", and predicted it was "destined to reign in future with still more extensive sway over all parts of the globe".
> 
> The History of English - Late Modern English (c. 1800 - Present)
> 
> While people spoke a plethora of languages, English was the de facto language of the New World.
> 
> Within six months of the ratification of the Constitution, a person must be white in order to become a United States Citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I've read a lot about white people claiming this or that. Doesnt really change reality though. The US was never ever an english only speaking nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say it was, but it was the language we used to communicate and it became a part of our cultural heritage.  At one time over 90 percent of the American people had a Bible in their homes.  There was no law mandating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Used to be a bible in every hotel room. Things change.
> Doesn't always change the way I or you want them to.
Click to expand...


It is the nature of the political system to change the things that you don't agree with.  Just because change is inevitable, it does not mean you forever accept those laws that were passed that denied to you some benefit, right or privilege that you were entitled to before the law was passed.  If it was changed for the benefit of the left, you can change it back to the benefit of right.

If we truly feel that the America our forefathers envisioned is not the one we want today then we have no excuse for thinking that we should preserve, protect and defend our heritage, families, culture and their futures (as well as our own.)  Maybe we should just acquiesce and give America to the third world.  Then again, we could reflect on the nation generations created before us and then begin working toward sensible ways to preserve it for future generations without losing our own rights and moral compass along the way.


----------



## Slyhunter

dblack said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sartre play said:
> 
> 
> 
> LEGALY, only emergency health care is possible. But there is NO way welfare type agency's  have the skills to pick out the fake ID'S so YES ILEGAL'S get services that are only suppose to be for citizens.
> many pay into the system because of they have to but because there illegal cant /don't get to take anything out. . how much money we make off of them I don't know. sure the big company's that hire them make money. home owners that use them save money. would be interesting to know the real figures. some parts of the country they are a real burden
> . other areas the cheap farm, ranch, labor keeps prices down & profits up . need some Truthful information. not this hyper mix of fact & fiction.
> 
> there is no doubt its a mess. don't get why rich powerful people & big corporations get special permits to bring in temp people, from Ireland, the middle east or any where else.
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals don't have to create a fake id to get welfare. They only have to poop out an American and collect it on the behest of their spawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So fix THAT problem. There's no relevant justification for anchor babies. Let's change the law, and skip walling off our nation like a gulag.
Click to expand...

And say fuck our poor, let them starve in the streets.


----------



## dblack

Slyhunter said:


> And say fuck our poor, let them starve in the streets.


? Why would you say that?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sartre play said:
> 
> 
> 
> LEGALY, only emergency health care is possible. But there is NO way welfare type agency's  have the skills to pick out the fake ID'S so YES ILEGAL'S get services that are only suppose to be for citizens.
> many pay into the system because of they have to but because there illegal cant /don't get to take anything out. . how much money we make off of them I don't know. sure the big company's that hire them make money. home owners that use them save money. would be interesting to know the real figures. some parts of the country they are a real burden
> . other areas the cheap farm, ranch, labor keeps prices down & profits up . need some Truthful information. not this hyper mix of fact & fiction.
> 
> there is no doubt its a mess. don't get why rich powerful people & big corporations get special permits to bring in temp people, from Ireland, the middle east or any where else.
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals don't have to create a fake id to get welfare. They only have to poop out an American and collect it on the behest of their spawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So fix THAT problem. There's no relevant justification for anchor babies. Let's change the law, and skip walling off our nation like a gulag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know as well as I when Trump does that, the libs will be there to challenge it in court as a 14th amendment violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put the 14th Amendment on trial.
Click to expand...


It's a long, drawn out, expensive battle.  Especially with all the leftist activist judges still on the bench.  But perhaps after all the dust settles and Trump has some time, he may try to have the courts decide the issue.  Right now, he's dealing with a government shutdown and the possibility of the Democrat Congress trying to impeach him.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sartre play said:
> 
> 
> 
> LEGALY, only emergency health care is possible. But there is NO way welfare type agency's  have the skills to pick out the fake ID'S so YES ILEGAL'S get services that are only suppose to be for citizens.
> many pay into the system because of they have to but because there illegal cant /don't get to take anything out. . how much money we make off of them I don't know. sure the big company's that hire them make money. home owners that use them save money. would be interesting to know the real figures. some parts of the country they are a real burden
> . other areas the cheap farm, ranch, labor keeps prices down & profits up . need some Truthful information. not this hyper mix of fact & fiction.
> 
> there is no doubt its a mess. don't get why rich powerful people & big corporations get special permits to bring in temp people, from Ireland, the middle east or any where else.
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals don't have to create a fake id to get welfare. They only have to poop out an American and collect it on the behest of their spawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I have to call you on this:
> 
> The welfare is only intended for the American born child.  It is not for the parents and they cannot live off a poverty level check intended for one person.  Neither does that baby in any way anchor the parents here.  So, how come we're calling them anchor babies?
> 
> Undocumented parents are still subject to deportation - American born baby or not.  Some people will be advocating to change the law, but in reality, the law simply does not exist to make those you call anchor babies citizens.  Those children are here by virtue of the 14th Amendment and I know from reading posts here that I'm not alone in questioning the validity of the 14th Amendment.  It simply does not pass constitutional muster.  It will be up to the voters to study the history of that Amendment, expose it, and then resist it.
Click to expand...


Very difficult to do with the leftist media.  Don't you remember how they came out in full force when children were separated from their parents just a few months ago?  They even got a picture of kids in cages during the Obama administration and tried to pass it off as something Trump was doing.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sartre play said:
> 
> 
> 
> LEGALY, only emergency health care is possible. But there is NO way welfare type agency's  have the skills to pick out the fake ID'S so YES ILEGAL'S get services that are only suppose to be for citizens.
> many pay into the system because of they have to but because there illegal cant /don't get to take anything out. . how much money we make off of them I don't know. sure the big company's that hire them make money. home owners that use them save money. would be interesting to know the real figures. some parts of the country they are a real burden
> . other areas the cheap farm, ranch, labor keeps prices down & profits up . need some Truthful information. not this hyper mix of fact & fiction.
> 
> there is no doubt its a mess. don't get why rich powerful people & big corporations get special permits to bring in temp people, from Ireland, the middle east or any where else.
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals don't have to create a fake id to get welfare. They only have to poop out an American and collect it on the behest of their spawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So fix THAT problem. There's no relevant justification for anchor babies. Let's change the law, and skip walling off our nation like a gulag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know as well as I when Trump does that, the libs will be there to challenge it in court as a 14th amendment violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put the 14th Amendment on trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a long, drawn out, expensive battle.  Especially with all the leftist activist judges still on the bench.  But perhaps after all the dust settles and Trump has some time, he may try to have the courts decide the issue.  Right now, he's dealing with a government shutdown and the possibility of the Democrat Congress trying to impeach him.
Click to expand...


I'm not talking about using Congress or the President.  This is a job for the citizenry


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sartre play said:
> 
> 
> 
> LEGALY, only emergency health care is possible. But there is NO way welfare type agency's  have the skills to pick out the fake ID'S so YES ILEGAL'S get services that are only suppose to be for citizens.
> many pay into the system because of they have to but because there illegal cant /don't get to take anything out. . how much money we make off of them I don't know. sure the big company's that hire them make money. home owners that use them save money. would be interesting to know the real figures. some parts of the country they are a real burden
> . other areas the cheap farm, ranch, labor keeps prices down & profits up . need some Truthful information. not this hyper mix of fact & fiction.
> 
> there is no doubt its a mess. don't get why rich powerful people & big corporations get special permits to bring in temp people, from Ireland, the middle east or any where else.
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals don't have to create a fake id to get welfare. They only have to poop out an American and collect it on the behest of their spawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I have to call you on this:
> 
> The welfare is only intended for the American born child.  It is not for the parents and they cannot live off a poverty level check intended for one person.  Neither does that baby in any way anchor the parents here.  So, how come we're calling them anchor babies?
> 
> Undocumented parents are still subject to deportation - American born baby or not.  Some people will be advocating to change the law, but in reality, the law simply does not exist to make those you call anchor babies citizens.  Those children are here by virtue of the 14th Amendment and I know from reading posts here that I'm not alone in questioning the validity of the 14th Amendment.  It simply does not pass constitutional muster.  It will be up to the voters to study the history of that Amendment, expose it, and then resist it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very difficult to do with the leftist media.  Don't you remember how they came out in full force when children were separated from their parents just a few months ago?  They even got a picture of kids in cages during the Obama administration and tried to pass it off as something Trump was doing.
Click to expand...


It's difficult to do which is why I started out on this thread asking if it were possible that both the left and the right are hoodwinking the people.  What if this discussion is a strategy ploy to con you into acquiescing all of your rights in lieu of a false promise to get rid of undocumented foreigners.

My observation is that the symptoms people complain about and the reason they support the wall are not one and the same.  The rationale or default position of those in favor of a wall has to do with border security.  Mike Huckabee, on his most recent tv show, began with the analogy of WalMart having cameras looking at you every moment from the time you arrive until you leave.  Of course there are those cameras and listening devices on cop cars that can track your every move.

The problem for me is that some are giving up our Liberty and finding excuses to  trash the Constitution just to keep foreigners out.  It won't work.  We'd be better off admitting that and then work to get those people to become Guest Workers with no expectation of citizenship or welfare.  At the same time we have to find innovative ways to get Americans back into the workforce which will diminish any perceived need for the foreigners to be here in the first place.


----------



## dblack

Pablum for cowards and dummies.


----------



## dblack

Porter Rockwell said:


> It's difficult to do which is why I started out on this thread asking if it were possible that both the left and the right are hoodwinking the people.  What if this discussion is a strategy ploy to con you into acquiescing all of your rights in lieu of a false promise to get rid of undocumented foreigners.



Ayup. That covers it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sartre play said:
> 
> 
> 
> LEGALY, only emergency health care is possible. But there is NO way welfare type agency's  have the skills to pick out the fake ID'S so YES ILEGAL'S get services that are only suppose to be for citizens.
> many pay into the system because of they have to but because there illegal cant /don't get to take anything out. . how much money we make off of them I don't know. sure the big company's that hire them make money. home owners that use them save money. would be interesting to know the real figures. some parts of the country they are a real burden
> . other areas the cheap farm, ranch, labor keeps prices down & profits up . need some Truthful information. not this hyper mix of fact & fiction.
> 
> there is no doubt its a mess. don't get why rich powerful people & big corporations get special permits to bring in temp people, from Ireland, the middle east or any where else.
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals don't have to create a fake id to get welfare. They only have to poop out an American and collect it on the behest of their spawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I have to call you on this:
> 
> The welfare is only intended for the American born child.  It is not for the parents and they cannot live off a poverty level check intended for one person.  Neither does that baby in any way anchor the parents here.  So, how come we're calling them anchor babies?
> 
> Undocumented parents are still subject to deportation - American born baby or not.  Some people will be advocating to change the law, but in reality, the law simply does not exist to make those you call anchor babies citizens.  Those children are here by virtue of the 14th Amendment and I know from reading posts here that I'm not alone in questioning the validity of the 14th Amendment.  It simply does not pass constitutional muster.  It will be up to the voters to study the history of that Amendment, expose it, and then resist it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very difficult to do with the leftist media.  Don't you remember how they came out in full force when children were separated from their parents just a few months ago?  They even got a picture of kids in cages during the Obama administration and tried to pass it off as something Trump was doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's difficult to do which is why I started out on this thread asking if it were possible that both the left and the right are hoodwinking the people.  What if this discussion is a strategy ploy to con you into acquiescing all of your rights in lieu of a false promise to get rid of undocumented foreigners.
> 
> My observation is that the symptoms people complain about and the reason they support the wall are not one and the same.  The rationale or default position of those in favor of a wall has to do with border security.  Mike Huckabee, on his most recent tv show, began with the analogy of WalMart having cameras looking at you every moment from the time you arrive until you leave.  Of course there are those cameras and listening devices on cop cars that can track your every move.
> 
> The problem for me is that some are giving up our Liberty and finding excuses to  trash the Constitution just to keep foreigners out.  It won't work.  We'd be better off admitting that and then work to get those people to become Guest Workers with no expectation of citizenship or welfare.  At the same time we have to find innovative ways to get Americans back into the workforce which will diminish any perceived need for the foreigners to be here in the first place.
Click to expand...


Let me explain to you what's really going on here.  I've said this repeatedly, so those who read my theory can just skip over it.

The Democrat party has become the anti-white party.  Why?  Most of the Democrats are white themselves!  The reason is power.  The Democrats long term goal is to have a one-party government with little to no opposition.  So how could they accomplish this?

Simple: every other group outside of whites vote a majority Democrat.  The Jewish vote majority Democrat.  The middle-eastern people vote a majority Democrat.  The Asians vote Democrat.  This is especially important of the Hispanic community.  Blacks?  Forget about it.

Once the Democrat party wipes out whites (not in a genocidal way, but a political way) they will have the ability to have this one-party government for eternity.  This is why they are working tirelessly to make whites a minority in this country for the first time since our founding. 

Think about it.  Why is the wall such a threat to them so to the point they are willing to shutdown the government?  Why are they (and their activist judges) fighting to keep sanctuary cities and now states?  Why do they want to eliminate ICE?  Why do they provide aid and comfort to illegals such as giving them drivers license?

The point is, you can't compromise with people trying to wipe you off the planet.  It's a very similar situation to the Palestinians and the Jewish.  There is no compromise when one side wants the other side totally eliminated.


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Let me explain to you what's really going on here.  I've said this repeatedly, so those who read my theory can just skip over it.
> 
> ...



I haven't read your theory, but I skipped over it anyway. Am I doing it wrong?


----------



## Lakhota

> *Why is Building the Wall Wrong?*



Why is building the wall RIGHT?


----------



## hunarcy

Grampa Murked U said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so silly is the reich totally ignores the largest immigration problem is expired visa's. There are more of them than people crossing without permission or documentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40%. Of illegals came in legally and overstay.  Wall does nothing for that .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So fuck it forget about the rest?
> 
> Like I said, RUSSIAN ROULETTE
Click to expand...


Funny how the troll wants you to focus on the 40% while ignoring the 60%


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain to you what's really going on here.  I've said this repeatedly, so those who read my theory can just skip over it.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't read your theory, but I skipped over it anyway. Am I doing it wrong?
Click to expand...


Are you doing what wrong?


----------



## bripat9643

Lakhota said:


> *Why is Building the Wall Wrong?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is building the wall RIGHT?
Click to expand...

Because it's our country, nimrod, not theirs.


----------



## Asclepias

bripat9643 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why is Building the Wall Wrong?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is building the wall RIGHT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's our country, nimrod, not theirs.
Click to expand...

Nimrod was the son of Cush and the first king on earth.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sartre play said:
> 
> 
> 
> LEGALY, only emergency health care is possible. But there is NO way welfare type agency's  have the skills to pick out the fake ID'S so YES ILEGAL'S get services that are only suppose to be for citizens.
> many pay into the system because of they have to but because there illegal cant /don't get to take anything out. . how much money we make off of them I don't know. sure the big company's that hire them make money. home owners that use them save money. would be interesting to know the real figures. some parts of the country they are a real burden
> . other areas the cheap farm, ranch, labor keeps prices down & profits up . need some Truthful information. not this hyper mix of fact & fiction.
> 
> there is no doubt its a mess. don't get why rich powerful people & big corporations get special permits to bring in temp people, from Ireland, the middle east or any where else.
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals don't have to create a fake id to get welfare. They only have to poop out an American and collect it on the behest of their spawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I have to call you on this:
> 
> The welfare is only intended for the American born child.  It is not for the parents and they cannot live off a poverty level check intended for one person.  Neither does that baby in any way anchor the parents here.  So, how come we're calling them anchor babies?
> 
> Undocumented parents are still subject to deportation - American born baby or not.  Some people will be advocating to change the law, but in reality, the law simply does not exist to make those you call anchor babies citizens.  Those children are here by virtue of the 14th Amendment and I know from reading posts here that I'm not alone in questioning the validity of the 14th Amendment.  It simply does not pass constitutional muster.  It will be up to the voters to study the history of that Amendment, expose it, and then resist it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very difficult to do with the leftist media.  Don't you remember how they came out in full force when children were separated from their parents just a few months ago?  They even got a picture of kids in cages during the Obama administration and tried to pass it off as something Trump was doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's difficult to do which is why I started out on this thread asking if it were possible that both the left and the right are hoodwinking the people.  What if this discussion is a strategy ploy to con you into acquiescing all of your rights in lieu of a false promise to get rid of undocumented foreigners.
> 
> My observation is that the symptoms people complain about and the reason they support the wall are not one and the same.  The rationale or default position of those in favor of a wall has to do with border security.  Mike Huckabee, on his most recent tv show, began with the analogy of WalMart having cameras looking at you every moment from the time you arrive until you leave.  Of course there are those cameras and listening devices on cop cars that can track your every move.
> 
> The problem for me is that some are giving up our Liberty and finding excuses to  trash the Constitution just to keep foreigners out.  It won't work.  We'd be better off admitting that and then work to get those people to become Guest Workers with no expectation of citizenship or welfare.  At the same time we have to find innovative ways to get Americans back into the workforce which will diminish any perceived need for the foreigners to be here in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me explain to you what's really going on here.  I've said this repeatedly, so those who read my theory can just skip over it.
> 
> The Democrat party has become the anti-white party.  Why?  Most of the Democrats are white themselves!  The reason is power.  The Democrats long term goal is to have a one-party government with little to no opposition.  So how could they accomplish this?
> 
> Simple: every other group outside of whites vote a majority Democrat.  The Jewish vote majority Democrat.  The middle-eastern people vote a majority Democrat.  The Asians vote Democrat.  This is especially important of the Hispanic community.  Blacks?  Forget about it.
> 
> Once the Democrat party wipes out whites (not in a genocidal way, but a political way) they will have the ability to have this one-party government for eternity.  This is why they are working tirelessly to make whites a minority in this country for the first time since our founding.
> 
> Think about it.  Why is the wall such a threat to them so to the point they are willing to shutdown the government?  Why are they (and their activist judges) fighting to keep sanctuary cities and now states?  Why do they want to eliminate ICE?  Why do they provide aid and comfort to illegals such as giving them drivers license?
> 
> The point is, you can't compromise with people trying to wipe you off the planet.  It's a very similar situation to the Palestinians and the Jewish.  There is no compromise when one side wants the other side totally eliminated.
Click to expand...


I appreciate your theory.  I agree with a lot of it.  You have just left a few important players out of the game, so let me share my observations with you and you might want to consider them in addition to what you're thinking.

We are both agreed that this is about POWER.  Rather than to fight for power, it makes better sense to flip your opposition.  In order to do that you employ Hegelian Dialectics: Thesis + Anti-thesis = Synthesis.  Or, in simple English you create a problem (Thesis) and then generate the hysteria and chaos surrounding the problem you created (Anti-Thesis) and you offer up to the people your pre-planned solutions that you had already thought up.  They choose the most obvious "solution" (Synthesis.)

As stated, the facts are that manning the border and border security were started by a neo-nazi turned Klansman, David Duke.  The self proclaimed Minutemen (who were later exposed as nazis) revived the border security issue.  The genesis of the wall idea was promoted by Bill Clinton before it was adopted by the Tea Party Republicans and then Donald Trump. 

There is a commonality between Democrats, socialists, National Socialists, and globalists.  They want POWER.  There is this delusional belief that they can erect a wall and control those within that wall.  The reality is, the National Socialists cannot control those inside the wall because most people are non-white OR they hate their own race.  The Democrats, socialists, and globalists on the other hand CAN co-exist. 

Today, the posterity of the founders who fought, bled and died in order to create our constitutional Republic no longer exist as a political entity.  Constitutionalists gave way to conservatism which, in turn, became the Tea Party Republicans.  Tea Party Republicans buy into the socialist proposition that building a wall around America will benefit border security.  Those people cannot and will not understand that a wall will NOT increase border security.  Why?

Study the genesis of this discussion.  Manning the border started out by a National Socialist; the wall idea is consistent with the message that Bill Clinton promoted during his presidency.  When the Tea Party Republicans argue for a wall, they cite the immigration laws of Mexico; the wall in China (which is communist), or some other third world cesspool and / or nations at war.  At the heart of the discussion, those who would have been constitutionalists are now buying into the proposition that only "citizens" have rights.  In the view of Democrats, socialists, and National Socialists - along with globalists, man derives his rights from government as opposed to natural, inherent, God given, unalienable, absolute Rights.

If you could build a wall around America and if we all accept the proposition that government grants us our rights, then the non-whites will outvote the whites and continue the anti-white immigration that results in non-whites being wiped out, as a people, but more importantly as a culture of people who live in a constitutional Republic with Liberty.  The whites, for whatever reason, cannot or will not delineate between unalienable Rights and citizenship.  Neither can those who would have been constitutionalists understand that the rest of the world despises us, as a people and consequently, hate the form of government our forefathers created.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why is Building the Wall Wrong?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is building the wall RIGHT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's our country, nimrod, not theirs.
Click to expand...

Our welfare clause is general.  Our defense clause is common.  Where is this alleged wall building power that overrides the express enumerations, enumerated in our federal Constitution?


----------



## bripat9643

danielpalos said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why is Building the Wall Wrong?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is building the wall RIGHT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's our country, nimrod, not theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is general.  Our defense clause is common.  Where is this alleged wall building power that overrides the express enumerations, enumerated in our federal Constitution?
Click to expand...

It's right there next to the clause that allows government to provide healthcare and Social Security.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals don't have to create a fake id to get welfare. They only have to poop out an American and collect it on the behest of their spawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I have to call you on this:
> 
> The welfare is only intended for the American born child.  It is not for the parents and they cannot live off a poverty level check intended for one person.  Neither does that baby in any way anchor the parents here.  So, how come we're calling them anchor babies?
> 
> Undocumented parents are still subject to deportation - American born baby or not.  Some people will be advocating to change the law, but in reality, the law simply does not exist to make those you call anchor babies citizens.  Those children are here by virtue of the 14th Amendment and I know from reading posts here that I'm not alone in questioning the validity of the 14th Amendment.  It simply does not pass constitutional muster.  It will be up to the voters to study the history of that Amendment, expose it, and then resist it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very difficult to do with the leftist media.  Don't you remember how they came out in full force when children were separated from their parents just a few months ago?  They even got a picture of kids in cages during the Obama administration and tried to pass it off as something Trump was doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's difficult to do which is why I started out on this thread asking if it were possible that both the left and the right are hoodwinking the people.  What if this discussion is a strategy ploy to con you into acquiescing all of your rights in lieu of a false promise to get rid of undocumented foreigners.
> 
> My observation is that the symptoms people complain about and the reason they support the wall are not one and the same.  The rationale or default position of those in favor of a wall has to do with border security.  Mike Huckabee, on his most recent tv show, began with the analogy of WalMart having cameras looking at you every moment from the time you arrive until you leave.  Of course there are those cameras and listening devices on cop cars that can track your every move.
> 
> The problem for me is that some are giving up our Liberty and finding excuses to  trash the Constitution just to keep foreigners out.  It won't work.  We'd be better off admitting that and then work to get those people to become Guest Workers with no expectation of citizenship or welfare.  At the same time we have to find innovative ways to get Americans back into the workforce which will diminish any perceived need for the foreigners to be here in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me explain to you what's really going on here.  I've said this repeatedly, so those who read my theory can just skip over it.
> 
> The Democrat party has become the anti-white party.  Why?  Most of the Democrats are white themselves!  The reason is power.  The Democrats long term goal is to have a one-party government with little to no opposition.  So how could they accomplish this?
> 
> Simple: every other group outside of whites vote a majority Democrat.  The Jewish vote majority Democrat.  The middle-eastern people vote a majority Democrat.  The Asians vote Democrat.  This is especially important of the Hispanic community.  Blacks?  Forget about it.
> 
> Once the Democrat party wipes out whites (not in a genocidal way, but a political way) they will have the ability to have this one-party government for eternity.  This is why they are working tirelessly to make whites a minority in this country for the first time since our founding.
> 
> Think about it.  Why is the wall such a threat to them so to the point they are willing to shutdown the government?  Why are they (and their activist judges) fighting to keep sanctuary cities and now states?  Why do they want to eliminate ICE?  Why do they provide aid and comfort to illegals such as giving them drivers license?
> 
> The point is, you can't compromise with people trying to wipe you off the planet.  It's a very similar situation to the Palestinians and the Jewish.  There is no compromise when one side wants the other side totally eliminated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I appreciate your theory.  I agree with a lot of it.  You have just left a few important players out of the game, so let me share my observations with you and you might want to consider them in addition to what you're thinking.
> 
> We are both agreed that this is about POWER.  Rather than to fight for power, it makes better sense to flip your opposition.  In order to do that you employ Hegelian Dialectics: Thesis + Anti-thesis = Synthesis.  Or, in simple English you create a problem (Thesis) and then generate the hysteria and chaos surrounding the problem you created (Anti-Thesis) and you offer up to the people your pre-planned solutions that you had already thought up.  They choose the most obvious "solution" (Synthesis.)
> 
> As stated, the facts are that manning the border and border security were started by a neo-nazi turned Klansman, David Duke.  The self proclaimed Minutemen (who were later exposed as nazis) revived the border security issue.  The genesis of the wall idea was promoted by Bill Clinton before it was adopted by the Tea Party Republicans and then Donald Trump.
> 
> There is a commonality between Democrats, socialists, National Socialists, and globalists.  They want POWER.  There is this delusional belief that they can erect a wall and control those within that wall.  The reality is, the National Socialists cannot control those inside the wall because most people are non-white OR they hate their own race.  The Democrats, socialists, and globalists on the other hand CAN co-exist.
> 
> Today, the posterity of the founders who fought, bled and died in order to create our constitutional Republic no longer exist as a political entity.  Constitutionalists gave way to conservatism which, in turn, became the Tea Party Republicans.  Tea Party Republicans buy into the socialist proposition that building a wall around America will benefit border security.  Those people cannot and will not understand that a wall will NOT increase border security.  Why?
> 
> Study the genesis of this discussion.  Manning the border started out by a National Socialist; the wall idea is consistent with the message that Bill Clinton promoted during his presidency.  When the Tea Party Republicans argue for a wall, they cite the immigration laws of Mexico; the wall in China (which is communist), or some other third world cesspool and / or nations at war.  At the heart of the discussion, those who would have been constitutionalists are now buying into the proposition that only "citizens" have rights.  In the view of Democrats, socialists, and National Socialists - along with globalists, man derives his rights from government as opposed to natural, inherent, God given, unalienable, absolute Rights.
> 
> If you could build a wall around America and if we all accept the proposition that government grants us our rights, then the non-whites will outvote the whites and continue the anti-white immigration that results in non-whites being wiped out, as a people, but more importantly as a culture of people who live in a constitutional Republic with Liberty.  The whites, for whatever reason, cannot or will not delineate between unalienable Rights and citizenship.  Neither can those who would have been constitutionalists understand that the rest of the world despises us, as a people and consequently, hate the form of government our forefathers created.
Click to expand...


I think you substituted the word "hate" for jealousy.  Few people actually hate the US.  After all, who is the most giving to foreign nations than the US?  I'm not just talking about government aid, but private donations to charities and organizations. 

Jealous I'm more likely to believe.  There are few places in the world where a nobody can become a somebody.  For instance perhaps the French may say they hate the US because our gasoline is 2/3 cheaper than their gasoline, but again, it's envy and not hate.  

As far as the wall is concerned, we know it would work.  How?  By other places that did (or now have) walls.  While it doesn't solve 100% of the problems in most cases, it greatly slows it down.  After all, from time to time, even prisoners break out of jail.  

Is there something I think that would work just as good if not better than a wall?  Yes there is.  Make being in the US illegally a first degree felony carrying a minimum of five years in prison.  That would solve our border problem as well as our expired VISA problems.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why is Building the Wall Wrong?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is building the wall RIGHT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's our country, nimrod, not theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is general.  Our defense clause is common.  Where is this alleged wall building power that overrides the express enumerations, enumerated in our federal Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's right there next to the clause that allows government to provide healthcare and Social Security.
Click to expand...

Our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I have to call you on this:
> 
> The welfare is only intended for the American born child.  It is not for the parents and they cannot live off a poverty level check intended for one person.  Neither does that baby in any way anchor the parents here.  So, how come we're calling them anchor babies?
> 
> Undocumented parents are still subject to deportation - American born baby or not.  Some people will be advocating to change the law, but in reality, the law simply does not exist to make those you call anchor babies citizens.  Those children are here by virtue of the 14th Amendment and I know from reading posts here that I'm not alone in questioning the validity of the 14th Amendment.  It simply does not pass constitutional muster.  It will be up to the voters to study the history of that Amendment, expose it, and then resist it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very difficult to do with the leftist media.  Don't you remember how they came out in full force when children were separated from their parents just a few months ago?  They even got a picture of kids in cages during the Obama administration and tried to pass it off as something Trump was doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's difficult to do which is why I started out on this thread asking if it were possible that both the left and the right are hoodwinking the people.  What if this discussion is a strategy ploy to con you into acquiescing all of your rights in lieu of a false promise to get rid of undocumented foreigners.
> 
> My observation is that the symptoms people complain about and the reason they support the wall are not one and the same.  The rationale or default position of those in favor of a wall has to do with border security.  Mike Huckabee, on his most recent tv show, began with the analogy of WalMart having cameras looking at you every moment from the time you arrive until you leave.  Of course there are those cameras and listening devices on cop cars that can track your every move.
> 
> The problem for me is that some are giving up our Liberty and finding excuses to  trash the Constitution just to keep foreigners out.  It won't work.  We'd be better off admitting that and then work to get those people to become Guest Workers with no expectation of citizenship or welfare.  At the same time we have to find innovative ways to get Americans back into the workforce which will diminish any perceived need for the foreigners to be here in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me explain to you what's really going on here.  I've said this repeatedly, so those who read my theory can just skip over it.
> 
> The Democrat party has become the anti-white party.  Why?  Most of the Democrats are white themselves!  The reason is power.  The Democrats long term goal is to have a one-party government with little to no opposition.  So how could they accomplish this?
> 
> Simple: every other group outside of whites vote a majority Democrat.  The Jewish vote majority Democrat.  The middle-eastern people vote a majority Democrat.  The Asians vote Democrat.  This is especially important of the Hispanic community.  Blacks?  Forget about it.
> 
> Once the Democrat party wipes out whites (not in a genocidal way, but a political way) they will have the ability to have this one-party government for eternity.  This is why they are working tirelessly to make whites a minority in this country for the first time since our founding.
> 
> Think about it.  Why is the wall such a threat to them so to the point they are willing to shutdown the government?  Why are they (and their activist judges) fighting to keep sanctuary cities and now states?  Why do they want to eliminate ICE?  Why do they provide aid and comfort to illegals such as giving them drivers license?
> 
> The point is, you can't compromise with people trying to wipe you off the planet.  It's a very similar situation to the Palestinians and the Jewish.  There is no compromise when one side wants the other side totally eliminated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I appreciate your theory.  I agree with a lot of it.  You have just left a few important players out of the game, so let me share my observations with you and you might want to consider them in addition to what you're thinking.
> 
> We are both agreed that this is about POWER.  Rather than to fight for power, it makes better sense to flip your opposition.  In order to do that you employ Hegelian Dialectics: Thesis + Anti-thesis = Synthesis.  Or, in simple English you create a problem (Thesis) and then generate the hysteria and chaos surrounding the problem you created (Anti-Thesis) and you offer up to the people your pre-planned solutions that you had already thought up.  They choose the most obvious "solution" (Synthesis.)
> 
> As stated, the facts are that manning the border and border security were started by a neo-nazi turned Klansman, David Duke.  The self proclaimed Minutemen (who were later exposed as nazis) revived the border security issue.  The genesis of the wall idea was promoted by Bill Clinton before it was adopted by the Tea Party Republicans and then Donald Trump.
> 
> There is a commonality between Democrats, socialists, National Socialists, and globalists.  They want POWER.  There is this delusional belief that they can erect a wall and control those within that wall.  The reality is, the National Socialists cannot control those inside the wall because most people are non-white OR they hate their own race.  The Democrats, socialists, and globalists on the other hand CAN co-exist.
> 
> Today, the posterity of the founders who fought, bled and died in order to create our constitutional Republic no longer exist as a political entity.  Constitutionalists gave way to conservatism which, in turn, became the Tea Party Republicans.  Tea Party Republicans buy into the socialist proposition that building a wall around America will benefit border security.  Those people cannot and will not understand that a wall will NOT increase border security.  Why?
> 
> Study the genesis of this discussion.  Manning the border started out by a National Socialist; the wall idea is consistent with the message that Bill Clinton promoted during his presidency.  When the Tea Party Republicans argue for a wall, they cite the immigration laws of Mexico; the wall in China (which is communist), or some other third world cesspool and / or nations at war.  At the heart of the discussion, those who would have been constitutionalists are now buying into the proposition that only "citizens" have rights.  In the view of Democrats, socialists, and National Socialists - along with globalists, man derives his rights from government as opposed to natural, inherent, God given, unalienable, absolute Rights.
> 
> If you could build a wall around America and if we all accept the proposition that government grants us our rights, then the non-whites will outvote the whites and continue the anti-white immigration that results in non-whites being wiped out, as a people, but more importantly as a culture of people who live in a constitutional Republic with Liberty.  The whites, for whatever reason, cannot or will not delineate between unalienable Rights and citizenship.  Neither can those who would have been constitutionalists understand that the rest of the world despises us, as a people and consequently, hate the form of government our forefathers created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you substituted the word "hate" for jealousy.  Few people actually hate the US.  After all, who is the most giving to foreign nations than the US?  I'm not just talking about government aid, but private donations to charities and organizations.
> 
> Jealous I'm more likely to believe.  There are few places in the world where a nobody can become a somebody.  For instance perhaps the French may say they hate the US because our gasoline is 2/3 cheaper than their gasoline, but again, it's envy and not hate.
> 
> As far as the wall is concerned, we know it would work.  How?  By other places that did (or now have) walls.  While it doesn't solve 100% of the problems in most cases, it greatly slows it down.  After all, from time to time, even prisoners break out of jail.
> 
> Is there something I think that would work just as good if not better than a wall?  Yes there is.  Make being in the US illegally a first degree felony carrying a minimum of five years in prison.  That would solve our border problem as well as our expired VISA problems.
Click to expand...


The Bible says that "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."  James 1 : 8

You sound much like the former conservative that unwittingly adopted a socialist point of view.  If other countries are jealous of the United States, it boggles the mind that you would make an argument for something that supposedly "worked" in another country.

Walls work for communists in communist countries.  They work in dictatorships.  They work temporarily when you are at war.  But they will not work with our form of government.  For that reason, you cannot show an example of a wall being built that culminated in a free society.


----------



## Lesh

It's stupid because at best..half of illegals come over the border.

So if the wall ever got built...at what...40 billion? 50 once all the land is taken by eminent domain...it would have to be 100% effective to even stop HALF of the illegals coming here.. And it WON'T be 100% effective.

Not even close


----------



## hazlnut

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


Wasting tax dollars on an unworkable solution to a nonexistent problem.  Might as well be funding repairs to the moon base before the martians get there.


----------



## Thinker101

Lesh said:


> It's stupid because at best..half of illegals come over the border.
> 
> So if the wall ever got built...at what...40 billion? 50 once all the land is taken by eminent domain...it would have to be 100% effective to even stop HALF of the illegals coming here.. And it WON'T be 100% effective.
> 
> Not even close



Yup, and we don't even want to stop half of them...dumbass.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Thinker101 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's stupid because at best..half of illegals come over the border.
> 
> So if the wall ever got built...at what...40 billion? 50 once all the land is taken by eminent domain...it would have to be 100% effective to even stop HALF of the illegals coming here.. And it WON'T be 100% effective.
> 
> Not even close
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, and we don't even want to stop half of them...dumbass.
Click to expand...


Your board name does not match your response.  

We have an immigration problem.  We could resolve it without a wall.  We could resolve the pretexts for building a wall AND address the 60 percent of foreigners that are not affected by the all ALONG WITH those from Mexico and south of there.


----------



## Thinker101

Porter Rockwell said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's stupid because at best..half of illegals come over the border.
> 
> So if the wall ever got built...at what...40 billion? 50 once all the land is taken by eminent domain...it would have to be 100% effective to even stop HALF of the illegals coming here.. And it WON'T be 100% effective.
> 
> Not even close
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, and we don't even want to stop half of them...dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your board name does not match your response.
> 
> We have an immigration problem.  We could resolve it without a wall.  We could resolve the pretexts for building a wall AND address the 60 percent of foreigners that are not affected by the all ALONG WITH those from Mexico and south of there.
Click to expand...


Yup, sounds like one heck of a plan.


----------



## Lesh

Thinker101 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's stupid because at best..half of illegals come over the border.
> 
> So if the wall ever got built...at what...40 billion? 50 once all the land is taken by eminent domain...it would have to be 100% effective to even stop HALF of the illegals coming here.. And it WON'T be 100% effective.
> 
> Not even close
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, and we don't even want to stop half of them...dumbass.
Click to expand...

That's if the wall is 100% effective.

You know anything that is 100% effective?

Do you really think a 2000 mile long wall would be 100% effective?

It's a boondoggle


----------



## Thinker101

Lesh said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's stupid because at best..half of illegals come over the border.
> 
> So if the wall ever got built...at what...40 billion? 50 once all the land is taken by eminent domain...it would have to be 100% effective to even stop HALF of the illegals coming here.. And it WON'T be 100% effective.
> 
> Not even close
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, and we don't even want to stop half of them...dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's if the wall is 100% effective.
> 
> You know anything that is 100% effective?
> 
> Do you really think a 2000 mile long wall would be 100% effective?
> 
> It's a boondoggle
Click to expand...


You probably ought to make up your mind, will it stop 100% or 50%.  Personally, I'm good with either one.


----------



## Lesh

Thinker101 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's stupid because at best..half of illegals come over the border.
> 
> So if the wall ever got built...at what...40 billion? 50 once all the land is taken by eminent domain...it would have to be 100% effective to even stop HALF of the illegals coming here.. And it WON'T be 100% effective.
> 
> Not even close
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, and we don't even want to stop half of them...dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's if the wall is 100% effective.
> 
> You know anything that is 100% effective?
> 
> Do you really think a 2000 mile long wall would be 100% effective?
> 
> It's a boondoggle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You probably ought to make up your mind, will it stop 100% or 50%.  Personally, I'm good with either one.
Click to expand...

At 50%...it stop only a quarter of illegals. Is that worth 40-50 billion?

What if it only stops 10%?

What if it has no measurable effect at all?

Wouldn't we be better off concentrating on the employers that are the reason they ALL emigrate?


----------



## deanrd

Even if it were environmentally friendly, which it isn't,
or it didn't take land from good Americans, which it does,
all you need to do is build a ladder one foot longer.


----------



## Thinker101

Lesh said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's stupid because at best..half of illegals come over the border.
> 
> So if the wall ever got built...at what...40 billion? 50 once all the land is taken by eminent domain...it would have to be 100% effective to even stop HALF of the illegals coming here.. And it WON'T be 100% effective.
> 
> Not even close
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, and we don't even want to stop half of them...dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's if the wall is 100% effective.
> 
> You know anything that is 100% effective?
> 
> Do you really think a 2000 mile long wall would be 100% effective?
> 
> It's a boondoggle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You probably ought to make up your mind, will it stop 100% or 50%.  Personally, I'm good with either one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At 50%...it stop only a quarter of illegals. Is that worth 40-50 billion?
> 
> What if it only stops 10%?
> 
> What if it has no measurable effect at all?
> 
> Wouldn't we be better off concentrating on the employers that are the reason they ALL emigrate?
Click to expand...


No kidding, no measurable effect...you're talking more stupid than usual now.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Thinker101 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's stupid because at best..half of illegals come over the border.
> 
> So if the wall ever got built...at what...40 billion? 50 once all the land is taken by eminent domain...it would have to be 100% effective to even stop HALF of the illegals coming here.. And it WON'T be 100% effective.
> 
> Not even close
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, and we don't even want to stop half of them...dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your board name does not match your response.
> 
> We have an immigration problem.  We could resolve it without a wall.  We could resolve the pretexts for building a wall AND address the 60 percent of foreigners that are not affected by the all ALONG WITH those from Mexico and south of there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, sounds like one heck of a plan.
Click to expand...


The founders did it.


----------



## Thinker101

Porter Rockwell said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's stupid because at best..half of illegals come over the border.
> 
> So if the wall ever got built...at what...40 billion? 50 once all the land is taken by eminent domain...it would have to be 100% effective to even stop HALF of the illegals coming here.. And it WON'T be 100% effective.
> 
> Not even close
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, and we don't even want to stop half of them...dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your board name does not match your response.
> 
> We have an immigration problem.  We could resolve it without a wall.  We could resolve the pretexts for building a wall AND address the 60 percent of foreigners that are not affected by the all ALONG WITH those from Mexico and south of there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, sounds like one heck of a plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The founders did it.
Click to expand...


Really?!  Did they also have to deal with thousands of illegals crossing the border expecting hand-outs?


----------



## Flopper

pismoe said:


> and the ROOSEVELT Reservation runs the length of the Border and its 60 feet wide and is on USA Land .   I suppose that 60 feet is more then enough for the TRUMP WALL footprint or footers .   And from what i understand the Federal Government has Reserved and OWNED the ROOSEVELT Reservation and has owned it since 1907 Gents and Ladies .


 The Roosevelt Reservation was limited to California, Arizona, and New Mexico, exempted properties that were privately owned, and really only permitted highway use.  Since nearly 2/3 of the border is in Texas and most of that land is in the hands of private owners and about 1/4 of the remaining is also, the government would still have to deal with 1,000 to 1200 acquisitions. How long would all these acquisitions and actually building take.  There is no good estimate however, Trump would certain not be in office to see it complete and in fact he probably would not even be alive.  That's assuming that there is a steady flow of fund from congress which seem very unlikely with democrats controlling the House.  

Trump's Border Wall: Will Eminent Domain Be National News Again? | California Eminent Domain Report


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

deanrd said:


> Even if it were environmentally friendly, which it isn't,
> or it didn't take land from good Americans, which it does,
> all you need to do is build a ladder one foot longer.



Wow Dean, I'm sure our engineers, border authorities, and ICE never thought of that.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's stupid because at best..half of illegals come over the border.
> 
> So if the wall ever got built...at what...40 billion? 50 once all the land is taken by eminent domain...it would have to be 100% effective to even stop HALF of the illegals coming here.. And it WON'T be 100% effective.
> 
> Not even close
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, and we don't even want to stop half of them...dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's if the wall is 100% effective.
> 
> You know anything that is 100% effective?
> 
> Do you really think a 2000 mile long wall would be 100% effective?
> 
> It's a boondoggle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You probably ought to make up your mind, will it stop 100% or 50%.  Personally, I'm good with either one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At 50%...it stop only a quarter of illegals. Is that worth 40-50 billion?
> 
> What if it only stops 10%?
> 
> What if it has no measurable effect at all?
> 
> Wouldn't we be better off concentrating on the employers that are the reason they ALL emigrate?
Click to expand...


They "all" immigrate?  You mean they don't come here to have anchor babies?  They don't come here to live with other illegal family members?  They don't come here to sell drugs or commit acts like robbery or are supported by other gang members?  

Trump is only asking for 5 billion, not 50 billion.  Now show me one place where a wall or fence has not reduced trespassers by at least 50% or not at all.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The profit margin and size of the market make it impossible to stop the flow of drugs or even seriously reduce the supply at our borders.  If you build a higher wall the cartels will use longer ladders.  If you dig a deeper base, they will dig deeper tunnels.  And if you build an impenetrable barrier, they will just go around it.
> 
> The answer to reducing the drug trade is not by building taller barriers , but working on both sides of the border to reduce both demand and supply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which you and I know will never happen.  If a wall would do no good, our border agencies would not support it.  Tunnels don't take a few days to build.  They take months to build.  Even then,if a tunnel is detected and then destroyed, that's a lot of money down the tube.  Authorities find tunnels all the time, and new technology is coming along every day.  Drones can be used to find people who magically appear or disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never claimed a wall would do no good.  I said it is not the best solution for all parts of the border.  It is way too costly, an environmental disaster, and democrats will block funding whenever they have the power to do so.  Plus, illegal immigration has been declining for years and is likely to continue.  By the time this wall is completed in about 10 years we will have a bill for 25 to 30 billion dollars for a monument that is not needed and most people never wanted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what you're saying is we just have to put up with illegal drugs, people illegally coming into our country, people who bring down our wages and are changing the language of this country, all because of the left.
> 
> Gee........it's almost like they planned it this way.  Imagine that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is exactly what you have to do until we get a congress and president that will actually introduce realistic plans to fix the problem.
> 
> You wanted somebody to lead the country that was not a politician, well you got one.  What people like you don't understand, is it takes real politician skills to accomplish anything in Washington.  Running around like bull in a china store issuing threats and insults doesn't get the job done.  It just infuriates the very people Trump needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest I can’t remember a politician that got more accomplished in this short amount of time than Trump.  And let’s not forget those obstructionist Democrats who stopped the wall in the first place.  If we had the votes in the Senate, that wall would be a year or so in the making.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...

*You had control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency for two years and practically nothing was appropriated.  Outside of building 8 fifteen foot long prototypes and work on completing some reinforced fencing started years ago virtually nothing has been done on the wall and Trump is half way thru his term in office.

Yes, Trump has done a lot since he took office. Unfortunately, most of it is bad.  Relations with most our allies is the worst it's been in years.  He torn up the nuclear treaty with Iran and replaced it with nothing and now Iran is starting uranium enrichment and other countries such as Russia, China, Turkey, and about half the EU say they will continue trade with Iran ignoring Trump's sanctions.   

He lead the charge to repeal Obamacare but only managed to do away with the individual mandate which has resulted in a federal judge declaring it unconstitutional without the mandate.  So 20 millions American are slated to loose their health insurance in 2020 and up to 130 million with pre-existing conditions will face an uncertain future. And republicans have no idea how to fix the problem they started.  

Thanks to Trump we are in a trade war with China that may well take us into a full blown recession and all Trump can do is talk about fixing problems that were fixed years ago.

Trump has solved virtually none of the immigration problems.  His deportations are still less than Obama and he's creating a humanitarian crisis at the border.

An probably worst of all he's increased division in the country to the extent that nothing is going be done till the American people or the congress cans his ass which might be within months.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very difficult to do with the leftist media.  Don't you remember how they came out in full force when children were separated from their parents just a few months ago?  They even got a picture of kids in cages during the Obama administration and tried to pass it off as something Trump was doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's difficult to do which is why I started out on this thread asking if it were possible that both the left and the right are hoodwinking the people.  What if this discussion is a strategy ploy to con you into acquiescing all of your rights in lieu of a false promise to get rid of undocumented foreigners.
> 
> My observation is that the symptoms people complain about and the reason they support the wall are not one and the same.  The rationale or default position of those in favor of a wall has to do with border security.  Mike Huckabee, on his most recent tv show, began with the analogy of WalMart having cameras looking at you every moment from the time you arrive until you leave.  Of course there are those cameras and listening devices on cop cars that can track your every move.
> 
> The problem for me is that some are giving up our Liberty and finding excuses to  trash the Constitution just to keep foreigners out.  It won't work.  We'd be better off admitting that and then work to get those people to become Guest Workers with no expectation of citizenship or welfare.  At the same time we have to find innovative ways to get Americans back into the workforce which will diminish any perceived need for the foreigners to be here in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me explain to you what's really going on here.  I've said this repeatedly, so those who read my theory can just skip over it.
> 
> The Democrat party has become the anti-white party.  Why?  Most of the Democrats are white themselves!  The reason is power.  The Democrats long term goal is to have a one-party government with little to no opposition.  So how could they accomplish this?
> 
> Simple: every other group outside of whites vote a majority Democrat.  The Jewish vote majority Democrat.  The middle-eastern people vote a majority Democrat.  The Asians vote Democrat.  This is especially important of the Hispanic community.  Blacks?  Forget about it.
> 
> Once the Democrat party wipes out whites (not in a genocidal way, but a political way) they will have the ability to have this one-party government for eternity.  This is why they are working tirelessly to make whites a minority in this country for the first time since our founding.
> 
> Think about it.  Why is the wall such a threat to them so to the point they are willing to shutdown the government?  Why are they (and their activist judges) fighting to keep sanctuary cities and now states?  Why do they want to eliminate ICE?  Why do they provide aid and comfort to illegals such as giving them drivers license?
> 
> The point is, you can't compromise with people trying to wipe you off the planet.  It's a very similar situation to the Palestinians and the Jewish.  There is no compromise when one side wants the other side totally eliminated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I appreciate your theory.  I agree with a lot of it.  You have just left a few important players out of the game, so let me share my observations with you and you might want to consider them in addition to what you're thinking.
> 
> We are both agreed that this is about POWER.  Rather than to fight for power, it makes better sense to flip your opposition.  In order to do that you employ Hegelian Dialectics: Thesis + Anti-thesis = Synthesis.  Or, in simple English you create a problem (Thesis) and then generate the hysteria and chaos surrounding the problem you created (Anti-Thesis) and you offer up to the people your pre-planned solutions that you had already thought up.  They choose the most obvious "solution" (Synthesis.)
> 
> As stated, the facts are that manning the border and border security were started by a neo-nazi turned Klansman, David Duke.  The self proclaimed Minutemen (who were later exposed as nazis) revived the border security issue.  The genesis of the wall idea was promoted by Bill Clinton before it was adopted by the Tea Party Republicans and then Donald Trump.
> 
> There is a commonality between Democrats, socialists, National Socialists, and globalists.  They want POWER.  There is this delusional belief that they can erect a wall and control those within that wall.  The reality is, the National Socialists cannot control those inside the wall because most people are non-white OR they hate their own race.  The Democrats, socialists, and globalists on the other hand CAN co-exist.
> 
> Today, the posterity of the founders who fought, bled and died in order to create our constitutional Republic no longer exist as a political entity.  Constitutionalists gave way to conservatism which, in turn, became the Tea Party Republicans.  Tea Party Republicans buy into the socialist proposition that building a wall around America will benefit border security.  Those people cannot and will not understand that a wall will NOT increase border security.  Why?
> 
> Study the genesis of this discussion.  Manning the border started out by a National Socialist; the wall idea is consistent with the message that Bill Clinton promoted during his presidency.  When the Tea Party Republicans argue for a wall, they cite the immigration laws of Mexico; the wall in China (which is communist), or some other third world cesspool and / or nations at war.  At the heart of the discussion, those who would have been constitutionalists are now buying into the proposition that only "citizens" have rights.  In the view of Democrats, socialists, and National Socialists - along with globalists, man derives his rights from government as opposed to natural, inherent, God given, unalienable, absolute Rights.
> 
> If you could build a wall around America and if we all accept the proposition that government grants us our rights, then the non-whites will outvote the whites and continue the anti-white immigration that results in non-whites being wiped out, as a people, but more importantly as a culture of people who live in a constitutional Republic with Liberty.  The whites, for whatever reason, cannot or will not delineate between unalienable Rights and citizenship.  Neither can those who would have been constitutionalists understand that the rest of the world despises us, as a people and consequently, hate the form of government our forefathers created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you substituted the word "hate" for jealousy.  Few people actually hate the US.  After all, who is the most giving to foreign nations than the US?  I'm not just talking about government aid, but private donations to charities and organizations.
> 
> Jealous I'm more likely to believe.  There are few places in the world where a nobody can become a somebody.  For instance perhaps the French may say they hate the US because our gasoline is 2/3 cheaper than their gasoline, but again, it's envy and not hate.
> 
> As far as the wall is concerned, we know it would work.  How?  By other places that did (or now have) walls.  While it doesn't solve 100% of the problems in most cases, it greatly slows it down.  After all, from time to time, even prisoners break out of jail.
> 
> Is there something I think that would work just as good if not better than a wall?  Yes there is.  Make being in the US illegally a first degree felony carrying a minimum of five years in prison.  That would solve our border problem as well as our expired VISA problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bible says that "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."  James 1 : 8
> 
> You sound much like the former conservative that unwittingly adopted a socialist point of view.  If other countries are jealous of the United States, it boggles the mind that you would make an argument for something that supposedly "worked" in another country.
> 
> Walls work for communists in communist countries.  They work in dictatorships.  They work temporarily when you are at war.  But they will not work with our form of government.  For that reason, you cannot show an example of a wall being built that culminated in a free society.
Click to expand...


Israel is not a free society?  The United States is not a free society?  

Just because countries with other forms of government are different than ours doesn't mean they don't have good ideas.  After all, the left is constantly bringing up how great Europe is because of gun bans and socialized medicine.  They boast how the government restricts massive wealth for individuals.  

True story:  Many years ago some middle-easterners bought a closed down Dairy Mart and opened up their own convenience store around the corner from my house.  I always patronize the little guy, and one night when I walked in, the cops were walking out.  

I asked the young clerk if everything was alright?  He said some drunk came into the store, stole some cigarettes off the counter and left.  He told me the police advised him if the guy comes back, to give them a call and they'll kick him out.  He said this is why the US has such a theft problem.  

He went on to explain how where he was from, there was virtually no theft. People have outdoor stands and sell their products on the street.  They have picnic tables set up so that customers could rest.  He said that if a woman lay her purse on a table and mindlessly left, people would actually cross the street to be nowhere near it.

He said where he was from, if you got caught stealing, the police came and chopped off your hand.  Steal again, the other hand comes off, and I don't mean in a hospital.  There is no third time.  The very few people with no hand are shunned from society; at times are attacked and beaten up.  A thief is the lowest from of life in their society.  

Am I saying that's what we should do here?  No, but just pointing out that a strong enough deterrent has results.  Here, criminals steal police cars and rescue squads and little happens to them.


----------



## Asclepias

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's stupid because at best..half of illegals come over the border.
> 
> So if the wall ever got built...at what...40 billion? 50 once all the land is taken by eminent domain...it would have to be 100% effective to even stop HALF of the illegals coming here.. And it WON'T be 100% effective.
> 
> Not even close
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, and we don't even want to stop half of them...dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's if the wall is 100% effective.
> 
> You know anything that is 100% effective?
> 
> Do you really think a 2000 mile long wall would be 100% effective?
> 
> It's a boondoggle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You probably ought to make up your mind, will it stop 100% or 50%.  Personally, I'm good with either one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At 50%...it stop only a quarter of illegals. Is that worth 40-50 billion?
> 
> What if it only stops 10%?
> 
> What if it has no measurable effect at all?
> 
> Wouldn't we be better off concentrating on the employers that are the reason they ALL emigrate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They "all" immigrate?  You mean they don't come here to have anchor babies?  They don't come here to live with other illegal family members?  They don't come here to sell drugs or commit acts like robbery or are supported by other gang members?
> 
> Trump is only asking for 5 billion, not 50 billion.  Now show me one place where a wall or fence has not reduced trespassers by at least 50% or not at all.
Click to expand...

No one gives a fuck what Drumpf is asking for. He said Mexico was going to write a check. Drumpf shouldnt have wrote a check with his mouth that his ass cant cash. Hopefully his gofundme page pans out in a couple of years long after he is out of office and he can pocket the money his illiterate supporters are giving to him.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which you and I know will never happen.  If a wall would do no good, our border agencies would not support it.  Tunnels don't take a few days to build.  They take months to build.  Even then,if a tunnel is detected and then destroyed, that's a lot of money down the tube.  Authorities find tunnels all the time, and new technology is coming along every day.  Drones can be used to find people who magically appear or disappear.
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed a wall would do no good.  I said it is not the best solution for all parts of the border.  It is way too costly, an environmental disaster, and democrats will block funding whenever they have the power to do so.  Plus, illegal immigration has been declining for years and is likely to continue.  By the time this wall is completed in about 10 years we will have a bill for 25 to 30 billion dollars for a monument that is not needed and most people never wanted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what you're saying is we just have to put up with illegal drugs, people illegally coming into our country, people who bring down our wages and are changing the language of this country, all because of the left.
> 
> Gee........it's almost like they planned it this way.  Imagine that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is exactly what you have to do until we get a congress and president that will actually introduce realistic plans to fix the problem.
> 
> You wanted somebody to lead the country that was not a politician, well you got one.  What people like you don't understand, is it takes real politician skills to accomplish anything in Washington.  Running around like bull in a china store issuing threats and insults doesn't get the job done.  It just infuriates the very people Trump needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest I can’t remember a politician that got more accomplished in this short amount of time than Trump.  And let’s not forget those obstructionist Democrats who stopped the wall in the first place.  If we had the votes in the Senate, that wall would be a year or so in the making.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You had control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency for two years and practically nothing was appropriated.  Outside of building 8 fifteen foot long prototypes and work on completing some reinforced fencing started years ago virtually noting has been done on the wall and Trump is half way thru his term in office.
> 
> Yes, Trump has done a lot since he took office. Unfortunately, most of it is bad.  Relations with most our allies is the worst it's been in years.  He torn up the nuclear treaty with Iran and replaced it with nothing and now Iran is starting uranium enrichment and other countries such as Russia,m China, Turkey, and about half the EU say they will continue trade with Iran ignoring Trump's sanctions.
> 
> He lead the charge to repeal Obamacare but only managed to do away with the individual mandate which has resulting in a federal judge declaring it unconstitutional without the mandate.  So 20 millions American are slated to loose their health insurance in 2020 and up to 130 million with pre-existing conditions will face an uncertain future. And republicans have no idea how to fix the problem they started.
> 
> Thanks to Trump we are in trade war with China that may well take us into full blown recession and Trump can talk about is fixing problems that fixed years ago.
> 
> Trump has solved virtually none of the immigration problems.  His deportations are still less than Obama and he's creating a humanitarian crisis at the border.
> 
> An probably worst of all he's increased division in the country to extent that nothing is going be done till the American people or the congress cans his ass which might be within months.*
Click to expand...


In your dreams.  Our border crossings have greatly decreased, and with his new strategy of abandoning Catch and release, much fewer will be coming here.  

Gee, people don't like us because they can't take advantage of us anymore.  That's like saying the bully no longer likes you because he can't scare you into giving him your lunch money. 

The United States is the worlds largest consumer.  It's power that no other leader has ever used with our trading partners.  Trump is.  And what if he does pressure China to trade at a near fair level?  Our economy will be something like you've never seen before.  

As you well know, we barely had a majority in the Senate.  With RINO's like the late McCain, there was only so much Trump could do to get his agenda passed.  The agendas he did get passed, some leftist activist judge stopped him.  So don't lay all the blame on Trump.  We have a Republic, not an Autocracy.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Asclepias said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, and we don't even want to stop half of them...dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> That's if the wall is 100% effective.
> 
> You know anything that is 100% effective?
> 
> Do you really think a 2000 mile long wall would be 100% effective?
> 
> It's a boondoggle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You probably ought to make up your mind, will it stop 100% or 50%.  Personally, I'm good with either one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At 50%...it stop only a quarter of illegals. Is that worth 40-50 billion?
> 
> What if it only stops 10%?
> 
> What if it has no measurable effect at all?
> 
> Wouldn't we be better off concentrating on the employers that are the reason they ALL emigrate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They "all" immigrate?  You mean they don't come here to have anchor babies?  They don't come here to live with other illegal family members?  They don't come here to sell drugs or commit acts like robbery or are supported by other gang members?
> 
> Trump is only asking for 5 billion, not 50 billion.  Now show me one place where a wall or fence has not reduced trespassers by at least 50% or not at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one gives a fuck what Drumpf is asking for. He said Mexico was going to write a check. Drumpf shouldnt have wrote a check with his mouth that his ass cant cash. Hopefully his gofundme page pans out in a couple of years.
Click to expand...


Yeah, and I was promised healthcare insurance I could actually afford.  I was promised the government plans would be superior and no junk plans.  I was promised I could keep my doctor and healthcare facility.  I was promised no new taxes of any kind. Guess what?  DumBama lied.  

The difference between Trump and the commie is that the commie spent a trillion dollars on a total lie.  But you want to bash Trump for not getting a check up front for something that hasn't even got started yet.


----------



## Flopper

Asclepias said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one cares about 'mexico' money at the moment .   If up to me i'd rather spend your money Ace .  We can punish 'mexico' later if'n we like  Ace .
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of people care that Drumpf conned his idiot supporters. Theres no need to punish Mexico if they are going to willingly cut a check like Drumpf claimed they would. Now if he has this in the form of a promissory note then we can punish Mexico.
Click to expand...

Mexico's economy is less than 1/10 the size of the US economy.  The entire budget for Mexico would be little more than a rounding error in the US budget. The chance of Mexico paying for a 35 billion dollar wall that they wouldn't even own is about zero.  Trump says what he thinks his supporters want to hear.  Any relationship to the truth is purely coincidental.


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> It's stupid because at best..half of illegals come over the border.
> 
> So if the wall ever got built...at what...40 billion? 50 once all the land is taken by eminent domain...it would have to be 100% effective to even stop HALF of the illegals coming here.. And it WON'T be 100% effective.
> 
> Not even close


60% of illegals walk over the border.  The wall in Hungary has proved to be 99.9% effective.  The cost of the wall is projected to be $25 billion.  so that's three things you got wrong in about 3 dozen words.


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's stupid because at best..half of illegals come over the border.
> 
> So if the wall ever got built...at what...40 billion? 50 once all the land is taken by eminent domain...it would have to be 100% effective to even stop HALF of the illegals coming here.. And it WON'T be 100% effective.
> 
> Not even close
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, and we don't even want to stop half of them...dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's if the wall is 100% effective.
> 
> You know anything that is 100% effective?
> 
> Do you really think a 2000 mile long wall would be 100% effective?
> 
> It's a boondoggle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You probably ought to make up your mind, will it stop 100% or 50%.  Personally, I'm good with either one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At 50%...it stop only a quarter of illegals. Is that worth 40-50 billion?
> 
> What if it only stops 10%?
> 
> What if it has no measurable effect at all?
> 
> Wouldn't we be better off concentrating on the employers that are the reason they ALL emigrate?
Click to expand...

It will stop 99.9% wherever it exists.


----------



## Asclepias

Flopper said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one cares about 'mexico' money at the moment .   If up to me i'd rather spend your money Ace .  We can punish 'mexico' later if'n we like  Ace .
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of people care that Drumpf conned his idiot supporters. Theres no need to punish Mexico if they are going to willingly cut a check like Drumpf claimed they would. Now if he has this in the form of a promissory note then we can punish Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mexico's economy is less than 1/10 the size of the US economy.  The entire budget for Mexico would be little more than a rounding error in the US budget. The chance of Mexico paying for a 35 billion dollar wall that they wouldn't even own is about zero.  Trump says what he thinks his supporters want to hear.  Any relationship to the truth is purely coincidental.
Click to expand...

Thats pretty much what I thought when I heard that idiot gibbon say Mexico was going to pay for the wall. You can imagine my surprise when Drumpfs supporters actually believed him. Thats when I knew stupid is not just an airborne disease. It affects digital networks as well.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Asclepias said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one cares about 'mexico' money at the moment .   If up to me i'd rather spend your money Ace .  We can punish 'mexico' later if'n we like  Ace .
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of people care that Drumpf conned his idiot supporters. Theres no need to punish Mexico if they are going to willingly cut a check like Drumpf claimed they would. Now if he has this in the form of a promissory note then we can punish Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mexico's economy is less than 1/10 the size of the US economy.  The entire budget for Mexico would be little more than a rounding error in the US budget. The chance of Mexico paying for a 35 billion dollar wall that they wouldn't even own is about zero.  Trump says what he thinks his supporters want to hear.  Any relationship to the truth is purely coincidental.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats pretty much what I thought when I heard that idiot gibbon say Mexico was going to pay for the wall. You can imagine my surprise when Drumpfs supporters actually believed him. Thats when I knew stupid is not just an airborne disease. It affects digital networks as well.
Click to expand...


To be honest, we don't care who pays for it.  After all, what Trump originally asked for was half of what we spend on food stamps every single year.  We were not obsessed with who was going to pay for it, only the leftists are now. We were sold that there would be a wall.  

Hey, you guys bought the BS that nobody making less than 250K a year would see a tax increase of any kind.  And what was the first thing Ears did once he invaded the White House?  He instituted a huge sin tax; a tax that mostly affects the poor and middle-class.  Afterwards, he got a bill passed that kept income tax refunds of people that didn't have health insurance, again, a tax that only affected the poor and middle-class.  

But now you complain that Mexico is not giving us the 5 billion dollars we want, and Congress has to fund it instead?  People in glass houses................


----------



## Asclepias

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one cares about 'mexico' money at the moment .   If up to me i'd rather spend your money Ace .  We can punish 'mexico' later if'n we like  Ace .
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of people care that Drumpf conned his idiot supporters. Theres no need to punish Mexico if they are going to willingly cut a check like Drumpf claimed they would. Now if he has this in the form of a promissory note then we can punish Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mexico's economy is less than 1/10 the size of the US economy.  The entire budget for Mexico would be little more than a rounding error in the US budget. The chance of Mexico paying for a 35 billion dollar wall that they wouldn't even own is about zero.  Trump says what he thinks his supporters want to hear.  Any relationship to the truth is purely coincidental.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats pretty much what I thought when I heard that idiot gibbon say Mexico was going to pay for the wall. You can imagine my surprise when Drumpfs supporters actually believed him. Thats when I knew stupid is not just an airborne disease. It affects digital networks as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest, we don't care who pays for it.  After all, what Trump originally asked for was half of what we spend on food stamps every single year.  We were not obsessed with who was going to pay for it, only the leftists are now. We were sold that there would be a wall.
> 
> Hey, you guys bought the BS that nobody making less than 250K a year would see a tax increase of any kind.  And what was the first thing Ears did once he invaded the White House?  He instituted a huge sin tax; a tax that mostly affects the poor and middle-class.  Afterwards, he got a bill passed that kept income tax refunds of people that didn't have health insurance, again, a tax that only affected the poor and middle-class.
> 
> But now you complain that Mexico is not giving us the 5 billion dollars we want, and Congress has to fund it instead?  People in glass houses................
Click to expand...

I know you dont care who pays for it now.  I'm not complaining about Mexico not giving us 5B for the wall even though the wall is going to 7 times that much, I am laughing at you idiots that thought Drumpf was going to get Mexico to pay anything at all.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Asclepias said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one cares about 'mexico' money at the moment .   If up to me i'd rather spend your money Ace .  We can punish 'mexico' later if'n we like  Ace .
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of people care that Drumpf conned his idiot supporters. Theres no need to punish Mexico if they are going to willingly cut a check like Drumpf claimed they would. Now if he has this in the form of a promissory note then we can punish Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mexico's economy is less than 1/10 the size of the US economy.  The entire budget for Mexico would be little more than a rounding error in the US budget. The chance of Mexico paying for a 35 billion dollar wall that they wouldn't even own is about zero.  Trump says what he thinks his supporters want to hear.  Any relationship to the truth is purely coincidental.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats pretty much what I thought when I heard that idiot gibbon say Mexico was going to pay for the wall. You can imagine my surprise when Drumpfs supporters actually believed him. Thats when I knew stupid is not just an airborne disease. It affects digital networks as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest, we don't care who pays for it.  After all, what Trump originally asked for was half of what we spend on food stamps every single year.  We were not obsessed with who was going to pay for it, only the leftists are now. We were sold that there would be a wall.
> 
> Hey, you guys bought the BS that nobody making less than 250K a year would see a tax increase of any kind.  And what was the first thing Ears did once he invaded the White House?  He instituted a huge sin tax; a tax that mostly affects the poor and middle-class.  Afterwards, he got a bill passed that kept income tax refunds of people that didn't have health insurance, again, a tax that only affected the poor and middle-class.
> 
> But now you complain that Mexico is not giving us the 5 billion dollars we want, and Congress has to fund it instead?  People in glass houses................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you dont care who pays for it now.  I'm not complaining about Mexico not giving us 5B for the wall even though the wall is going to 7 times that much, I am laughing at you idiots that thought Drumpf was going to get Mexico to pay anything at all.
Click to expand...


And we don't know that he won't using other methods.  Who pays for it was not why we elected him. We elected him to get it built.  If he does, then it's irrelevant who pays for it.  He kept his promise of doing it.


----------



## Asclepias

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of people care that Drumpf conned his idiot supporters. Theres no need to punish Mexico if they are going to willingly cut a check like Drumpf claimed they would. Now if he has this in the form of a promissory note then we can punish Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico's economy is less than 1/10 the size of the US economy.  The entire budget for Mexico would be little more than a rounding error in the US budget. The chance of Mexico paying for a 35 billion dollar wall that they wouldn't even own is about zero.  Trump says what he thinks his supporters want to hear.  Any relationship to the truth is purely coincidental.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats pretty much what I thought when I heard that idiot gibbon say Mexico was going to pay for the wall. You can imagine my surprise when Drumpfs supporters actually believed him. Thats when I knew stupid is not just an airborne disease. It affects digital networks as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest, we don't care who pays for it.  After all, what Trump originally asked for was half of what we spend on food stamps every single year.  We were not obsessed with who was going to pay for it, only the leftists are now. We were sold that there would be a wall.
> 
> Hey, you guys bought the BS that nobody making less than 250K a year would see a tax increase of any kind.  And what was the first thing Ears did once he invaded the White House?  He instituted a huge sin tax; a tax that mostly affects the poor and middle-class.  Afterwards, he got a bill passed that kept income tax refunds of people that didn't have health insurance, again, a tax that only affected the poor and middle-class.
> 
> But now you complain that Mexico is not giving us the 5 billion dollars we want, and Congress has to fund it instead?  People in glass houses................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you dont care who pays for it now.  I'm not complaining about Mexico not giving us 5B for the wall even though the wall is going to 7 times that much, I am laughing at you idiots that thought Drumpf was going to get Mexico to pay anything at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we don't know that he won't using other methods.  Who pays for it was not why we elected him. We elected him to get it built.  If he does, then it's irrelevant who pays for it.  He kept his promise of doing it.
Click to expand...

You think money is the only thing keeping the wall from being built?  Boy youre naive. If that was the case the repub controlled congress would have already given Drumpf his budget.


----------



## Yarddog

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux




The only problem I see with the wall is it may affect migratory animals.  they may have to add special openings for the critters


----------



## Yarddog

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of people care that Drumpf conned his idiot supporters. Theres no need to punish Mexico if they are going to willingly cut a check like Drumpf claimed they would. Now if he has this in the form of a promissory note then we can punish Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico's economy is less than 1/10 the size of the US economy.  The entire budget for Mexico would be little more than a rounding error in the US budget. The chance of Mexico paying for a 35 billion dollar wall that they wouldn't even own is about zero.  Trump says what he thinks his supporters want to hear.  Any relationship to the truth is purely coincidental.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats pretty much what I thought when I heard that idiot gibbon say Mexico was going to pay for the wall. You can imagine my surprise when Drumpfs supporters actually believed him. Thats when I knew stupid is not just an airborne disease. It affects digital networks as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest, we don't care who pays for it.  After all, what Trump originally asked for was half of what we spend on food stamps every single year.  We were not obsessed with who was going to pay for it, only the leftists are now. We were sold that there would be a wall.
> 
> Hey, you guys bought the BS that nobody making less than 250K a year would see a tax increase of any kind.  And what was the first thing Ears did once he invaded the White House?  He instituted a huge sin tax; a tax that mostly affects the poor and middle-class.  Afterwards, he got a bill passed that kept income tax refunds of people that didn't have health insurance, again, a tax that only affected the poor and middle-class.
> 
> But now you complain that Mexico is not giving us the 5 billion dollars we want, and Congress has to fund it instead?  People in glass houses................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you dont care who pays for it now.  I'm not complaining about Mexico not giving us 5B for the wall even though the wall is going to 7 times that much, I am laughing at you idiots that thought Drumpf was going to get Mexico to pay anything at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we don't know that he won't using other methods.  Who pays for it was not why we elected him. We elected him to get it built.  If he does, then it's irrelevant who pays for it.  He kept his promise of doing it.
Click to expand...



The government could sell bonds to pay for the wall perhaps.


----------



## Flopper

Yarddog said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico's economy is less than 1/10 the size of the US economy.  The entire budget for Mexico would be little more than a rounding error in the US budget. The chance of Mexico paying for a 35 billion dollar wall that they wouldn't even own is about zero.  Trump says what he thinks his supporters want to hear.  Any relationship to the truth is purely coincidental.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats pretty much what I thought when I heard that idiot gibbon say Mexico was going to pay for the wall. You can imagine my surprise when Drumpfs supporters actually believed him. Thats when I knew stupid is not just an airborne disease. It affects digital networks as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest, we don't care who pays for it.  After all, what Trump originally asked for was half of what we spend on food stamps every single year.  We were not obsessed with who was going to pay for it, only the leftists are now. We were sold that there would be a wall.
> 
> Hey, you guys bought the BS that nobody making less than 250K a year would see a tax increase of any kind.  And what was the first thing Ears did once he invaded the White House?  He instituted a huge sin tax; a tax that mostly affects the poor and middle-class.  Afterwards, he got a bill passed that kept income tax refunds of people that didn't have health insurance, again, a tax that only affected the poor and middle-class.
> 
> But now you complain that Mexico is not giving us the 5 billion dollars we want, and Congress has to fund it instead?  People in glass houses................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you dont care who pays for it now.  I'm not complaining about Mexico not giving us 5B for the wall even though the wall is going to 7 times that much, I am laughing at you idiots that thought Drumpf was going to get Mexico to pay anything at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we don't know that he won't using other methods.  Who pays for it was not why we elected him. We elected him to get it built.  If he does, then it's irrelevant who pays for it.  He kept his promise of doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The government could sell bonds to pay for the wall perhaps.
Click to expand...

That's how we finance spending now.  We sell treasury bonds.


----------



## oreo

Anyone that wants to pay for the WALL step up,, and break out your credit card..  Someone has formed a gofundthewall page on FACEBOOK. So put up or shut up.  Here is the link and you can read all about it.  It's raised a 162K already, so only about 58 BILLION more to go--
24Hrs After GoFundMe Started To Pay For Wall – Americans Give Trump HUGE Christmas Gift

But before you donate--just a warning, you might want to watch this 2-1/2 minute video and consider a few things.





The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
They found 240 of these in the San Diego region alone, and they know there's more they haven't found.

And most Americans don't want any new border walls.
Poll: Most Americans against constructing more border walls


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one cares about 'mexico' money at the moment .   If up to me i'd rather spend your money Ace .  We can punish 'mexico' later if'n we like  Ace .
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of people care that Drumpf conned his idiot supporters. Theres no need to punish Mexico if they are going to willingly cut a check like Drumpf claimed they would. Now if he has this in the form of a promissory note then we can punish Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mexico's economy is less than 1/10 the size of the US economy.  The entire budget for Mexico would be little more than a rounding error in the US budget. The chance of Mexico paying for a 35 billion dollar wall that they wouldn't even own is about zero.  Trump says what he thinks his supporters want to hear.  Any relationship to the truth is purely coincidental.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats pretty much what I thought when I heard that idiot gibbon say Mexico was going to pay for the wall. You can imagine my surprise when Drumpfs supporters actually believed him. Thats when I knew stupid is not just an airborne disease. It affects digital networks as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest, we don't care who pays for it.  After all, what Trump originally asked for was half of what we spend on food stamps every single year.  We were not obsessed with who was going to pay for it, only the leftists are now. We were sold that there would be a wall.
> 
> Hey, you guys bought the BS that nobody making less than 250K a year would see a tax increase of any kind.  And what was the first thing Ears did once he invaded the White House?  He instituted a huge sin tax; a tax that mostly affects the poor and middle-class.  Afterwards, he got a bill passed that kept income tax refunds of people that didn't have health insurance, again, a tax that only affected the poor and middle-class.
> 
> But now you complain that Mexico is not giving us the 5 billion dollars we want, and Congress has to fund it instead?  People in glass houses................
Click to expand...

Regardless of the revenue source, congress must fund it. The president can't just look under a rock and say, Look, I found 35 billion dollars.  I'm going to building a wall." 
Revenue for any project is always an issue but the overriding issue is do we want it, not what it cost.  70% of the American public say the wall is not a priority and over half say it should not build.  There is opposition in congress among republicans not just democrats.

We should not built the wall, not because of the cost but because it's not practical.  Even the most optimistic estimates put the time to complete the wall as 15 years, but 20 would be more realistic since a republican congress has never put any money in budget for it.  If you think that's nuts, remember it took 6 years to complete 500 miles of a fence and the fencing project was far simpler than the Trump wall and had much less opposition.  Long before the wall is finished, immigration, national priorities, and ideology of the parties will have shifted along with funding of the wall.

When we enter into a project of this size we should be looking at the future, not the past.  The number of illegal immigrants in the US have been falling since 2008.  With economic improvements in Mexico, particular the growing shortage of farm labor, it is quite likely that the illegal immigration problem will solve itself.


----------



## The Purge




----------



## The Purge




----------



## Asclepias

The Purge said:


>


They sorta work there because they have guards, surveillance,  and they dont cover thousands of miles that no one is watching.


----------



## danielpalos

Thinker101 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's stupid because at best..half of illegals come over the border.
> 
> So if the wall ever got built...at what...40 billion? 50 once all the land is taken by eminent domain...it would have to be 100% effective to even stop HALF of the illegals coming here.. And it WON'T be 100% effective.
> 
> Not even close
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, and we don't even want to stop half of them...dumbass.
Click to expand...

where is the express wall building power?


----------



## danielpalos

Thinker101 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's stupid because at best..half of illegals come over the border.
> 
> So if the wall ever got built...at what...40 billion? 50 once all the land is taken by eminent domain...it would have to be 100% effective to even stop HALF of the illegals coming here.. And it WON'T be 100% effective.
> 
> Not even close
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, and we don't even want to stop half of them...dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your board name does not match your response.
> 
> We have an immigration problem.  We could resolve it without a wall.  We could resolve the pretexts for building a wall AND address the 60 percent of foreigners that are not affected by the all ALONG WITH those from Mexico and south of there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, sounds like one heck of a plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The founders did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?!  Did they also have to deal with thousands of illegals crossing the border expecting hand-outs?
Click to expand...

we gave them free wars on crime, drugs, and terror.  refugees is our reward.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Thinker101 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's stupid because at best..half of illegals come over the border.
> 
> So if the wall ever got built...at what...40 billion? 50 once all the land is taken by eminent domain...it would have to be 100% effective to even stop HALF of the illegals coming here.. And it WON'T be 100% effective.
> 
> Not even close
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, and we don't even want to stop half of them...dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your board name does not match your response.
> 
> We have an immigration problem.  We could resolve it without a wall.  We could resolve the pretexts for building a wall AND address the 60 percent of foreigners that are not affected by the all ALONG WITH those from Mexico and south of there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, sounds like one heck of a plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The founders did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?!  Did they also have to deal with thousands of illegals crossing the border expecting hand-outs?
Click to expand...


If people are crossing the border and getting any handouts, that is YOUR fault.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's difficult to do which is why I started out on this thread asking if it were possible that both the left and the right are hoodwinking the people.  What if this discussion is a strategy ploy to con you into acquiescing all of your rights in lieu of a false promise to get rid of undocumented foreigners.
> 
> My observation is that the symptoms people complain about and the reason they support the wall are not one and the same.  The rationale or default position of those in favor of a wall has to do with border security.  Mike Huckabee, on his most recent tv show, began with the analogy of WalMart having cameras looking at you every moment from the time you arrive until you leave.  Of course there are those cameras and listening devices on cop cars that can track your every move.
> 
> The problem for me is that some are giving up our Liberty and finding excuses to  trash the Constitution just to keep foreigners out.  It won't work.  We'd be better off admitting that and then work to get those people to become Guest Workers with no expectation of citizenship or welfare.  At the same time we have to find innovative ways to get Americans back into the workforce which will diminish any perceived need for the foreigners to be here in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain to you what's really going on here.  I've said this repeatedly, so those who read my theory can just skip over it.
> 
> The Democrat party has become the anti-white party.  Why?  Most of the Democrats are white themselves!  The reason is power.  The Democrats long term goal is to have a one-party government with little to no opposition.  So how could they accomplish this?
> 
> Simple: every other group outside of whites vote a majority Democrat.  The Jewish vote majority Democrat.  The middle-eastern people vote a majority Democrat.  The Asians vote Democrat.  This is especially important of the Hispanic community.  Blacks?  Forget about it.
> 
> Once the Democrat party wipes out whites (not in a genocidal way, but a political way) they will have the ability to have this one-party government for eternity.  This is why they are working tirelessly to make whites a minority in this country for the first time since our founding.
> 
> Think about it.  Why is the wall such a threat to them so to the point they are willing to shutdown the government?  Why are they (and their activist judges) fighting to keep sanctuary cities and now states?  Why do they want to eliminate ICE?  Why do they provide aid and comfort to illegals such as giving them drivers license?
> 
> The point is, you can't compromise with people trying to wipe you off the planet.  It's a very similar situation to the Palestinians and the Jewish.  There is no compromise when one side wants the other side totally eliminated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I appreciate your theory.  I agree with a lot of it.  You have just left a few important players out of the game, so let me share my observations with you and you might want to consider them in addition to what you're thinking.
> 
> We are both agreed that this is about POWER.  Rather than to fight for power, it makes better sense to flip your opposition.  In order to do that you employ Hegelian Dialectics: Thesis + Anti-thesis = Synthesis.  Or, in simple English you create a problem (Thesis) and then generate the hysteria and chaos surrounding the problem you created (Anti-Thesis) and you offer up to the people your pre-planned solutions that you had already thought up.  They choose the most obvious "solution" (Synthesis.)
> 
> As stated, the facts are that manning the border and border security were started by a neo-nazi turned Klansman, David Duke.  The self proclaimed Minutemen (who were later exposed as nazis) revived the border security issue.  The genesis of the wall idea was promoted by Bill Clinton before it was adopted by the Tea Party Republicans and then Donald Trump.
> 
> There is a commonality between Democrats, socialists, National Socialists, and globalists.  They want POWER.  There is this delusional belief that they can erect a wall and control those within that wall.  The reality is, the National Socialists cannot control those inside the wall because most people are non-white OR they hate their own race.  The Democrats, socialists, and globalists on the other hand CAN co-exist.
> 
> Today, the posterity of the founders who fought, bled and died in order to create our constitutional Republic no longer exist as a political entity.  Constitutionalists gave way to conservatism which, in turn, became the Tea Party Republicans.  Tea Party Republicans buy into the socialist proposition that building a wall around America will benefit border security.  Those people cannot and will not understand that a wall will NOT increase border security.  Why?
> 
> Study the genesis of this discussion.  Manning the border started out by a National Socialist; the wall idea is consistent with the message that Bill Clinton promoted during his presidency.  When the Tea Party Republicans argue for a wall, they cite the immigration laws of Mexico; the wall in China (which is communist), or some other third world cesspool and / or nations at war.  At the heart of the discussion, those who would have been constitutionalists are now buying into the proposition that only "citizens" have rights.  In the view of Democrats, socialists, and National Socialists - along with globalists, man derives his rights from government as opposed to natural, inherent, God given, unalienable, absolute Rights.
> 
> If you could build a wall around America and if we all accept the proposition that government grants us our rights, then the non-whites will outvote the whites and continue the anti-white immigration that results in non-whites being wiped out, as a people, but more importantly as a culture of people who live in a constitutional Republic with Liberty.  The whites, for whatever reason, cannot or will not delineate between unalienable Rights and citizenship.  Neither can those who would have been constitutionalists understand that the rest of the world despises us, as a people and consequently, hate the form of government our forefathers created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you substituted the word "hate" for jealousy.  Few people actually hate the US.  After all, who is the most giving to foreign nations than the US?  I'm not just talking about government aid, but private donations to charities and organizations.
> 
> Jealous I'm more likely to believe.  There are few places in the world where a nobody can become a somebody.  For instance perhaps the French may say they hate the US because our gasoline is 2/3 cheaper than their gasoline, but again, it's envy and not hate.
> 
> As far as the wall is concerned, we know it would work.  How?  By other places that did (or now have) walls.  While it doesn't solve 100% of the problems in most cases, it greatly slows it down.  After all, from time to time, even prisoners break out of jail.
> 
> Is there something I think that would work just as good if not better than a wall?  Yes there is.  Make being in the US illegally a first degree felony carrying a minimum of five years in prison.  That would solve our border problem as well as our expired VISA problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bible says that "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."  James 1 : 8
> 
> You sound much like the former conservative that unwittingly adopted a socialist point of view.  If other countries are jealous of the United States, it boggles the mind that you would make an argument for something that supposedly "worked" in another country.
> 
> Walls work for communists in communist countries.  They work in dictatorships.  They work temporarily when you are at war.  But they will not work with our form of government.  For that reason, you cannot show an example of a wall being built that culminated in a free society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is not a free society?  The United States is not a free society?
> 
> Just because countries with other forms of government are different than ours doesn't mean they don't have good ideas.  After all, the left is constantly bringing up how great Europe is because of gun bans and socialized medicine.  They boast how the government restricts massive wealth for individuals.
> 
> True story:  Many years ago some middle-easterners bought a closed down Dairy Mart and opened up their own convenience store around the corner from my house.  I always patronize the little guy, and one night when I walked in, the cops were walking out.
> 
> I asked the young clerk if everything was alright?  He said some drunk came into the store, stole some cigarettes off the counter and left.  He told me the police advised him if the guy comes back, to give them a call and they'll kick him out.  He said this is why the US has such a theft problem.
> 
> He went on to explain how where he was from, there was virtually no theft. People have outdoor stands and sell their products on the street.  They have picnic tables set up so that customers could rest.  He said that if a woman lay her purse on a table and mindlessly left, people would actually cross the street to be nowhere near it.
> 
> He said where he was from, if you got caught stealing, the police came and chopped off your hand.  Steal again, the other hand comes off, and I don't mean in a hospital.  There is no third time.  The very few people with no hand are shunned from society; at times are attacked and beaten up.  A thief is the lowest from of life in their society.
> 
> Am I saying that's what we should do here?  No, but just pointing out that a strong enough deterrent has results.  Here, criminals steal police cars and rescue squads and little happens to them.
Click to expand...


The Israelis are in a protracted WAR with their neighbors - just like I told you earlier.  You want to try again?

America is in the shape it's in because of adopting the socialist policies of foreign nations.  BEFORE we changed the original interpretation of the Constitution, our crime rates were quite low as well.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain to you what's really going on here.  I've said this repeatedly, so those who read my theory can just skip over it.
> 
> The Democrat party has become the anti-white party.  Why?  Most of the Democrats are white themselves!  The reason is power.  The Democrats long term goal is to have a one-party government with little to no opposition.  So how could they accomplish this?
> 
> Simple: every other group outside of whites vote a majority Democrat.  The Jewish vote majority Democrat.  The middle-eastern people vote a majority Democrat.  The Asians vote Democrat.  This is especially important of the Hispanic community.  Blacks?  Forget about it.
> 
> Once the Democrat party wipes out whites (not in a genocidal way, but a political way) they will have the ability to have this one-party government for eternity.  This is why they are working tirelessly to make whites a minority in this country for the first time since our founding.
> 
> Think about it.  Why is the wall such a threat to them so to the point they are willing to shutdown the government?  Why are they (and their activist judges) fighting to keep sanctuary cities and now states?  Why do they want to eliminate ICE?  Why do they provide aid and comfort to illegals such as giving them drivers license?
> 
> The point is, you can't compromise with people trying to wipe you off the planet.  It's a very similar situation to the Palestinians and the Jewish.  There is no compromise when one side wants the other side totally eliminated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate your theory.  I agree with a lot of it.  You have just left a few important players out of the game, so let me share my observations with you and you might want to consider them in addition to what you're thinking.
> 
> We are both agreed that this is about POWER.  Rather than to fight for power, it makes better sense to flip your opposition.  In order to do that you employ Hegelian Dialectics: Thesis + Anti-thesis = Synthesis.  Or, in simple English you create a problem (Thesis) and then generate the hysteria and chaos surrounding the problem you created (Anti-Thesis) and you offer up to the people your pre-planned solutions that you had already thought up.  They choose the most obvious "solution" (Synthesis.)
> 
> As stated, the facts are that manning the border and border security were started by a neo-nazi turned Klansman, David Duke.  The self proclaimed Minutemen (who were later exposed as nazis) revived the border security issue.  The genesis of the wall idea was promoted by Bill Clinton before it was adopted by the Tea Party Republicans and then Donald Trump.
> 
> There is a commonality between Democrats, socialists, National Socialists, and globalists.  They want POWER.  There is this delusional belief that they can erect a wall and control those within that wall.  The reality is, the National Socialists cannot control those inside the wall because most people are non-white OR they hate their own race.  The Democrats, socialists, and globalists on the other hand CAN co-exist.
> 
> Today, the posterity of the founders who fought, bled and died in order to create our constitutional Republic no longer exist as a political entity.  Constitutionalists gave way to conservatism which, in turn, became the Tea Party Republicans.  Tea Party Republicans buy into the socialist proposition that building a wall around America will benefit border security.  Those people cannot and will not understand that a wall will NOT increase border security.  Why?
> 
> Study the genesis of this discussion.  Manning the border started out by a National Socialist; the wall idea is consistent with the message that Bill Clinton promoted during his presidency.  When the Tea Party Republicans argue for a wall, they cite the immigration laws of Mexico; the wall in China (which is communist), or some other third world cesspool and / or nations at war.  At the heart of the discussion, those who would have been constitutionalists are now buying into the proposition that only "citizens" have rights.  In the view of Democrats, socialists, and National Socialists - along with globalists, man derives his rights from government as opposed to natural, inherent, God given, unalienable, absolute Rights.
> 
> If you could build a wall around America and if we all accept the proposition that government grants us our rights, then the non-whites will outvote the whites and continue the anti-white immigration that results in non-whites being wiped out, as a people, but more importantly as a culture of people who live in a constitutional Republic with Liberty.  The whites, for whatever reason, cannot or will not delineate between unalienable Rights and citizenship.  Neither can those who would have been constitutionalists understand that the rest of the world despises us, as a people and consequently, hate the form of government our forefathers created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you substituted the word "hate" for jealousy.  Few people actually hate the US.  After all, who is the most giving to foreign nations than the US?  I'm not just talking about government aid, but private donations to charities and organizations.
> 
> Jealous I'm more likely to believe.  There are few places in the world where a nobody can become a somebody.  For instance perhaps the French may say they hate the US because our gasoline is 2/3 cheaper than their gasoline, but again, it's envy and not hate.
> 
> As far as the wall is concerned, we know it would work.  How?  By other places that did (or now have) walls.  While it doesn't solve 100% of the problems in most cases, it greatly slows it down.  After all, from time to time, even prisoners break out of jail.
> 
> Is there something I think that would work just as good if not better than a wall?  Yes there is.  Make being in the US illegally a first degree felony carrying a minimum of five years in prison.  That would solve our border problem as well as our expired VISA problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bible says that "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."  James 1 : 8
> 
> You sound much like the former conservative that unwittingly adopted a socialist point of view.  If other countries are jealous of the United States, it boggles the mind that you would make an argument for something that supposedly "worked" in another country.
> 
> Walls work for communists in communist countries.  They work in dictatorships.  They work temporarily when you are at war.  But they will not work with our form of government.  For that reason, you cannot show an example of a wall being built that culminated in a free society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is not a free society?  The United States is not a free society?
> 
> Just because countries with other forms of government are different than ours doesn't mean they don't have good ideas.  After all, the left is constantly bringing up how great Europe is because of gun bans and socialized medicine.  They boast how the government restricts massive wealth for individuals.
> 
> True story:  Many years ago some middle-easterners bought a closed down Dairy Mart and opened up their own convenience store around the corner from my house.  I always patronize the little guy, and one night when I walked in, the cops were walking out.
> 
> I asked the young clerk if everything was alright?  He said some drunk came into the store, stole some cigarettes off the counter and left.  He told me the police advised him if the guy comes back, to give them a call and they'll kick him out.  He said this is why the US has such a theft problem.
> 
> He went on to explain how where he was from, there was virtually no theft. People have outdoor stands and sell their products on the street.  They have picnic tables set up so that customers could rest.  He said that if a woman lay her purse on a table and mindlessly left, people would actually cross the street to be nowhere near it.
> 
> He said where he was from, if you got caught stealing, the police came and chopped off your hand.  Steal again, the other hand comes off, and I don't mean in a hospital.  There is no third time.  The very few people with no hand are shunned from society; at times are attacked and beaten up.  A thief is the lowest from of life in their society.
> 
> Am I saying that's what we should do here?  No, but just pointing out that a strong enough deterrent has results.  Here, criminals steal police cars and rescue squads and little happens to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Israelis are in a protracted WAR with their neighbors - just like I told you earlier.  You want to try again?
> 
> America is in the shape it's in because of adopting the socialist policies of foreign nations.  BEFORE we changed the original interpretation of the Constitution, our crime rates were quite low as well.
Click to expand...


No, the Israel Palestinian thing is a conflict, not a war.  If you consider that a war, then the US is at a war with SC America.  And what socialist foreign policies do you speak of?  What ruined our country is liberalism in general, not social programs.  The removal of God from our society and replacement with guys wearing dresses and kissing each other in the park in front of our children.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one cares about 'mexico' money at the moment .   If up to me i'd rather spend your money Ace .  We can punish 'mexico' later if'n we like  Ace .
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of people care that Drumpf conned his idiot supporters. Theres no need to punish Mexico if they are going to willingly cut a check like Drumpf claimed they would. Now if he has this in the form of a promissory note then we can punish Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mexico's economy is less than 1/10 the size of the US economy.  The entire budget for Mexico would be little more than a rounding error in the US budget. The chance of Mexico paying for a 35 billion dollar wall that they wouldn't even own is about zero.  Trump says what he thinks his supporters want to hear.  Any relationship to the truth is purely coincidental.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats pretty much what I thought when I heard that idiot gibbon say Mexico was going to pay for the wall. You can imagine my surprise when Drumpfs supporters actually believed him. Thats when I knew stupid is not just an airborne disease. It affects digital networks as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest, we don't care who pays for it.  After all, what Trump originally asked for was half of what we spend on food stamps every single year.  We were not obsessed with who was going to pay for it, only the leftists are now. We were sold that there would be a wall.
> 
> Hey, you guys bought the BS that nobody making less than 250K a year would see a tax increase of any kind.  And what was the first thing Ears did once he invaded the White House?  He instituted a huge sin tax; a tax that mostly affects the poor and middle-class.  Afterwards, he got a bill passed that kept income tax refunds of people that didn't have health insurance, again, a tax that only affected the poor and middle-class.
> 
> But now you complain that Mexico is not giving us the 5 billion dollars we want, and Congress has to fund it instead?  People in glass houses................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regardless of the revenue source, congress must fund it. The president can't just look under a rock and say, Look, I found 35 billion dollars.  I'm going to building a wall."
> Revenue for any project is always an issue but the overriding issue is do we want it, not what it cost.  70% of the American public say the wall is not a priority and over half say it should not build.  There is opposition in congress among republicans not just democrats.
> 
> We should not built the wall, not because of the cost but because it's not practical.  Even the most optimistic estimates put the time to complete the wall as 15 years, but 20 would be more realistic since a republican congress has never put any money in budget for it.  If you think that's nuts, remember it took 6 years to complete 500 miles of a fence and the fencing project was far simpler than the Trump wall and had much less opposition.  Long before the wall is finished, immigration, national priorities, and ideology of the parties will have shifted along with funding of the wall.
> 
> When we enter into a project of this size we should be looking at the future, not the past.  The number of illegal immigrants in the US have been falling since 2008.  With economic improvements in Mexico, particular the growing shortage of farm labor, it is quite likely that the illegal immigration problem will solve itself.
Click to expand...


Years ago I was listening to the radio when the host was interviewing Marlo Thomas.  Marlo was a 70's actress who starred in a show and the daughter of a very famous actor by the name of Danny Thomas.  She was promoting her book on advancing in life.  In her book she interviewed a Doctor and her path to becoming a clinician.  

The Doctor said she attended college and became a teacher.  After some years of teaching, she became a little depressed about the career she chose.  Her father realized something was wrong, and she told him of her thoughts.  So he asked what is it she'd really like to do?  She said she'd really like to be a medical doctor.  So he suggested that she do just that!  She told her father she was stuck in this career, and by the time she'd get out of college, she would be 42 years old.  He looked at her and said "Well you're going to be 42 anyway!"  On her fathers advice, she became a doctor and has never been happier. 

This migrant problem isn't going away anytime soon no matter what you speculate.  There will always be desperate people south of us, gang members who want to get in, terrorists looking for an easy way to sneak in, and people that want to take our money and send it back home.   10 or 15 years?  It's going to be 10 or 15 years no matter what we do, so there is no time like the present to get started.  Because every year that wall is being built, our border becomes more secure.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Yarddog said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico's economy is less than 1/10 the size of the US economy.  The entire budget for Mexico would be little more than a rounding error in the US budget. The chance of Mexico paying for a 35 billion dollar wall that they wouldn't even own is about zero.  Trump says what he thinks his supporters want to hear.  Any relationship to the truth is purely coincidental.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats pretty much what I thought when I heard that idiot gibbon say Mexico was going to pay for the wall. You can imagine my surprise when Drumpfs supporters actually believed him. Thats when I knew stupid is not just an airborne disease. It affects digital networks as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest, we don't care who pays for it.  After all, what Trump originally asked for was half of what we spend on food stamps every single year.  We were not obsessed with who was going to pay for it, only the leftists are now. We were sold that there would be a wall.
> 
> Hey, you guys bought the BS that nobody making less than 250K a year would see a tax increase of any kind.  And what was the first thing Ears did once he invaded the White House?  He instituted a huge sin tax; a tax that mostly affects the poor and middle-class.  Afterwards, he got a bill passed that kept income tax refunds of people that didn't have health insurance, again, a tax that only affected the poor and middle-class.
> 
> But now you complain that Mexico is not giving us the 5 billion dollars we want, and Congress has to fund it instead?  People in glass houses................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you dont care who pays for it now.  I'm not complaining about Mexico not giving us 5B for the wall even though the wall is going to 7 times that much, I am laughing at you idiots that thought Drumpf was going to get Mexico to pay anything at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we don't know that he won't using other methods.  Who pays for it was not why we elected him. We elected him to get it built.  If he does, then it's irrelevant who pays for it.  He kept his promise of doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The government could sell bonds to pay for the wall perhaps.
Click to expand...


When we consider what foreigners cost our government, the wall will pay for itself in a year or two.  It's very rare when our government can spend money to actually save money in the long run.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Asclepias said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico's economy is less than 1/10 the size of the US economy.  The entire budget for Mexico would be little more than a rounding error in the US budget. The chance of Mexico paying for a 35 billion dollar wall that they wouldn't even own is about zero.  Trump says what he thinks his supporters want to hear.  Any relationship to the truth is purely coincidental.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats pretty much what I thought when I heard that idiot gibbon say Mexico was going to pay for the wall. You can imagine my surprise when Drumpfs supporters actually believed him. Thats when I knew stupid is not just an airborne disease. It affects digital networks as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest, we don't care who pays for it.  After all, what Trump originally asked for was half of what we spend on food stamps every single year.  We were not obsessed with who was going to pay for it, only the leftists are now. We were sold that there would be a wall.
> 
> Hey, you guys bought the BS that nobody making less than 250K a year would see a tax increase of any kind.  And what was the first thing Ears did once he invaded the White House?  He instituted a huge sin tax; a tax that mostly affects the poor and middle-class.  Afterwards, he got a bill passed that kept income tax refunds of people that didn't have health insurance, again, a tax that only affected the poor and middle-class.
> 
> But now you complain that Mexico is not giving us the 5 billion dollars we want, and Congress has to fund it instead?  People in glass houses................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you dont care who pays for it now.  I'm not complaining about Mexico not giving us 5B for the wall even though the wall is going to 7 times that much, I am laughing at you idiots that thought Drumpf was going to get Mexico to pay anything at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we don't know that he won't using other methods.  Who pays for it was not why we elected him. We elected him to get it built.  If he does, then it's irrelevant who pays for it.  He kept his promise of doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think money is the only thing keeping the wall from being built?  Boy youre naive. If that was the case the repub controlled congress would have already given Drumpf his budget.
Click to expand...


You mean a budget that needs a 60 Senate seat vote?  

No, this is something we can agree on: it's not about money.  The Democrats are using the money as an excuse because Democrats are born dishonest.  If they were honest, they'd tell us why they really don't want the wall which is they want to flood this country with immigrants and wipe out the white population.  

At least I could respect their honesty then.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate your theory.  I agree with a lot of it.  You have just left a few important players out of the game, so let me share my observations with you and you might want to consider them in addition to what you're thinking.
> 
> We are both agreed that this is about POWER.  Rather than to fight for power, it makes better sense to flip your opposition.  In order to do that you employ Hegelian Dialectics: Thesis + Anti-thesis = Synthesis.  Or, in simple English you create a problem (Thesis) and then generate the hysteria and chaos surrounding the problem you created (Anti-Thesis) and you offer up to the people your pre-planned solutions that you had already thought up.  They choose the most obvious "solution" (Synthesis.)
> 
> As stated, the facts are that manning the border and border security were started by a neo-nazi turned Klansman, David Duke.  The self proclaimed Minutemen (who were later exposed as nazis) revived the border security issue.  The genesis of the wall idea was promoted by Bill Clinton before it was adopted by the Tea Party Republicans and then Donald Trump.
> 
> There is a commonality between Democrats, socialists, National Socialists, and globalists.  They want POWER.  There is this delusional belief that they can erect a wall and control those within that wall.  The reality is, the National Socialists cannot control those inside the wall because most people are non-white OR they hate their own race.  The Democrats, socialists, and globalists on the other hand CAN co-exist.
> 
> Today, the posterity of the founders who fought, bled and died in order to create our constitutional Republic no longer exist as a political entity.  Constitutionalists gave way to conservatism which, in turn, became the Tea Party Republicans.  Tea Party Republicans buy into the socialist proposition that building a wall around America will benefit border security.  Those people cannot and will not understand that a wall will NOT increase border security.  Why?
> 
> Study the genesis of this discussion.  Manning the border started out by a National Socialist; the wall idea is consistent with the message that Bill Clinton promoted during his presidency.  When the Tea Party Republicans argue for a wall, they cite the immigration laws of Mexico; the wall in China (which is communist), or some other third world cesspool and / or nations at war.  At the heart of the discussion, those who would have been constitutionalists are now buying into the proposition that only "citizens" have rights.  In the view of Democrats, socialists, and National Socialists - along with globalists, man derives his rights from government as opposed to natural, inherent, God given, unalienable, absolute Rights.
> 
> If you could build a wall around America and if we all accept the proposition that government grants us our rights, then the non-whites will outvote the whites and continue the anti-white immigration that results in non-whites being wiped out, as a people, but more importantly as a culture of people who live in a constitutional Republic with Liberty.  The whites, for whatever reason, cannot or will not delineate between unalienable Rights and citizenship.  Neither can those who would have been constitutionalists understand that the rest of the world despises us, as a people and consequently, hate the form of government our forefathers created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you substituted the word "hate" for jealousy.  Few people actually hate the US.  After all, who is the most giving to foreign nations than the US?  I'm not just talking about government aid, but private donations to charities and organizations.
> 
> Jealous I'm more likely to believe.  There are few places in the world where a nobody can become a somebody.  For instance perhaps the French may say they hate the US because our gasoline is 2/3 cheaper than their gasoline, but again, it's envy and not hate.
> 
> As far as the wall is concerned, we know it would work.  How?  By other places that did (or now have) walls.  While it doesn't solve 100% of the problems in most cases, it greatly slows it down.  After all, from time to time, even prisoners break out of jail.
> 
> Is there something I think that would work just as good if not better than a wall?  Yes there is.  Make being in the US illegally a first degree felony carrying a minimum of five years in prison.  That would solve our border problem as well as our expired VISA problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bible says that "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."  James 1 : 8
> 
> You sound much like the former conservative that unwittingly adopted a socialist point of view.  If other countries are jealous of the United States, it boggles the mind that you would make an argument for something that supposedly "worked" in another country.
> 
> Walls work for communists in communist countries.  They work in dictatorships.  They work temporarily when you are at war.  But they will not work with our form of government.  For that reason, you cannot show an example of a wall being built that culminated in a free society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is not a free society?  The United States is not a free society?
> 
> Just because countries with other forms of government are different than ours doesn't mean they don't have good ideas.  After all, the left is constantly bringing up how great Europe is because of gun bans and socialized medicine.  They boast how the government restricts massive wealth for individuals.
> 
> True story:  Many years ago some middle-easterners bought a closed down Dairy Mart and opened up their own convenience store around the corner from my house.  I always patronize the little guy, and one night when I walked in, the cops were walking out.
> 
> I asked the young clerk if everything was alright?  He said some drunk came into the store, stole some cigarettes off the counter and left.  He told me the police advised him if the guy comes back, to give them a call and they'll kick him out.  He said this is why the US has such a theft problem.
> 
> He went on to explain how where he was from, there was virtually no theft. People have outdoor stands and sell their products on the street.  They have picnic tables set up so that customers could rest.  He said that if a woman lay her purse on a table and mindlessly left, people would actually cross the street to be nowhere near it.
> 
> He said where he was from, if you got caught stealing, the police came and chopped off your hand.  Steal again, the other hand comes off, and I don't mean in a hospital.  There is no third time.  The very few people with no hand are shunned from society; at times are attacked and beaten up.  A thief is the lowest from of life in their society.
> 
> Am I saying that's what we should do here?  No, but just pointing out that a strong enough deterrent has results.  Here, criminals steal police cars and rescue squads and little happens to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Israelis are in a protracted WAR with their neighbors - just like I told you earlier.  You want to try again?
> 
> America is in the shape it's in because of adopting the socialist policies of foreign nations.  BEFORE we changed the original interpretation of the Constitution, our crime rates were quite low as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Israel Palestinian thing is a conflict, not a war.  If you consider that a war, then the US is at a war with SC America.  And what socialist foreign policies do you speak of?  What ruined our country is liberalism in general, not social programs.  The removal of God from our society and replacement with guys wearing dresses and kissing each other in the park in front of our children.
Click to expand...


Okay, people lobbing everything from rocks to grenades at each other is not a war.  You DID say something that is very revealing, however since you interjected the Bible.  In Genesis 16: 10 through 12, the Bible reads:

10 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. 11 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou _art_ with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction. 12 And he will be a wild man; his hand _will be_ against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

That is a continuation of God's words from Genesis 3: 15 which reads:

15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

In both instances, the seed or offspring God's chosen line was to be marked with enmity  (which means hostility and hatred according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.)   Mainstream Churchianity (as opposed to Christianity) mistakenly thinks that sandpit the Israelis and descendants of Ishmael bicker over is the promised land.  You inadvertently admitted that it is not.  

My argument has been that other than the Israelis and their war, the only countries that have employed walls are communists and dictatorships. Thank you for admitting there is nothing special about that relationship in the Middle East.  Still, we do not have a relationship with our neighbors to the south marked by enmity, hatred, and hostility.  Therefore, the wall would be an inappropriate response when what you have are people on BOTH sides willfully engaging in otherwise lawful pursuits.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of people care that Drumpf conned his idiot supporters. Theres no need to punish Mexico if they are going to willingly cut a check like Drumpf claimed they would. Now if he has this in the form of a promissory note then we can punish Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico's economy is less than 1/10 the size of the US economy.  The entire budget for Mexico would be little more than a rounding error in the US budget. The chance of Mexico paying for a 35 billion dollar wall that they wouldn't even own is about zero.  Trump says what he thinks his supporters want to hear.  Any relationship to the truth is purely coincidental.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats pretty much what I thought when I heard that idiot gibbon say Mexico was going to pay for the wall. You can imagine my surprise when Drumpfs supporters actually believed him. Thats when I knew stupid is not just an airborne disease. It affects digital networks as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest, we don't care who pays for it.  After all, what Trump originally asked for was half of what we spend on food stamps every single year.  We were not obsessed with who was going to pay for it, only the leftists are now. We were sold that there would be a wall.
> 
> Hey, you guys bought the BS that nobody making less than 250K a year would see a tax increase of any kind.  And what was the first thing Ears did once he invaded the White House?  He instituted a huge sin tax; a tax that mostly affects the poor and middle-class.  Afterwards, he got a bill passed that kept income tax refunds of people that didn't have health insurance, again, a tax that only affected the poor and middle-class.
> 
> But now you complain that Mexico is not giving us the 5 billion dollars we want, and Congress has to fund it instead?  People in glass houses................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regardless of the revenue source, congress must fund it. The president can't just look under a rock and say, Look, I found 35 billion dollars.  I'm going to building a wall."
> Revenue for any project is always an issue but the overriding issue is do we want it, not what it cost.  70% of the American public say the wall is not a priority and over half say it should not build.  There is opposition in congress among republicans not just democrats.
> 
> We should not built the wall, not because of the cost but because it's not practical.  Even the most optimistic estimates put the time to complete the wall as 15 years, but 20 would be more realistic since a republican congress has never put any money in budget for it.  If you think that's nuts, remember it took 6 years to complete 500 miles of a fence and the fencing project was far simpler than the Trump wall and had much less opposition.  Long before the wall is finished, immigration, national priorities, and ideology of the parties will have shifted along with funding of the wall.
> 
> When we enter into a project of this size we should be looking at the future, not the past.  The number of illegal immigrants in the US have been falling since 2008.  With economic improvements in Mexico, particular the growing shortage of farm labor, it is quite likely that the illegal immigration problem will solve itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Years ago I was listening to the radio when the host was interviewing Marlo Thomas.  Marlo was a 70's actress who starred in a show and the daughter of a very famous actor by the name of Danny Thomas.  She was promoting her book on advancing in life.  In her book she interviewed a Doctor and her path to becoming a clinician.
> 
> The Doctor said she attended college and became a teacher.  After some years of teaching, she became a little depressed about the career she chose.  Her father realized something was wrong, and she told him of her thoughts.  So he asked what is it she'd really like to do?  She said she'd really like to be a medical doctor.  So he suggested that she do just that!  She told her father she was stuck in this career, and by the time she'd get out of college, she would be 42 years old.  He looked at her and said "Well you're going to be 42 anyway!"  On her fathers advice, she became a doctor and has never been happier.
> 
> This migrant problem isn't going away anytime soon no matter what you speculate.  There will always be desperate people south of us, gang members who want to get in, terrorists looking for an easy way to sneak in, and people that want to take our money and send it back home.   10 or 15 years?  It's going to be 10 or 15 years no matter what we do, so there is no time like the present to get started.  Because every year that wall is being built, our border becomes more secure.
Click to expand...


Our nation will NOT be more secure because you build a wall. Quite the converse will be true.  A wall would create more tension between our neighbors to the south.

I realize that you have your perspective, but the answer to any problem lies in considering all the differing perspectives.  Unless you are willing to argue that our neighbors to the south are genetically predisposed to gangs, poverty, and violence I would hope that you hear me out on this:

Drug cartels, gangs and the violence that ensues exist because the people in the United States are the world's primary consumers of drugs.  If we quit supplying the drug users, there then is no need for drug cartels.

Furthermore, if people come to the United States and engage in lawful pursuits AND we pass laws to make sure that things like education and welfare are the benefits and privileges of CITIZENSHIP, there is no incentive for them to stay here.  They can make some money and go home, invest their savings and ultimately become independent enough so that they don't feel a need to be in the United States.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

deanrd said:


> Even if it were environmentally friendly, which it isn't,
> or it didn't take land from good Americans, which it does,
> all you need to do is build a ladder one foot longer.



BEFORE the globalists flipped the right on the nutty wall idea, civilian militias were protecting private property AND  opposing the over-reach of eminent domain.  Today, those in favor of the wall are on the globalists side.  My how times have changed!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Our nation will NOT be more secure because you build a wall. Quite the converse will be true. A wall would create more tension between our neighbors to the south.



So?????



Porter Rockwell said:


> I realize that you have your perspective, but the answer to any problem lies in considering all the differing perspectives. Unless you are willing to argue that our neighbors to the south are genetically predisposed to gangs, poverty, and violence I would hope that you hear me out on this:
> 
> Drug cartels, gangs and the violence that ensues exist because the people in the United States are the world's primary consumers of drugs. If we quit supplying the drug users, there then is no need for drug cartels.
> 
> Furthermore, if people come to the United States and engage in lawful pursuits AND we pass laws to make sure that things like education and welfare are the benefits and privileges of CITIZENSHIP, there is no incentive for them to stay here. They can make some money and go home, invest their savings and ultimately become independent enough so that they don't feel a need to be in the United States.



Stopping drug dependency is like trying to stop drunk drivers, people gambling, littering, and suicides.  In other words, it's an impossibility unless we do what Singapore does and execute drug users and sellers.  So we can't use that as an excuse for people from other countries coming here and killing Americans.  That's like blaming the woman who got raped.  

Drugs have been around my entire life.  Opioid use was very rare however.  You could find pot when I was young, but now that I'm pushing 60, I can honestly say I've never seen heroin in my life.  It simply wasn't around back then mostly because of cost.  

But today, opioids are around for younger people nearly as much as pot was in my teen days.  That wouldn't be the case if the supply wasn't there.  If it's ready available, more people are likely to experiment with it and end up hooked.  

So we need to make efforts to reduce the supply of recreational narcotics.  You can't do that with an open border just about anybody can cross.  It's not the only step necessary, but a very large step in this fight.


----------



## dblack

Porter Rockwell said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if it were environmentally friendly, which it isn't,
> or it didn't take land from good Americans, which it does,
> all you need to do is build a ladder one foot longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BEFORE the globalists flipped the right on the nutty wall idea, civilian militias were protecting private property AND  opposing the over-reach of eminent domain.  Today, those in favor of the wall are on the globalists side.  My how times have changed!
Click to expand...


Indeed they have. Fascism is a resilient meme, and it's found a home in the Republican party. I'd like to think the NeverTrump people will, at some point, reassert themselves pull the party back from the edge - but there are plenty of idiots ready to sign up. It's not looking good.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you substituted the word "hate" for jealousy.  Few people actually hate the US.  After all, who is the most giving to foreign nations than the US?  I'm not just talking about government aid, but private donations to charities and organizations.
> 
> Jealous I'm more likely to believe.  There are few places in the world where a nobody can become a somebody.  For instance perhaps the French may say they hate the US because our gasoline is 2/3 cheaper than their gasoline, but again, it's envy and not hate.
> 
> As far as the wall is concerned, we know it would work.  How?  By other places that did (or now have) walls.  While it doesn't solve 100% of the problems in most cases, it greatly slows it down.  After all, from time to time, even prisoners break out of jail.
> 
> Is there something I think that would work just as good if not better than a wall?  Yes there is.  Make being in the US illegally a first degree felony carrying a minimum of five years in prison.  That would solve our border problem as well as our expired VISA problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says that "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."  James 1 : 8
> 
> You sound much like the former conservative that unwittingly adopted a socialist point of view.  If other countries are jealous of the United States, it boggles the mind that you would make an argument for something that supposedly "worked" in another country.
> 
> Walls work for communists in communist countries.  They work in dictatorships.  They work temporarily when you are at war.  But they will not work with our form of government.  For that reason, you cannot show an example of a wall being built that culminated in a free society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is not a free society?  The United States is not a free society?
> 
> Just because countries with other forms of government are different than ours doesn't mean they don't have good ideas.  After all, the left is constantly bringing up how great Europe is because of gun bans and socialized medicine.  They boast how the government restricts massive wealth for individuals.
> 
> True story:  Many years ago some middle-easterners bought a closed down Dairy Mart and opened up their own convenience store around the corner from my house.  I always patronize the little guy, and one night when I walked in, the cops were walking out.
> 
> I asked the young clerk if everything was alright?  He said some drunk came into the store, stole some cigarettes off the counter and left.  He told me the police advised him if the guy comes back, to give them a call and they'll kick him out.  He said this is why the US has such a theft problem.
> 
> He went on to explain how where he was from, there was virtually no theft. People have outdoor stands and sell their products on the street.  They have picnic tables set up so that customers could rest.  He said that if a woman lay her purse on a table and mindlessly left, people would actually cross the street to be nowhere near it.
> 
> He said where he was from, if you got caught stealing, the police came and chopped off your hand.  Steal again, the other hand comes off, and I don't mean in a hospital.  There is no third time.  The very few people with no hand are shunned from society; at times are attacked and beaten up.  A thief is the lowest from of life in their society.
> 
> Am I saying that's what we should do here?  No, but just pointing out that a strong enough deterrent has results.  Here, criminals steal police cars and rescue squads and little happens to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Israelis are in a protracted WAR with their neighbors - just like I told you earlier.  You want to try again?
> 
> America is in the shape it's in because of adopting the socialist policies of foreign nations.  BEFORE we changed the original interpretation of the Constitution, our crime rates were quite low as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Israel Palestinian thing is a conflict, not a war.  If you consider that a war, then the US is at a war with SC America.  And what socialist foreign policies do you speak of?  What ruined our country is liberalism in general, not social programs.  The removal of God from our society and replacement with guys wearing dresses and kissing each other in the park in front of our children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, people lobbing everything from rocks to grenades at each other is not a war.  You DID say something that is very revealing, however since you interjected the Bible.  In Genesis 16: 10 through 12, the Bible reads:
> 
> 10 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. 11 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou _art_ with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction. 12 And he will be a wild man; his hand _will be_ against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
> 
> That is a continuation of God's words from Genesis 3: 15 which reads:
> 
> 15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
> 
> In both instances, the seed or offspring God's chosen line was to be marked with enmity  (which means hostility and hatred according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.)   Mainstream Churchianity (as opposed to Christianity) mistakenly thinks that sandpit the Israelis and descendants of Ishmael bicker over is the promised land.  You inadvertently admitted that it is not.
> 
> My argument has been that other than the Israelis and their war, the only countries that have employed walls are communists and dictatorships. Thank you for admitting there is nothing special about that relationship in the Middle East.  Still, we do not have a relationship with our neighbors to the south marked by enmity, hatred, and hostility.  Therefore, the wall would be an inappropriate response when what you have are people on BOTH sides willfully engaging in otherwise lawful pursuits.
Click to expand...


There is an estimated 20 million plus illegals in this country; more coming all the time.  They are taking American jobs that Americans should have.  They are lowering or stagnating our wages.  Because they work for low wages and stuff 10 people in a two bedroom apartment or house, they are destroying neighborhoods.  They are turning our country bilingual which is not the will of the people here.  They are going to our emergency rooms and of course, not paying anything which increases cost to Americans who need those ER's.  They are hampering our children progress in school because their children don't understand the language.  

If you don't call this a war, then I don't know what you'd call it.  When people invade a country against their laws, they are the enemy.  Enemies need to be defeated.


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> If you don't call this a war, then I don't know what you'd call it.



If you DO call this a war, what would you call it if we are attacked by a real military? Because it's clearly not the same thing.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation will NOT be more secure because you build a wall. Quite the converse will be true. A wall would create more tension between our neighbors to the south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?????
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that you have your perspective, but the answer to any problem lies in considering all the differing perspectives. Unless you are willing to argue that our neighbors to the south are genetically predisposed to gangs, poverty, and violence I would hope that you hear me out on this:
> 
> Drug cartels, gangs and the violence that ensues exist because the people in the United States are the world's primary consumers of drugs. If we quit supplying the drug users, there then is no need for drug cartels.
> 
> Furthermore, if people come to the United States and engage in lawful pursuits AND we pass laws to make sure that things like education and welfare are the benefits and privileges of CITIZENSHIP, there is no incentive for them to stay here. They can make some money and go home, invest their savings and ultimately become independent enough so that they don't feel a need to be in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stopping drug dependency is like trying to stop drunk drivers, people gambling, littering, and suicides.  In other words, it's an impossibility unless we do what Singapore does and execute drug users and sellers.  So we can't use that as an excuse for people from other countries coming here and killing Americans.  That's like blaming the woman who got raped.
> 
> Drugs have been around my entire life.  Opioid use was very rare however.  You could find pot when I was young, but now that I'm pushing 60, I can honestly say I've never seen heroin in my life.  It simply wasn't around back then mostly because of cost.
> 
> But today, opioids are around for younger people nearly as much as pot was in my teen days.  That wouldn't be the case if the supply wasn't there.  If it's ready available, more people are likely to experiment with it and end up hooked.
> 
> So we need to make efforts to reduce the supply of recreational narcotics.  You can't do that with an open border just about anybody can cross.  It's not the only step necessary, but a very large step in this fight.
Click to expand...


An open border does not create drug addicts.  

Let me walk you through this once:

Parents and schools have turned the rearing of children up to the government.  You cannot spank your children, reprimand them nor restrain them in any way.

The government's solution is to start at a very young age, giving children Ritalin or Adderall for nonexistent problems.  Children are "anxious and / or hyperactive because they eat too much, sugar, live in a home where there is a lot of drama and instability; they don't get the right diet, enough or too much sleep and no exercise.  

But, we don't fix it.  We make drug addicts out of children and they eventually end up on opioids and / or SSRIs.  Many will then venture into illegal drugs.  Millions quit school and go through life with no job skills, no education, no work history, no high school diploma, and a criminal record.  By the time they hit their mid 20s, they are taken off their parents insurance and they resort to selling drugs to the next generation in order to live and feed their drug habit.

Rather than us do anything about it, we blame foreigners.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

dblack said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if it were environmentally friendly, which it isn't,
> or it didn't take land from good Americans, which it does,
> all you need to do is build a ladder one foot longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BEFORE the globalists flipped the right on the nutty wall idea, civilian militias were protecting private property AND  opposing the over-reach of eminent domain.  Today, those in favor of the wall are on the globalists side.  My how times have changed!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed they have. Fascism is a resilient meme, and it's found a home in the Republican party. I'd like to think the NeverTrump people will, at some point, reassert themselves pull the party back from the edge - but there are plenty of idiots ready to sign up. It's not looking good.
Click to expand...


I voted for Trump.  When he stood against the Second Amendment, he proved what he really is.  He is not going to be re-elected.


----------



## Thinker101

Porter Rockwell said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, and we don't even want to stop half of them...dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your board name does not match your response.
> 
> We have an immigration problem.  We could resolve it without a wall.  We could resolve the pretexts for building a wall AND address the 60 percent of foreigners that are not affected by the all ALONG WITH those from Mexico and south of there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, sounds like one heck of a plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The founders did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?!  Did they also have to deal with thousands of illegals crossing the border expecting hand-outs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If people are crossing the border and getting any handouts, that is YOUR fault.
Click to expand...


WTF, are you the village idiot?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Thinker101 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your board name does not match your response.
> 
> We have an immigration problem.  We could resolve it without a wall.  We could resolve the pretexts for building a wall AND address the 60 percent of foreigners that are not affected by the all ALONG WITH those from Mexico and south of there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, sounds like one heck of a plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The founders did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?!  Did they also have to deal with thousands of illegals crossing the border expecting hand-outs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If people are crossing the border and getting any handouts, that is YOUR fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF, are you the village idiot?
Click to expand...


 I don't feel the need to denigrate others in order to explain my position.  I dare not challenge you for your title.  You're doing an exemplary job.


----------



## pismoe

the thing with the WALL to me is simply to assert SOVEREIGNTY .   The WALL will help prevent entry into the USA of third worlders who sometimes end up becoming citizens with voting rights that they will use to change the USA into where they came from .   And of course it will Stop some drug flow into the USA .    But to me the entire issue is simply asserting SOVEREIGNTY .


----------



## pismoe

And then someone mentioned or asked if these invaders are thought to be genetically predisposed to violence .    Look back 500 years and see the violent human sacrificing societies that they built when the mexican indians were building societies on their own .  And see the MODERN SOCIETIES  that they have built in the last 500 years since they were conquered by the 'spaniard' .


----------



## pismoe

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't call this a war, then I don't know what you'd call it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you DO call this a war, what would you call it if we are attacked by a real military? Because it's clearly not the same thing.
Click to expand...

----------------------------   Its a WAR on the SOVEREIGNTY of the USA   DBlack .


----------



## Porter Rockwell

pismoe said:


> the thing with the WALL to me is simply to assert SOVEREIGNTY .   The WALL will help prevent entry into the USA of third worlders who sometimes end up becoming citizens with voting rights that they will use to change the USA into where they came from .   And of course it will Stop some drug flow into the USA .    But to me the entire issue is simply asserting SOVEREIGNTY .



Everybody in favor of the wall has their own personal reasons.  The battle cry is generally about border security.  But, let's stop again and address this concern.

The real issue with me is that those who want a border wall believe that rights are granted by a God / government.  Therefore, the only avenue they see whereby foreigners come here is through some process they call "legal."  This terminology, generally speaking, is code for citizenship.  The reality is, our immigration laws were written to encourage non-white immigration.  The reality is, most non-white nations are third world.  The reality is, once those people become citizens, they outvote you at some point and all this drivel about sovereignty goes out the door.

I am AGAINST wholesale citizenship.  Hope you understand that.

When you nullify the Bill of Rights, especially starting with the Fourth Amendment; when you tell the employer the government is going to dictate who he can and cannot hire; when you attack the free enterprise system; when you demand to build a government so big that it cannot be resisted when it enforces tyrannical laws, you lose me on this "sovereignty" issue.  You can have sovereignty and not have a militarized border.


----------



## pismoe

Porter Rockwell said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if it were environmentally friendly, which it isn't,
> or it didn't take land from good Americans, which it does,
> all you need to do is build a ladder one foot longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BEFORE the globalists flipped the right on the nutty wall idea, civilian militias were protecting private property AND  opposing the over-reach of eminent domain.  Today, those in favor of the wall are on the globalists side.  My how times have changed!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed they have. Fascism is a resilient meme, and it's found a home in the Republican party. I'd like to think the NeverTrump people will, at some point, reassert themselves pull the party back from the edge - but there are plenty of idiots ready to sign up. It's not looking good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I voted for Trump.  When he stood against the Second Amendment, he proved what he really is.  He is not going to be re-elected.
Click to expand...

----------------------------------   yeah , i don't like the Ban on the Bump stock and one or 2 other things that i have heard about but he is the best that we have with no one any better in sight so i support him for now and maybe later  Porter .


----------



## Porter Rockwell

pismoe said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if it were environmentally friendly, which it isn't,
> or it didn't take land from good Americans, which it does,
> all you need to do is build a ladder one foot longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BEFORE the globalists flipped the right on the nutty wall idea, civilian militias were protecting private property AND  opposing the over-reach of eminent domain.  Today, those in favor of the wall are on the globalists side.  My how times have changed!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed they have. Fascism is a resilient meme, and it's found a home in the Republican party. I'd like to think the NeverTrump people will, at some point, reassert themselves pull the party back from the edge - but there are plenty of idiots ready to sign up. It's not looking good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I voted for Trump.  When he stood against the Second Amendment, he proved what he really is.  He is not going to be re-elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----------------------------------   yeah , i don't like the Ban on the Bump stock and one or 2 other things that i have heard about but he is the best that we have with no one any better in sight so i support him for now and maybe later  Porter .
Click to expand...


 I can respect your position.  But, just as the wall is the litmus test of a person's loyalty to this country, the Bill of Rights is my litmus test.  Once Trump signed onto the bump stock ban, he lost me for good.

When even the NRA is willing to compromise on your unalienable Rights, we are headed toward the end of our era as a Republic.


----------



## pismoe

Porter Rockwell said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> the thing with the WALL to me is simply to assert SOVEREIGNTY .   The WALL will help prevent entry into the USA of third worlders who sometimes end up becoming citizens with voting rights that they will use to change the USA into where they came from .   And of course it will Stop some drug flow into the USA .    But to me the entire issue is simply asserting SOVEREIGNTY .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody in favor of the wall has their own personal reasons.  The battle cry is generally about border security.  But, let's stop again and address this concern.
> 
> The real issue with me is that those who want a border wall believe that rights are granted by a God / government.  Therefore, the only avenue they see whereby foreigners come here is through some process they call "legal."  This terminology, generally speaking, is code for citizenship.  The reality is, our immigration laws were written to encourage non-white immigration.  The reality is, most non-white nations are third world.  The reality is, once those people become citizens, they outvote you at some point and all this drivel about sovereignty goes out the door.
> 
> I am AGAINST wholesale citizenship.  Hope you understand that.
> 
> When you nullify the Bill of Rights, especially starting with the Fourth Amendment; when you tell the employer the government is going to dictate who he can and cannot hire; when you attack the free enterprise system; when you demand to build a government so big that it cannot be resisted when it enforces tyrannical laws, you lose me on this "sovereignty" issue.  You can have sovereignty and not have a militarized border.
Click to expand...

-----------------------------------------------   to me the only issue is ASSERTING Sovereignty .   Feck the 'chamber of commerce'  Porter .


----------



## pismoe

4th Amendment ---   ---  Fourth Amendment  ---


----------



## Porter Rockwell

pismoe said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> the thing with the WALL to me is simply to assert SOVEREIGNTY .   The WALL will help prevent entry into the USA of third worlders who sometimes end up becoming citizens with voting rights that they will use to change the USA into where they came from .   And of course it will Stop some drug flow into the USA .    But to me the entire issue is simply asserting SOVEREIGNTY .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody in favor of the wall has their own personal reasons.  The battle cry is generally about border security.  But, let's stop again and address this concern.
> 
> The real issue with me is that those who want a border wall believe that rights are granted by a God / government.  Therefore, the only avenue they see whereby foreigners come here is through some process they call "legal."  This terminology, generally speaking, is code for citizenship.  The reality is, our immigration laws were written to encourage non-white immigration.  The reality is, most non-white nations are third world.  The reality is, once those people become citizens, they outvote you at some point and all this drivel about sovereignty goes out the door.
> 
> I am AGAINST wholesale citizenship.  Hope you understand that.
> 
> When you nullify the Bill of Rights, especially starting with the Fourth Amendment; when you tell the employer the government is going to dictate who he can and cannot hire; when you attack the free enterprise system; when you demand to build a government so big that it cannot be resisted when it enforces tyrannical laws, you lose me on this "sovereignty" issue.  You can have sovereignty and not have a militarized border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------------------------   to me the only issue is ASSERTING Sovereignty .   Feck the 'chamber of commerce'  Porter .
Click to expand...


Building a wall does not assert sovereignty.  It is the moral equivalent of the declaration of  war - a war that the people of the United States initiated.  Given the decisions by the United States Supreme Court and the trend America has taken toward the left, you're like a little boy that is using a small stick to taunt a lion.  

"If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble"  Johnny Cash in the song The Farmer's Almanac


----------



## Porter Rockwell

pismoe said:


> 4th Amendment ---   ---  Fourth Amendment  ---



Do you have a point?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if it were environmentally friendly, which it isn't,
> or it didn't take land from good Americans, which it does,
> all you need to do is build a ladder one foot longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BEFORE the globalists flipped the right on the nutty wall idea, civilian militias were protecting private property AND  opposing the over-reach of eminent domain.  Today, those in favor of the wall are on the globalists side.  My how times have changed!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed they have. Fascism is a resilient meme, and it's found a home in the Republican party. I'd like to think the NeverTrump people will, at some point, reassert themselves pull the party back from the edge - but there are plenty of idiots ready to sign up. It's not looking good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I voted for Trump.  When he stood against the Second Amendment, he proved what he really is.  He is not going to be re-elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----------------------------------   yeah , i don't like the Ban on the Bump stock and one or 2 other things that i have heard about but he is the best that we have with no one any better in sight so i support him for now and maybe later  Porter .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can respect your position.  But, just as the wall is the litmus test of a person's loyalty to this country, the Bill of Rights is my litmus test.  Once Trump signed onto the bump stock ban, he lost me for good.
> 
> When even the NRA is willing to compromise on your unalienable Rights, we are headed toward the end of our era as a Republic.
Click to expand...


Most people didn't even know what they were (Including myself) until that LV attack.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> the thing with the WALL to me is simply to assert SOVEREIGNTY .   The WALL will help prevent entry into the USA of third worlders who sometimes end up becoming citizens with voting rights that they will use to change the USA into where they came from .   And of course it will Stop some drug flow into the USA .    But to me the entire issue is simply asserting SOVEREIGNTY .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody in favor of the wall has their own personal reasons.  The battle cry is generally about border security.  But, let's stop again and address this concern.
> 
> The real issue with me is that those who want a border wall believe that rights are granted by a God / government.  Therefore, the only avenue they see whereby foreigners come here is through some process they call "legal."  This terminology, generally speaking, is code for citizenship.  The reality is, our immigration laws were written to encourage non-white immigration.  The reality is, most non-white nations are third world.  The reality is, once those people become citizens, they outvote you at some point and all this drivel about sovereignty goes out the door.
> 
> I am AGAINST wholesale citizenship.  Hope you understand that.
> 
> When you nullify the Bill of Rights, especially starting with the Fourth Amendment; when you tell the employer the government is going to dictate who he can and cannot hire; when you attack the free enterprise system; when you demand to build a government so big that it cannot be resisted when it enforces tyrannical laws, you lose me on this "sovereignty" issue.  You can have sovereignty and not have a militarized border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------------------------   to me the only issue is ASSERTING Sovereignty .   Feck the 'chamber of commerce'  Porter .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Building a wall does not assert sovereignty.  It is the moral equivalent of the declaration of  war - a war that the people of the United States initiated.  Given the decisions by the United States Supreme Court and the trend America has taken toward the left, you're like a little boy that is using a small stick to taunt a lion.
> 
> "If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble"  Johnny Cash in the song The Farmer's Almanac
Click to expand...


So people are invading this country, and because we want to take steps to stop them invading our country, that's a declaration of war?????


----------



## pismoe

Porter Rockwell said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if it were environmentally friendly, which it isn't,
> or it didn't take land from good Americans, which it does,
> all you need to do is build a ladder one foot longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BEFORE the globalists flipped the right on the nutty wall idea, civilian militias were protecting private property AND  opposing the over-reach of eminent domain.  Today, those in favor of the wall are on the globalists side.  My how times have changed!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed they have. Fascism is a resilient meme, and it's found a home in the Republican party. I'd like to think the NeverTrump people will, at some point, reassert themselves pull the party back from the edge - but there are plenty of idiots ready to sign up. It's not looking good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I voted for Trump.  When he stood against the Second Amendment, he proved what he really is.  He is not going to be re-elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----------------------------------   yeah , i don't like the Ban on the Bump stock and one or 2 other things that i have heard about but he is the best that we have with no one any better in sight so i support him for now and maybe later  Porter .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can respect your position.  But, just as the wall is the litmus test of a person's loyalty to this country, the Bill of Rights is my litmus test.  Once Trump signed onto the bump stock ban, he lost me for good.
> 
> When even the NRA is willing to compromise on your unalienable Rights, we are headed toward the end of our era as a Republic.
Click to expand...

----------------------------------------------   thats why i quite often say that i am happy to be OLD .   I got the second best up to about the 90s or thereabouts after my parents got the best of America .   Send the ' GOA' a hundred bucks like i am doing to fight the 'Bump Stock ban' Porter .


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation will NOT be more secure because you build a wall. Quite the converse will be true. A wall would create more tension between our neighbors to the south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?????
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that you have your perspective, but the answer to any problem lies in considering all the differing perspectives. Unless you are willing to argue that our neighbors to the south are genetically predisposed to gangs, poverty, and violence I would hope that you hear me out on this:
> 
> Drug cartels, gangs and the violence that ensues exist because the people in the United States are the world's primary consumers of drugs. If we quit supplying the drug users, there then is no need for drug cartels.
> 
> Furthermore, if people come to the United States and engage in lawful pursuits AND we pass laws to make sure that things like education and welfare are the benefits and privileges of CITIZENSHIP, there is no incentive for them to stay here. They can make some money and go home, invest their savings and ultimately become independent enough so that they don't feel a need to be in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stopping drug dependency is like trying to stop drunk drivers, people gambling, littering, and suicides.  In other words, it's an impossibility unless we do what Singapore does and execute drug users and sellers.  So we can't use that as an excuse for people from other countries coming here and killing Americans.  That's like blaming the woman who got raped.
> 
> Drugs have been around my entire life.  Opioid use was very rare however.  You could find pot when I was young, but now that I'm pushing 60, I can honestly say I've never seen heroin in my life.  It simply wasn't around back then mostly because of cost.
> 
> But today, opioids are around for younger people nearly as much as pot was in my teen days.  That wouldn't be the case if the supply wasn't there.  If it's ready available, more people are likely to experiment with it and end up hooked.
> 
> So we need to make efforts to reduce the supply of recreational narcotics.  You can't do that with an open border just about anybody can cross.  It's not the only step necessary, but a very large step in this fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An open border does not create drug addicts.
> 
> Let me walk you through this once:
> 
> Parents and schools have turned the rearing of children up to the government.  You cannot spank your children, reprimand them nor restrain them in any way.
> 
> The government's solution is to start at a very young age, giving children Ritalin or Adderall for nonexistent problems.  Children are "anxious and / or hyperactive because they eat too much, sugar, live in a home where there is a lot of drama and instability; they don't get the right diet, enough or too much sleep and no exercise.
> 
> But, we don't fix it.  We make drug addicts out of children and they eventually end up on opioids and / or SSRIs.  Many will then venture into illegal drugs.  Millions quit school and go through life with no job skills, no education, no work history, no high school diploma, and a criminal record.  By the time they hit their mid 20s, they are taken off their parents insurance and they resort to selling drugs to the next generation in order to live and feed their drug habit.
> 
> Rather than us do anything about it, we blame foreigners.
Click to expand...


People are not addicts because they were children.  Most addicts are created from prescription medication.  But when the medical personnel cuts you off, that's it, you stop.  However it's simply too easy to continue beyond your doctors recommendations by purchasing illegal drugs instead. 

If the drugs are not there, you stand a much better chance at not becoming an addict.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't call this a war, then I don't know what you'd call it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you DO call this a war, what would you call it if we are attacked by a real military? Because it's clearly not the same thing.
Click to expand...


No, it's not the same thing.  It's a war, but not an armed conflict.


----------



## pismoe

Porter Rockwell said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4th Amendment ---   ---  Fourth Amendment  ---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point?
Click to expand...

------------------------------------- you mentioned the 4TH Amendment in your post --- 953 --- , i just put it up to read it and for others that may not know what it is Porter .


----------



## pismoe

Porter Rockwell said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> the thing with the WALL to me is simply to assert SOVEREIGNTY .   The WALL will help prevent entry into the USA of third worlders who sometimes end up becoming citizens with voting rights that they will use to change the USA into where they came from .   And of course it will Stop some drug flow into the USA .    But to me the entire issue is simply asserting SOVEREIGNTY .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody in favor of the wall has their own personal reasons.  The battle cry is generally about border security.  But, let's stop again and address this concern.
> 
> The real issue with me is that those who want a border wall believe that rights are granted by a God / government.  Therefore, the only avenue they see whereby foreigners come here is through some process they call "legal."  This terminology, generally speaking, is code for citizenship.  The reality is, our immigration laws were written to encourage non-white immigration.  The reality is, most non-white nations are third world.  The reality is, once those people become citizens, they outvote you at some point and all this drivel about sovereignty goes out the door.
> 
> I am AGAINST wholesale citizenship.  Hope you understand that.
> 
> When you nullify the Bill of Rights, especially starting with the Fourth Amendment; when you tell the employer the government is going to dictate who he can and cannot hire; when you attack the free enterprise system; when you demand to build a government so big that it cannot be resisted when it enforces tyrannical laws, you lose me on this "sovereignty" issue.  You can have sovereignty and not have a militarized border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------------------------   to me the only issue is ASSERTING Sovereignty .   Feck the 'chamber of commerce'  Porter .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Building a wall does not assert sovereignty.  It is the moral equivalent of the declaration of  war - a war that the people of the United States initiated.  Given the decisions by the United States Supreme Court and the trend America has taken toward the left, you're like a little boy that is using a small stick to taunt a lion.
> 
> "If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble"  Johnny Cash in the song The Farmer's Almanac
Click to expand...

------------------------   taunt the Lion , who is the LION  Porter  ??


----------



## pismoe

---   Gunowners of America   ---   GOA Press Release on Bump Stock Ban .   -----------------------   GOA on Bump Stocks | GOA News  ---   Send them a hundred bucks Porter and other Gun Owners .


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> the thing with the WALL to me is simply to assert SOVEREIGNTY .   The WALL will help prevent entry into the USA of third worlders who sometimes end up becoming citizens with voting rights that they will use to change the USA into where they came from .   And of course it will Stop some drug flow into the USA .    But to me the entire issue is simply asserting SOVEREIGNTY .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody in favor of the wall has their own personal reasons.  The battle cry is generally about border security.  But, let's stop again and address this concern.
> 
> The real issue with me is that those who want a border wall believe that rights are granted by a God / government.  Therefore, the only avenue they see whereby foreigners come here is through some process they call "legal."  This terminology, generally speaking, is code for citizenship.  The reality is, our immigration laws were written to encourage non-white immigration.  The reality is, most non-white nations are third world.  The reality is, once those people become citizens, they outvote you at some point and all this drivel about sovereignty goes out the door.
> 
> I am AGAINST wholesale citizenship.  Hope you understand that.
> 
> When you nullify the Bill of Rights, especially starting with the Fourth Amendment; when you tell the employer the government is going to dictate who he can and cannot hire; when you attack the free enterprise system; when you demand to build a government so big that it cannot be resisted when it enforces tyrannical laws, you lose me on this "sovereignty" issue.  You can have sovereignty and not have a militarized border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------------------------   to me the only issue is ASSERTING Sovereignty .   Feck the 'chamber of commerce'  Porter .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Building a wall does not assert sovereignty.  It is the moral equivalent of the declaration of  war - a war that the people of the United States initiated.  Given the decisions by the United States Supreme Court and the trend America has taken toward the left, you're like a little boy that is using a small stick to taunt a lion.
> 
> "If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble"  Johnny Cash in the song The Farmer's Almanac
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So people are invading this country, and because we want to take steps to stop them invading our country, that's a declaration of war?????
Click to expand...


What???  People are invading this country???  If somebody's out there invading this country and the military is shooting, why in the Hell aren't you out there with that gun you have in your avatar shooting the sh!+ out of the invaders?  You know why?  

America is NOT being invaded.  NOBODY, except the government and the doctors (at the parents behest),  is making drug addicts out of the children.  Those who come here to work are taking jobs willingly offered by the employers that created the jobs.  It's simple business transactions.  You, me, and everybody on this board buys from the cheapest companies that meet our personal quality standards.  If they use cheap foreign labor we don't ask.  All that political hooey sounds good and pushes emotional buttons some of the time, but certainly not mine.

Wake up and demand that your fellow American own their part in the problem.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

pismoe said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> BEFORE the globalists flipped the right on the nutty wall idea, civilian militias were protecting private property AND  opposing the over-reach of eminent domain.  Today, those in favor of the wall are on the globalists side.  My how times have changed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed they have. Fascism is a resilient meme, and it's found a home in the Republican party. I'd like to think the NeverTrump people will, at some point, reassert themselves pull the party back from the edge - but there are plenty of idiots ready to sign up. It's not looking good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I voted for Trump.  When he stood against the Second Amendment, he proved what he really is.  He is not going to be re-elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----------------------------------   yeah , i don't like the Ban on the Bump stock and one or 2 other things that i have heard about but he is the best that we have with no one any better in sight so i support him for now and maybe later  Porter .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can respect your position.  But, just as the wall is the litmus test of a person's loyalty to this country, the Bill of Rights is my litmus test.  Once Trump signed onto the bump stock ban, he lost me for good.
> 
> When even the NRA is willing to compromise on your unalienable Rights, we are headed toward the end of our era as a Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----------------------------------------------   thats why i quite often say that i am happy to be OLD .   I got the second best up to about the 90s or thereabouts after my parents got the best of America .   Send the ' GOA' a hundred bucks like i am doing to fight the 'Bump Stock ban' Porter .
Click to expand...


The GOA thanks you and I thank you.  You called me on putting my money where my mouth is.  I could tell you that I don't own a bump stock and have never used one, but that's not the point.  You stood up and proved your commitment.  I have not donated to GOA, but I will do as you have told me I should.  You are a true patriot and it is an honor to discuss politics with you.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of people care that Drumpf conned his idiot supporters. Theres no need to punish Mexico if they are going to willingly cut a check like Drumpf claimed they would. Now if he has this in the form of a promissory note then we can punish Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico's economy is less than 1/10 the size of the US economy.  The entire budget for Mexico would be little more than a rounding error in the US budget. The chance of Mexico paying for a 35 billion dollar wall that they wouldn't even own is about zero.  Trump says what he thinks his supporters want to hear.  Any relationship to the truth is purely coincidental.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats pretty much what I thought when I heard that idiot gibbon say Mexico was going to pay for the wall. You can imagine my surprise when Drumpfs supporters actually believed him. Thats when I knew stupid is not just an airborne disease. It affects digital networks as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest, we don't care who pays for it.  After all, what Trump originally asked for was half of what we spend on food stamps every single year.  We were not obsessed with who was going to pay for it, only the leftists are now. We were sold that there would be a wall.
> 
> Hey, you guys bought the BS that nobody making less than 250K a year would see a tax increase of any kind.  And what was the first thing Ears did once he invaded the White House?  He instituted a huge sin tax; a tax that mostly affects the poor and middle-class.  Afterwards, he got a bill passed that kept income tax refunds of people that didn't have health insurance, again, a tax that only affected the poor and middle-class.
> 
> But now you complain that Mexico is not giving us the 5 billion dollars we want, and Congress has to fund it instead?  People in glass houses................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regardless of the revenue source, congress must fund it. The president can't just look under a rock and say, Look, I found 35 billion dollars.  I'm going to building a wall."
> Revenue for any project is always an issue but the overriding issue is do we want it, not what it cost.  70% of the American public say the wall is not a priority and over half say it should not build.  There is opposition in congress among republicans not just democrats.
> 
> We should not built the wall, not because of the cost but because it's not practical.  Even the most optimistic estimates put the time to complete the wall as 15 years, but 20 would be more realistic since a republican congress has never put any money in budget for it.  If you think that's nuts, remember it took 6 years to complete 500 miles of a fence and the fencing project was far simpler than the Trump wall and had much less opposition.  Long before the wall is finished, immigration, national priorities, and ideology of the parties will have shifted along with funding of the wall.
> 
> When we enter into a project of this size we should be looking at the future, not the past.  The number of illegal immigrants in the US have been falling since 2008.  With economic improvements in Mexico, particular the growing shortage of farm labor, it is quite likely that the illegal immigration problem will solve itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Years ago I was listening to the radio when the host was interviewing Marlo Thomas.  Marlo was a 70's actress who starred in a show and the daughter of a very famous actor by the name of Danny Thomas.  She was promoting her book on advancing in life.  In her book she interviewed a Doctor and her path to becoming a clinician.
> 
> The Doctor said she attended college and became a teacher.  After some years of teaching, she became a little depressed about the career she chose.  Her father realized something was wrong, and she told him of her thoughts.  So he asked what is it she'd really like to do?  She said she'd really like to be a medical doctor.  So he suggested that she do just that!  She told her father she was stuck in this career, and by the time she'd get out of college, she would be 42 years old.  He looked at her and said "Well you're going to be 42 anyway!"  On her fathers advice, she became a doctor and has never been happier.
> 
> This migrant problem isn't going away anytime soon no matter what you speculate.  There will always be desperate people south of us, gang members who want to get in, terrorists looking for an easy way to sneak in, and people that want to take our money and send it back home.   10 or 15 years?  It's going to be 10 or 15 years no matter what we do, so there is no time like the present to get started.  Because every year that wall is being built, our border becomes more secure.
Click to expand...

I agree the migrant problem will not go away, nor should it.  The world's getting smaller everyday with better transportation, better communication, and globalization which are going to increase the mobility of populations.  What will decrease is the number of illegal immigrants in the US. Improved conditions in Mexico and Central America, better border security, enforcement of visa expiration, more work permits, and revamping the asylum laws will cut illegal immigration to a trickle with or without the Trump wall.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation will NOT be more secure because you build a wall. Quite the converse will be true. A wall would create more tension between our neighbors to the south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?????
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that you have your perspective, but the answer to any problem lies in considering all the differing perspectives. Unless you are willing to argue that our neighbors to the south are genetically predisposed to gangs, poverty, and violence I would hope that you hear me out on this:
> 
> Drug cartels, gangs and the violence that ensues exist because the people in the United States are the world's primary consumers of drugs. If we quit supplying the drug users, there then is no need for drug cartels.
> 
> Furthermore, if people come to the United States and engage in lawful pursuits AND we pass laws to make sure that things like education and welfare are the benefits and privileges of CITIZENSHIP, there is no incentive for them to stay here. They can make some money and go home, invest their savings and ultimately become independent enough so that they don't feel a need to be in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stopping drug dependency is like trying to stop drunk drivers, people gambling, littering, and suicides.  In other words, it's an impossibility unless we do what Singapore does and execute drug users and sellers.  So we can't use that as an excuse for people from other countries coming here and killing Americans.  That's like blaming the woman who got raped.
> 
> Drugs have been around my entire life.  Opioid use was very rare however.  You could find pot when I was young, but now that I'm pushing 60, I can honestly say I've never seen heroin in my life.  It simply wasn't around back then mostly because of cost.
> 
> But today, opioids are around for younger people nearly as much as pot was in my teen days.  That wouldn't be the case if the supply wasn't there.  If it's ready available, more people are likely to experiment with it and end up hooked.
> 
> So we need to make efforts to reduce the supply of recreational narcotics.  You can't do that with an open border just about anybody can cross.  It's not the only step necessary, but a very large step in this fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An open border does not create drug addicts.
> 
> Let me walk you through this once:
> 
> Parents and schools have turned the rearing of children up to the government.  You cannot spank your children, reprimand them nor restrain them in any way.
> 
> The government's solution is to start at a very young age, giving children Ritalin or Adderall for nonexistent problems.  Children are "anxious and / or hyperactive because they eat too much, sugar, live in a home where there is a lot of drama and instability; they don't get the right diet, enough or too much sleep and no exercise.
> 
> But, we don't fix it.  We make drug addicts out of children and they eventually end up on opioids and / or SSRIs.  Many will then venture into illegal drugs.  Millions quit school and go through life with no job skills, no education, no work history, no high school diploma, and a criminal record.  By the time they hit their mid 20s, they are taken off their parents insurance and they resort to selling drugs to the next generation in order to live and feed their drug habit.
> 
> Rather than us do anything about it, we blame foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People are not addicts because they were children.  Most addicts are created from prescription medication.  But when the medical personnel cuts you off, that's it, you stop.  However it's simply too easy to continue beyond your doctors recommendations by purchasing illegal drugs instead.
> 
> If the drugs are not there, you stand a much better chance at not becoming an addict.
Click to expand...


An astounding 19 percent of high school-age boys – ages 14 to 17 – in the U.S. have been diagnosed with ADHD and about 10 percent are taking medication for it. Ten percent of high school-age girls have likewise been diagnosed.  ...The CDC survey completed last year found an estimated 6.4 million children ages 4 to 17 had been diagnosed at some point, a 53 percent increase over the past decade. Approximately two-thirds of those currently diagnosed have been prescribed drugs such as Ritalin or Adderall. Those drugs can help patients with both mild and severe symptoms, but they can also cause addiction, anxiety and psychosis."  

Read more at Radical increase in kids prescribed Ritalin - WND -  WND

Bear in mind, ADD / ADHD are phony conditions, the symptoms of which can be treated WITHOUT drugs.

See this link as well:

A New Documentary About Adults On Adderall — And Not Just For ADHD

"  On average, children who have symptoms of ADHD will receive a diagnosis at 7 years of age. ...When individuals with ADHD are compared to those without this disorder, the ADHD group is more likely to start abusing alcohol and other drugs at an earlier age."

ADHD and Addiction

"An estimated 5 percent of adults in the US have ADHD, which represents 11 million individuals."

ADHD and Addiction

11 million people taking drugs for a non-existent condition.  The government says there are about 11 million undocumented foreigners in the U.S.  You don't want to study and consider the drug culture being developed by the government and doctors?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico's economy is less than 1/10 the size of the US economy.  The entire budget for Mexico would be little more than a rounding error in the US budget. The chance of Mexico paying for a 35 billion dollar wall that they wouldn't even own is about zero.  Trump says what he thinks his supporters want to hear.  Any relationship to the truth is purely coincidental.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats pretty much what I thought when I heard that idiot gibbon say Mexico was going to pay for the wall. You can imagine my surprise when Drumpfs supporters actually believed him. Thats when I knew stupid is not just an airborne disease. It affects digital networks as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest, we don't care who pays for it.  After all, what Trump originally asked for was half of what we spend on food stamps every single year.  We were not obsessed with who was going to pay for it, only the leftists are now. We were sold that there would be a wall.
> 
> Hey, you guys bought the BS that nobody making less than 250K a year would see a tax increase of any kind.  And what was the first thing Ears did once he invaded the White House?  He instituted a huge sin tax; a tax that mostly affects the poor and middle-class.  Afterwards, he got a bill passed that kept income tax refunds of people that didn't have health insurance, again, a tax that only affected the poor and middle-class.
> 
> But now you complain that Mexico is not giving us the 5 billion dollars we want, and Congress has to fund it instead?  People in glass houses................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regardless of the revenue source, congress must fund it. The president can't just look under a rock and say, Look, I found 35 billion dollars.  I'm going to building a wall."
> Revenue for any project is always an issue but the overriding issue is do we want it, not what it cost.  70% of the American public say the wall is not a priority and over half say it should not build.  There is opposition in congress among republicans not just democrats.
> 
> We should not built the wall, not because of the cost but because it's not practical.  Even the most optimistic estimates put the time to complete the wall as 15 years, but 20 would be more realistic since a republican congress has never put any money in budget for it.  If you think that's nuts, remember it took 6 years to complete 500 miles of a fence and the fencing project was far simpler than the Trump wall and had much less opposition.  Long before the wall is finished, immigration, national priorities, and ideology of the parties will have shifted along with funding of the wall.
> 
> When we enter into a project of this size we should be looking at the future, not the past.  The number of illegal immigrants in the US have been falling since 2008.  With economic improvements in Mexico, particular the growing shortage of farm labor, it is quite likely that the illegal immigration problem will solve itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Years ago I was listening to the radio when the host was interviewing Marlo Thomas.  Marlo was a 70's actress who starred in a show and the daughter of a very famous actor by the name of Danny Thomas.  She was promoting her book on advancing in life.  In her book she interviewed a Doctor and her path to becoming a clinician.
> 
> The Doctor said she attended college and became a teacher.  After some years of teaching, she became a little depressed about the career she chose.  Her father realized something was wrong, and she told him of her thoughts.  So he asked what is it she'd really like to do?  She said she'd really like to be a medical doctor.  So he suggested that she do just that!  She told her father she was stuck in this career, and by the time she'd get out of college, she would be 42 years old.  He looked at her and said "Well you're going to be 42 anyway!"  On her fathers advice, she became a doctor and has never been happier.
> 
> This migrant problem isn't going away anytime soon no matter what you speculate.  There will always be desperate people south of us, gang members who want to get in, terrorists looking for an easy way to sneak in, and people that want to take our money and send it back home.   10 or 15 years?  It's going to be 10 or 15 years no matter what we do, so there is no time like the present to get started.  Because every year that wall is being built, our border becomes more secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree the migrant problem will not go away, nor should it.  The world's getting smaller everyday with better transportation, better communication, and globalization which are going to increase the mobility of populations.  What will decrease is the number of illegal immigrants in the US. Improved conditions in Mexico and Central America, better border security, enforcement of visa expiration, more work permits, and revamping the asylum laws will cut illegal immigration to a trickle with or without the Trump wall.
Click to expand...


You can do all those things and more, but it's not going to stop everybody and you can't expect South and Central America to jump to the 21st century all at once.  

I for one am all for the US sending troops to Mexico to wipe out the drug lords and organizations.  That would give the people more control over their government and country.  It would greatly reduce the drug flow into our country, so it's a two for one deal.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

pismoe said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4th Amendment ---   ---  Fourth Amendment  ---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ------------------------------------- you mentioned the 4TH Amendment in your post --- 953 --- , i just put it up to read it and for others that may not know what it is Porter .
Click to expand...


I didn't know if you understood what they're giving up in order to have a silly wall that has zero chance of stopping undocumented foreigners.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

pismoe said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> the thing with the WALL to me is simply to assert SOVEREIGNTY .   The WALL will help prevent entry into the USA of third worlders who sometimes end up becoming citizens with voting rights that they will use to change the USA into where they came from .   And of course it will Stop some drug flow into the USA .    But to me the entire issue is simply asserting SOVEREIGNTY .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody in favor of the wall has their own personal reasons.  The battle cry is generally about border security.  But, let's stop again and address this concern.
> 
> The real issue with me is that those who want a border wall believe that rights are granted by a God / government.  Therefore, the only avenue they see whereby foreigners come here is through some process they call "legal."  This terminology, generally speaking, is code for citizenship.  The reality is, our immigration laws were written to encourage non-white immigration.  The reality is, most non-white nations are third world.  The reality is, once those people become citizens, they outvote you at some point and all this drivel about sovereignty goes out the door.
> 
> I am AGAINST wholesale citizenship.  Hope you understand that.
> 
> When you nullify the Bill of Rights, especially starting with the Fourth Amendment; when you tell the employer the government is going to dictate who he can and cannot hire; when you attack the free enterprise system; when you demand to build a government so big that it cannot be resisted when it enforces tyrannical laws, you lose me on this "sovereignty" issue.  You can have sovereignty and not have a militarized border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------------------------   to me the only issue is ASSERTING Sovereignty .   Feck the 'chamber of commerce'  Porter .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Building a wall does not assert sovereignty.  It is the moral equivalent of the declaration of  war - a war that the people of the United States initiated.  Given the decisions by the United States Supreme Court and the trend America has taken toward the left, you're like a little boy that is using a small stick to taunt a lion.
> 
> "If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble"  Johnny Cash in the song The Farmer's Almanac
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ------------------------   taunt the Lion , who is the LION  Porter  ??
Click to expand...


The masses of liberals who turn out and are voting the right into oblivion.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats pretty much what I thought when I heard that idiot gibbon say Mexico was going to pay for the wall. You can imagine my surprise when Drumpfs supporters actually believed him. Thats when I knew stupid is not just an airborne disease. It affects digital networks as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest, we don't care who pays for it.  After all, what Trump originally asked for was half of what we spend on food stamps every single year.  We were not obsessed with who was going to pay for it, only the leftists are now. We were sold that there would be a wall.
> 
> Hey, you guys bought the BS that nobody making less than 250K a year would see a tax increase of any kind.  And what was the first thing Ears did once he invaded the White House?  He instituted a huge sin tax; a tax that mostly affects the poor and middle-class.  Afterwards, he got a bill passed that kept income tax refunds of people that didn't have health insurance, again, a tax that only affected the poor and middle-class.
> 
> But now you complain that Mexico is not giving us the 5 billion dollars we want, and Congress has to fund it instead?  People in glass houses................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regardless of the revenue source, congress must fund it. The president can't just look under a rock and say, Look, I found 35 billion dollars.  I'm going to building a wall."
> Revenue for any project is always an issue but the overriding issue is do we want it, not what it cost.  70% of the American public say the wall is not a priority and over half say it should not build.  There is opposition in congress among republicans not just democrats.
> 
> We should not built the wall, not because of the cost but because it's not practical.  Even the most optimistic estimates put the time to complete the wall as 15 years, but 20 would be more realistic since a republican congress has never put any money in budget for it.  If you think that's nuts, remember it took 6 years to complete 500 miles of a fence and the fencing project was far simpler than the Trump wall and had much less opposition.  Long before the wall is finished, immigration, national priorities, and ideology of the parties will have shifted along with funding of the wall.
> 
> When we enter into a project of this size we should be looking at the future, not the past.  The number of illegal immigrants in the US have been falling since 2008.  With economic improvements in Mexico, particular the growing shortage of farm labor, it is quite likely that the illegal immigration problem will solve itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Years ago I was listening to the radio when the host was interviewing Marlo Thomas.  Marlo was a 70's actress who starred in a show and the daughter of a very famous actor by the name of Danny Thomas.  She was promoting her book on advancing in life.  In her book she interviewed a Doctor and her path to becoming a clinician.
> 
> The Doctor said she attended college and became a teacher.  After some years of teaching, she became a little depressed about the career she chose.  Her father realized something was wrong, and she told him of her thoughts.  So he asked what is it she'd really like to do?  She said she'd really like to be a medical doctor.  So he suggested that she do just that!  She told her father she was stuck in this career, and by the time she'd get out of college, she would be 42 years old.  He looked at her and said "Well you're going to be 42 anyway!"  On her fathers advice, she became a doctor and has never been happier.
> 
> This migrant problem isn't going away anytime soon no matter what you speculate.  There will always be desperate people south of us, gang members who want to get in, terrorists looking for an easy way to sneak in, and people that want to take our money and send it back home.   10 or 15 years?  It's going to be 10 or 15 years no matter what we do, so there is no time like the present to get started.  Because every year that wall is being built, our border becomes more secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree the migrant problem will not go away, nor should it.  The world's getting smaller everyday with better transportation, better communication, and globalization which are going to increase the mobility of populations.  What will decrease is the number of illegal immigrants in the US. Improved conditions in Mexico and Central America, better border security, enforcement of visa expiration, more work permits, and revamping the asylum laws will cut illegal immigration to a trickle with or without the Trump wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do all those things and more, but it's not going to stop everybody and you can't expect South and Central America to jump to the 21st century all at once.
> 
> I for one am all for the US sending troops to Mexico to wipe out the drug lords and organizations.  That would give the people more control over their government and country.  It would greatly reduce the drug flow into our country, so it's a two for one deal.
Click to expand...


If we nuke GM maybe people won't have cars any more.  Nice try, but no cigar.  The drug cartels exist because Americans have an insatiable appetite for drugs.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation will NOT be more secure because you build a wall. Quite the converse will be true. A wall would create more tension between our neighbors to the south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?????
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that you have your perspective, but the answer to any problem lies in considering all the differing perspectives. Unless you are willing to argue that our neighbors to the south are genetically predisposed to gangs, poverty, and violence I would hope that you hear me out on this:
> 
> Drug cartels, gangs and the violence that ensues exist because the people in the United States are the world's primary consumers of drugs. If we quit supplying the drug users, there then is no need for drug cartels.
> 
> Furthermore, if people come to the United States and engage in lawful pursuits AND we pass laws to make sure that things like education and welfare are the benefits and privileges of CITIZENSHIP, there is no incentive for them to stay here. They can make some money and go home, invest their savings and ultimately become independent enough so that they don't feel a need to be in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stopping drug dependency is like trying to stop drunk drivers, people gambling, littering, and suicides.  In other words, it's an impossibility unless we do what Singapore does and execute drug users and sellers.  So we can't use that as an excuse for people from other countries coming here and killing Americans.  That's like blaming the woman who got raped.
> 
> Drugs have been around my entire life.  Opioid use was very rare however.  You could find pot when I was young, but now that I'm pushing 60, I can honestly say I've never seen heroin in my life.  It simply wasn't around back then mostly because of cost.
> 
> But today, opioids are around for younger people nearly as much as pot was in my teen days.  That wouldn't be the case if the supply wasn't there.  If it's ready available, more people are likely to experiment with it and end up hooked.
> 
> So we need to make efforts to reduce the supply of recreational narcotics.  You can't do that with an open border just about anybody can cross.  It's not the only step necessary, but a very large step in this fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An open border does not create drug addicts.
> 
> Let me walk you through this once:
> 
> Parents and schools have turned the rearing of children up to the government.  You cannot spank your children, reprimand them nor restrain them in any way.
> 
> The government's solution is to start at a very young age, giving children Ritalin or Adderall for nonexistent problems.  Children are "anxious and / or hyperactive because they eat too much, sugar, live in a home where there is a lot of drama and instability; they don't get the right diet, enough or too much sleep and no exercise.
> 
> But, we don't fix it.  We make drug addicts out of children and they eventually end up on opioids and / or SSRIs.  Many will then venture into illegal drugs.  Millions quit school and go through life with no job skills, no education, no work history, no high school diploma, and a criminal record.  By the time they hit their mid 20s, they are taken off their parents insurance and they resort to selling drugs to the next generation in order to live and feed their drug habit.
> 
> Rather than us do anything about it, we blame foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People are not addicts because they were children.  Most addicts are created from prescription medication.  But when the medical personnel cuts you off, that's it, you stop.  However it's simply too easy to continue beyond your doctors recommendations by purchasing illegal drugs instead.
> 
> If the drugs are not there, you stand a much better chance at not becoming an addict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An astounding 19 percent of high school-age boys – ages 14 to 17 – in the U.S. have been diagnosed with ADHD and about 10 percent are taking medication for it. Ten percent of high school-age girls have likewise been diagnosed.  ...The CDC survey completed last year found an estimated 6.4 million children ages 4 to 17 had been diagnosed at some point, a 53 percent increase over the past decade. Approximately two-thirds of those currently diagnosed have been prescribed drugs such as Ritalin or Adderall. Those drugs can help patients with both mild and severe symptoms, but they can also cause addiction, anxiety and psychosis."
> 
> Read more at Radical increase in kids prescribed Ritalin - WND -  WND
> 
> Bear in mind, ADD / ADHD are phony conditions, the symptoms of which can be treated WITHOUT drugs.
> 
> See this link as well:
> 
> A New Documentary About Adults On Adderall — And Not Just For ADHD
> 
> "  On average, children who have symptoms of ADHD will receive a diagnosis at 7 years of age. ...When individuals with ADHD are compared to those without this disorder, the ADHD group is more likely to start abusing alcohol and other drugs at an earlier age."
> 
> ADHD and Addiction
> 
> "An estimated 5 percent of adults in the US have ADHD, which represents 11 million individuals."
> 
> ADHD and Addiction
> 
> 11 million people taking drugs for a non-existent condition.  The government says there are about 11 million undocumented foreigners in the U.S.  You don't want to study and consider the drug culture being developed by the government and doctors?
Click to expand...


I say they are full of shit because I do have ADD; had it since a child.  So it's not fake, it's very real.  While I have never taken any medication for it (it wasn't available during my time) I have learned to cope with it.  But if there is something that could help people, it's fine with me as long as it doesn't have any side effects.  

But regardless, it still has nothing to do with the opioid addiction we have today.  Hell, Coke a Cola got it's name from guess where?  They used to put codeine in caught syrup years ago.  Never a problem.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest, we don't care who pays for it.  After all, what Trump originally asked for was half of what we spend on food stamps every single year.  We were not obsessed with who was going to pay for it, only the leftists are now. We were sold that there would be a wall.
> 
> Hey, you guys bought the BS that nobody making less than 250K a year would see a tax increase of any kind.  And what was the first thing Ears did once he invaded the White House?  He instituted a huge sin tax; a tax that mostly affects the poor and middle-class.  Afterwards, he got a bill passed that kept income tax refunds of people that didn't have health insurance, again, a tax that only affected the poor and middle-class.
> 
> But now you complain that Mexico is not giving us the 5 billion dollars we want, and Congress has to fund it instead?  People in glass houses................
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of the revenue source, congress must fund it. The president can't just look under a rock and say, Look, I found 35 billion dollars.  I'm going to building a wall."
> Revenue for any project is always an issue but the overriding issue is do we want it, not what it cost.  70% of the American public say the wall is not a priority and over half say it should not build.  There is opposition in congress among republicans not just democrats.
> 
> We should not built the wall, not because of the cost but because it's not practical.  Even the most optimistic estimates put the time to complete the wall as 15 years, but 20 would be more realistic since a republican congress has never put any money in budget for it.  If you think that's nuts, remember it took 6 years to complete 500 miles of a fence and the fencing project was far simpler than the Trump wall and had much less opposition.  Long before the wall is finished, immigration, national priorities, and ideology of the parties will have shifted along with funding of the wall.
> 
> When we enter into a project of this size we should be looking at the future, not the past.  The number of illegal immigrants in the US have been falling since 2008.  With economic improvements in Mexico, particular the growing shortage of farm labor, it is quite likely that the illegal immigration problem will solve itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Years ago I was listening to the radio when the host was interviewing Marlo Thomas.  Marlo was a 70's actress who starred in a show and the daughter of a very famous actor by the name of Danny Thomas.  She was promoting her book on advancing in life.  In her book she interviewed a Doctor and her path to becoming a clinician.
> 
> The Doctor said she attended college and became a teacher.  After some years of teaching, she became a little depressed about the career she chose.  Her father realized something was wrong, and she told him of her thoughts.  So he asked what is it she'd really like to do?  She said she'd really like to be a medical doctor.  So he suggested that she do just that!  She told her father she was stuck in this career, and by the time she'd get out of college, she would be 42 years old.  He looked at her and said "Well you're going to be 42 anyway!"  On her fathers advice, she became a doctor and has never been happier.
> 
> This migrant problem isn't going away anytime soon no matter what you speculate.  There will always be desperate people south of us, gang members who want to get in, terrorists looking for an easy way to sneak in, and people that want to take our money and send it back home.   10 or 15 years?  It's going to be 10 or 15 years no matter what we do, so there is no time like the present to get started.  Because every year that wall is being built, our border becomes more secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree the migrant problem will not go away, nor should it.  The world's getting smaller everyday with better transportation, better communication, and globalization which are going to increase the mobility of populations.  What will decrease is the number of illegal immigrants in the US. Improved conditions in Mexico and Central America, better border security, enforcement of visa expiration, more work permits, and revamping the asylum laws will cut illegal immigration to a trickle with or without the Trump wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do all those things and more, but it's not going to stop everybody and you can't expect South and Central America to jump to the 21st century all at once.
> 
> I for one am all for the US sending troops to Mexico to wipe out the drug lords and organizations.  That would give the people more control over their government and country.  It would greatly reduce the drug flow into our country, so it's a two for one deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we nuke GM maybe people won't have cars any more.  Nice try, but no cigar.  The drug cartels exist because Americans have an insatiable appetite for drugs.
Click to expand...


If there are no drugs to take, you lose that appetite real quick.


----------



## pismoe

Porter Rockwell said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> the thing with the WALL to me is simply to assert SOVEREIGNTY .   The WALL will help prevent entry into the USA of third worlders who sometimes end up becoming citizens with voting rights that they will use to change the USA into where they came from .   And of course it will Stop some drug flow into the USA .    But to me the entire issue is simply asserting SOVEREIGNTY .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody in favor of the wall has their own personal reasons.  The battle cry is generally about border security.  But, let's stop again and address this concern.
> 
> The real issue with me is that those who want a border wall believe that rights are granted by a God / government.  Therefore, the only avenue they see whereby foreigners come here is through some process they call "legal."  This terminology, generally speaking, is code for citizenship.  The reality is, our immigration laws were written to encourage non-white immigration.  The reality is, most non-white nations are third world.  The reality is, once those people become citizens, they outvote you at some point and all this drivel about sovereignty goes out the door.
> 
> I am AGAINST wholesale citizenship.  Hope you understand that.
> 
> When you nullify the Bill of Rights, especially starting with the Fourth Amendment; when you tell the employer the government is going to dictate who he can and cannot hire; when you attack the free enterprise system; when you demand to build a government so big that it cannot be resisted when it enforces tyrannical laws, you lose me on this "sovereignty" issue.  You can have sovereignty and not have a militarized border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -----------------------------------------------   to me the only issue is ASSERTING Sovereignty .   Feck the 'chamber of commerce'  Porter .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Building a wall does not assert sovereignty.  It is the moral equivalent of the declaration of  war - a war that the people of the United States initiated.  Given the decisions by the United States Supreme Court and the trend America has taken toward the left, you're like a little boy that is using a small stick to taunt a lion.
> 
> "If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble"  Johnny Cash in the song The Farmer's Almanac
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ------------------------   taunt the Lion , who is the LION  Porter  ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The masses of liberals who turn out and are voting the right into oblivion.
Click to expand...

---------------------------------------------   thats why i have often said on this board these last 3 or 4 years that i am happy to be OLD .   I envision the 'millenials' and their kids and maybe YOU getting this fecked up USA that you 'libs' are building in the near future   Porter .


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation will NOT be more secure because you build a wall. Quite the converse will be true. A wall would create more tension between our neighbors to the south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?????
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that you have your perspective, but the answer to any problem lies in considering all the differing perspectives. Unless you are willing to argue that our neighbors to the south are genetically predisposed to gangs, poverty, and violence I would hope that you hear me out on this:
> 
> Drug cartels, gangs and the violence that ensues exist because the people in the United States are the world's primary consumers of drugs. If we quit supplying the drug users, there then is no need for drug cartels.
> 
> Furthermore, if people come to the United States and engage in lawful pursuits AND we pass laws to make sure that things like education and welfare are the benefits and privileges of CITIZENSHIP, there is no incentive for them to stay here. They can make some money and go home, invest their savings and ultimately become independent enough so that they don't feel a need to be in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stopping drug dependency is like trying to stop drunk drivers, people gambling, littering, and suicides.  In other words, it's an impossibility unless we do what Singapore does and execute drug users and sellers.  So we can't use that as an excuse for people from other countries coming here and killing Americans.  That's like blaming the woman who got raped.
> 
> Drugs have been around my entire life.  Opioid use was very rare however.  You could find pot when I was young, but now that I'm pushing 60, I can honestly say I've never seen heroin in my life.  It simply wasn't around back then mostly because of cost.
> 
> But today, opioids are around for younger people nearly as much as pot was in my teen days.  That wouldn't be the case if the supply wasn't there.  If it's ready available, more people are likely to experiment with it and end up hooked.
> 
> So we need to make efforts to reduce the supply of recreational narcotics.  You can't do that with an open border just about anybody can cross.  It's not the only step necessary, but a very large step in this fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An open border does not create drug addicts.
> 
> Let me walk you through this once:
> 
> Parents and schools have turned the rearing of children up to the government.  You cannot spank your children, reprimand them nor restrain them in any way.
> 
> The government's solution is to start at a very young age, giving children Ritalin or Adderall for nonexistent problems.  Children are "anxious and / or hyperactive because they eat too much, sugar, live in a home where there is a lot of drama and instability; they don't get the right diet, enough or too much sleep and no exercise.
> 
> But, we don't fix it.  We make drug addicts out of children and they eventually end up on opioids and / or SSRIs.  Many will then venture into illegal drugs.  Millions quit school and go through life with no job skills, no education, no work history, no high school diploma, and a criminal record.  By the time they hit their mid 20s, they are taken off their parents insurance and they resort to selling drugs to the next generation in order to live and feed their drug habit.
> 
> Rather than us do anything about it, we blame foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People are not addicts because they were children.  Most addicts are created from prescription medication.  But when the medical personnel cuts you off, that's it, you stop.  However it's simply too easy to continue beyond your doctors recommendations by purchasing illegal drugs instead.
> 
> If the drugs are not there, you stand a much better chance at not becoming an addict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An astounding 19 percent of high school-age boys – ages 14 to 17 – in the U.S. have been diagnosed with ADHD and about 10 percent are taking medication for it. Ten percent of high school-age girls have likewise been diagnosed.  ...The CDC survey completed last year found an estimated 6.4 million children ages 4 to 17 had been diagnosed at some point, a 53 percent increase over the past decade. Approximately two-thirds of those currently diagnosed have been prescribed drugs such as Ritalin or Adderall. Those drugs can help patients with both mild and severe symptoms, but they can also cause addiction, anxiety and psychosis."
> 
> Read more at Radical increase in kids prescribed Ritalin - WND -  WND
> 
> Bear in mind, ADD / ADHD are phony conditions, the symptoms of which can be treated WITHOUT drugs.
> 
> See this link as well:
> 
> A New Documentary About Adults On Adderall — And Not Just For ADHD
> 
> "  On average, children who have symptoms of ADHD will receive a diagnosis at 7 years of age. ...When individuals with ADHD are compared to those without this disorder, the ADHD group is more likely to start abusing alcohol and other drugs at an earlier age."
> 
> ADHD and Addiction
> 
> "An estimated 5 percent of adults in the US have ADHD, which represents 11 million individuals."
> 
> ADHD and Addiction
> 
> 11 million people taking drugs for a non-existent condition.  The government says there are about 11 million undocumented foreigners in the U.S.  You don't want to study and consider the drug culture being developed by the government and doctors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I say they are full of shit because I do have ADD; had it since a child.  So it's not fake, it's very real.  While I have never taken any medication for it (it wasn't available during my time) I have learned to cope with it.  But if there is something that could help people, it's fine with me as long as it doesn't have any side effects.
> 
> But regardless, it still has nothing to do with the opioid addiction we have today.  Hell, Coke a Cola got it's name from guess where?  They used to put codeine in caught syrup years ago.  Never a problem.
Click to expand...


I'd bet that when they make mental health an issue insofar as guns are concerned, your ADHD will disappear.  I used to be a foster parent.  EVERY child came in taking drugs.  We got them off the drugs in a month or so.  Anxiety and hypertension are best dealt with without drugs and can be minimized with a good lifestyle.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

pismoe said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody in favor of the wall has their own personal reasons.  The battle cry is generally about border security.  But, let's stop again and address this concern.
> 
> The real issue with me is that those who want a border wall believe that rights are granted by a God / government.  Therefore, the only avenue they see whereby foreigners come here is through some process they call "legal."  This terminology, generally speaking, is code for citizenship.  The reality is, our immigration laws were written to encourage non-white immigration.  The reality is, most non-white nations are third world.  The reality is, once those people become citizens, they outvote you at some point and all this drivel about sovereignty goes out the door.
> 
> I am AGAINST wholesale citizenship.  Hope you understand that.
> 
> When you nullify the Bill of Rights, especially starting with the Fourth Amendment; when you tell the employer the government is going to dictate who he can and cannot hire; when you attack the free enterprise system; when you demand to build a government so big that it cannot be resisted when it enforces tyrannical laws, you lose me on this "sovereignty" issue.  You can have sovereignty and not have a militarized border.
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------   to me the only issue is ASSERTING Sovereignty .   Feck the 'chamber of commerce'  Porter .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Building a wall does not assert sovereignty.  It is the moral equivalent of the declaration of  war - a war that the people of the United States initiated.  Given the decisions by the United States Supreme Court and the trend America has taken toward the left, you're like a little boy that is using a small stick to taunt a lion.
> 
> "If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble"  Johnny Cash in the song The Farmer's Almanac
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ------------------------   taunt the Lion , who is the LION  Porter  ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The masses of liberals who turn out and are voting the right into oblivion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---------------------------------------------   thats why i have often said on this board these last 3 or 4 years that i am happy to be OLD .   I envision the 'millenials' and their kids and maybe YOU getting this fecked up USA that you 'libs' are building in the near future   Porter .
Click to expand...



I'll be 62 next month, so I know old.  Ain't no liberal.  Chuck Schumer makes me want to vomit just looking at him.  I could never be in the same party with Nancy Pelosi.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of the revenue source, congress must fund it. The president can't just look under a rock and say, Look, I found 35 billion dollars.  I'm going to building a wall."
> Revenue for any project is always an issue but the overriding issue is do we want it, not what it cost.  70% of the American public say the wall is not a priority and over half say it should not build.  There is opposition in congress among republicans not just democrats.
> 
> We should not built the wall, not because of the cost but because it's not practical.  Even the most optimistic estimates put the time to complete the wall as 15 years, but 20 would be more realistic since a republican congress has never put any money in budget for it.  If you think that's nuts, remember it took 6 years to complete 500 miles of a fence and the fencing project was far simpler than the Trump wall and had much less opposition.  Long before the wall is finished, immigration, national priorities, and ideology of the parties will have shifted along with funding of the wall.
> 
> When we enter into a project of this size we should be looking at the future, not the past.  The number of illegal immigrants in the US have been falling since 2008.  With economic improvements in Mexico, particular the growing shortage of farm labor, it is quite likely that the illegal immigration problem will solve itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Years ago I was listening to the radio when the host was interviewing Marlo Thomas.  Marlo was a 70's actress who starred in a show and the daughter of a very famous actor by the name of Danny Thomas.  She was promoting her book on advancing in life.  In her book she interviewed a Doctor and her path to becoming a clinician.
> 
> The Doctor said she attended college and became a teacher.  After some years of teaching, she became a little depressed about the career she chose.  Her father realized something was wrong, and she told him of her thoughts.  So he asked what is it she'd really like to do?  She said she'd really like to be a medical doctor.  So he suggested that she do just that!  She told her father she was stuck in this career, and by the time she'd get out of college, she would be 42 years old.  He looked at her and said "Well you're going to be 42 anyway!"  On her fathers advice, she became a doctor and has never been happier.
> 
> This migrant problem isn't going away anytime soon no matter what you speculate.  There will always be desperate people south of us, gang members who want to get in, terrorists looking for an easy way to sneak in, and people that want to take our money and send it back home.   10 or 15 years?  It's going to be 10 or 15 years no matter what we do, so there is no time like the present to get started.  Because every year that wall is being built, our border becomes more secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree the migrant problem will not go away, nor should it.  The world's getting smaller everyday with better transportation, better communication, and globalization which are going to increase the mobility of populations.  What will decrease is the number of illegal immigrants in the US. Improved conditions in Mexico and Central America, better border security, enforcement of visa expiration, more work permits, and revamping the asylum laws will cut illegal immigration to a trickle with or without the Trump wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do all those things and more, but it's not going to stop everybody and you can't expect South and Central America to jump to the 21st century all at once.
> 
> I for one am all for the US sending troops to Mexico to wipe out the drug lords and organizations.  That would give the people more control over their government and country.  It would greatly reduce the drug flow into our country, so it's a two for one deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we nuke GM maybe people won't have cars any more.  Nice try, but no cigar.  The drug cartels exist because Americans have an insatiable appetite for drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there are no drugs to take, you lose that appetite real quick.
Click to expand...


Is that why drug addicts say they are still addicts after ten years of abstinence?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Years ago I was listening to the radio when the host was interviewing Marlo Thomas.  Marlo was a 70's actress who starred in a show and the daughter of a very famous actor by the name of Danny Thomas.  She was promoting her book on advancing in life.  In her book she interviewed a Doctor and her path to becoming a clinician.
> 
> The Doctor said she attended college and became a teacher.  After some years of teaching, she became a little depressed about the career she chose.  Her father realized something was wrong, and she told him of her thoughts.  So he asked what is it she'd really like to do?  She said she'd really like to be a medical doctor.  So he suggested that she do just that!  She told her father she was stuck in this career, and by the time she'd get out of college, she would be 42 years old.  He looked at her and said "Well you're going to be 42 anyway!"  On her fathers advice, she became a doctor and has never been happier.
> 
> This migrant problem isn't going away anytime soon no matter what you speculate.  There will always be desperate people south of us, gang members who want to get in, terrorists looking for an easy way to sneak in, and people that want to take our money and send it back home.   10 or 15 years?  It's going to be 10 or 15 years no matter what we do, so there is no time like the present to get started.  Because every year that wall is being built, our border becomes more secure.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree the migrant problem will not go away, nor should it.  The world's getting smaller everyday with better transportation, better communication, and globalization which are going to increase the mobility of populations.  What will decrease is the number of illegal immigrants in the US. Improved conditions in Mexico and Central America, better border security, enforcement of visa expiration, more work permits, and revamping the asylum laws will cut illegal immigration to a trickle with or without the Trump wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do all those things and more, but it's not going to stop everybody and you can't expect South and Central America to jump to the 21st century all at once.
> 
> I for one am all for the US sending troops to Mexico to wipe out the drug lords and organizations.  That would give the people more control over their government and country.  It would greatly reduce the drug flow into our country, so it's a two for one deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we nuke GM maybe people won't have cars any more.  Nice try, but no cigar.  The drug cartels exist because Americans have an insatiable appetite for drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there are no drugs to take, you lose that appetite real quick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why drug addicts say they are still addicts after ten years of abstinence?
Click to expand...


All depends on how long they've been hooked.  My cousins kid started when he was 15 years old.  He tried it because it was available and "the cool" thing to do.  She buried him two years ago at the age of 28.  

I didn't have that opportunity to experiment because as I stated, it wasn't around when I was a teen back in the 70's.  Plenty of pot, but nothing hard.  Maybe if it was around when I was a kid, you might be having this discussion with somebody else because I wouldn't be here.  

If we can't help the people already hooked, then the least we can do is take efforts to make sure others don't.  That's the point I'm trying to make.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?????
> 
> Stopping drug dependency is like trying to stop drunk drivers, people gambling, littering, and suicides.  In other words, it's an impossibility unless we do what Singapore does and execute drug users and sellers.  So we can't use that as an excuse for people from other countries coming here and killing Americans.  That's like blaming the woman who got raped.
> 
> Drugs have been around my entire life.  Opioid use was very rare however.  You could find pot when I was young, but now that I'm pushing 60, I can honestly say I've never seen heroin in my life.  It simply wasn't around back then mostly because of cost.
> 
> But today, opioids are around for younger people nearly as much as pot was in my teen days.  That wouldn't be the case if the supply wasn't there.  If it's ready available, more people are likely to experiment with it and end up hooked.
> 
> So we need to make efforts to reduce the supply of recreational narcotics.  You can't do that with an open border just about anybody can cross.  It's not the only step necessary, but a very large step in this fight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An open border does not create drug addicts.
> 
> Let me walk you through this once:
> 
> Parents and schools have turned the rearing of children up to the government.  You cannot spank your children, reprimand them nor restrain them in any way.
> 
> The government's solution is to start at a very young age, giving children Ritalin or Adderall for nonexistent problems.  Children are "anxious and / or hyperactive because they eat too much, sugar, live in a home where there is a lot of drama and instability; they don't get the right diet, enough or too much sleep and no exercise.
> 
> But, we don't fix it.  We make drug addicts out of children and they eventually end up on opioids and / or SSRIs.  Many will then venture into illegal drugs.  Millions quit school and go through life with no job skills, no education, no work history, no high school diploma, and a criminal record.  By the time they hit their mid 20s, they are taken off their parents insurance and they resort to selling drugs to the next generation in order to live and feed their drug habit.
> 
> Rather than us do anything about it, we blame foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People are not addicts because they were children.  Most addicts are created from prescription medication.  But when the medical personnel cuts you off, that's it, you stop.  However it's simply too easy to continue beyond your doctors recommendations by purchasing illegal drugs instead.
> 
> If the drugs are not there, you stand a much better chance at not becoming an addict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An astounding 19 percent of high school-age boys – ages 14 to 17 – in the U.S. have been diagnosed with ADHD and about 10 percent are taking medication for it. Ten percent of high school-age girls have likewise been diagnosed.  ...The CDC survey completed last year found an estimated 6.4 million children ages 4 to 17 had been diagnosed at some point, a 53 percent increase over the past decade. Approximately two-thirds of those currently diagnosed have been prescribed drugs such as Ritalin or Adderall. Those drugs can help patients with both mild and severe symptoms, but they can also cause addiction, anxiety and psychosis."
> 
> Read more at Radical increase in kids prescribed Ritalin - WND -  WND
> 
> Bear in mind, ADD / ADHD are phony conditions, the symptoms of which can be treated WITHOUT drugs.
> 
> See this link as well:
> 
> A New Documentary About Adults On Adderall — And Not Just For ADHD
> 
> "  On average, children who have symptoms of ADHD will receive a diagnosis at 7 years of age. ...When individuals with ADHD are compared to those without this disorder, the ADHD group is more likely to start abusing alcohol and other drugs at an earlier age."
> 
> ADHD and Addiction
> 
> "An estimated 5 percent of adults in the US have ADHD, which represents 11 million individuals."
> 
> ADHD and Addiction
> 
> 11 million people taking drugs for a non-existent condition.  The government says there are about 11 million undocumented foreigners in the U.S.  You don't want to study and consider the drug culture being developed by the government and doctors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I say they are full of shit because I do have ADD; had it since a child.  So it's not fake, it's very real.  While I have never taken any medication for it (it wasn't available during my time) I have learned to cope with it.  But if there is something that could help people, it's fine with me as long as it doesn't have any side effects.
> 
> But regardless, it still has nothing to do with the opioid addiction we have today.  Hell, Coke a Cola got it's name from guess where?  They used to put codeine in caught syrup years ago.  Never a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd bet that when they make mental health an issue insofar as guns are concerned, your ADHD will disappear.  I used to be a foster parent.  EVERY child came in taking drugs.  We got them off the drugs in a month or so.  Anxiety and hypertension are best dealt with without drugs and can be minimized with a good lifestyle.
Click to expand...


My cousin had a husband with that philosophy.  He took medication for depression.  So he stopped.  She came home one day, opened the garage door, and her husband was there with the car running.  I haven't seen her with a guy since, and she's a very nice looking woman.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree the migrant problem will not go away, nor should it.  The world's getting smaller everyday with better transportation, better communication, and globalization which are going to increase the mobility of populations.  What will decrease is the number of illegal immigrants in the US. Improved conditions in Mexico and Central America, better border security, enforcement of visa expiration, more work permits, and revamping the asylum laws will cut illegal immigration to a trickle with or without the Trump wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can do all those things and more, but it's not going to stop everybody and you can't expect South and Central America to jump to the 21st century all at once.
> 
> I for one am all for the US sending troops to Mexico to wipe out the drug lords and organizations.  That would give the people more control over their government and country.  It would greatly reduce the drug flow into our country, so it's a two for one deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we nuke GM maybe people won't have cars any more.  Nice try, but no cigar.  The drug cartels exist because Americans have an insatiable appetite for drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there are no drugs to take, you lose that appetite real quick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why drug addicts say they are still addicts after ten years of abstinence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All depends on how long they've been hooked.  My cousins kid started when he was 15 years old.  He tried it because it was available and "the cool" thing to do.  She buried him two years ago at the age of 28.
> 
> I didn't have that opportunity to experiment because as I stated, it wasn't around when I was a teen back in the 70's.  Plenty of pot, but nothing hard.  Maybe if it was around when I was a kid, you might be having this discussion with somebody else because I wouldn't be here.
> 
> If we can't help the people already hooked, then the least we can do is take efforts to make sure others don't.  That's the point I'm trying to make.
Click to expand...


You don't realize it, but you're beginning to agree with what I'm saying.  If we stop the flow of drugs by forcing the government to get out of the drug business and IF we prescribed drugs as the LAST option, not the first, we'd be making progress.

Then we have to repeal National ID, E-Verify, and background checks while helping people get rehabilitated so they get a second chance.

When they are in the workforce, there is less demand for foreign labor and no need for drug cartels to exist.


----------



## Asclepias

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation will NOT be more secure because you build a wall. Quite the converse will be true. A wall would create more tension between our neighbors to the south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?????
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that you have your perspective, but the answer to any problem lies in considering all the differing perspectives. Unless you are willing to argue that our neighbors to the south are genetically predisposed to gangs, poverty, and violence I would hope that you hear me out on this:
> 
> Drug cartels, gangs and the violence that ensues exist because the people in the United States are the world's primary consumers of drugs. If we quit supplying the drug users, there then is no need for drug cartels.
> 
> Furthermore, if people come to the United States and engage in lawful pursuits AND we pass laws to make sure that things like education and welfare are the benefits and privileges of CITIZENSHIP, there is no incentive for them to stay here. They can make some money and go home, invest their savings and ultimately become independent enough so that they don't feel a need to be in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stopping drug dependency is like trying to stop drunk drivers, people gambling, littering, and suicides.  In other words, it's an impossibility unless we do what Singapore does and execute drug users and sellers.  So we can't use that as an excuse for people from other countries coming here and killing Americans.  That's like blaming the woman who got raped.
> 
> Drugs have been around my entire life.  Opioid use was very rare however.  You could find pot when I was young, but now that I'm pushing 60, I can honestly say I've never seen heroin in my life.  It simply wasn't around back then mostly because of cost.
> 
> But today, opioids are around for younger people nearly as much as pot was in my teen days.  That wouldn't be the case if the supply wasn't there.  If it's ready available, more people are likely to experiment with it and end up hooked.
> 
> So we need to make efforts to reduce the supply of recreational narcotics.  You can't do that with an open border just about anybody can cross.  It's not the only step necessary, but a very large step in this fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An open border does not create drug addicts.
> 
> Let me walk you through this once:
> 
> Parents and schools have turned the rearing of children up to the government.  You cannot spank your children, reprimand them nor restrain them in any way.
> 
> The government's solution is to start at a very young age, giving children Ritalin or Adderall for nonexistent problems.  Children are "anxious and / or hyperactive because they eat too much, sugar, live in a home where there is a lot of drama and instability; they don't get the right diet, enough or too much sleep and no exercise.
> 
> But, we don't fix it.  We make drug addicts out of children and they eventually end up on opioids and / or SSRIs.  Many will then venture into illegal drugs.  Millions quit school and go through life with no job skills, no education, no work history, no high school diploma, and a criminal record.  By the time they hit their mid 20s, they are taken off their parents insurance and they resort to selling drugs to the next generation in order to live and feed their drug habit.
> 
> Rather than us do anything about it, we blame foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People are not addicts because they were children.  Most addicts are created from prescription medication.  But when the medical personnel cuts you off, that's it, you stop.  However it's simply too easy to continue beyond your doctors recommendations by purchasing illegal drugs instead.
> 
> If the drugs are not there, you stand a much better chance at not becoming an addict.
Click to expand...

Not true. Addiction is a behavioral and physical problem. You are an addict regardless of if drugs are around or not just like an alcoholic is an alcoholic regardless of if booze is around.


----------



## ph3iron

Grampa Murked U said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
Click to expand...


OUR NATION?
Are you an Indian?
Only the most aggressive will leave everything behind and walk 2000 miles.
Would you?
They benefit the county over time. Wipe out us old whit farts fo a start


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

*Protecting our border crossings hurts the anti-American Democrats*


----------



## ph3iron

Grampa Murked U said:


> Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...
> 
> If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?


What a stupid question


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation will NOT be more secure because you build a wall. Quite the converse will be true. A wall would create more tension between our neighbors to the south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?????
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that you have your perspective, but the answer to any problem lies in considering all the differing perspectives. Unless you are willing to argue that our neighbors to the south are genetically predisposed to gangs, poverty, and violence I would hope that you hear me out on this:
> 
> Drug cartels, gangs and the violence that ensues exist because the people in the United States are the world's primary consumers of drugs. If we quit supplying the drug users, there then is no need for drug cartels.
> 
> Furthermore, if people come to the United States and engage in lawful pursuits AND we pass laws to make sure that things like education and welfare are the benefits and privileges of CITIZENSHIP, there is no incentive for them to stay here. They can make some money and go home, invest their savings and ultimately become independent enough so that they don't feel a need to be in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stopping drug dependency is like trying to stop drunk drivers, people gambling, littering, and suicides.  In other words, it's an impossibility unless we do what Singapore does and execute drug users and sellers.  So we can't use that as an excuse for people from other countries coming here and killing Americans.  That's like blaming the woman who got raped.
> 
> Drugs have been around my entire life.  Opioid use was very rare however.  You could find pot when I was young, but now that I'm pushing 60, I can honestly say I've never seen heroin in my life.  It simply wasn't around back then mostly because of cost.
> 
> But today, opioids are around for younger people nearly as much as pot was in my teen days.  That wouldn't be the case if the supply wasn't there.  If it's ready available, more people are likely to experiment with it and end up hooked.
> 
> So we need to make efforts to reduce the supply of recreational narcotics.  You can't do that with an open border just about anybody can cross.  It's not the only step necessary, but a very large step in this fight.
Click to expand...

As long as America's insatiable demand for drugs continues, there is no way to stop drugs from entering the US because the supply is there and the profit margin is huge.

There's a misunderstanding of how cross-border smuggling works.   The vast majority of the drug that enter the US from Mexico goes through the 48 ports of entry which millions of people, vehicles, and cargo pass every day.  According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske, drug seizures by border patrol are relatively rare compared to seizures at ports of entry.  The risk and difficulty of backpacking drugs are just too great.

Heroin is small in volume. It would take a relatively small amount 40-50 tons to feed the heroin epidemic in the United States according Gen. John Kelly, then the commander of U.S. Southern Command.   All the heroin needed to supply the US for a year could be put in two 40 foot shipping containers.  Now imagine this amount were broken up into smaller packet hidden in suitcases, car and truck bodies, airplanes, and boats.  This is why the US Custom  estimates that  less 1% of Heroin that enters the US is seized at the borders.
Four Common Misconceptions about U.S.-bound Drug Flows through Mexico and Central America - WOLA


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats pretty much what I thought when I heard that idiot gibbon say Mexico was going to pay for the wall. You can imagine my surprise when Drumpfs supporters actually believed him. Thats when I knew stupid is not just an airborne disease. It affects digital networks as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest, we don't care who pays for it.  After all, what Trump originally asked for was half of what we spend on food stamps every single year.  We were not obsessed with who was going to pay for it, only the leftists are now. We were sold that there would be a wall.
> 
> Hey, you guys bought the BS that nobody making less than 250K a year would see a tax increase of any kind.  And what was the first thing Ears did once he invaded the White House?  He instituted a huge sin tax; a tax that mostly affects the poor and middle-class.  Afterwards, he got a bill passed that kept income tax refunds of people that didn't have health insurance, again, a tax that only affected the poor and middle-class.
> 
> But now you complain that Mexico is not giving us the 5 billion dollars we want, and Congress has to fund it instead?  People in glass houses................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regardless of the revenue source, congress must fund it. The president can't just look under a rock and say, Look, I found 35 billion dollars.  I'm going to building a wall."
> Revenue for any project is always an issue but the overriding issue is do we want it, not what it cost.  70% of the American public say the wall is not a priority and over half say it should not build.  There is opposition in congress among republicans not just democrats.
> 
> We should not built the wall, not because of the cost but because it's not practical.  Even the most optimistic estimates put the time to complete the wall as 15 years, but 20 would be more realistic since a republican congress has never put any money in budget for it.  If you think that's nuts, remember it took 6 years to complete 500 miles of a fence and the fencing project was far simpler than the Trump wall and had much less opposition.  Long before the wall is finished, immigration, national priorities, and ideology of the parties will have shifted along with funding of the wall.
> 
> When we enter into a project of this size we should be looking at the future, not the past.  The number of illegal immigrants in the US have been falling since 2008.  With economic improvements in Mexico, particular the growing shortage of farm labor, it is quite likely that the illegal immigration problem will solve itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Years ago I was listening to the radio when the host was interviewing Marlo Thomas.  Marlo was a 70's actress who starred in a show and the daughter of a very famous actor by the name of Danny Thomas.  She was promoting her book on advancing in life.  In her book she interviewed a Doctor and her path to becoming a clinician.
> 
> The Doctor said she attended college and became a teacher.  After some years of teaching, she became a little depressed about the career she chose.  Her father realized something was wrong, and she told him of her thoughts.  So he asked what is it she'd really like to do?  She said she'd really like to be a medical doctor.  So he suggested that she do just that!  She told her father she was stuck in this career, and by the time she'd get out of college, she would be 42 years old.  He looked at her and said "Well you're going to be 42 anyway!"  On her fathers advice, she became a doctor and has never been happier.
> 
> This migrant problem isn't going away anytime soon no matter what you speculate.  There will always be desperate people south of us, gang members who want to get in, terrorists looking for an easy way to sneak in, and people that want to take our money and send it back home.   10 or 15 years?  It's going to be 10 or 15 years no matter what we do, so there is no time like the present to get started.  Because every year that wall is being built, our border becomes more secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree the migrant problem will not go away, nor should it.  The world's getting smaller everyday with better transportation, better communication, and globalization which are going to increase the mobility of populations.  What will decrease is the number of illegal immigrants in the US. Improved conditions in Mexico and Central America, better border security, enforcement of visa expiration, more work permits, and revamping the asylum laws will cut illegal immigration to a trickle with or without the Trump wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do all those things and more, but it's not going to stop everybody and you can't expect South and Central America to jump to the 21st century all at once.
> 
> I for one am all for the US sending troops to Mexico to wipe out the drug lords and organizations.  That would give the people more control over their government and country.  It would greatly reduce the drug flow into our country, so it's a two for one deal.
Click to expand...

You can't completely eliminate illegal immigration regardless of Southern border security.  The US has over 6000 miles of land border and 88,000 miles of coast, and tens of thousands of planes entering US air space everyday. 

Hatching whatever deal needed to send US troops/law enforcement to Mexico to clean out manufacturing of heroin would eliminated most Heroin coming into the US.  Similarly hitting the Northern Triangle of Central America would eliminate the refuge crisis we see at the border.

The best way to deal with drugs is at the source and the end user.  Cut the supply and the demand.


----------



## dblack

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest, we don't care who pays for it.  After all, what Trump originally asked for was half of what we spend on food stamps every single year.  We were not obsessed with who was going to pay for it, only the leftists are now. We were sold that there would be a wall.
> 
> Hey, you guys bought the BS that nobody making less than 250K a year would see a tax increase of any kind.  And what was the first thing Ears did once he invaded the White House?  He instituted a huge sin tax; a tax that mostly affects the poor and middle-class.  Afterwards, he got a bill passed that kept income tax refunds of people that didn't have health insurance, again, a tax that only affected the poor and middle-class.
> 
> But now you complain that Mexico is not giving us the 5 billion dollars we want, and Congress has to fund it instead?  People in glass houses................
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of the revenue source, congress must fund it. The president can't just look under a rock and say, Look, I found 35 billion dollars.  I'm going to building a wall."
> Revenue for any project is always an issue but the overriding issue is do we want it, not what it cost.  70% of the American public say the wall is not a priority and over half say it should not build.  There is opposition in congress among republicans not just democrats.
> 
> We should not built the wall, not because of the cost but because it's not practical.  Even the most optimistic estimates put the time to complete the wall as 15 years, but 20 would be more realistic since a republican congress has never put any money in budget for it.  If you think that's nuts, remember it took 6 years to complete 500 miles of a fence and the fencing project was far simpler than the Trump wall and had much less opposition.  Long before the wall is finished, immigration, national priorities, and ideology of the parties will have shifted along with funding of the wall.
> 
> When we enter into a project of this size we should be looking at the future, not the past.  The number of illegal immigrants in the US have been falling since 2008.  With economic improvements in Mexico, particular the growing shortage of farm labor, it is quite likely that the illegal immigration problem will solve itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Years ago I was listening to the radio when the host was interviewing Marlo Thomas.  Marlo was a 70's actress who starred in a show and the daughter of a very famous actor by the name of Danny Thomas.  She was promoting her book on advancing in life.  In her book she interviewed a Doctor and her path to becoming a clinician.
> 
> The Doctor said she attended college and became a teacher.  After some years of teaching, she became a little depressed about the career she chose.  Her father realized something was wrong, and she told him of her thoughts.  So he asked what is it she'd really like to do?  She said she'd really like to be a medical doctor.  So he suggested that she do just that!  She told her father she was stuck in this career, and by the time she'd get out of college, she would be 42 years old.  He looked at her and said "Well you're going to be 42 anyway!"  On her fathers advice, she became a doctor and has never been happier.
> 
> This migrant problem isn't going away anytime soon no matter what you speculate.  There will always be desperate people south of us, gang members who want to get in, terrorists looking for an easy way to sneak in, and people that want to take our money and send it back home.   10 or 15 years?  It's going to be 10 or 15 years no matter what we do, so there is no time like the present to get started.  Because every year that wall is being built, our border becomes more secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree the migrant problem will not go away, nor should it.  The world's getting smaller everyday with better transportation, better communication, and globalization which are going to increase the mobility of populations.  What will decrease is the number of illegal immigrants in the US. Improved conditions in Mexico and Central America, better border security, enforcement of visa expiration, more work permits, and revamping the asylum laws will cut illegal immigration to a trickle with or without the Trump wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do all those things and more, but it's not going to stop everybody and you can't expect South and Central America to jump to the 21st century all at once.
> 
> I for one am all for the US sending troops to Mexico to wipe out the drug lords and organizations.  That would give the people more control over their government and country.  It would greatly reduce the drug flow into our country, so it's a two for one deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we nuke GM maybe people won't have cars any more.  Nice try, but no cigar.  The drug cartels exist because Americans have an insatiable appetite for drugs.
Click to expand...


It's satiable enough. The issue is prohibition. It doesn't work.


----------



## dblack

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> *Protecting our border crossings hurts the anti-American Democrats*



It hurts anyone who loves freedom. But I guess scoring points in your partisan pissing match is more important.


----------



## Asclepias

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> *Protecting our border crossings hurts the anti-American Democrats*


Keeping the stupid wall from being built hurts the gullible drumpfsexuals.


----------



## pismoe

ph3iron said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OUR NATION?
> Are you an Indian?
> Only the most aggressive will leave everything behind and walk 2000 miles.
> Would you?
> They benefit the county over time. Wipe out us old whit farts fo a start
Click to expand...

-----------------------------------------   feck them 'mexican indians'  show me the good society that they have ever built south of the USA border in the last 500 years [about]  PHiron .


----------



## pismoe

also , seems to me that if they were that Agreesive they woulda kicked the azzez of the 'white man spaniards' that have been ruling over them for the last 500 years  PHiron .


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

dblack said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Protecting our border crossings hurts the anti-American Democrats*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It hurts anyone who loves freedom. But I guess scoring points in your partisan pissing match is more important.
Click to expand...


*Did know that all countries control their border crossings?
Did you know that all countries control their immigration?
The reason why the Democrats are stopping the border wall is because it hurts their goal to turn America in to third world left wing banana republic dictatorship.
BTW Schumer and Pelosi are yooog liars.*


----------



## bodecea

Building the wall isn't wrong....now that the trumpanzees have a GoFundMe account to pay for it.   Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Flopper

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Years ago I was listening to the radio when the host was interviewing Marlo Thomas.  Marlo was a 70's actress who starred in a show and the daughter of a very famous actor by the name of Danny Thomas.  She was promoting her book on advancing in life.  In her book she interviewed a Doctor and her path to becoming a clinician.
> 
> The Doctor said she attended college and became a teacher.  After some years of teaching, she became a little depressed about the career she chose.  Her father realized something was wrong, and she told him of her thoughts.  So he asked what is it she'd really like to do?  She said she'd really like to be a medical doctor.  So he suggested that she do just that!  She told her father she was stuck in this career, and by the time she'd get out of college, she would be 42 years old.  He looked at her and said "Well you're going to be 42 anyway!"  On her fathers advice, she became a doctor and has never been happier.
> 
> This migrant problem isn't going away anytime soon no matter what you speculate.  There will always be desperate people south of us, gang members who want to get in, terrorists looking for an easy way to sneak in, and people that want to take our money and send it back home.   10 or 15 years?  It's going to be 10 or 15 years no matter what we do, so there is no time like the present to get started.  Because every year that wall is being built, our border becomes more secure.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree the migrant problem will not go away, nor should it.  The world's getting smaller everyday with better transportation, better communication, and globalization which are going to increase the mobility of populations.  What will decrease is the number of illegal immigrants in the US. Improved conditions in Mexico and Central America, better border security, enforcement of visa expiration, more work permits, and revamping the asylum laws will cut illegal immigration to a trickle with or without the Trump wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do all those things and more, but it's not going to stop everybody and you can't expect South and Central America to jump to the 21st century all at once.
> 
> I for one am all for the US sending troops to Mexico to wipe out the drug lords and organizations.  That would give the people more control over their government and country.  It would greatly reduce the drug flow into our country, so it's a two for one deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we nuke GM maybe people won't have cars any more.  Nice try, but no cigar.  The drug cartels exist because Americans have an insatiable appetite for drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there are no drugs to take, you lose that appetite real quick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why drug addicts say they are still addicts after ten years of abstinence?
Click to expand...

Once an addict, always an addict but that does not mean the desire for the drugs can't be suppressed with treatment, but the desire will remain.  Just as a smoker may kick the habit after many years, the desire for a smoke will surface even after years pass but the longer you stay clean, the more likely you are to remain so.


----------



## Asclepias

pismoe said:


> also , seems to me that if they were that Agreesive they woulda kicked the azzez of the 'white man spaniards' that have been ruling over them for the last 500 years  PHiron .


Whites came during a perfect storm or they would have been slaughtered. They came at a time where their gods were supposed to visit them.  Basically they just laid down and were conquered because they thought the Spaniards were gods. Not to mention the diseases that whites carry wiped out a large portion of the population. 

Hernán Cortés: Conqueror of the Aztecs


"Unbeknownst to Cortés, his arrival coincided with an important Aztecprophecy. The Aztec god Quetzalcoatl, whom they credited with the creation of humans among other notable feats, was set to return to Earth. Thinking that Cortés could be Quetzalcoatl, Montezuma greeted the party with great honor.

Montezuma sent out envoys to meet the conquistador as he neared. The Aztecs were fascinated by the Spaniards' light skin and the sight of men on horseback, which they described as beasts with two heads and six legs. The Spanish fired shots, which stunned the natives and further intimidated them."


----------



## pismoe

dblack said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Protecting our border crossings hurts the anti-American Democrats*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It hurts anyone who loves freedom. But I guess scoring points in your partisan pissing match is more important.
Click to expand...

------------------------------- not worried about 'mexicans' and 'otm' freedom .   They are slaves in their home lands after 500 years of being conquered and then Ruled over by the  'WHITE male 'euro-peon' spaniard'  .   [chuckle]


----------



## dblack

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Protecting our border crossings hurts the anti-American Democrats*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It hurts anyone who loves freedom. But I guess scoring points in your partisan pissing match is more important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Did know that all countries control their border crossings?
> Did you know that all countries control their immigration?
> The reason why the Democrats are stopping the border wall is because it hurts their goal to turn America in to third world left wing banana republic dictatorship.
> BTW Schumer and Pelosi are yooog liars.*
Click to expand...


Is that Reagan on your avi? Do you really appreciate the irony there?


----------



## Flopper

dblack said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of the revenue source, congress must fund it. The president can't just look under a rock and say, Look, I found 35 billion dollars.  I'm going to building a wall."
> Revenue for any project is always an issue but the overriding issue is do we want it, not what it cost.  70% of the American public say the wall is not a priority and over half say it should not build.  There is opposition in congress among republicans not just democrats.
> 
> We should not built the wall, not because of the cost but because it's not practical.  Even the most optimistic estimates put the time to complete the wall as 15 years, but 20 would be more realistic since a republican congress has never put any money in budget for it.  If you think that's nuts, remember it took 6 years to complete 500 miles of a fence and the fencing project was far simpler than the Trump wall and had much less opposition.  Long before the wall is finished, immigration, national priorities, and ideology of the parties will have shifted along with funding of the wall.
> 
> When we enter into a project of this size we should be looking at the future, not the past.  The number of illegal immigrants in the US have been falling since 2008.  With economic improvements in Mexico, particular the growing shortage of farm labor, it is quite likely that the illegal immigration problem will solve itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Years ago I was listening to the radio when the host was interviewing Marlo Thomas.  Marlo was a 70's actress who starred in a show and the daughter of a very famous actor by the name of Danny Thomas.  She was promoting her book on advancing in life.  In her book she interviewed a Doctor and her path to becoming a clinician.
> 
> The Doctor said she attended college and became a teacher.  After some years of teaching, she became a little depressed about the career she chose.  Her father realized something was wrong, and she told him of her thoughts.  So he asked what is it she'd really like to do?  She said she'd really like to be a medical doctor.  So he suggested that she do just that!  She told her father she was stuck in this career, and by the time she'd get out of college, she would be 42 years old.  He looked at her and said "Well you're going to be 42 anyway!"  On her fathers advice, she became a doctor and has never been happier.
> 
> This migrant problem isn't going away anytime soon no matter what you speculate.  There will always be desperate people south of us, gang members who want to get in, terrorists looking for an easy way to sneak in, and people that want to take our money and send it back home.   10 or 15 years?  It's going to be 10 or 15 years no matter what we do, so there is no time like the present to get started.  Because every year that wall is being built, our border becomes more secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree the migrant problem will not go away, nor should it.  The world's getting smaller everyday with better transportation, better communication, and globalization which are going to increase the mobility of populations.  What will decrease is the number of illegal immigrants in the US. Improved conditions in Mexico and Central America, better border security, enforcement of visa expiration, more work permits, and revamping the asylum laws will cut illegal immigration to a trickle with or without the Trump wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do all those things and more, but it's not going to stop everybody and you can't expect South and Central America to jump to the 21st century all at once.
> 
> I for one am all for the US sending troops to Mexico to wipe out the drug lords and organizations.  That would give the people more control over their government and country.  It would greatly reduce the drug flow into our country, so it's a two for one deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we nuke GM maybe people won't have cars any more.  Nice try, but no cigar.  The drug cartels exist because Americans have an insatiable appetite for drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's satiable enough. The issue is prohibition. It doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Prohibition does not work in a affluent society or community because it makes the desired substance more costly and we associate high cost with value.  So if a substance is considerable valuable it stimulates desire for it.

However, it does work in poverty ridden areas simply because the higher cost puts the substance beyond the reach of the poor.

This is what happened during prohibition in the US in the 1920's.  Public drunkenness, Cirrhosis, and violence related to alcohol consumption dropped in poor areas and remained the same or increased in more affluent areas.


----------



## pismoe

Asclepias said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> also , seems to me that if they were that Agreesive they woulda kicked the azzez of the 'white man spaniards' that have been ruling over them for the last 500 years  PHiron .
> 
> 
> 
> Whites came during a perfect storm or they would have been slaughtered. They came at a time where their gods were supposed to visit them.  Basically they just laid down and were conquered because they thought the Spaniards were gods. Not to mention the diseases that whites carry wiped out a large portion of the population.
> 
> Hernán Cortés: Conqueror of the Aztecs
> 
> 
> "Unbeknownst to Cortés, his arrival coincided with an important Aztecprophecy. The Aztec god Quetzalcoatl, whom they credited with the creation of humans among other notable feats, was set to return to Earth. Thinking that Cortés could be Quetzalcoatl, Montezuma greeted the party with great honor.
> 
> Montezuma sent out envoys to meet the conquistador as he neared. The Aztecs were fascinated by the Spaniards' light skin and the sight of men on horseback, which they described as beasts with two heads and six legs. The Spanish fired shots, which stunned the natives and further intimidated them."
Click to expand...

------------------------------  intimidated them eh  Ace ---   Plus the aztecs as one tribe weren't too smart eh .    Plus i think that the 'spaniard' took over the whole of mexico and most of south america was also taken over by the White Male spaniard . Guess it all boils down to a whole buncha 'INTIMIDATED' indians eh Ace .   [chuckle]


----------



## Asclepias

pismoe said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> also , seems to me that if they were that Agreesive they woulda kicked the azzez of the 'white man spaniards' that have been ruling over them for the last 500 years  PHiron .
> 
> 
> 
> Whites came during a perfect storm or they would have been slaughtered. They came at a time where their gods were supposed to visit them.  Basically they just laid down and were conquered because they thought the Spaniards were gods. Not to mention the diseases that whites carry wiped out a large portion of the population.
> 
> Hernán Cortés: Conqueror of the Aztecs
> 
> 
> "Unbeknownst to Cortés, his arrival coincided with an important Aztecprophecy. The Aztec god Quetzalcoatl, whom they credited with the creation of humans among other notable feats, was set to return to Earth. Thinking that Cortés could be Quetzalcoatl, Montezuma greeted the party with great honor.
> 
> Montezuma sent out envoys to meet the conquistador as he neared. The Aztecs were fascinated by the Spaniards' light skin and the sight of men on horseback, which they described as beasts with two heads and six legs. The Spanish fired shots, which stunned the natives and further intimidated them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ------------------------------  intimidated them eh  Ace ---   Plus the aztecs as one tribe weren't too smart eh .    Plus i think that the 'spaniard' took over the whole of mexico and most of south america was also taken over by the White Male spaniard , Guess it all boils down to a whole buncha 'INTIMIDATED' indians eh Ace .   [chuckle]
Click to expand...

More like out gunned and subject to catching unknown diseases like small pox carried by white boys.


----------



## pismoe

but my point is that the 'spanish' conquest was what , about 500 years ago and if these indian people are so aggressive , why haven't they killed the White male spaniard and instituted good government in mexico Ace and PHIron .


----------



## Asclepias

pismoe said:


> but my point is that the 'spanish' conquest was what , about 500 years ago and if these indian people are so aggressive , why haven't they killed the White male spaniard and instituted good government in mexico Ace and PHIron .


Its not a good thing to be aggressive like white boys. It only makes you like them.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

dblack said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of the revenue source, congress must fund it. The president can't just look under a rock and say, Look, I found 35 billion dollars.  I'm going to building a wall."
> Revenue for any project is always an issue but the overriding issue is do we want it, not what it cost.  70% of the American public say the wall is not a priority and over half say it should not build.  There is opposition in congress among republicans not just democrats.
> 
> We should not built the wall, not because of the cost but because it's not practical.  Even the most optimistic estimates put the time to complete the wall as 15 years, but 20 would be more realistic since a republican congress has never put any money in budget for it.  If you think that's nuts, remember it took 6 years to complete 500 miles of a fence and the fencing project was far simpler than the Trump wall and had much less opposition.  Long before the wall is finished, immigration, national priorities, and ideology of the parties will have shifted along with funding of the wall.
> 
> When we enter into a project of this size we should be looking at the future, not the past.  The number of illegal immigrants in the US have been falling since 2008.  With economic improvements in Mexico, particular the growing shortage of farm labor, it is quite likely that the illegal immigration problem will solve itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Years ago I was listening to the radio when the host was interviewing Marlo Thomas.  Marlo was a 70's actress who starred in a show and the daughter of a very famous actor by the name of Danny Thomas.  She was promoting her book on advancing in life.  In her book she interviewed a Doctor and her path to becoming a clinician.
> 
> The Doctor said she attended college and became a teacher.  After some years of teaching, she became a little depressed about the career she chose.  Her father realized something was wrong, and she told him of her thoughts.  So he asked what is it she'd really like to do?  She said she'd really like to be a medical doctor.  So he suggested that she do just that!  She told her father she was stuck in this career, and by the time she'd get out of college, she would be 42 years old.  He looked at her and said "Well you're going to be 42 anyway!"  On her fathers advice, she became a doctor and has never been happier.
> 
> This migrant problem isn't going away anytime soon no matter what you speculate.  There will always be desperate people south of us, gang members who want to get in, terrorists looking for an easy way to sneak in, and people that want to take our money and send it back home.   10 or 15 years?  It's going to be 10 or 15 years no matter what we do, so there is no time like the present to get started.  Because every year that wall is being built, our border becomes more secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree the migrant problem will not go away, nor should it.  The world's getting smaller everyday with better transportation, better communication, and globalization which are going to increase the mobility of populations.  What will decrease is the number of illegal immigrants in the US. Improved conditions in Mexico and Central America, better border security, enforcement of visa expiration, more work permits, and revamping the asylum laws will cut illegal immigration to a trickle with or without the Trump wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do all those things and more, but it's not going to stop everybody and you can't expect South and Central America to jump to the 21st century all at once.
> 
> I for one am all for the US sending troops to Mexico to wipe out the drug lords and organizations.  That would give the people more control over their government and country.  It would greatly reduce the drug flow into our country, so it's a two for one deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we nuke GM maybe people won't have cars any more.  Nice try, but no cigar.  The drug cartels exist because Americans have an insatiable appetite for drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's satiable enough. The issue is prohibition. It doesn't work.
Click to expand...


That is what they hope to accomplish with a border wall.  That is why we need to focus on rehabilitation and getting those people back into the workforce.


----------



## pismoe

guess that Cortez had about 500 soldiers against millions of 'indian aztecs' and yeah GUNS .   As far as disease , maybe but thats speculation but i won't argue .  Yeah , white male Cortez and his 500 White male invaders kicked 'aztec' and other tribes azz about 500 years ago and White male spaniards still rule over 'mexico' and much of south america today   Ace .


----------



## Death Angel

Timmy said:


> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .


Is giving 10 billion in charity to Central American shitholes from the American Taxpayer a waste of money?


----------



## Asclepias

pismoe said:


> guess that Cortez had about 500 soldiers against millions of 'indian aztecs' and yeah GUNS .   As far as disease , maybe but thats speculation but i won't argue .  Yeah , white male Cortez and his 500 White male invaders kicked 'aztec' and other tribes azz about 500 years ago and White male spaniards still rule over 'mexico' and much of south america today   Ace .


Too bad like in so many other cases whites males cant survive a level playing field due to their genetic weaknesses.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bodecea said:


> Building the wall isn't wrong....now that the trumpanzees have a GoFundMe account to pay for it.   Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



And if successful, we should tell the Democrats to do the same.  I'm all for removing Planned Parenthood funds and have it funded with a Go Fund Me account instead.


----------



## Death Angel

Asclepias said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> guess that Cortez had about 500 soldiers against millions of 'indian aztecs' and yeah GUNS .   As far as disease , maybe but thats speculation but i won't argue .  Yeah , white male Cortez and his 500 White male invaders kicked 'aztec' and other tribes azz about 500 years ago and White male spaniards still rule over 'mexico' and much of south america today   Ace .
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad like in so many other cases whites males cant survive a level playing field due to their genetic weaknesses.
Click to expand...

What color is the sky in your world? Blacks only do well when they live in the white man's world.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Protecting our border crossings hurts the anti-American Democrats*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It hurts anyone who loves freedom. But I guess scoring points in your partisan pissing match is more important.
Click to expand...


WTF does building a wall have to to with freedom?  It won't be built to keep Americans in, it will be built to keep foreigners out.


----------



## Geaux4it

Just can't get enough of all the liars around here saying they are against the wall because of cost..... LIARS!!!!

-Geaux


----------



## pismoe

and Whites did similar in 'africa' and every where else in the World despite any weakness Ace .


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can do all those things and more, but it's not going to stop everybody and you can't expect South and Central America to jump to the 21st century all at once.
> 
> I for one am all for the US sending troops to Mexico to wipe out the drug lords and organizations.  That would give the people more control over their government and country.  It would greatly reduce the drug flow into our country, so it's a two for one deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we nuke GM maybe people won't have cars any more.  Nice try, but no cigar.  The drug cartels exist because Americans have an insatiable appetite for drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there are no drugs to take, you lose that appetite real quick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why drug addicts say they are still addicts after ten years of abstinence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All depends on how long they've been hooked.  My cousins kid started when he was 15 years old.  He tried it because it was available and "the cool" thing to do.  She buried him two years ago at the age of 28.
> 
> I didn't have that opportunity to experiment because as I stated, it wasn't around when I was a teen back in the 70's.  Plenty of pot, but nothing hard.  Maybe if it was around when I was a kid, you might be having this discussion with somebody else because I wouldn't be here.
> 
> If we can't help the people already hooked, then the least we can do is take efforts to make sure others don't.  That's the point I'm trying to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't realize it, but you're beginning to agree with what I'm saying.  If we stop the flow of drugs by forcing the government to get out of the drug business and IF we prescribed drugs as the LAST option, not the first, we'd be making progress.
> 
> Then we have to repeal National ID, E-Verify, and background checks while helping people get rehabilitated so they get a second chance.
> 
> When they are in the workforce, there is less demand for foreign labor and no need for drug cartels to exist.
Click to expand...


I don't know what one as to do with the other.  What does other preventative measures to stop illegal immigration have to do with Americans using opioids?  

The government is not in the drug business.  The government regulates most narcotics to be prescribed and purchased legally.  As for people becoming addicted, they are already taking measures for that.  Millions of Americans now have to live in pain because Doctors are scared to death to use opioid products now.  I know a few people personally that are suffering myself.  Yet last year, we hit another record of opioid deaths at over 70,000 Americans.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Geaux4it said:


> Just can't get enough of all the liars around here saying they are against the wall because of cost..... LIARS!!!!
> 
> -Geaux



And their insistence that they've been brainwashed to believe that a wall won't work, even though it's worked in most every other place that has one.


----------



## Asclepias

pismoe said:


> and Whites did similar in 'africa' and every where else in the World despite any weakness Ace .


Everywhere whites have gone they have needed a crutch. Africa was no different.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Asclepias said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> guess that Cortez had about 500 soldiers against millions of 'indian aztecs' and yeah GUNS .   As far as disease , maybe but thats speculation but i won't argue .  Yeah , white male Cortez and his 500 White male invaders kicked 'aztec' and other tribes azz about 500 years ago and White male spaniards still rule over 'mexico' and much of south america today   Ace .
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad like in so many other cases whites males cant survive a level playing field due to their genetic weaknesses.
Click to expand...


Care to give us a few examples of what you're talking about?


----------



## Asclepias

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> guess that Cortez had about 500 soldiers against millions of 'indian aztecs' and yeah GUNS .   As far as disease , maybe but thats speculation but i won't argue .  Yeah , white male Cortez and his 500 White male invaders kicked 'aztec' and other tribes azz about 500 years ago and White male spaniards still rule over 'mexico' and much of south america today   Ace .
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad like in so many other cases whites males cant survive a level playing field due to their genetic weaknesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to give us a few examples of what you're talking about?
Click to expand...

Already did.


----------



## pismoe

Asclepias said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> and Whites did similar in 'africa' and every where else in the World despite any weakness Ace .
> 
> 
> 
> Everywhere whites have gone they have needed a crutch. Africa was no different.
Click to expand...

--------------------------   CRUTCH , who or what was the CRUTCH  Ace ??


----------



## Asclepias

pismoe said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> and Whites did similar in 'africa' and every where else in the World despite any weakness Ace .
> 
> 
> 
> Everywhere whites have gone they have needed a crutch. Africa was no different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> --------------------------   CRUTCH , who or what was the CRUTCH  Ace ??
Click to expand...

Lies, guns, and diseases.


----------



## pismoe

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> guess that Cortez had about 500 soldiers against millions of 'indian aztecs' and yeah GUNS .   As far as disease , maybe but thats speculation but i won't argue .  Yeah , white male Cortez and his 500 White male invaders kicked 'aztec' and other tribes azz about 500 years ago and White male spaniards still rule over 'mexico' and much of south america today   Ace .
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad like in so many other cases whites males cant survive a level playing field due to their genetic weaknesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to give us a few examples of what you're talking about?
Click to expand...

-------------------------   yeah now he talk silliness .   Like his CRUTCH comment which he doesn't define .-------------   what CRUTCH would that be Ace ??


----------



## pismoe

Asclepias said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> and Whites did similar in 'africa' and every where else in the World despite any weakness Ace .
> 
> 
> 
> Everywhere whites have gone they have needed a crutch. Africa was no different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> --------------------------   CRUTCH , who or what was the CRUTCH  Ace ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns and diseases.
Click to expand...

--------------------------------------   Guns were in the possession the White man . Why should he use SPEARS when the goal is to kill enemies  Ace ??   The Conquered weren't SMART enough to make their own guns Ace .


----------



## pismoe

AND Disease , you can't prove but even if so things worked out fine for the White Man  Ace .


----------



## pismoe

and , what were the lies  Ace ??


----------



## pismoe

Asclepias said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> and Whites did similar in 'africa' and every where else in the World despite any weakness Ace .
> 
> 
> 
> Everywhere whites have gone they have needed a crutch. Africa was no different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> --------------------------   CRUTCH , who or what was the CRUTCH  Ace ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lies, guns, and diseases.
Click to expand...

------------------------------------   what were the LIE's Ace


----------



## Asclepias

pismoe said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> and Whites did similar in 'africa' and every where else in the World despite any weakness Ace .
> 
> 
> 
> Everywhere whites have gone they have needed a crutch. Africa was no different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> --------------------------   CRUTCH , who or what was the CRUTCH  Ace ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns and diseases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> --------------------------------------   Guns were in the possession the White man . Why should he use SPEARS when the goal is to kill enemies  Ace ??   The Conquered weren't SMART enough to make their own guns Ace .
Click to expand...

Lies, guns, and diseases were in the possession of the white man. He wouldnt use spears because he had his crutches which gave him an advantage.  Making guns is not smart. Its only violent like white people.


----------



## Asclepias

pismoe said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> and Whites did similar in 'africa' and every where else in the World despite any weakness Ace .
> 
> 
> 
> Everywhere whites have gone they have needed a crutch. Africa was no different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> --------------------------   CRUTCH , who or what was the CRUTCH  Ace ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lies, guns, and diseases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ------------------------------------   what were the LIE's Ace
Click to expand...

"We come in peace" or "we are here to talk about god."


----------



## Asclepias

pismoe said:


> AND Disease , you can't prove but even if so things worked out fine for the White Man  Ace .


I dont have to prove it. Its not my fault you didnt know you carry diseases like small pox which wiped out 90% of the natives.


----------



## pismoe

Asclepias said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> and Whites did similar in 'africa' and every where else in the World despite any weakness Ace .
> 
> 
> 
> Everywhere whites have gone they have needed a crutch. Africa was no different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> --------------------------   CRUTCH , who or what was the CRUTCH  Ace ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns and diseases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> --------------------------------------   Guns were in the possession the White man . Why should he use SPEARS when the goal is to kill enemies  Ace ??   The Conquered weren't SMART enough to make their own guns Ace .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lies, guns, and diseases were in the possession of the white man. He wouldnt use spears because he had his crutches which gave him an advantage.  Making guns is not smart. Its only violent like white people.
Click to expand...

----------------------------------------------   its best to always have an ADVANTAGE  .   Just ask 'George Zimmerman'   Ace ,


----------



## Asclepias

pismoe said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everywhere whites have gone they have needed a crutch. Africa was no different.
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------   CRUTCH , who or what was the CRUTCH  Ace ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns and diseases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> --------------------------------------   Guns were in the possession the White man . Why should he use SPEARS when the goal is to kill enemies  Ace ??   The Conquered weren't SMART enough to make their own guns Ace .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lies, guns, and diseases were in the possession of the white man. He wouldnt use spears because he had his crutches which gave him an advantage.  Making guns is not smart. Its only violent like white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----------------------------------------------   its best to always have an ADVANTAGE  .   Just ask 'George Zimmerman'   Ace ,
Click to expand...

Its called a crutch. GZ is a good example. He was getting worked by a teenager but he needed a crutch to save his ass.


----------



## pismoe

Asclepias said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> AND Disease , you can't prove but even if so things worked out fine for the White Man  Ace .
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have to prove it. Its not my fault you didnt know you carry diseases like small pox which wiped out 90% of the natives.
Click to expand...

---------------------------------------------   i know the CLAIMS but I don't care as i approve of germ warfare .   But like i said , you can't PROVE , i don't care and it worked out fine for the White man Ace .


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Asclepias said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> and Whites did similar in 'africa' and every where else in the World despite any weakness Ace .
> 
> 
> 
> Everywhere whites have gone they have needed a crutch. Africa was no different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> --------------------------   CRUTCH , who or what was the CRUTCH  Ace ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns and diseases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> --------------------------------------   Guns were in the possession the White man . Why should he use SPEARS when the goal is to kill enemies  Ace ??   The Conquered weren't SMART enough to make their own guns Ace .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lies, guns, and diseases were in the possession of the white man. He wouldnt use spears because he had his crutches which gave him an advantage.  Making guns is not smart. Its only violent like white people.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's the real problem in this country, all those violent white people.


----------



## Asclepias

pismoe said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> AND Disease , you can't prove but even if so things worked out fine for the White Man  Ace .
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have to prove it. Its not my fault you didnt know you carry diseases like small pox which wiped out 90% of the natives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---------------------------------------------   i know the CLAIMS but I don't care as i approve of germ warfare .   But like i said , you can't PROVE , i don't care and it worked out fine for the White man Ace .
Click to expand...

I can prove by why bother? We both know white people need crutches. No need to belabor the point.


----------



## Asclepias

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everywhere whites have gone they have needed a crutch. Africa was no different.
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------   CRUTCH , who or what was the CRUTCH  Ace ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns and diseases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> --------------------------------------   Guns were in the possession the White man . Why should he use SPEARS when the goal is to kill enemies  Ace ??   The Conquered weren't SMART enough to make their own guns Ace .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lies, guns, and diseases were in the possession of the white man. He wouldnt use spears because he had his crutches which gave him an advantage.  Making guns is not smart. Its only violent like white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's the real problem in this country, all those violent white people.
Click to expand...

I see you and I agree.  Its about time.


----------



## pismoe

you are 'fos'  , the White man won  Ace .


----------



## Asclepias

pismoe said:


> you are 'fos'  , the White man won  Ace .


You are angry you are inferior and suffer from insecurity issues. No wonder you guys need crutches.


----------



## pismoe

i'm done with your silliness unless you have something to say that merits response   Ace .


----------



## Death Angel

Asclepias said:


> I can prove by why bother? We both know white people need crutches. No need to belabor the point.


your standard reply when you lost the debate


----------



## Asclepias

Death Angel said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can prove by why bother? We both know white people need crutches. No need to belabor the point.
> 
> 
> 
> your standard reply when you lost the debate
Click to expand...

Says the guy that needs crutches.


----------



## Asclepias

pismoe said:


> i'm done with your silliness unless you have something to say that merits response   Ace .


Says the guy from the inferior race that needs help at every turn just to stay even.


----------



## pismoe

pismoe said:


> i'm done with your silliness unless you have something to say that merits response   Ace .


--------------------------  !!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we nuke GM maybe people won't have cars any more.  Nice try, but no cigar.  The drug cartels exist because Americans have an insatiable appetite for drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there are no drugs to take, you lose that appetite real quick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why drug addicts say they are still addicts after ten years of abstinence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All depends on how long they've been hooked.  My cousins kid started when he was 15 years old.  He tried it because it was available and "the cool" thing to do.  She buried him two years ago at the age of 28.
> 
> I didn't have that opportunity to experiment because as I stated, it wasn't around when I was a teen back in the 70's.  Plenty of pot, but nothing hard.  Maybe if it was around when I was a kid, you might be having this discussion with somebody else because I wouldn't be here.
> 
> If we can't help the people already hooked, then the least we can do is take efforts to make sure others don't.  That's the point I'm trying to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't realize it, but you're beginning to agree with what I'm saying.  If we stop the flow of drugs by forcing the government to get out of the drug business and IF we prescribed drugs as the LAST option, not the first, we'd be making progress.
> 
> Then we have to repeal National ID, E-Verify, and background checks while helping people get rehabilitated so they get a second chance.
> 
> When they are in the workforce, there is less demand for foreign labor and no need for drug cartels to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what one as to do with the other.  What does other preventative measures to stop illegal immigration have to do with Americans using opioids?
> 
> The government is not in the drug business.  The government regulates most narcotics to be prescribed and purchased legally.  As for people becoming addicted, they are already taking measures for that.  Millions of Americans now have to live in pain because Doctors are scared to death to use opioid products now.  I know a few people personally that are suffering myself.  Yet last year, we hit another record of opioid deaths at over 70,000 Americans.
Click to expand...


The government IS in the drug business.  Your failure to understand that does not make it any less true.  

Once you get people off of drugs, rehabilitate them and restrict their records unless an employer can show cause for them being relevant to the job, they can go back to the workforce.

If a person is working instead of doing drugs, they will have a job and a foreigner will not.  The more people working instead of doing drugs, the less need for cartels.  This aint rocket science.


----------



## pismoe

just a question but is 'stacy abrams' got her old job making beds and cleaning toilets at the old 'in and out' motel somewhere in Georgia   Ace .


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there are no drugs to take, you lose that appetite real quick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why drug addicts say they are still addicts after ten years of abstinence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All depends on how long they've been hooked.  My cousins kid started when he was 15 years old.  He tried it because it was available and "the cool" thing to do.  She buried him two years ago at the age of 28.
> 
> I didn't have that opportunity to experiment because as I stated, it wasn't around when I was a teen back in the 70's.  Plenty of pot, but nothing hard.  Maybe if it was around when I was a kid, you might be having this discussion with somebody else because I wouldn't be here.
> 
> If we can't help the people already hooked, then the least we can do is take efforts to make sure others don't.  That's the point I'm trying to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't realize it, but you're beginning to agree with what I'm saying.  If we stop the flow of drugs by forcing the government to get out of the drug business and IF we prescribed drugs as the LAST option, not the first, we'd be making progress.
> 
> Then we have to repeal National ID, E-Verify, and background checks while helping people get rehabilitated so they get a second chance.
> 
> When they are in the workforce, there is less demand for foreign labor and no need for drug cartels to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what one as to do with the other.  What does other preventative measures to stop illegal immigration have to do with Americans using opioids?
> 
> The government is not in the drug business.  The government regulates most narcotics to be prescribed and purchased legally.  As for people becoming addicted, they are already taking measures for that.  Millions of Americans now have to live in pain because Doctors are scared to death to use opioid products now.  I know a few people personally that are suffering myself.  Yet last year, we hit another record of opioid deaths at over 70,000 Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government IS in the drug business.  Your failure to understand that does not make it any less true.
> 
> Once you get people off of drugs, rehabilitate them and restrict their records unless an employer can show cause for them being relevant to the job, they can go back to the workforce.
> 
> If a person is working instead of doing drugs, they will have a job and a foreigner will not.  The more people working instead of doing drugs, the less need for cartels.  This aint rocket science.
Click to expand...


And obviously you know few if any addicts.  If you did, you'd realize that rehabilitation doesn't work on most people for a prolonged period of time.  The real solution is not to give them the ability to purchase illegal opioid products in the first place.  

An employer does not have access to an applicants medical records.  Unless you were talking about criminal records, but you didn't make that clear.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Asclepias said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------   CRUTCH , who or what was the CRUTCH  Ace ??
> 
> 
> 
> Guns and diseases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> --------------------------------------   Guns were in the possession the White man . Why should he use SPEARS when the goal is to kill enemies  Ace ??   The Conquered weren't SMART enough to make their own guns Ace .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lies, guns, and diseases were in the possession of the white man. He wouldnt use spears because he had his crutches which gave him an advantage.  Making guns is not smart. Its only violent like white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's the real problem in this country, all those violent white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you and I agree.  Its about time.
Click to expand...


Sure I do, because statistics don't lie.


----------



## Asclepias

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns and diseases.
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------   Guns were in the possession the White man . Why should he use SPEARS when the goal is to kill enemies  Ace ??   The Conquered weren't SMART enough to make their own guns Ace .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lies, guns, and diseases were in the possession of the white man. He wouldnt use spears because he had his crutches which gave him an advantage.  Making guns is not smart. Its only violent like white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's the real problem in this country, all those violent white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you and I agree.  Its about time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure I do, because statistics don't lie.
Click to expand...

True. Stats dont lie but people do. Whites commit the vast majority of violent crime. The only category they dont lead in is homicide.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Asclepias said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------   Guns were in the possession the White man . Why should he use SPEARS when the goal is to kill enemies  Ace ??   The Conquered weren't SMART enough to make their own guns Ace .
> 
> 
> 
> Lies, guns, and diseases were in the possession of the white man. He wouldnt use spears because he had his crutches which gave him an advantage.  Making guns is not smart. Its only violent like white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's the real problem in this country, all those violent white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you and I agree.  Its about time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure I do, because statistics don't lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. Stats dont lie but people do. Whites commit the vast majority of violent crime. The only category they dont lead in is homicide.
Click to expand...


Given the fact whites are five times the population of blacks, that surprises you?  Now let's talk per capita, and you'll have a different discussion.


----------



## Asclepias

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lies, guns, and diseases were in the possession of the white man. He wouldnt use spears because he had his crutches which gave him an advantage.  Making guns is not smart. Its only violent like white people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's the real problem in this country, all those violent white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you and I agree.  Its about time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure I do, because statistics don't lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. Stats dont lie but people do. Whites commit the vast majority of violent crime. The only category they dont lead in is homicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given the fact whites are five times the population of blacks, that surprises you?  Now let's talk per capita, and you'll have a different discussion.
Click to expand...

Nothing about whites and violence surprises me. The only thing that kinda surprises me is how you glorify in violence then turn around and claim youre not violent.


----------



## Thinker101

Asclepias said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's the real problem in this country, all those violent white people.
> 
> 
> 
> I see you and I agree.  Its about time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure I do, because statistics don't lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. Stats dont lie but people do. Whites commit the vast majority of violent crime. The only category they dont lead in is homicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given the fact whites are five times the population of blacks, that surprises you?  Now let's talk per capita, and you'll have a different discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about whites and violence surprises me. The only thing that kinda surprises me is how you glorify in violence then turn around and claim youre not violent.
Click to expand...


Yup, you do have that racist stench.


----------



## Asclepias

Thinker101 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you and I agree.  Its about time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do, because statistics don't lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. Stats dont lie but people do. Whites commit the vast majority of violent crime. The only category they dont lead in is homicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given the fact whites are five times the population of blacks, that surprises you?  Now let's talk per capita, and you'll have a different discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about whites and violence surprises me. The only thing that kinda surprises me is how you glorify in violence then turn around and claim youre not violent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, you do have that racist stench.
Click to expand...

You must have been in the rain. Thats your wet dog smell.


----------



## Thinker101

Asclepias said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do, because statistics don't lie.
> 
> 
> 
> True. Stats dont lie but people do. Whites commit the vast majority of violent crime. The only category they dont lead in is homicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given the fact whites are five times the population of blacks, that surprises you?  Now let's talk per capita, and you'll have a different discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about whites and violence surprises me. The only thing that kinda surprises me is how you glorify in violence then turn around and claim youre not violent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, you do have that racist stench.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must have been in the rain. Thats your wet dog smell.
Click to expand...


What a surprise, you've been doing it so long you can't tell the difference.


----------



## dudmuck

Thinker101 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you and I agree.  Its about time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do, because statistics don't lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. Stats dont lie but people do. Whites commit the vast majority of violent crime. The only category they dont lead in is homicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given the fact whites are five times the population of blacks, that surprises you?  Now let's talk per capita, and you'll have a different discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about whites and violence surprises me. The only thing that kinda surprises me is how you glorify in violence then turn around and claim youre not violent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, you do have that racist stench.
Click to expand...

Looks like you have priorities.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Asclepias said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's the real problem in this country, all those violent white people.
> 
> 
> 
> I see you and I agree.  Its about time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure I do, because statistics don't lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. Stats dont lie but people do. Whites commit the vast majority of violent crime. The only category they dont lead in is homicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given the fact whites are five times the population of blacks, that surprises you?  Now let's talk per capita, and you'll have a different discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about whites and violence surprises me. The only thing that kinda surprises me is how you glorify in violence then turn around and claim youre not violent.
Click to expand...


We are much, MUCH less violent than blacks or hispanics.  Less rapes, less murders, less physical assaults, just much less violent general.


----------



## Thinker101

dudmuck said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do, because statistics don't lie.
> 
> 
> 
> True. Stats dont lie but people do. Whites commit the vast majority of violent crime. The only category they dont lead in is homicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given the fact whites are five times the population of blacks, that surprises you?  Now let's talk per capita, and you'll have a different discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about whites and violence surprises me. The only thing that kinda surprises me is how you glorify in violence then turn around and claim youre not violent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, you do have that racist stench.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like you have priorities.
Click to expand...


What a surprise, you want something else for free.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why drug addicts say they are still addicts after ten years of abstinence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All depends on how long they've been hooked.  My cousins kid started when he was 15 years old.  He tried it because it was available and "the cool" thing to do.  She buried him two years ago at the age of 28.
> 
> I didn't have that opportunity to experiment because as I stated, it wasn't around when I was a teen back in the 70's.  Plenty of pot, but nothing hard.  Maybe if it was around when I was a kid, you might be having this discussion with somebody else because I wouldn't be here.
> 
> If we can't help the people already hooked, then the least we can do is take efforts to make sure others don't.  That's the point I'm trying to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't realize it, but you're beginning to agree with what I'm saying.  If we stop the flow of drugs by forcing the government to get out of the drug business and IF we prescribed drugs as the LAST option, not the first, we'd be making progress.
> 
> Then we have to repeal National ID, E-Verify, and background checks while helping people get rehabilitated so they get a second chance.
> 
> When they are in the workforce, there is less demand for foreign labor and no need for drug cartels to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what one as to do with the other.  What does other preventative measures to stop illegal immigration have to do with Americans using opioids?
> 
> The government is not in the drug business.  The government regulates most narcotics to be prescribed and purchased legally.  As for people becoming addicted, they are already taking measures for that.  Millions of Americans now have to live in pain because Doctors are scared to death to use opioid products now.  I know a few people personally that are suffering myself.  Yet last year, we hit another record of opioid deaths at over 70,000 Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government IS in the drug business.  Your failure to understand that does not make it any less true.
> 
> Once you get people off of drugs, rehabilitate them and restrict their records unless an employer can show cause for them being relevant to the job, they can go back to the workforce.
> 
> If a person is working instead of doing drugs, they will have a job and a foreigner will not.  The more people working instead of doing drugs, the less need for cartels.  This aint rocket science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And obviously you know few if any addicts.  If you did, you'd realize that rehabilitation doesn't work on most people for a prolonged period of time.  The real solution is not to give them the ability to purchase illegal opioid products in the first place.
> 
> An employer does not have access to an applicants medical records.  Unless you were talking about criminal records, but you didn't make that clear.
Click to expand...


Just because people do not agree with you does not mean they lack experience.  My experience IS working with addicts of all kinds.  My experience is includes working with social agencies associated with the government.  Now, it is working with a ministry that tries to help those who want to rise above it.  

Rehabilitation must be part of the process and it never stops.  You would realize that if you had carefully read all my posts on this thread.  But, our main objective should be to get those off the drugs and productive so that they do not influence another generation.  Drug abuse and alcoholism - as with most addictions are generational.  

When people have a criminal record, as the overwhelming majority of addicts do, employers know by the charges that person was convicted of.  A two year old pot conviction is irrelevant if a person wants to work for Mickey Ds, cut your grass or stock groceries on a shelf.  It might be relevant if that person is entrusted with your children or operating a tractor trailer.


----------



## Flopper

pismoe said:


> but my point is that the 'spanish' conquest was what , about 500 years ago and if these indian people are so aggressive , why haven't they killed the White male spaniard and instituted good government in mexico Ace and PHIron .





pismoe said:


> but my point is that the 'spanish' conquest was what , about 500 years ago and if these indian people are so aggressive , why haven't they killed the White male spaniard and instituted good government in mexico Ace and PHIron .


With the help of the Aztecs' native rivals, Cortes mounted an offensive against Tenochtitlan, the heart of the Aztec empire, now Mexico City finally defeating Cuauhtemoc's resistance on *August 13, 1521*. In all, some 240,000 people were believed to have died in the city's conquest, which effectively ended the Aztec civilization.  Cortes did not want to contend with uprising among the Aztecs so he wiped them out.  There were a number of other native civilizations but none were as advanced as the Aztecs.  The Aztec Empire was the jewel of Mexico, rich farm land, marvelous buildings, and rich silver mines to the north.

The colony of New Spain thrived.  Shiploads of Spanish immigrants brought doctors, lawyers, artists, builders, and priests. Society in New Spain was a hierarchical cast system.  Those at top had the most civil rights and those at bottom had the least.  Native Americans became the workers that supported society, working the ranches, farms, and factories.  Native Americans were never slaves but they were at the bottom of the social scale and most live in poverty.  Eventually there was mixing of races, cultures, and languages but the Spanish culture dominated.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> All depends on how long they've been hooked.  My cousins kid started when he was 15 years old.  He tried it because it was available and "the cool" thing to do.  She buried him two years ago at the age of 28.
> 
> I didn't have that opportunity to experiment because as I stated, it wasn't around when I was a teen back in the 70's.  Plenty of pot, but nothing hard.  Maybe if it was around when I was a kid, you might be having this discussion with somebody else because I wouldn't be here.
> 
> If we can't help the people already hooked, then the least we can do is take efforts to make sure others don't.  That's the point I'm trying to make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize it, but you're beginning to agree with what I'm saying.  If we stop the flow of drugs by forcing the government to get out of the drug business and IF we prescribed drugs as the LAST option, not the first, we'd be making progress.
> 
> Then we have to repeal National ID, E-Verify, and background checks while helping people get rehabilitated so they get a second chance.
> 
> When they are in the workforce, there is less demand for foreign labor and no need for drug cartels to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what one as to do with the other.  What does other preventative measures to stop illegal immigration have to do with Americans using opioids?
> 
> The government is not in the drug business.  The government regulates most narcotics to be prescribed and purchased legally.  As for people becoming addicted, they are already taking measures for that.  Millions of Americans now have to live in pain because Doctors are scared to death to use opioid products now.  I know a few people personally that are suffering myself.  Yet last year, we hit another record of opioid deaths at over 70,000 Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government IS in the drug business.  Your failure to understand that does not make it any less true.
> 
> Once you get people off of drugs, rehabilitate them and restrict their records unless an employer can show cause for them being relevant to the job, they can go back to the workforce.
> 
> If a person is working instead of doing drugs, they will have a job and a foreigner will not.  The more people working instead of doing drugs, the less need for cartels.  This aint rocket science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And obviously you know few if any addicts.  If you did, you'd realize that rehabilitation doesn't work on most people for a prolonged period of time.  The real solution is not to give them the ability to purchase illegal opioid products in the first place.
> 
> An employer does not have access to an applicants medical records.  Unless you were talking about criminal records, but you didn't make that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because people do not agree with you does not mean they lack experience.  My experience IS working with addicts of all kinds.  My experience is includes working with social agencies associated with the government.  Now, it is working with a ministry that tries to help those who want to rise above it.
> 
> Rehabilitation must be part of the process and it never stops.  You would realize that if you had carefully read all my posts on this thread.  But, our main objective should be to get those off the drugs and productive so that they do not influence another generation.  Drug abuse and alcoholism - as with most addictions are generational.
> 
> When people have a criminal record, as the overwhelming majority of addicts do, employers know by the charges that person was convicted of.  A two year old pot conviction is irrelevant if a person wants to work for Mickey Ds, cut your grass or stock groceries on a shelf.  It might be relevant if that person is entrusted with your children or operating a tractor trailer.
Click to expand...


Your lack of experience is overt by your statement of treatment.  Treatment doesn't work in most cases.  Out of all the people I know (or acquainted with) I have yet to meet one who totally recovered from drug abuse.  It may work for a short time: a month, a few months, perhaps a year or so, but it seldom works long term.  

Furthermore it is not generational.  My mother was an alcoholic.  While I love my beer, it hardly stands in my way to be a productive member of society, hold down a job, or maintain my investments.  I had a late Uncle who was a severe alcoholic and gambler.  None of his three children touch alcohol and have no desire to gamble.  

What gets some people on drugs is the availability.  It often starts at a young age usually through peer pressure. That's what took place with tobacco products when I was younger.  The kids who wanted acceptance from the cool kids took up smoking so as not to be left out.  However tobacco products were readily available to virtually anybody.  That would not have been the case if cigarettes were not legal in this country at the time.  

Nobody goes to prison over pot, and very few are in prison for selling it.  Those who are in prison are locked up for a related (more serious) crime.  But when it comes to opioids which is much more addictive, an employer has the right to know who he or she is hiring due to the likelihood they may return to drug usage.  My policy as a landlord is not to rent to felons; particularly those who used drugs in the past.  Last time I rented to one of those people, they nearly burned down my house which cost over $85,000 to rebuild, and the insurance company canceled the policies on all my rental properties.  I had to wait three years before any other insurance company would allow me to purchase a plan.  Don't you think I have the right to know if another applicant in the future used hard narcotics?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize it, but you're beginning to agree with what I'm saying.  If we stop the flow of drugs by forcing the government to get out of the drug business and IF we prescribed drugs as the LAST option, not the first, we'd be making progress.
> 
> Then we have to repeal National ID, E-Verify, and background checks while helping people get rehabilitated so they get a second chance.
> 
> When they are in the workforce, there is less demand for foreign labor and no need for drug cartels to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what one as to do with the other.  What does other preventative measures to stop illegal immigration have to do with Americans using opioids?
> 
> The government is not in the drug business.  The government regulates most narcotics to be prescribed and purchased legally.  As for people becoming addicted, they are already taking measures for that.  Millions of Americans now have to live in pain because Doctors are scared to death to use opioid products now.  I know a few people personally that are suffering myself.  Yet last year, we hit another record of opioid deaths at over 70,000 Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government IS in the drug business.  Your failure to understand that does not make it any less true.
> 
> Once you get people off of drugs, rehabilitate them and restrict their records unless an employer can show cause for them being relevant to the job, they can go back to the workforce.
> 
> If a person is working instead of doing drugs, they will have a job and a foreigner will not.  The more people working instead of doing drugs, the less need for cartels.  This aint rocket science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And obviously you know few if any addicts.  If you did, you'd realize that rehabilitation doesn't work on most people for a prolonged period of time.  The real solution is not to give them the ability to purchase illegal opioid products in the first place.
> 
> An employer does not have access to an applicants medical records.  Unless you were talking about criminal records, but you didn't make that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because people do not agree with you does not mean they lack experience.  My experience IS working with addicts of all kinds.  My experience is includes working with social agencies associated with the government.  Now, it is working with a ministry that tries to help those who want to rise above it.
> 
> Rehabilitation must be part of the process and it never stops.  You would realize that if you had carefully read all my posts on this thread.  But, our main objective should be to get those off the drugs and productive so that they do not influence another generation.  Drug abuse and alcoholism - as with most addictions are generational.
> 
> When people have a criminal record, as the overwhelming majority of addicts do, employers know by the charges that person was convicted of.  A two year old pot conviction is irrelevant if a person wants to work for Mickey Ds, cut your grass or stock groceries on a shelf.  It might be relevant if that person is entrusted with your children or operating a tractor trailer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lack of experience is overt by your statement of treatment.  Treatment doesn't work in most cases.  Out of all the people I know (or acquainted with) I have yet to meet one who totally recovered from drug abuse.  It may work for a short time: a month, a few months, perhaps a year or so, but it seldom works long term.
> 
> Furthermore it is not generational.  My mother was an alcoholic.  While I love my beer, it hardly stands in my way to be a productive member of society, hold down a job, or maintain my investments.  I had a late Uncle who was a severe alcoholic and gambler.  None of his three children touch alcohol and have no desire to gamble.
> 
> What gets some people on drugs is the availability.  It often starts at a young age usually through peer pressure. That's what took place with tobacco products when I was younger.  The kids who wanted acceptance from the cool kids took up smoking so as not to be left out.  However tobacco products were readily available to virtually anybody.  That would not have been the case if cigarettes were not legal in this country at the time.
> 
> Nobody goes to prison over pot, and very few are in prison for selling it.  Those who are in prison are locked up for a related (more serious) crime.  But when it comes to opioids which is much more addictive, an employer has the right to know who he or she is hiring due to the likelihood they may return to drug usage.  My policy as a landlord is not to rent to felons; particularly those who used drugs in the past.  Last time I rented to one of those people, they nearly burned down my house which cost over $85,000 to rebuild, and the insurance company canceled the policies on all my rental properties.  I had to wait three years before any other insurance company would allow me to purchase a plan.  Don't you think I have the right to know if another applicant in the future used hard narcotics?
Click to expand...


You threw too much at me all at one time, so this is going to be a difficult response - one that only you will read.

First, you have already admitted that you think your problems are so bad you need something to deal with life.  Legal or not, you use drugs and are an addict.  Apparently YOU are the one with a lack of experience.

Again, once a person has been addicted to drugs the treatment is ongoing.  You are creating a straw man argument, so I won't belabor that point.  Your experience is using drugs; mine is the care and management of them after they get hooked.

True, MOST people start on things like beer, cigarettes and pot via peer pressure.  MOST drug addicts begin at a very early age and it is increasingly because doctors and mental health workers prescribe drugs more often.

According to the CDC:

About 1 out of 2 children with ADHD had a behavior or conduct problem.
ADHD Data & Statistics

If you address the bad conduct and behavioral issues BEFORE resorting to drugs, you find that, most of the time, it is not necessary to prescribe drugs.  

Not only do you lack any experience in the treatment and care of those on drugs, but you do not understand the law either.

BEFORE 9 / 11 many Americans understood things like a presumption of innocence and the Right to Privacy.  The Fourth Amendment guarantees that:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

We're going far astray from the wall so if you want to pursue this further than my response, we should engage in another thread.

When it comes to the Right to Privacy, unless you have probable cause or a justifiable reason to search a person's background, no you should NOT have a right to go into a person's background with respect to issues that are not public record.  BEFORE the Internet, we used paper applications and inquired of former employers and had the person being interviewed or checked out to provide personal references.

Protecting yourself as a homeowner means that you should not rely on the government to determine a person's character.  If their employer says they've been on a job for a couple of years, the previous employer says that individual was on a job for a couple more.  If their credit is good and they have a few personal references of upstanding citizens, You're probably good to go.

I caution you: Pissing away your Fourth Amendment Rights on some pretext of safety will have some SERIOUS long term ramifications.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what one as to do with the other.  What does other preventative measures to stop illegal immigration have to do with Americans using opioids?
> 
> The government is not in the drug business.  The government regulates most narcotics to be prescribed and purchased legally.  As for people becoming addicted, they are already taking measures for that.  Millions of Americans now have to live in pain because Doctors are scared to death to use opioid products now.  I know a few people personally that are suffering myself.  Yet last year, we hit another record of opioid deaths at over 70,000 Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government IS in the drug business.  Your failure to understand that does not make it any less true.
> 
> Once you get people off of drugs, rehabilitate them and restrict their records unless an employer can show cause for them being relevant to the job, they can go back to the workforce.
> 
> If a person is working instead of doing drugs, they will have a job and a foreigner will not.  The more people working instead of doing drugs, the less need for cartels.  This aint rocket science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And obviously you know few if any addicts.  If you did, you'd realize that rehabilitation doesn't work on most people for a prolonged period of time.  The real solution is not to give them the ability to purchase illegal opioid products in the first place.
> 
> An employer does not have access to an applicants medical records.  Unless you were talking about criminal records, but you didn't make that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because people do not agree with you does not mean they lack experience.  My experience IS working with addicts of all kinds.  My experience is includes working with social agencies associated with the government.  Now, it is working with a ministry that tries to help those who want to rise above it.
> 
> Rehabilitation must be part of the process and it never stops.  You would realize that if you had carefully read all my posts on this thread.  But, our main objective should be to get those off the drugs and productive so that they do not influence another generation.  Drug abuse and alcoholism - as with most addictions are generational.
> 
> When people have a criminal record, as the overwhelming majority of addicts do, employers know by the charges that person was convicted of.  A two year old pot conviction is irrelevant if a person wants to work for Mickey Ds, cut your grass or stock groceries on a shelf.  It might be relevant if that person is entrusted with your children or operating a tractor trailer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lack of experience is overt by your statement of treatment.  Treatment doesn't work in most cases.  Out of all the people I know (or acquainted with) I have yet to meet one who totally recovered from drug abuse.  It may work for a short time: a month, a few months, perhaps a year or so, but it seldom works long term.
> 
> Furthermore it is not generational.  My mother was an alcoholic.  While I love my beer, it hardly stands in my way to be a productive member of society, hold down a job, or maintain my investments.  I had a late Uncle who was a severe alcoholic and gambler.  None of his three children touch alcohol and have no desire to gamble.
> 
> What gets some people on drugs is the availability.  It often starts at a young age usually through peer pressure. That's what took place with tobacco products when I was younger.  The kids who wanted acceptance from the cool kids took up smoking so as not to be left out.  However tobacco products were readily available to virtually anybody.  That would not have been the case if cigarettes were not legal in this country at the time.
> 
> Nobody goes to prison over pot, and very few are in prison for selling it.  Those who are in prison are locked up for a related (more serious) crime.  But when it comes to opioids which is much more addictive, an employer has the right to know who he or she is hiring due to the likelihood they may return to drug usage.  My policy as a landlord is not to rent to felons; particularly those who used drugs in the past.  Last time I rented to one of those people, they nearly burned down my house which cost over $85,000 to rebuild, and the insurance company canceled the policies on all my rental properties.  I had to wait three years before any other insurance company would allow me to purchase a plan.  Don't you think I have the right to know if another applicant in the future used hard narcotics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You threw too much at me all at one time, so this is going to be a difficult response - one that only you will read.
> 
> First, you have already admitted that you think your problems are so bad you need something to deal with life.  Legal or not, you use drugs and are an addict.  Apparently YOU are the one with a lack of experience.
> 
> Again, once a person has been addicted to drugs the treatment is ongoing.  You are creating a straw man argument, so I won't belabor that point.  Your experience is using drugs; mine is the care and management of them after they get hooked.
> 
> True, MOST people start on things like beer, cigarettes and pot via peer pressure.  MOST drug addicts begin at a very early age and it is increasingly because doctors and mental health workers prescribe drugs more often.
> 
> According to the CDC:
> 
> About 1 out of 2 children with ADHD had a behavior or conduct problem.
> ADHD Data & Statistics
> 
> If you address the bad conduct and behavioral issues BEFORE resorting to drugs, you find that, most of the time, it is not necessary to prescribe drugs.
> 
> Not only do you lack any experience in the treatment and care of those on drugs, but you do not understand the law either.
> 
> BEFORE 9 / 11 many Americans understood things like a presumption of innocence and the Right to Privacy.  The Fourth Amendment guarantees that:
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> 
> We're going far astray from the wall so if you want to pursue this further than my response, we should engage in another thread.
> 
> When it comes to the Right to Privacy, unless you have probable cause or a justifiable reason to search a person's background, no you should NOT have a right to go into a person's background with respect to issues that are not public record.  BEFORE the Internet, we used paper applications and inquired of former employers and had the person being interviewed or checked out to provide personal references.
> 
> Protecting yourself as a homeowner means that you should not rely on the government to determine a person's character.  If their employer says they've been on a job for a couple of years, the previous employer says that individual was on a job for a couple more.  If their credit is good and they have a few personal references of upstanding citizens, You're probably good to go.
> 
> I caution you: Pissing away your Fourth Amendment Rights on some pretext of safety will have some SERIOUS long term ramifications.
Click to expand...


First off, no, I"m not an addict.  Like many Americans (particularly men), I simply enjoy the taste of beer.  An addict is somebody who constantly craves more and more (of whatever) to the point they can no longer function in life.  They can't hold down a job, they lose their family, they break the law repeatedly.  That's not me; it's not even close.  It's like using the internet or watching television.  It's simply something I enjoy, not need to survive in life.  

Secondly, public record is what I'm talking about, and criminal records are public.  We do that to protect people that may interact with ex-cons so they know what they are dealing with.  In most cases, it's a problem hiring or renting to these people.  I'm sure there are a few instances where it's not a problem.  But that's not up to the government to decide, it's up to us to decide.  We just need the information in order to make a decision that we are comfortable with.  

As for Fourth Amendment rights, they have violated that many years ago.  I'm a truck driver.  As such, I'm subject to unwarranted searches by the Department of Transportation or State Troopers who do commercial vehicle inspections.  They pull you over for no reason at all, go through your paperwork, inspect the cargo, even look under the hood of your truck.  This has been going on for many years.  And I can assure you, once they pull you over, they will always find something to write you up on.  

The last five times I got pulled over, I asked the trooper what I did wrong?  They all said "Nothing is wrong, but I"m going to find something wrong."  Welcome to America.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government IS in the drug business.  Your failure to understand that does not make it any less true.
> 
> Once you get people off of drugs, rehabilitate them and restrict their records unless an employer can show cause for them being relevant to the job, they can go back to the workforce.
> 
> If a person is working instead of doing drugs, they will have a job and a foreigner will not.  The more people working instead of doing drugs, the less need for cartels.  This aint rocket science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And obviously you know few if any addicts.  If you did, you'd realize that rehabilitation doesn't work on most people for a prolonged period of time.  The real solution is not to give them the ability to purchase illegal opioid products in the first place.
> 
> An employer does not have access to an applicants medical records.  Unless you were talking about criminal records, but you didn't make that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because people do not agree with you does not mean they lack experience.  My experience IS working with addicts of all kinds.  My experience is includes working with social agencies associated with the government.  Now, it is working with a ministry that tries to help those who want to rise above it.
> 
> Rehabilitation must be part of the process and it never stops.  You would realize that if you had carefully read all my posts on this thread.  But, our main objective should be to get those off the drugs and productive so that they do not influence another generation.  Drug abuse and alcoholism - as with most addictions are generational.
> 
> When people have a criminal record, as the overwhelming majority of addicts do, employers know by the charges that person was convicted of.  A two year old pot conviction is irrelevant if a person wants to work for Mickey Ds, cut your grass or stock groceries on a shelf.  It might be relevant if that person is entrusted with your children or operating a tractor trailer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lack of experience is overt by your statement of treatment.  Treatment doesn't work in most cases.  Out of all the people I know (or acquainted with) I have yet to meet one who totally recovered from drug abuse.  It may work for a short time: a month, a few months, perhaps a year or so, but it seldom works long term.
> 
> Furthermore it is not generational.  My mother was an alcoholic.  While I love my beer, it hardly stands in my way to be a productive member of society, hold down a job, or maintain my investments.  I had a late Uncle who was a severe alcoholic and gambler.  None of his three children touch alcohol and have no desire to gamble.
> 
> What gets some people on drugs is the availability.  It often starts at a young age usually through peer pressure. That's what took place with tobacco products when I was younger.  The kids who wanted acceptance from the cool kids took up smoking so as not to be left out.  However tobacco products were readily available to virtually anybody.  That would not have been the case if cigarettes were not legal in this country at the time.
> 
> Nobody goes to prison over pot, and very few are in prison for selling it.  Those who are in prison are locked up for a related (more serious) crime.  But when it comes to opioids which is much more addictive, an employer has the right to know who he or she is hiring due to the likelihood they may return to drug usage.  My policy as a landlord is not to rent to felons; particularly those who used drugs in the past.  Last time I rented to one of those people, they nearly burned down my house which cost over $85,000 to rebuild, and the insurance company canceled the policies on all my rental properties.  I had to wait three years before any other insurance company would allow me to purchase a plan.  Don't you think I have the right to know if another applicant in the future used hard narcotics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You threw too much at me all at one time, so this is going to be a difficult response - one that only you will read.
> 
> First, you have already admitted that you think your problems are so bad you need something to deal with life.  Legal or not, you use drugs and are an addict.  Apparently YOU are the one with a lack of experience.
> 
> Again, once a person has been addicted to drugs the treatment is ongoing.  You are creating a straw man argument, so I won't belabor that point.  Your experience is using drugs; mine is the care and management of them after they get hooked.
> 
> True, MOST people start on things like beer, cigarettes and pot via peer pressure.  MOST drug addicts begin at a very early age and it is increasingly because doctors and mental health workers prescribe drugs more often.
> 
> According to the CDC:
> 
> About 1 out of 2 children with ADHD had a behavior or conduct problem.
> ADHD Data & Statistics
> 
> If you address the bad conduct and behavioral issues BEFORE resorting to drugs, you find that, most of the time, it is not necessary to prescribe drugs.
> 
> Not only do you lack any experience in the treatment and care of those on drugs, but you do not understand the law either.
> 
> BEFORE 9 / 11 many Americans understood things like a presumption of innocence and the Right to Privacy.  The Fourth Amendment guarantees that:
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> 
> We're going far astray from the wall so if you want to pursue this further than my response, we should engage in another thread.
> 
> When it comes to the Right to Privacy, unless you have probable cause or a justifiable reason to search a person's background, no you should NOT have a right to go into a person's background with respect to issues that are not public record.  BEFORE the Internet, we used paper applications and inquired of former employers and had the person being interviewed or checked out to provide personal references.
> 
> Protecting yourself as a homeowner means that you should not rely on the government to determine a person's character.  If their employer says they've been on a job for a couple of years, the previous employer says that individual was on a job for a couple more.  If their credit is good and they have a few personal references of upstanding citizens, You're probably good to go.
> 
> I caution you: Pissing away your Fourth Amendment Rights on some pretext of safety will have some SERIOUS long term ramifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, no, I"m not an addict.  Like many Americans (particularly men), I simply enjoy the taste of beer.  An addict is somebody who constantly craves more and more (of whatever) to the point they can no longer function in life.  They can't hold down a job, they lose their family, they break the law repeatedly.  That's not me; it's not even close.  It's like using the internet or watching television.  It's simply something I enjoy, not need to survive in life.
> 
> Secondly, public record is what I'm talking about, and criminal records are public.  We do that to protect people that may interact with ex-cons so they know what they are dealing with.  In most cases, it's a problem hiring or renting to these people.  I'm sure there are a few instances where it's not a problem.  But that's not up to the government to decide, it's up to us to decide.  We just need the information in order to make a decision that we are comfortable with.
> 
> As for Fourth Amendment rights, they have violated that many years ago.  I'm a truck driver.  As such, I'm subject to unwarranted searches by the Department of Transportation or State Troopers who do commercial vehicle inspections.  They pull you over for no reason at all, go through your paperwork, inspect the cargo, even look under the hood of your truck.  This has been going on for many years.  And I can assure you, once they pull you over, they will always find something to write you up on.
> 
> The last five times I got pulled over, I asked the trooper what I did wrong?  They all said "Nothing is wrong, but I"m going to find something wrong."  Welcome to America.
Click to expand...


I wasn't referring to your love of beer.  You were the one who told us earlier about having ADHD.  Next, I suppose that you will tell me you don't take drugs for it.  If so, then you proved my point.  If you don't take drugs for it, then you would pose a danger to society.  For if you were born with ADHD then like the guy who was born with juvenile diabetes, you still have it.  And drinking beer on top of it???  Bear in mind, I'm the one that told you it is a phony condition.

There are many laws that are blatantly unconstitutional.  When people tell me that as justification for THEIR advocacy of continuing to violate the Constitution, it tells me all I need to know.  Like George W. Bush said: "It's just G.D. piece of paper."

You expect a dumb ass, born in a foreign country, living in a house with a dirt floor AND that never had an education, running water, a television, electricity and cannot speak English to obey the laws of the United States, but when the government and corporate America do it, then it's okay???  Is THAT your position?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And obviously you know few if any addicts.  If you did, you'd realize that rehabilitation doesn't work on most people for a prolonged period of time.  The real solution is not to give them the ability to purchase illegal opioid products in the first place.
> 
> An employer does not have access to an applicants medical records.  Unless you were talking about criminal records, but you didn't make that clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because people do not agree with you does not mean they lack experience.  My experience IS working with addicts of all kinds.  My experience is includes working with social agencies associated with the government.  Now, it is working with a ministry that tries to help those who want to rise above it.
> 
> Rehabilitation must be part of the process and it never stops.  You would realize that if you had carefully read all my posts on this thread.  But, our main objective should be to get those off the drugs and productive so that they do not influence another generation.  Drug abuse and alcoholism - as with most addictions are generational.
> 
> When people have a criminal record, as the overwhelming majority of addicts do, employers know by the charges that person was convicted of.  A two year old pot conviction is irrelevant if a person wants to work for Mickey Ds, cut your grass or stock groceries on a shelf.  It might be relevant if that person is entrusted with your children or operating a tractor trailer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lack of experience is overt by your statement of treatment.  Treatment doesn't work in most cases.  Out of all the people I know (or acquainted with) I have yet to meet one who totally recovered from drug abuse.  It may work for a short time: a month, a few months, perhaps a year or so, but it seldom works long term.
> 
> Furthermore it is not generational.  My mother was an alcoholic.  While I love my beer, it hardly stands in my way to be a productive member of society, hold down a job, or maintain my investments.  I had a late Uncle who was a severe alcoholic and gambler.  None of his three children touch alcohol and have no desire to gamble.
> 
> What gets some people on drugs is the availability.  It often starts at a young age usually through peer pressure. That's what took place with tobacco products when I was younger.  The kids who wanted acceptance from the cool kids took up smoking so as not to be left out.  However tobacco products were readily available to virtually anybody.  That would not have been the case if cigarettes were not legal in this country at the time.
> 
> Nobody goes to prison over pot, and very few are in prison for selling it.  Those who are in prison are locked up for a related (more serious) crime.  But when it comes to opioids which is much more addictive, an employer has the right to know who he or she is hiring due to the likelihood they may return to drug usage.  My policy as a landlord is not to rent to felons; particularly those who used drugs in the past.  Last time I rented to one of those people, they nearly burned down my house which cost over $85,000 to rebuild, and the insurance company canceled the policies on all my rental properties.  I had to wait three years before any other insurance company would allow me to purchase a plan.  Don't you think I have the right to know if another applicant in the future used hard narcotics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You threw too much at me all at one time, so this is going to be a difficult response - one that only you will read.
> 
> First, you have already admitted that you think your problems are so bad you need something to deal with life.  Legal or not, you use drugs and are an addict.  Apparently YOU are the one with a lack of experience.
> 
> Again, once a person has been addicted to drugs the treatment is ongoing.  You are creating a straw man argument, so I won't belabor that point.  Your experience is using drugs; mine is the care and management of them after they get hooked.
> 
> True, MOST people start on things like beer, cigarettes and pot via peer pressure.  MOST drug addicts begin at a very early age and it is increasingly because doctors and mental health workers prescribe drugs more often.
> 
> According to the CDC:
> 
> About 1 out of 2 children with ADHD had a behavior or conduct problem.
> ADHD Data & Statistics
> 
> If you address the bad conduct and behavioral issues BEFORE resorting to drugs, you find that, most of the time, it is not necessary to prescribe drugs.
> 
> Not only do you lack any experience in the treatment and care of those on drugs, but you do not understand the law either.
> 
> BEFORE 9 / 11 many Americans understood things like a presumption of innocence and the Right to Privacy.  The Fourth Amendment guarantees that:
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> 
> We're going far astray from the wall so if you want to pursue this further than my response, we should engage in another thread.
> 
> When it comes to the Right to Privacy, unless you have probable cause or a justifiable reason to search a person's background, no you should NOT have a right to go into a person's background with respect to issues that are not public record.  BEFORE the Internet, we used paper applications and inquired of former employers and had the person being interviewed or checked out to provide personal references.
> 
> Protecting yourself as a homeowner means that you should not rely on the government to determine a person's character.  If their employer says they've been on a job for a couple of years, the previous employer says that individual was on a job for a couple more.  If their credit is good and they have a few personal references of upstanding citizens, You're probably good to go.
> 
> I caution you: Pissing away your Fourth Amendment Rights on some pretext of safety will have some SERIOUS long term ramifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, no, I"m not an addict.  Like many Americans (particularly men), I simply enjoy the taste of beer.  An addict is somebody who constantly craves more and more (of whatever) to the point they can no longer function in life.  They can't hold down a job, they lose their family, they break the law repeatedly.  That's not me; it's not even close.  It's like using the internet or watching television.  It's simply something I enjoy, not need to survive in life.
> 
> Secondly, public record is what I'm talking about, and criminal records are public.  We do that to protect people that may interact with ex-cons so they know what they are dealing with.  In most cases, it's a problem hiring or renting to these people.  I'm sure there are a few instances where it's not a problem.  But that's not up to the government to decide, it's up to us to decide.  We just need the information in order to make a decision that we are comfortable with.
> 
> As for Fourth Amendment rights, they have violated that many years ago.  I'm a truck driver.  As such, I'm subject to unwarranted searches by the Department of Transportation or State Troopers who do commercial vehicle inspections.  They pull you over for no reason at all, go through your paperwork, inspect the cargo, even look under the hood of your truck.  This has been going on for many years.  And I can assure you, once they pull you over, they will always find something to write you up on.
> 
> The last five times I got pulled over, I asked the trooper what I did wrong?  They all said "Nothing is wrong, but I"m going to find something wrong."  Welcome to America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't referring to your love of beer.  You were the one who told us earlier about having ADHD.  Next, I suppose that you will tell me you don't take drugs for it.  If so, then you proved my point.  If you don't take drugs for it, then you would pose a danger to society.  For if you were born with ADHD then like the guy who was born with juvenile diabetes, you still have it.  And drinking beer on top of it???  Bear in mind, I'm the one that told you it is a phony condition.
> 
> There are many laws that are blatantly unconstitutional.  When people tell me that as justification for THEIR advocacy of continuing to violate the Constitution, it tells me all I need to know.  Like George W. Bush said: "It's just G.D. piece of paper."
> 
> You expect a dumb ass, born in a foreign country, living in a house with a dirt floor AND that never had an education, running water, a television, electricity and cannot speak English to obey the laws of the United States, but when the government and corporate America do it, then it's okay???  Is THAT your position?
Click to expand...


What I'm doing is simply pointing out reality.  And HTF am I a danger to society by not taking drugs for ADD?   And what does beer have to do with it?  It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. 

The Constitution protects you from GOVERNMENT searches and seizures which as I already explained, a violation that happens to us all the time.  However the Constitution is limited to government only.  You do not have the right to free speech at work.  You do not have the right to vote on the administration of the healthcare facility that takes care of you.  You do not have the right to take your gun into a church or various other places that restrict you from being armed.  You do not have the right to free speech by your local newspaper.  You do not have the right to free assembly at your doughnut shop.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because people do not agree with you does not mean they lack experience.  My experience IS working with addicts of all kinds.  My experience is includes working with social agencies associated with the government.  Now, it is working with a ministry that tries to help those who want to rise above it.
> 
> Rehabilitation must be part of the process and it never stops.  You would realize that if you had carefully read all my posts on this thread.  But, our main objective should be to get those off the drugs and productive so that they do not influence another generation.  Drug abuse and alcoholism - as with most addictions are generational.
> 
> When people have a criminal record, as the overwhelming majority of addicts do, employers know by the charges that person was convicted of.  A two year old pot conviction is irrelevant if a person wants to work for Mickey Ds, cut your grass or stock groceries on a shelf.  It might be relevant if that person is entrusted with your children or operating a tractor trailer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of experience is overt by your statement of treatment.  Treatment doesn't work in most cases.  Out of all the people I know (or acquainted with) I have yet to meet one who totally recovered from drug abuse.  It may work for a short time: a month, a few months, perhaps a year or so, but it seldom works long term.
> 
> Furthermore it is not generational.  My mother was an alcoholic.  While I love my beer, it hardly stands in my way to be a productive member of society, hold down a job, or maintain my investments.  I had a late Uncle who was a severe alcoholic and gambler.  None of his three children touch alcohol and have no desire to gamble.
> 
> What gets some people on drugs is the availability.  It often starts at a young age usually through peer pressure. That's what took place with tobacco products when I was younger.  The kids who wanted acceptance from the cool kids took up smoking so as not to be left out.  However tobacco products were readily available to virtually anybody.  That would not have been the case if cigarettes were not legal in this country at the time.
> 
> Nobody goes to prison over pot, and very few are in prison for selling it.  Those who are in prison are locked up for a related (more serious) crime.  But when it comes to opioids which is much more addictive, an employer has the right to know who he or she is hiring due to the likelihood they may return to drug usage.  My policy as a landlord is not to rent to felons; particularly those who used drugs in the past.  Last time I rented to one of those people, they nearly burned down my house which cost over $85,000 to rebuild, and the insurance company canceled the policies on all my rental properties.  I had to wait three years before any other insurance company would allow me to purchase a plan.  Don't you think I have the right to know if another applicant in the future used hard narcotics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You threw too much at me all at one time, so this is going to be a difficult response - one that only you will read.
> 
> First, you have already admitted that you think your problems are so bad you need something to deal with life.  Legal or not, you use drugs and are an addict.  Apparently YOU are the one with a lack of experience.
> 
> Again, once a person has been addicted to drugs the treatment is ongoing.  You are creating a straw man argument, so I won't belabor that point.  Your experience is using drugs; mine is the care and management of them after they get hooked.
> 
> True, MOST people start on things like beer, cigarettes and pot via peer pressure.  MOST drug addicts begin at a very early age and it is increasingly because doctors and mental health workers prescribe drugs more often.
> 
> According to the CDC:
> 
> About 1 out of 2 children with ADHD had a behavior or conduct problem.
> ADHD Data & Statistics
> 
> If you address the bad conduct and behavioral issues BEFORE resorting to drugs, you find that, most of the time, it is not necessary to prescribe drugs.
> 
> Not only do you lack any experience in the treatment and care of those on drugs, but you do not understand the law either.
> 
> BEFORE 9 / 11 many Americans understood things like a presumption of innocence and the Right to Privacy.  The Fourth Amendment guarantees that:
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> 
> We're going far astray from the wall so if you want to pursue this further than my response, we should engage in another thread.
> 
> When it comes to the Right to Privacy, unless you have probable cause or a justifiable reason to search a person's background, no you should NOT have a right to go into a person's background with respect to issues that are not public record.  BEFORE the Internet, we used paper applications and inquired of former employers and had the person being interviewed or checked out to provide personal references.
> 
> Protecting yourself as a homeowner means that you should not rely on the government to determine a person's character.  If their employer says they've been on a job for a couple of years, the previous employer says that individual was on a job for a couple more.  If their credit is good and they have a few personal references of upstanding citizens, You're probably good to go.
> 
> I caution you: Pissing away your Fourth Amendment Rights on some pretext of safety will have some SERIOUS long term ramifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, no, I"m not an addict.  Like many Americans (particularly men), I simply enjoy the taste of beer.  An addict is somebody who constantly craves more and more (of whatever) to the point they can no longer function in life.  They can't hold down a job, they lose their family, they break the law repeatedly.  That's not me; it's not even close.  It's like using the internet or watching television.  It's simply something I enjoy, not need to survive in life.
> 
> Secondly, public record is what I'm talking about, and criminal records are public.  We do that to protect people that may interact with ex-cons so they know what they are dealing with.  In most cases, it's a problem hiring or renting to these people.  I'm sure there are a few instances where it's not a problem.  But that's not up to the government to decide, it's up to us to decide.  We just need the information in order to make a decision that we are comfortable with.
> 
> As for Fourth Amendment rights, they have violated that many years ago.  I'm a truck driver.  As such, I'm subject to unwarranted searches by the Department of Transportation or State Troopers who do commercial vehicle inspections.  They pull you over for no reason at all, go through your paperwork, inspect the cargo, even look under the hood of your truck.  This has been going on for many years.  And I can assure you, once they pull you over, they will always find something to write you up on.
> 
> The last five times I got pulled over, I asked the trooper what I did wrong?  They all said "Nothing is wrong, but I"m going to find something wrong."  Welcome to America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't referring to your love of beer.  You were the one who told us earlier about having ADHD.  Next, I suppose that you will tell me you don't take drugs for it.  If so, then you proved my point.  If you don't take drugs for it, then you would pose a danger to society.  For if you were born with ADHD then like the guy who was born with juvenile diabetes, you still have it.  And drinking beer on top of it???  Bear in mind, I'm the one that told you it is a phony condition.
> 
> There are many laws that are blatantly unconstitutional.  When people tell me that as justification for THEIR advocacy of continuing to violate the Constitution, it tells me all I need to know.  Like George W. Bush said: "It's just G.D. piece of paper."
> 
> You expect a dumb ass, born in a foreign country, living in a house with a dirt floor AND that never had an education, running water, a television, electricity and cannot speak English to obey the laws of the United States, but when the government and corporate America do it, then it's okay???  Is THAT your position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm doing is simply pointing out reality.  And HTF am I a danger to society by not taking drugs for ADD?   And what does beer have to do with it?  It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> The Constitution protects you from GOVERNMENT searches and seizures which as I already explained, a violation that happens to us all the time.  However the Constitution is limited to government only.  You do not have the right to free speech at work.  You do not have the right to vote on the administration of the healthcare facility that takes care of you.  You do not have the right to take your gun into a church or various other places that restrict you from being armed.  You do not have the right to free speech by your local newspaper.  You do not have the right to free assembly at your doughnut shop.
Click to expand...


People with ADD that consume alcohol have a much higher incidence to impulsive behaviors.  

I guess we could split hairs, but the issue is, should the government be able to give up personal information on you or I without our consent?

It's bad enough that you nor I can look at what the government makes available and do a thorough quantitative and  qualitative analysis of the information.  It's that the information is available at all in the context that the government keeping records on us and there is no way for us to have any input in them.

In the private sector, if you have a bad credit rating, you can get misinformation removed; you can make a statement on a bad report giving your side of the dispute.  

If we apply the principle to other Rights, you begin to develop a different picture of the situation.  A man goes to a psychologist.  His real reason for going is sexual dysfunction despite taking drugs like viaxxx (actual word banned LMAO) and having all physical issues eliminated.  Because he went to the psychologist, should we then have laws that prohibit him from owning a firearm?

We're way off topic from the wall idea, but once you establish a bad precedent, then it follows in areas of the law that you cannot even begin to fathom.  The worse that thing that culminates from your way of thinking is that a person is NEVER presumed innocent; that they do not have a Right to privacy; that the person never rises above their personal demons so that they can operate in a free society.  I might be wrong, but reading between the lines, I'm beginning to sense that you would be okay with certain degrees of tyranny on the pretext that "they are already doing this or that now."


----------



## Flopper

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what one as to do with the other.  What does other preventative measures to stop illegal immigration have to do with Americans using opioids?
> 
> The government is not in the drug business.  The government regulates most narcotics to be prescribed and purchased legally.  As for people becoming addicted, they are already taking measures for that.  Millions of Americans now have to live in pain because Doctors are scared to death to use opioid products now.  I know a few people personally that are suffering myself.  Yet last year, we hit another record of opioid deaths at over 70,000 Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government IS in the drug business.  Your failure to understand that does not make it any less true.
> 
> Once you get people off of drugs, rehabilitate them and restrict their records unless an employer can show cause for them being relevant to the job, they can go back to the workforce.
> 
> If a person is working instead of doing drugs, they will have a job and a foreigner will not.  The more people working instead of doing drugs, the less need for cartels.  This aint rocket science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And obviously you know few if any addicts.  If you did, you'd realize that rehabilitation doesn't work on most people for a prolonged period of time.  The real solution is not to give them the ability to purchase illegal opioid products in the first place.
> 
> An employer does not have access to an applicants medical records.  Unless you were talking about criminal records, but you didn't make that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because people do not agree with you does not mean they lack experience.  My experience IS working with addicts of all kinds.  My experience is includes working with social agencies associated with the government.  Now, it is working with a ministry that tries to help those who want to rise above it.
> 
> Rehabilitation must be part of the process and it never stops.  You would realize that if you had carefully read all my posts on this thread.  But, our main objective should be to get those off the drugs and productive so that they do not influence another generation.  Drug abuse and alcoholism - as with most addictions are generational.
> 
> When people have a criminal record, as the overwhelming majority of addicts do, employers know by the charges that person was convicted of.  A two year old pot conviction is irrelevant if a person wants to work for Mickey Ds, cut your grass or stock groceries on a shelf.  It might be relevant if that person is entrusted with your children or operating a tractor trailer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lack of experience is overt by your statement of treatment.  Treatment doesn't work in most cases.  Out of all the people I know (or acquainted with) I have yet to meet one who totally recovered from drug abuse.  It may work for a short time: a month, a few months, perhaps a year or so, but it seldom works long term.
> 
> Furthermore it is not generational.  My mother was an alcoholic.  While I love my beer, it hardly stands in my way to be a productive member of society, hold down a job, or maintain my investments.  I had a late Uncle who was a severe alcoholic and gambler.  None of his three children touch alcohol and have no desire to gamble.
> 
> What gets some people on drugs is the availability.  It often starts at a young age usually through peer pressure. That's what took place with tobacco products when I was younger.  The kids who wanted acceptance from the cool kids took up smoking so as not to be left out.  However tobacco products were readily available to virtually anybody.  That would not have been the case if cigarettes were not legal in this country at the time.
> 
> Nobody goes to prison over pot, and very few are in prison for selling it.  Those who are in prison are locked up for a related (more serious) crime.  But when it comes to opioids which is much more addictive, an employer has the right to know who he or she is hiring due to the likelihood they may return to drug usage.  My policy as a landlord is not to rent to felons; particularly those who used drugs in the past.  Last time I rented to one of those people, they nearly burned down my house which cost over $85,000 to rebuild, and the insurance company canceled the policies on all my rental properties.  I had to wait three years before any other insurance company would allow me to purchase a plan.  Don't you think I have the right to know if another applicant in the future used hard narcotics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You threw too much at me all at one time, so this is going to be a difficult response - one that only you will read.
> 
> First, you have already admitted that you think your problems are so bad you need something to deal with life.  Legal or not, you use drugs and are an addict.  Apparently YOU are the one with a lack of experience.
> 
> Again, once a person has been addicted to drugs the treatment is ongoing.  You are creating a straw man argument, so I won't belabor that point.  Your experience is using drugs; mine is the care and management of them after they get hooked.
> 
> True, MOST people start on things like beer, cigarettes and pot via peer pressure.  MOST drug addicts begin at a very early age and it is increasingly because doctors and mental health workers prescribe drugs more often.
> 
> According to the CDC:
> 
> About 1 out of 2 children with ADHD had a behavior or conduct problem.
> ADHD Data & Statistics
> 
> If you address the bad conduct and behavioral issues BEFORE resorting to drugs, you find that, most of the time, it is not necessary to prescribe drugs.
> 
> Not only do you lack any experience in the treatment and care of those on drugs, but you do not understand the law either.
> 
> BEFORE 9 / 11 many Americans understood things like a presumption of innocence and the Right to Privacy.  The Fourth Amendment guarantees that:
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> 
> We're going far astray from the wall so if you want to pursue this further than my response, we should engage in another thread.
> 
> When it comes to the Right to Privacy, unless you have probable cause or a justifiable reason to search a person's background, no you should NOT have a right to go into a person's background with respect to issues that are not public record.  BEFORE the Internet, we used paper applications and inquired of former employers and had the person being interviewed or checked out to provide personal references.
> 
> Protecting yourself as a homeowner means that you should not rely on the government to determine a person's character.  If their employer says they've been on a job for a couple of years, the previous employer says that individual was on a job for a couple more.  If their credit is good and they have a few personal references of upstanding citizens, You're probably good to go.
> 
> I caution you: Pissing away your Fourth Amendment Rights on some pretext of safety will have some SERIOUS long term ramifications.
Click to expand...

Back on topic...
We should be building barriers with new technologies such as drones, electronic monitoring, smart fencing.  Walls were great 5,000 years ago but they will be no match for the technologies of the future.

Technology can be flexible, walls can not.  When you build a wall it will be there for a hundred years.  Can anyone say that there will not be technology that will allows migrants to hop over the wall as easy as one steps across a mud poodle in a few years or that moving migrants by air or water will be used to circumvent the wall.  No one can say how high, how thick, or how deep the wall should be to deal with new technologies in coming years.

Eventually, democrats will control government again.  Thinking otherwise ignores history.  When they do, there will be immigration reform which will radically reduce illegal immigration.  Considering how long it will take to complete a border wall, we will probably have immigration reform long before the wall is completed.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Back on topic...
> We should be building barriers with new technologies such as drones, electronic monitoring, smart fencing. Walls were great 5,000 years ago but they will be no match for the technologies of the future.



So what's wrong with a wall AND technology? 



Flopper said:


> When you build a wall it will be there for a hundred years.



Why do you think the Democrats are so scared to death of a wall they are even willing to shutdown the government?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of experience is overt by your statement of treatment.  Treatment doesn't work in most cases.  Out of all the people I know (or acquainted with) I have yet to meet one who totally recovered from drug abuse.  It may work for a short time: a month, a few months, perhaps a year or so, but it seldom works long term.
> 
> Furthermore it is not generational.  My mother was an alcoholic.  While I love my beer, it hardly stands in my way to be a productive member of society, hold down a job, or maintain my investments.  I had a late Uncle who was a severe alcoholic and gambler.  None of his three children touch alcohol and have no desire to gamble.
> 
> What gets some people on drugs is the availability.  It often starts at a young age usually through peer pressure. That's what took place with tobacco products when I was younger.  The kids who wanted acceptance from the cool kids took up smoking so as not to be left out.  However tobacco products were readily available to virtually anybody.  That would not have been the case if cigarettes were not legal in this country at the time.
> 
> Nobody goes to prison over pot, and very few are in prison for selling it.  Those who are in prison are locked up for a related (more serious) crime.  But when it comes to opioids which is much more addictive, an employer has the right to know who he or she is hiring due to the likelihood they may return to drug usage.  My policy as a landlord is not to rent to felons; particularly those who used drugs in the past.  Last time I rented to one of those people, they nearly burned down my house which cost over $85,000 to rebuild, and the insurance company canceled the policies on all my rental properties.  I had to wait three years before any other insurance company would allow me to purchase a plan.  Don't you think I have the right to know if another applicant in the future used hard narcotics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You threw too much at me all at one time, so this is going to be a difficult response - one that only you will read.
> 
> First, you have already admitted that you think your problems are so bad you need something to deal with life.  Legal or not, you use drugs and are an addict.  Apparently YOU are the one with a lack of experience.
> 
> Again, once a person has been addicted to drugs the treatment is ongoing.  You are creating a straw man argument, so I won't belabor that point.  Your experience is using drugs; mine is the care and management of them after they get hooked.
> 
> True, MOST people start on things like beer, cigarettes and pot via peer pressure.  MOST drug addicts begin at a very early age and it is increasingly because doctors and mental health workers prescribe drugs more often.
> 
> According to the CDC:
> 
> About 1 out of 2 children with ADHD had a behavior or conduct problem.
> ADHD Data & Statistics
> 
> If you address the bad conduct and behavioral issues BEFORE resorting to drugs, you find that, most of the time, it is not necessary to prescribe drugs.
> 
> Not only do you lack any experience in the treatment and care of those on drugs, but you do not understand the law either.
> 
> BEFORE 9 / 11 many Americans understood things like a presumption of innocence and the Right to Privacy.  The Fourth Amendment guarantees that:
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> 
> We're going far astray from the wall so if you want to pursue this further than my response, we should engage in another thread.
> 
> When it comes to the Right to Privacy, unless you have probable cause or a justifiable reason to search a person's background, no you should NOT have a right to go into a person's background with respect to issues that are not public record.  BEFORE the Internet, we used paper applications and inquired of former employers and had the person being interviewed or checked out to provide personal references.
> 
> Protecting yourself as a homeowner means that you should not rely on the government to determine a person's character.  If their employer says they've been on a job for a couple of years, the previous employer says that individual was on a job for a couple more.  If their credit is good and they have a few personal references of upstanding citizens, You're probably good to go.
> 
> I caution you: Pissing away your Fourth Amendment Rights on some pretext of safety will have some SERIOUS long term ramifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, no, I"m not an addict.  Like many Americans (particularly men), I simply enjoy the taste of beer.  An addict is somebody who constantly craves more and more (of whatever) to the point they can no longer function in life.  They can't hold down a job, they lose their family, they break the law repeatedly.  That's not me; it's not even close.  It's like using the internet or watching television.  It's simply something I enjoy, not need to survive in life.
> 
> Secondly, public record is what I'm talking about, and criminal records are public.  We do that to protect people that may interact with ex-cons so they know what they are dealing with.  In most cases, it's a problem hiring or renting to these people.  I'm sure there are a few instances where it's not a problem.  But that's not up to the government to decide, it's up to us to decide.  We just need the information in order to make a decision that we are comfortable with.
> 
> As for Fourth Amendment rights, they have violated that many years ago.  I'm a truck driver.  As such, I'm subject to unwarranted searches by the Department of Transportation or State Troopers who do commercial vehicle inspections.  They pull you over for no reason at all, go through your paperwork, inspect the cargo, even look under the hood of your truck.  This has been going on for many years.  And I can assure you, once they pull you over, they will always find something to write you up on.
> 
> The last five times I got pulled over, I asked the trooper what I did wrong?  They all said "Nothing is wrong, but I"m going to find something wrong."  Welcome to America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't referring to your love of beer.  You were the one who told us earlier about having ADHD.  Next, I suppose that you will tell me you don't take drugs for it.  If so, then you proved my point.  If you don't take drugs for it, then you would pose a danger to society.  For if you were born with ADHD then like the guy who was born with juvenile diabetes, you still have it.  And drinking beer on top of it???  Bear in mind, I'm the one that told you it is a phony condition.
> 
> There are many laws that are blatantly unconstitutional.  When people tell me that as justification for THEIR advocacy of continuing to violate the Constitution, it tells me all I need to know.  Like George W. Bush said: "It's just G.D. piece of paper."
> 
> You expect a dumb ass, born in a foreign country, living in a house with a dirt floor AND that never had an education, running water, a television, electricity and cannot speak English to obey the laws of the United States, but when the government and corporate America do it, then it's okay???  Is THAT your position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm doing is simply pointing out reality.  And HTF am I a danger to society by not taking drugs for ADD?   And what does beer have to do with it?  It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> The Constitution protects you from GOVERNMENT searches and seizures which as I already explained, a violation that happens to us all the time.  However the Constitution is limited to government only.  You do not have the right to free speech at work.  You do not have the right to vote on the administration of the healthcare facility that takes care of you.  You do not have the right to take your gun into a church or various other places that restrict you from being armed.  You do not have the right to free speech by your local newspaper.  You do not have the right to free assembly at your doughnut shop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People with ADD that consume alcohol have a much higher incidence to impulsive behaviors.
> 
> I guess we could split hairs, but the issue is, should the government be able to give up personal information on you or I without our consent?
> 
> It's bad enough that you nor I can look at what the government makes available and do a thorough quantitative and  qualitative analysis of the information.  It's that the information is available at all in the context that the government keeping records on us and there is no way for us to have any input in them.
> 
> In the private sector, if you have a bad credit rating, you can get misinformation removed; you can make a statement on a bad report giving your side of the dispute.
> 
> If we apply the principle to other Rights, you begin to develop a different picture of the situation.  A man goes to a psychologist.  His real reason for going is sexual dysfunction despite taking drugs like viaxxx (actual word banned LMAO) and having all physical issues eliminated.  Because he went to the psychologist, should we then have laws that prohibit him from owning a firearm?
> 
> We're way off topic from the wall idea, but once you establish a bad precedent, then it follows in areas of the law that you cannot even begin to fathom.  The worse that thing that culminates from your way of thinking is that a person is NEVER presumed innocent; that they do not have a Right to privacy; that the person never rises above their personal demons so that they can operate in a free society.  I might be wrong, but reading between the lines, I'm beginning to sense that you would be okay with certain degrees of tyranny on the pretext that "they are already doing this or that now."
Click to expand...


When you see a psychiatrist it's a private matter between you and your doctor.  Doctors should not be briefing government on their patients.  However when you commit a crime, that is between you and the government.  Part of the penalty in committing a crime is public exposure to those who need that information. 

Your stance is it's more important to protect the privacy of law breakers than those who will interact with the con and jeopardize their safety, safety of others, or property.  I disagree.  Landlords, employers and employees didn't do anything wrong to have dangers hidden from them.  I didn't do anything wrong to have one of my apartments boarded up for a year because I unknowingly rented to a pusher who used the apartment as a place to sell drugs.  

When you consciously break the law, you know full well what the penalties are.  You may get locked up for some time.  You may lose your house.  Your name and picture may get publicized in the media or newspaper.  You may not be able to find a job when you get out.  You won't be able to vote.  Your criminal record is on public file available to anybody that has the internet.  

If you don't like the penalties of crime, then don't commit crimes.  Penalties exist to provide a deterrent to crime.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Flopper said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government IS in the drug business.  Your failure to understand that does not make it any less true.
> 
> Once you get people off of drugs, rehabilitate them and restrict their records unless an employer can show cause for them being relevant to the job, they can go back to the workforce.
> 
> If a person is working instead of doing drugs, they will have a job and a foreigner will not.  The more people working instead of doing drugs, the less need for cartels.  This aint rocket science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And obviously you know few if any addicts.  If you did, you'd realize that rehabilitation doesn't work on most people for a prolonged period of time.  The real solution is not to give them the ability to purchase illegal opioid products in the first place.
> 
> An employer does not have access to an applicants medical records.  Unless you were talking about criminal records, but you didn't make that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because people do not agree with you does not mean they lack experience.  My experience IS working with addicts of all kinds.  My experience is includes working with social agencies associated with the government.  Now, it is working with a ministry that tries to help those who want to rise above it.
> 
> Rehabilitation must be part of the process and it never stops.  You would realize that if you had carefully read all my posts on this thread.  But, our main objective should be to get those off the drugs and productive so that they do not influence another generation.  Drug abuse and alcoholism - as with most addictions are generational.
> 
> When people have a criminal record, as the overwhelming majority of addicts do, employers know by the charges that person was convicted of.  A two year old pot conviction is irrelevant if a person wants to work for Mickey Ds, cut your grass or stock groceries on a shelf.  It might be relevant if that person is entrusted with your children or operating a tractor trailer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lack of experience is overt by your statement of treatment.  Treatment doesn't work in most cases.  Out of all the people I know (or acquainted with) I have yet to meet one who totally recovered from drug abuse.  It may work for a short time: a month, a few months, perhaps a year or so, but it seldom works long term.
> 
> Furthermore it is not generational.  My mother was an alcoholic.  While I love my beer, it hardly stands in my way to be a productive member of society, hold down a job, or maintain my investments.  I had a late Uncle who was a severe alcoholic and gambler.  None of his three children touch alcohol and have no desire to gamble.
> 
> What gets some people on drugs is the availability.  It often starts at a young age usually through peer pressure. That's what took place with tobacco products when I was younger.  The kids who wanted acceptance from the cool kids took up smoking so as not to be left out.  However tobacco products were readily available to virtually anybody.  That would not have been the case if cigarettes were not legal in this country at the time.
> 
> Nobody goes to prison over pot, and very few are in prison for selling it.  Those who are in prison are locked up for a related (more serious) crime.  But when it comes to opioids which is much more addictive, an employer has the right to know who he or she is hiring due to the likelihood they may return to drug usage.  My policy as a landlord is not to rent to felons; particularly those who used drugs in the past.  Last time I rented to one of those people, they nearly burned down my house which cost over $85,000 to rebuild, and the insurance company canceled the policies on all my rental properties.  I had to wait three years before any other insurance company would allow me to purchase a plan.  Don't you think I have the right to know if another applicant in the future used hard narcotics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You threw too much at me all at one time, so this is going to be a difficult response - one that only you will read.
> 
> First, you have already admitted that you think your problems are so bad you need something to deal with life.  Legal or not, you use drugs and are an addict.  Apparently YOU are the one with a lack of experience.
> 
> Again, once a person has been addicted to drugs the treatment is ongoing.  You are creating a straw man argument, so I won't belabor that point.  Your experience is using drugs; mine is the care and management of them after they get hooked.
> 
> True, MOST people start on things like beer, cigarettes and pot via peer pressure.  MOST drug addicts begin at a very early age and it is increasingly because doctors and mental health workers prescribe drugs more often.
> 
> According to the CDC:
> 
> About 1 out of 2 children with ADHD had a behavior or conduct problem.
> ADHD Data & Statistics
> 
> If you address the bad conduct and behavioral issues BEFORE resorting to drugs, you find that, most of the time, it is not necessary to prescribe drugs.
> 
> Not only do you lack any experience in the treatment and care of those on drugs, but you do not understand the law either.
> 
> BEFORE 9 / 11 many Americans understood things like a presumption of innocence and the Right to Privacy.  The Fourth Amendment guarantees that:
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> 
> We're going far astray from the wall so if you want to pursue this further than my response, we should engage in another thread.
> 
> When it comes to the Right to Privacy, unless you have probable cause or a justifiable reason to search a person's background, no you should NOT have a right to go into a person's background with respect to issues that are not public record.  BEFORE the Internet, we used paper applications and inquired of former employers and had the person being interviewed or checked out to provide personal references.
> 
> Protecting yourself as a homeowner means that you should not rely on the government to determine a person's character.  If their employer says they've been on a job for a couple of years, the previous employer says that individual was on a job for a couple more.  If their credit is good and they have a few personal references of upstanding citizens, You're probably good to go.
> 
> I caution you: Pissing away your Fourth Amendment Rights on some pretext of safety will have some SERIOUS long term ramifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back on topic...
> We should be building barriers with new technologies such as drones, electronic monitoring, smart fencing.  Walls were great 5,000 years ago but they will be no match for the technologies of the future.
> 
> Technology can be flexible, walls can not.  When you build a wall it will be there for a hundred years.  Can anyone say that there will not be technology that will allows migrants to hop over the wall as easy as one steps across a mud poodle in a few years or that moving migrants by air or water will be used to circumvent the wall.  No one can say how high, how thick, or how deep the wall should be to deal with new technologies in coming years.
> 
> Eventually, democrats will control government again.  Thinking otherwise ignores history.  When they do, there will be immigration reform which will radically reduce illegal immigration.  Considering how long it will take to complete a border wall, we will probably have immigration reform long before the wall is completed.
Click to expand...


If someone were to try and argue the wall in a court of a law, the case would be dismissed due to "Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

It seems to go over the heads of those who want a wall, but the Democrats wanted it before the Republicans did.  Donald Trump borrowed his ideas and developed his agenda based upon National Socialist philosophy - even recruiting some of their think tank guys to help him sell the idea.  In every country that walls have been employed, the builders of the wall were either in a war OR the wall was erected by socialists and / or communists.

In this country, you have a solution with people seeking a problem to apply it to.  Has China's wall been effective?  Well yeah,  92 percent of China's citizenry is Han Chinese.  So, let's take the good with the bad here.

If we want to preserve our heritage; our language, culture, and customs then we have to scrutinize the illegal way the 14th Amendment was passed.  If we go back to the first illegal attack against us, it would have to be that amendment.  In short, if you are committed to preserving, protecting, and advancing the white race, then you may have a good case for the wall.  

Economically speaking, you have NO case for the wall.  The Americans are willingly engaging in trade with the foreigners.  It's for the mutual benefit of both sides.  NOBODY and no wall can save you from yourself.  If you're going to give me that crap about them sucking off the welfare dole, that's a red herring because it's not true, and even if it were, THEY did not vote for the politicians who let them stick their hands in your pocket.  The politicians YOU voted for did that.

In your own words, you are okay with the surveillance society - drones patrolling you 24 / 7 / 365; the government telling you where you can work and who you can work for; armed ninja clad, machine gun toting federal mercenaries keeping you in line and the people unable to resist tyrannical government due to the massive sized government you advocate to help save you from yourself.  I disagree.  I don't want it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You threw too much at me all at one time, so this is going to be a difficult response - one that only you will read.
> 
> First, you have already admitted that you think your problems are so bad you need something to deal with life.  Legal or not, you use drugs and are an addict.  Apparently YOU are the one with a lack of experience.
> 
> Again, once a person has been addicted to drugs the treatment is ongoing.  You are creating a straw man argument, so I won't belabor that point.  Your experience is using drugs; mine is the care and management of them after they get hooked.
> 
> True, MOST people start on things like beer, cigarettes and pot via peer pressure.  MOST drug addicts begin at a very early age and it is increasingly because doctors and mental health workers prescribe drugs more often.
> 
> According to the CDC:
> 
> About 1 out of 2 children with ADHD had a behavior or conduct problem.
> ADHD Data & Statistics
> 
> If you address the bad conduct and behavioral issues BEFORE resorting to drugs, you find that, most of the time, it is not necessary to prescribe drugs.
> 
> Not only do you lack any experience in the treatment and care of those on drugs, but you do not understand the law either.
> 
> BEFORE 9 / 11 many Americans understood things like a presumption of innocence and the Right to Privacy.  The Fourth Amendment guarantees that:
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> 
> We're going far astray from the wall so if you want to pursue this further than my response, we should engage in another thread.
> 
> When it comes to the Right to Privacy, unless you have probable cause or a justifiable reason to search a person's background, no you should NOT have a right to go into a person's background with respect to issues that are not public record.  BEFORE the Internet, we used paper applications and inquired of former employers and had the person being interviewed or checked out to provide personal references.
> 
> Protecting yourself as a homeowner means that you should not rely on the government to determine a person's character.  If their employer says they've been on a job for a couple of years, the previous employer says that individual was on a job for a couple more.  If their credit is good and they have a few personal references of upstanding citizens, You're probably good to go.
> 
> I caution you: Pissing away your Fourth Amendment Rights on some pretext of safety will have some SERIOUS long term ramifications.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, no, I"m not an addict.  Like many Americans (particularly men), I simply enjoy the taste of beer.  An addict is somebody who constantly craves more and more (of whatever) to the point they can no longer function in life.  They can't hold down a job, they lose their family, they break the law repeatedly.  That's not me; it's not even close.  It's like using the internet or watching television.  It's simply something I enjoy, not need to survive in life.
> 
> Secondly, public record is what I'm talking about, and criminal records are public.  We do that to protect people that may interact with ex-cons so they know what they are dealing with.  In most cases, it's a problem hiring or renting to these people.  I'm sure there are a few instances where it's not a problem.  But that's not up to the government to decide, it's up to us to decide.  We just need the information in order to make a decision that we are comfortable with.
> 
> As for Fourth Amendment rights, they have violated that many years ago.  I'm a truck driver.  As such, I'm subject to unwarranted searches by the Department of Transportation or State Troopers who do commercial vehicle inspections.  They pull you over for no reason at all, go through your paperwork, inspect the cargo, even look under the hood of your truck.  This has been going on for many years.  And I can assure you, once they pull you over, they will always find something to write you up on.
> 
> The last five times I got pulled over, I asked the trooper what I did wrong?  They all said "Nothing is wrong, but I"m going to find something wrong."  Welcome to America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't referring to your love of beer.  You were the one who told us earlier about having ADHD.  Next, I suppose that you will tell me you don't take drugs for it.  If so, then you proved my point.  If you don't take drugs for it, then you would pose a danger to society.  For if you were born with ADHD then like the guy who was born with juvenile diabetes, you still have it.  And drinking beer on top of it???  Bear in mind, I'm the one that told you it is a phony condition.
> 
> There are many laws that are blatantly unconstitutional.  When people tell me that as justification for THEIR advocacy of continuing to violate the Constitution, it tells me all I need to know.  Like George W. Bush said: "It's just G.D. piece of paper."
> 
> You expect a dumb ass, born in a foreign country, living in a house with a dirt floor AND that never had an education, running water, a television, electricity and cannot speak English to obey the laws of the United States, but when the government and corporate America do it, then it's okay???  Is THAT your position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm doing is simply pointing out reality.  And HTF am I a danger to society by not taking drugs for ADD?   And what does beer have to do with it?  It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> The Constitution protects you from GOVERNMENT searches and seizures which as I already explained, a violation that happens to us all the time.  However the Constitution is limited to government only.  You do not have the right to free speech at work.  You do not have the right to vote on the administration of the healthcare facility that takes care of you.  You do not have the right to take your gun into a church or various other places that restrict you from being armed.  You do not have the right to free speech by your local newspaper.  You do not have the right to free assembly at your doughnut shop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People with ADD that consume alcohol have a much higher incidence to impulsive behaviors.
> 
> I guess we could split hairs, but the issue is, should the government be able to give up personal information on you or I without our consent?
> 
> It's bad enough that you nor I can look at what the government makes available and do a thorough quantitative and  qualitative analysis of the information.  It's that the information is available at all in the context that the government keeping records on us and there is no way for us to have any input in them.
> 
> In the private sector, if you have a bad credit rating, you can get misinformation removed; you can make a statement on a bad report giving your side of the dispute.
> 
> If we apply the principle to other Rights, you begin to develop a different picture of the situation.  A man goes to a psychologist.  His real reason for going is sexual dysfunction despite taking drugs like viaxxx (actual word banned LMAO) and having all physical issues eliminated.  Because he went to the psychologist, should we then have laws that prohibit him from owning a firearm?
> 
> We're way off topic from the wall idea, but once you establish a bad precedent, then it follows in areas of the law that you cannot even begin to fathom.  The worse that thing that culminates from your way of thinking is that a person is NEVER presumed innocent; that they do not have a Right to privacy; that the person never rises above their personal demons so that they can operate in a free society.  I might be wrong, but reading between the lines, I'm beginning to sense that you would be okay with certain degrees of tyranny on the pretext that "they are already doing this or that now."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you see a psychiatrist it's a private matter between you and your doctor.  Doctors should not be briefing government on their patients.  However when you commit a crime, that is between you and the government.  Part of the penalty in committing a crime is public exposure to those who need that information.
> 
> Your stance is it's more important to protect the privacy of law breakers than those who will interact with the con and jeopardize their safety, safety of others, or property.  I disagree.  Landlords, employers and employees didn't do anything wrong to have dangers hidden from them.  I didn't do anything wrong to have one of my apartments boarded up for a year because I unknowingly rented to a pusher who used the apartment as a place to sell drugs.
> 
> When you consciously break the law, you know full well what the penalties are.  You may get locked up for some time.  You may lose your house.  Your name and picture may get publicized in the media or newspaper.  You may not be able to find a job when you get out.  You won't be able to vote.  Your criminal record is on public file available to anybody that has the internet.
> 
> If you don't like the penalties of crime, then don't commit crimes.  Penalties exist to provide a deterrent to crime.
Click to expand...


You must be new to America.  Let me be the first to welcome you in.  Now, this how our de jure / constitutional / lawful / legal Republic works:

A person has the Right to be secure in their "papers."  I'm positive that the founders would then apply that today to the records that are kept on you.  You are not secure in your papers when the government can circumvent the Constitution by making your past available to any Tom, Slick, or Harry on God's green earth. 

Next, one must be realistic.  Yesterday, Hush Bimbo (er... Rush Limbaugh) made the point that the feds lured Michael Flynn into a situation whereby they lied to him and led him - even coaxed him into breaking the law.  Then, the prosecutors tell him that he will plead guilty OR be convicted and serve the maximum amount of time.  So, even if he were NOT guilty, he's going to follow the path of least resistance.  Unless you have relatives by the last name of Jobs, Gates, or Trump you are NOT going to take on the system.  No rational person is going to take a chance on prison when the government can LIE about you and all you're doing is making a statement about your personal convictions.  

You want to take the government's word for things and condemn a person for life.  Then you want to mislead people as to what I believe.  Your safety is NOT probable cause to rummage around in a person's legal past.  The government cannot be trusted.  Neither can you interpret their documents.  And you would not read a court transcript to find out if an individual got railroaded.  MILLIONS do get the shaft.

The best indicators YOU need to avail yourself of are the following:

1)  Where does the person work and how long have they been there?

2)  What does their present and past employer have to say about them?

3)  What is their credit score?

4)  How many residences have they lived in over the last five years?

5)  Who are their personal references and how long have they known your potential renter?

You will find that to be a HELL of a lot more relevant than what a corrupt government has to say.  BTW, my parents owned rental homes and an 84 lot mobile home park when I was growing up.  That was what they did and it worked more times than not.  Fact is, the worse tenants the old man had were Section 8 renters that the government vouched for.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off, no, I"m not an addict.  Like many Americans (particularly men), I simply enjoy the taste of beer.  An addict is somebody who constantly craves more and more (of whatever) to the point they can no longer function in life.  They can't hold down a job, they lose their family, they break the law repeatedly.  That's not me; it's not even close.  It's like using the internet or watching television.  It's simply something I enjoy, not need to survive in life.
> 
> Secondly, public record is what I'm talking about, and criminal records are public.  We do that to protect people that may interact with ex-cons so they know what they are dealing with.  In most cases, it's a problem hiring or renting to these people.  I'm sure there are a few instances where it's not a problem.  But that's not up to the government to decide, it's up to us to decide.  We just need the information in order to make a decision that we are comfortable with.
> 
> As for Fourth Amendment rights, they have violated that many years ago.  I'm a truck driver.  As such, I'm subject to unwarranted searches by the Department of Transportation or State Troopers who do commercial vehicle inspections.  They pull you over for no reason at all, go through your paperwork, inspect the cargo, even look under the hood of your truck.  This has been going on for many years.  And I can assure you, once they pull you over, they will always find something to write you up on.
> 
> The last five times I got pulled over, I asked the trooper what I did wrong?  They all said "Nothing is wrong, but I"m going to find something wrong."  Welcome to America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't referring to your love of beer.  You were the one who told us earlier about having ADHD.  Next, I suppose that you will tell me you don't take drugs for it.  If so, then you proved my point.  If you don't take drugs for it, then you would pose a danger to society.  For if you were born with ADHD then like the guy who was born with juvenile diabetes, you still have it.  And drinking beer on top of it???  Bear in mind, I'm the one that told you it is a phony condition.
> 
> There are many laws that are blatantly unconstitutional.  When people tell me that as justification for THEIR advocacy of continuing to violate the Constitution, it tells me all I need to know.  Like George W. Bush said: "It's just G.D. piece of paper."
> 
> You expect a dumb ass, born in a foreign country, living in a house with a dirt floor AND that never had an education, running water, a television, electricity and cannot speak English to obey the laws of the United States, but when the government and corporate America do it, then it's okay???  Is THAT your position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm doing is simply pointing out reality.  And HTF am I a danger to society by not taking drugs for ADD?   And what does beer have to do with it?  It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> The Constitution protects you from GOVERNMENT searches and seizures which as I already explained, a violation that happens to us all the time.  However the Constitution is limited to government only.  You do not have the right to free speech at work.  You do not have the right to vote on the administration of the healthcare facility that takes care of you.  You do not have the right to take your gun into a church or various other places that restrict you from being armed.  You do not have the right to free speech by your local newspaper.  You do not have the right to free assembly at your doughnut shop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People with ADD that consume alcohol have a much higher incidence to impulsive behaviors.
> 
> I guess we could split hairs, but the issue is, should the government be able to give up personal information on you or I without our consent?
> 
> It's bad enough that you nor I can look at what the government makes available and do a thorough quantitative and  qualitative analysis of the information.  It's that the information is available at all in the context that the government keeping records on us and there is no way for us to have any input in them.
> 
> In the private sector, if you have a bad credit rating, you can get misinformation removed; you can make a statement on a bad report giving your side of the dispute.
> 
> If we apply the principle to other Rights, you begin to develop a different picture of the situation.  A man goes to a psychologist.  His real reason for going is sexual dysfunction despite taking drugs like viaxxx (actual word banned LMAO) and having all physical issues eliminated.  Because he went to the psychologist, should we then have laws that prohibit him from owning a firearm?
> 
> We're way off topic from the wall idea, but once you establish a bad precedent, then it follows in areas of the law that you cannot even begin to fathom.  The worse that thing that culminates from your way of thinking is that a person is NEVER presumed innocent; that they do not have a Right to privacy; that the person never rises above their personal demons so that they can operate in a free society.  I might be wrong, but reading between the lines, I'm beginning to sense that you would be okay with certain degrees of tyranny on the pretext that "they are already doing this or that now."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you see a psychiatrist it's a private matter between you and your doctor.  Doctors should not be briefing government on their patients.  However when you commit a crime, that is between you and the government.  Part of the penalty in committing a crime is public exposure to those who need that information.
> 
> Your stance is it's more important to protect the privacy of law breakers than those who will interact with the con and jeopardize their safety, safety of others, or property.  I disagree.  Landlords, employers and employees didn't do anything wrong to have dangers hidden from them.  I didn't do anything wrong to have one of my apartments boarded up for a year because I unknowingly rented to a pusher who used the apartment as a place to sell drugs.
> 
> When you consciously break the law, you know full well what the penalties are.  You may get locked up for some time.  You may lose your house.  Your name and picture may get publicized in the media or newspaper.  You may not be able to find a job when you get out.  You won't be able to vote.  Your criminal record is on public file available to anybody that has the internet.
> 
> If you don't like the penalties of crime, then don't commit crimes.  Penalties exist to provide a deterrent to crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be new to America.  Let me be the first to welcome you in.  Now, this how our de jure / constitutional / lawful / legal Republic works:
> 
> A person has the Right to be secure in their "papers."  I'm positive that the founders would then apply that today to the records that are kept on you.  You are not secure in your papers when the government can circumvent the Constitution by making your past available to any Tom, Slick, or Harry on God's green earth.
> 
> Next, one must be realistic.  Yesterday, Hush Bimbo (er... Rush Limbaugh) made the point that the feds lured Michael Flynn into a situation whereby they lied to him and led him - even coaxed him into breaking the law.  Then, the prosecutors tell him that he will plead guilty OR be convicted and serve the maximum amount of time.  So, even if he were NOT guilty, he's going to follow the path of least resistance.  Unless you have relatives by the last name of Jobs, Gates, or Trump you are NOT going to take on the system.  No rational person is going to take a chance on prison when the government can LIE about you and all you're doing is making a statement about your personal convictions.
> 
> You want to take the government's word for things and condemn a person for life.  Then you want to mislead people as to what I believe.  Your safety is NOT probable cause to rummage around in a person's legal past.  The government cannot be trusted.  Neither can you interpret their documents.  And you would not read a court transcript to find out if an individual got railroaded.  MILLIONS do get the shaft.
> 
> The best indicators YOU need to avail yourself of are the following:
> 
> 1)  Where does the person work and how long have they been there?
> 
> 2)  What does their present and past employer have to say about them?
> 
> 3)  What is their credit score?
> 
> 4)  How many residences have they lived in over the last five years?
> 
> 5)  Who are their personal references and how long have they known your potential renter?
> 
> You will find that to be a HELL of a lot more relevant than what a corrupt government has to say.  BTW, my parents owned rental homes and an 84 lot mobile home park when I was growing up.  That was what they did and it worked more times than not.  Fact is, the worse tenants the old man had were Section 8 renters that the government vouched for.
Click to expand...


Wrong on so many levels.

If a person responds to my ad for an apartment and was a convicted child molester, do you think I want to rent to him if one of my other tenants was a frail single mother who lived alone?  Should that very piece of important information be hidden from me and my tenant, and most importantly, her three year old daughter? 

I have every right to know who I'm renting to and not just by their job or past rental history.  I have tenants to protect,  I have property to protect, I have myself to protect.  I don't want to be put in a position of having to evict somebody who was a violent murderer. 

Like myself, employers have the right to protect their workers and themselves as well. 

Years ago our state had a program to help ex-cons work.  They paid employers to hire them and give them a full-time job.  The employer we worked with thought that was a great idea.  So he loaded his floor with ex-cons.  Next thing you know, fist fights were breaking out, so he hired a security guard.  Then the security guard got hurt so he hired a team of security guards. 

After a while, his other employees quit their job; some with the company for many years because of threats and assaults.  Some even had their vehicles broken into and stolen.  After a while, he quit the program.  Even though he was making a killing by paying them low wages (nobody else would hire them) getting a kickback from the state, his workman's compensations claims were killing him.  Nobody else wanted to work there and a reputation of the company grew. The security team was very costly.  It just didn't work out. 

There are very few zebras you can change the stripes on.  And one of the responsibilities the government has is to protect their citizens.  Keeping dangers hidden from them is not protecting innocent people.


----------



## francoHFW

The wall is stupid and will not work and is unamerican. Very happy to see the ten billion for Mexico and Central America which will do more good. This problem will of illegals will go on forever until the GOP comes out for national ID card like every other modern country that has this problem. Democrats no longer will do it because the GOP just caused the Communist and fear-mongers it..


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't referring to your love of beer.  You were the one who told us earlier about having ADHD.  Next, I suppose that you will tell me you don't take drugs for it.  If so, then you proved my point.  If you don't take drugs for it, then you would pose a danger to society.  For if you were born with ADHD then like the guy who was born with juvenile diabetes, you still have it.  And drinking beer on top of it???  Bear in mind, I'm the one that told you it is a phony condition.
> 
> There are many laws that are blatantly unconstitutional.  When people tell me that as justification for THEIR advocacy of continuing to violate the Constitution, it tells me all I need to know.  Like George W. Bush said: "It's just G.D. piece of paper."
> 
> You expect a dumb ass, born in a foreign country, living in a house with a dirt floor AND that never had an education, running water, a television, electricity and cannot speak English to obey the laws of the United States, but when the government and corporate America do it, then it's okay???  Is THAT your position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm doing is simply pointing out reality.  And HTF am I a danger to society by not taking drugs for ADD?   And what does beer have to do with it?  It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> The Constitution protects you from GOVERNMENT searches and seizures which as I already explained, a violation that happens to us all the time.  However the Constitution is limited to government only.  You do not have the right to free speech at work.  You do not have the right to vote on the administration of the healthcare facility that takes care of you.  You do not have the right to take your gun into a church or various other places that restrict you from being armed.  You do not have the right to free speech by your local newspaper.  You do not have the right to free assembly at your doughnut shop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People with ADD that consume alcohol have a much higher incidence to impulsive behaviors.
> 
> I guess we could split hairs, but the issue is, should the government be able to give up personal information on you or I without our consent?
> 
> It's bad enough that you nor I can look at what the government makes available and do a thorough quantitative and  qualitative analysis of the information.  It's that the information is available at all in the context that the government keeping records on us and there is no way for us to have any input in them.
> 
> In the private sector, if you have a bad credit rating, you can get misinformation removed; you can make a statement on a bad report giving your side of the dispute.
> 
> If we apply the principle to other Rights, you begin to develop a different picture of the situation.  A man goes to a psychologist.  His real reason for going is sexual dysfunction despite taking drugs like viaxxx (actual word banned LMAO) and having all physical issues eliminated.  Because he went to the psychologist, should we then have laws that prohibit him from owning a firearm?
> 
> We're way off topic from the wall idea, but once you establish a bad precedent, then it follows in areas of the law that you cannot even begin to fathom.  The worse that thing that culminates from your way of thinking is that a person is NEVER presumed innocent; that they do not have a Right to privacy; that the person never rises above their personal demons so that they can operate in a free society.  I might be wrong, but reading between the lines, I'm beginning to sense that you would be okay with certain degrees of tyranny on the pretext that "they are already doing this or that now."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you see a psychiatrist it's a private matter between you and your doctor.  Doctors should not be briefing government on their patients.  However when you commit a crime, that is between you and the government.  Part of the penalty in committing a crime is public exposure to those who need that information.
> 
> Your stance is it's more important to protect the privacy of law breakers than those who will interact with the con and jeopardize their safety, safety of others, or property.  I disagree.  Landlords, employers and employees didn't do anything wrong to have dangers hidden from them.  I didn't do anything wrong to have one of my apartments boarded up for a year because I unknowingly rented to a pusher who used the apartment as a place to sell drugs.
> 
> When you consciously break the law, you know full well what the penalties are.  You may get locked up for some time.  You may lose your house.  Your name and picture may get publicized in the media or newspaper.  You may not be able to find a job when you get out.  You won't be able to vote.  Your criminal record is on public file available to anybody that has the internet.
> 
> If you don't like the penalties of crime, then don't commit crimes.  Penalties exist to provide a deterrent to crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be new to America.  Let me be the first to welcome you in.  Now, this how our de jure / constitutional / lawful / legal Republic works:
> 
> A person has the Right to be secure in their "papers."  I'm positive that the founders would then apply that today to the records that are kept on you.  You are not secure in your papers when the government can circumvent the Constitution by making your past available to any Tom, Slick, or Harry on God's green earth.
> 
> Next, one must be realistic.  Yesterday, Hush Bimbo (er... Rush Limbaugh) made the point that the feds lured Michael Flynn into a situation whereby they lied to him and led him - even coaxed him into breaking the law.  Then, the prosecutors tell him that he will plead guilty OR be convicted and serve the maximum amount of time.  So, even if he were NOT guilty, he's going to follow the path of least resistance.  Unless you have relatives by the last name of Jobs, Gates, or Trump you are NOT going to take on the system.  No rational person is going to take a chance on prison when the government can LIE about you and all you're doing is making a statement about your personal convictions.
> 
> You want to take the government's word for things and condemn a person for life.  Then you want to mislead people as to what I believe.  Your safety is NOT probable cause to rummage around in a person's legal past.  The government cannot be trusted.  Neither can you interpret their documents.  And you would not read a court transcript to find out if an individual got railroaded.  MILLIONS do get the shaft.
> 
> The best indicators YOU need to avail yourself of are the following:
> 
> 1)  Where does the person work and how long have they been there?
> 
> 2)  What does their present and past employer have to say about them?
> 
> 3)  What is their credit score?
> 
> 4)  How many residences have they lived in over the last five years?
> 
> 5)  Who are their personal references and how long have they known your potential renter?
> 
> You will find that to be a HELL of a lot more relevant than what a corrupt government has to say.  BTW, my parents owned rental homes and an 84 lot mobile home park when I was growing up.  That was what they did and it worked more times than not.  Fact is, the worse tenants the old man had were Section 8 renters that the government vouched for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong on so many levels.
> 
> If a person responds to my ad for an apartment and was a convicted child molester, do you think I want to rent to him if one of my other tenants was a frail single mother who lived alone?  Should that very piece of important information be hidden from me and my tenant, and most importantly, her three year old daughter?
> 
> I have every right to know who I'm renting to and not just by their job or past rental history.  I have tenants to protect,  I have property to protect, I have myself to protect.  I don't want to be put in a position of having to evict somebody who was a violent murderer.
> 
> Like myself, employers have the right to protect their workers and themselves as well.
> 
> Years ago our state had a program to help ex-cons work.  They paid employers to hire them and give them a full-time job.  The employer we worked with thought that was a great idea.  So he loaded his floor with ex-cons.  Next thing you know, fist fights were breaking out, so he hired a security guard.  Then the security guard got hurt so he hired a team of security guards.
> 
> After a while, his other employees quit their job; some with the company for many years because of threats and assaults.  Some even had their vehicles broken into and stolen.  After a while, he quit the program.  Even though he was making a killing by paying them low wages (nobody else would hire them) getting a kickback from the state, his workman's compensations claims were killing him.  Nobody else wanted to work there and a reputation of the company grew. The security team was very costly.  It just didn't work out.
> 
> There are very few zebras you can change the stripes on.  And one of the responsibilities the government has is to protect their citizens.  Keeping dangers hidden from them is not protecting innocent people.
Click to expand...


In my opinion you do not belong in the United States of America.  To paraphrase what Benjamin Franklin told me about you:

He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty nor Safety.

You've admitted to being on drugs for what you think is a behavioral issue; you've admitted that you like to drink beer.  When the liberals get through, you will not be allowed to own a firearm - and possibly your own avatar will be your worst enemy.

Look dude, the government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all that you have.  They are corrupt and they lie.  They lock good people out of society AND the government - starting with vulnerable children are the biggest purveyors of drugs in this country.

What counts is what a person is doing today - and what they have been doing in the recent past.  If you're saying people cannot be rehabilitated, then we should keep them locked up forever.  What you're promoting is plain out stupidity.

A person gets a criminal record.  They are locked out of society.  The Americans who committed a crime are unemployable.  A foreigner comes in and works the job the Americans get locked out of and you're unhappy.  I propose to put those Americans back to work and you fight me tooth and nail.  You are only consistent with inconsistency.  And you're not going to appreciate what I've said to you until it's your ass that is on the chopping block.

What you want will have a price.  For everything you gain, there is something lost.  So, when you get your wall and it don't pan out and the government starts looking for more people to jerk around, just think - you might be next.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

francoHFW said:


> The wall is stupid and will not work and is unamerican. Very happy to see the ten billion for Mexico and Central America which will do more good. This problem will of illegals will go on forever until the GOP comes out for national ID card like every other modern country that has this problem. Democrats no longer will do it because the GOP just caused the Communist and fear-mongers it..




Was that a joke?  The Tea Party Republicans passed the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify YEARS ago.  Who have here?  Rip Van Winkle?  LOL.

The wall is a done deal.  Then, when Pelosi gets total gun control, the Democrats can laugh all the way to the voting booth when they take over in 2020.


----------



## dblack

francoHFW said:


> The wall is stupid and will not work and is unamerican.



For the first time that I know of, I agree with you franco. I don't believe you, but I agree with you.


----------



## danielpalos

where is this alleged, wall building power to be found?


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't referring to your love of beer.  You were the one who told us earlier about having ADHD.  Next, I suppose that you will tell me you don't take drugs for it.  If so, then you proved my point.  If you don't take drugs for it, then you would pose a danger to society.  For if you were born with ADHD then like the guy who was born with juvenile diabetes, you still have it.  And drinking beer on top of it???  Bear in mind, I'm the one that told you it is a phony condition.
> 
> There are many laws that are blatantly unconstitutional.  When people tell me that as justification for THEIR advocacy of continuing to violate the Constitution, it tells me all I need to know.  Like George W. Bush said: "It's just G.D. piece of paper."
> 
> You expect a dumb ass, born in a foreign country, living in a house with a dirt floor AND that never had an education, running water, a television, electricity and cannot speak English to obey the laws of the United States, but when the government and corporate America do it, then it's okay???  Is THAT your position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm doing is simply pointing out reality.  And HTF am I a danger to society by not taking drugs for ADD?   And what does beer have to do with it?  It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> The Constitution protects you from GOVERNMENT searches and seizures which as I already explained, a violation that happens to us all the time.  However the Constitution is limited to government only.  You do not have the right to free speech at work.  You do not have the right to vote on the administration of the healthcare facility that takes care of you.  You do not have the right to take your gun into a church or various other places that restrict you from being armed.  You do not have the right to free speech by your local newspaper.  You do not have the right to free assembly at your doughnut shop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People with ADD that consume alcohol have a much higher incidence to impulsive behaviors.
> 
> I guess we could split hairs, but the issue is, should the government be able to give up personal information on you or I without our consent?
> 
> It's bad enough that you nor I can look at what the government makes available and do a thorough quantitative and  qualitative analysis of the information.  It's that the information is available at all in the context that the government keeping records on us and there is no way for us to have any input in them.
> 
> In the private sector, if you have a bad credit rating, you can get misinformation removed; you can make a statement on a bad report giving your side of the dispute.
> 
> If we apply the principle to other Rights, you begin to develop a different picture of the situation.  A man goes to a psychologist.  His real reason for going is sexual dysfunction despite taking drugs like viaxxx (actual word banned LMAO) and having all physical issues eliminated.  Because he went to the psychologist, should we then have laws that prohibit him from owning a firearm?
> 
> We're way off topic from the wall idea, but once you establish a bad precedent, then it follows in areas of the law that you cannot even begin to fathom.  The worse that thing that culminates from your way of thinking is that a person is NEVER presumed innocent; that they do not have a Right to privacy; that the person never rises above their personal demons so that they can operate in a free society.  I might be wrong, but reading between the lines, I'm beginning to sense that you would be okay with certain degrees of tyranny on the pretext that "they are already doing this or that now."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you see a psychiatrist it's a private matter between you and your doctor.  Doctors should not be briefing government on their patients.  However when you commit a crime, that is between you and the government.  Part of the penalty in committing a crime is public exposure to those who need that information.
> 
> Your stance is it's more important to protect the privacy of law breakers than those who will interact with the con and jeopardize their safety, safety of others, or property.  I disagree.  Landlords, employers and employees didn't do anything wrong to have dangers hidden from them.  I didn't do anything wrong to have one of my apartments boarded up for a year because I unknowingly rented to a pusher who used the apartment as a place to sell drugs.
> 
> When you consciously break the law, you know full well what the penalties are.  You may get locked up for some time.  You may lose your house.  Your name and picture may get publicized in the media or newspaper.  You may not be able to find a job when you get out.  You won't be able to vote.  Your criminal record is on public file available to anybody that has the internet.
> 
> If you don't like the penalties of crime, then don't commit crimes.  Penalties exist to provide a deterrent to crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be new to America.  Let me be the first to welcome you in.  Now, this how our de jure / constitutional / lawful / legal Republic works:
> 
> A person has the Right to be secure in their "papers."  I'm positive that the founders would then apply that today to the records that are kept on you.  You are not secure in your papers when the government can circumvent the Constitution by making your past available to any Tom, Slick, or Harry on God's green earth.
> 
> Next, one must be realistic.  Yesterday, Hush Bimbo (er... Rush Limbaugh) made the point that the feds lured Michael Flynn into a situation whereby they lied to him and led him - even coaxed him into breaking the law.  Then, the prosecutors tell him that he will plead guilty OR be convicted and serve the maximum amount of time.  So, even if he were NOT guilty, he's going to follow the path of least resistance.  Unless you have relatives by the last name of Jobs, Gates, or Trump you are NOT going to take on the system.  No rational person is going to take a chance on prison when the government can LIE about you and all you're doing is making a statement about your personal convictions.
> 
> You want to take the government's word for things and condemn a person for life.  Then you want to mislead people as to what I believe.  Your safety is NOT probable cause to rummage around in a person's legal past.  The government cannot be trusted.  Neither can you interpret their documents.  And you would not read a court transcript to find out if an individual got railroaded.  MILLIONS do get the shaft.
> 
> The best indicators YOU need to avail yourself of are the following:
> 
> 1)  Where does the person work and how long have they been there?
> 
> 2)  What does their present and past employer have to say about them?
> 
> 3)  What is their credit score?
> 
> 4)  How many residences have they lived in over the last five years?
> 
> 5)  Who are their personal references and how long have they known your potential renter?
> 
> You will find that to be a HELL of a lot more relevant than what a corrupt government has to say.  BTW, my parents owned rental homes and an 84 lot mobile home park when I was growing up.  That was what they did and it worked more times than not.  Fact is, the worse tenants the old man had were Section 8 renters that the government vouched for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong on so many levels.
> 
> If a person responds to my ad for an apartment and was a convicted child molester, do you think I want to rent to him if one of my other tenants was a frail single mother who lived alone?  Should that very piece of important information be hidden from me and my tenant, and most importantly, her three year old daughter?
> 
> I have every right to know who I'm renting to and not just by their job or past rental history.  I have tenants to protect,  I have property to protect, I have myself to protect.  I don't want to be put in a position of having to evict somebody who was a violent murderer.
> 
> Like myself, employers have the right to protect their workers and themselves as well.
> 
> Years ago our state had a program to help ex-cons work.  They paid employers to hire them and give them a full-time job.  The employer we worked with thought that was a great idea.  So he loaded his floor with ex-cons.  Next thing you know, fist fights were breaking out, so he hired a security guard.  Then the security guard got hurt so he hired a team of security guards.
> 
> After a while, his other employees quit their job; some with the company for many years because of threats and assaults.  Some even had their vehicles broken into and stolen.  After a while, he quit the program.  Even though he was making a killing by paying them low wages (nobody else would hire them) getting a kickback from the state, his workman's compensations claims were killing him.  Nobody else wanted to work there and a reputation of the company grew. The security team was very costly.  It just didn't work out.
> 
> There are very few zebras you can change the stripes on.  And one of the responsibilities the government has is to protect their citizens.  Keeping dangers hidden from them is not protecting innocent people.
Click to expand...

Your only problem is listening to garbage propaganda Non-Stop... Rush Limbaugh during the day and Fox at night?


Porter Rockwell said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall is stupid and will not work and is unamerican. Very happy to see the ten billion for Mexico and Central America which will do more good. This problem will of illegals will go on forever until the GOP comes out for national ID card like every other modern country that has this problem. Democrats no longer will do it because the GOP just caused the Communist and fear-mongers it..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was that a joke?  The Tea Party Republicans passed the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify YEARS ago.  Who have here?  Rip Van Winkle?  LOL.
> 
> The wall is a done deal.  Then, when Pelosi gets total gun control, the Democrats can laugh all the way to the voting booth when they take over in 2020.
Click to expand...

Too bad e verify is a joke doesn't work... I think the GOP Masters love illegal workers because they are cheap and easily bullied... GOP voters only care during a GOP depression or recession anyway. They like the cheap maids and Gardeners.


----------



## francoHFW

dblack said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall is stupid and will not work and is unamerican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the first time that I know of, I agree with you franco. I don't believe you, but I agree with you.
Click to expand...

 I never lie and I am always right. How do you mean you don't believe me LOL?


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back on topic...
> We should be building barriers with new technologies such as drones, electronic monitoring, smart fencing. Walls were great 5,000 years ago but they will be no match for the technologies of the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with a wall AND technology?
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you build a wall it will be there for a hundred years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think the Democrats are so scared to death of a wall they are even willing to shutdown the government?
Click to expand...

Yes, we could add technology to the cost of the wall and we it could be upgraded as new technology becomes available but adding 5 feet to the top or the foundation of a 1000 mile wall is another story.

My point is that we are not living in stagnation.  More Mexicans are returning to Mexico than arriving.  This trend started over 10 years ago and seems to be accelerating.  The problems in the northern triangle are responsible for the large number of Central Americans arriving in the US.  There have been proposals from both sides to increase aid and provide US personal to assist in clearing out the drug cartels and gangs that have made life a living hell for the people.  Lastly, immigration reform is far from dead.  It can't happen with Republican control of government but certain can and will happen with Democrat control.  Even if democrats only control one House of congress, we can still get immigration reform because many republicans agree with democrats on a number of immigration issues.  These changes will dramatically reduce illegal immigration without spending tens of billions of dollars on a wall, taking property away from hundreds of land owners, destruction of a fragile environment, and a sending a message to the world that the United States seeks to isolate itself by hiding behind a wall.

It is not the wall democrats fear.  It is what it represents, isolationism and the victory of hate and racism over reason.


----------



## Flopper

francoHFW said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall is stupid and will not work and is unamerican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the first time that I know of, I agree with you franco. I don't believe you, but I agree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never lie and I am always right. How do you mean you don't believe me LOL?
Click to expand...

You sound just like your mentor in the White House.


----------



## WheelieAddict

If Mexico pays for it as promised I am fine with it. Looks to be that was bs and it is more republican big govt deficit spending though.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back on topic...
> We should be building barriers with new technologies such as drones, electronic monitoring, smart fencing. Walls were great 5,000 years ago but they will be no match for the technologies of the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with a wall AND technology?
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you build a wall it will be there for a hundred years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think the Democrats are so scared to death of a wall they are even willing to shutdown the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we could add technology to the cost of the wall and we it could be upgraded as new technology becomes available but adding 5 feet to the top or the foundation of a 1000 mile wall is another story.
> 
> My point is that we are not living in stagnation.  More Mexicans are returning to Mexico than arriving.  This trend started over 10 years ago and seems to be accelerating.  The problems in the northern triangle are responsible for the large number of Central Americans arriving in the US.  There have been proposals from both sides to increase aid and provide US personal to assist in clearing out the drug cartels and gangs that have made life a living hell for the people.  Lastly, immigration reform is far from dead.  It can't happen with Republican control of government but certain can and will happen with Democrat control.  Even if democrats only control one House of congress, we can still get immigration reform because many republicans agree with democrats on a number of immigration issues.  These changes will dramatically reduce illegal immigration without spending tens of billions of dollars on a wall, taking property away from hundreds of land owners, destruction of a fragile environment, and a sending a message to the world that the United States seeks to isolate itself by hiding behind a wall.
> 
> It is not the wall democrats fear.  It is what it represents, isolationism and the victory of hate and racism over reason.
Click to expand...


So they have you brainwashed too.......a damn shame. 

Racism is what Democrats have used for many years to get their way.  It has nothing to do with racism.  This isn't a race issue.  If it were Canadians or Europeans attacking our country, we would feel the same way.  We don't need more uneducated diseased unskilled people in our country  no matter who they are.  

And what immigration reform do we need?  There is nothing wrong with our immigration system now.  Do you know what immigration reform means?  It means surrendering to those who can't easily get in now.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> You've admitted to being on drugs for what you think is a behavioral issue;



I did? When?  Show me one post where I said I take drugs for behavior issues.  I never wrote that.  You are just listening to voices in your head.  



Porter Rockwell said:


> you've admitted that you like to drink beer.



Yes I did.  So what?  



Porter Rockwell said:


> When the liberals get through, you will not be allowed to own a firearm - and possibly your own avatar will be your worst enemy.



How are they going to do that?  They don't have nearly enough people to amend the Constitution.  



Porter Rockwell said:


> What counts is what a person is doing today - and what they have been doing in the recent past. If you're saying people cannot be rehabilitated, then we should keep them locked up forever. What you're promoting is plain out stupidity.



What I am saying is that once you are a criminal, the people who deal with you have the right to know that.  



Porter Rockwell said:


> A person gets a criminal record. They are locked out of society. The Americans who committed a crime are unemployable. A foreigner comes in and works the job the Americans get locked out of and you're unhappy. I propose to put those Americans back to work and you fight me tooth and nail. You are only consistent with inconsistency. And you're not going to appreciate what I've said to you until it's your ass that is on the chopping block.



If you don't want your ass on a chopping block, then don't be a criminal. 

I am against all immigration.  However I am not for employers being forced to hire anybody.  I am not for hiding criminal records from employers, local governments or even landlords.


----------



## Thinker101

Thank you President Trump, thank you Democrats.


----------



## oreo

According to Trump--we're no longer talking about a WALL it's down to steel slats.   Of course this is G.W. Bush's design that he installed on 700 miles of the border---





Trump now describes his border wall as "steel slats" - WDEF

Very easily compromised as this video shows.

And let's not forget about those tunnels





They have found 240 of these in the San Diego region alone, and they know there's more that they haven't found.

So House Republicans put on their last Hoorah yesterday by passing a bill that included 5.1 billion for the WAAAAALLL.  Of course this is dead on arrival in the Senate.  Republicans had a full house over the last 2 years, and all of a sudden up pops this bill as they're making their exit out of the back door.  5.7 BILLION is the equivalent of teaspoon of water thrown on a bonfire, as the wall would cost 47 BILLION dollars.

So up comes the steel slats.  Democrats have stated they want more border security but want to use *HIGH TECH* to secure the border, stating that border patrol and border experts have told them it would work better than walls & fences.  It would be much more effective and efficient for the above reasons.  It's true.  Anything they can see, can and will ALWAYS be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.

So we will see who is more interested in border security.  I imagine the Ass Clown--will turn down the HIGH TECH option and go with his POS wall (I mean slats now) and shut down the government over it.


----------



## francoHFW

Flopper said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall is stupid and will not work and is unamerican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the first time that I know of, I agree with you franco. I don't believe you, but I agree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never lie and I am always right. How do you mean you don't believe me LOL?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound just like your mentor in the White House.
Click to expand...

I am pure Democrat old Bean
...


Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back on topic...
> We should be building barriers with new technologies such as drones, electronic monitoring, smart fencing. Walls were great 5,000 years ago but they will be no match for the technologies of the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with a wall AND technology?
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you build a wall it will be there for a hundred years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think the Democrats are so scared to death of a wall they are even willing to shutdown the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we could add technology to the cost of the wall and we it could be upgraded as new technology becomes available but adding 5 feet to the top or the foundation of a 1000 mile wall is another story.
> 
> My point is that we are not living in stagnation.  More Mexicans are returning to Mexico than arriving.  This trend started over 10 years ago and seems to be accelerating.  The problems in the northern triangle are responsible for the large number of Central Americans arriving in the US.  There have been proposals from both sides to increase aid and provide US personal to assist in clearing out the drug cartels and gangs that have made life a living hell for the people.  Lastly, immigration reform is far from dead.  It can't happen with Republican control of government but certain can and will happen with Democrat control.  Even if democrats only control one House of congress, we can still get immigration reform because many republicans agree with democrats on a number of immigration issues.  These changes will dramatically reduce illegal immigration without spending tens of billions of dollars on a wall, taking property away from hundreds of land owners, destruction of a fragile environment, and a sending a message to the world that the United States seeks to isolate itself by hiding behind a wall.
> 
> It is not the wall democrats fear.  It is what it represents, isolationism and the victory of hate and racism over reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they have you brainwashed too.......a damn shame.
> 
> Racism is what Democrats have used for many years to get their way.  It has nothing to do with racism.  This isn't a race issue.  If it were Canadians or Europeans attacking our country, we would feel the same way.  We don't need more uneducated diseased unskilled people in our country  no matter who they are.
> 
> And what immigration reform do we need?  There is nothing wrong with our immigration system now.  Do you know what immigration reform means?  It means surrendering to those who can't easily get in now.
Click to expand...

Brainwashing needs lying to be called brainwashing, super duper. The whole world of real journalism and law enforcement agrees with Democrats facts, not the garbage your high school grad ex cokehead DJ's parrot. Not a single one of your phony scandals has reached that world either.
We need a good ID card like every other modern country that has the problem. Now the Republicans have to bring it up, cuz they have burned the Democrats for it with commie bashing for the dopes....
The wall is useless.


----------



## Thinker101

francoHFW said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall is stupid and will not work and is unamerican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the first time that I know of, I agree with you franco. I don't believe you, but I agree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never lie and I am always right. How do you mean you don't believe me LOL?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound just like your mentor in the White House.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am pure Democrat old Bean
> ...
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back on topic...
> We should be building barriers with new technologies such as drones, electronic monitoring, smart fencing. Walls were great 5,000 years ago but they will be no match for the technologies of the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with a wall AND technology?
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you build a wall it will be there for a hundred years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think the Democrats are so scared to death of a wall they are even willing to shutdown the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we could add technology to the cost of the wall and we it could be upgraded as new technology becomes available but adding 5 feet to the top or the foundation of a 1000 mile wall is another story.
> 
> My point is that we are not living in stagnation.  More Mexicans are returning to Mexico than arriving.  This trend started over 10 years ago and seems to be accelerating.  The problems in the northern triangle are responsible for the large number of Central Americans arriving in the US.  There have been proposals from both sides to increase aid and provide US personal to assist in clearing out the drug cartels and gangs that have made life a living hell for the people.  Lastly, immigration reform is far from dead.  It can't happen with Republican control of government but certain can and will happen with Democrat control.  Even if democrats only control one House of congress, we can still get immigration reform because many republicans agree with democrats on a number of immigration issues.  These changes will dramatically reduce illegal immigration without spending tens of billions of dollars on a wall, taking property away from hundreds of land owners, destruction of a fragile environment, and a sending a message to the world that the United States seeks to isolate itself by hiding behind a wall.
> 
> It is not the wall democrats fear.  It is what it represents, isolationism and the victory of hate and racism over reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they have you brainwashed too.......a damn shame.
> 
> Racism is what Democrats have used for many years to get their way.  It has nothing to do with racism.  This isn't a race issue.  If it were Canadians or Europeans attacking our country, we would feel the same way.  We don't need more uneducated diseased unskilled people in our country  no matter who they are.
> 
> And what immigration reform do we need?  There is nothing wrong with our immigration system now.  Do you know what immigration reform means?  It means surrendering to those who can't easily get in now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brainwashing needs lying to be called brainwashing, super duper. The whole world that real journalism and law enforcement agrees with Democrats facts, not the garbage your high school grad ex cokehead DJ's parrot. Not a single one of your phony scandals has reached that world either.
> We need a good ID card like every other modern country that has the problem. Now the Republicans have to bring it up, cuz they have burn the Democrats for it with commie bashing for the dopes....
> The wall is useless.
Click to expand...


Yup, we can smell the stench from here.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

oreo said:


> So up comes the steel slats. Democrats have stated they want more border security but want to use *HIGH TECH* to secure the border, stating that border patrol and border experts have told them it would work better than walls & fences. It would be much more effective and efficient for the above reasons. It's true. Anything they can see, can and will ALWAYS be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> So we will see who is more interested in border security. I imagine the Ass Clown--will turn down the HIGH TECH option and go with his POS wall and shut down the government over it.



Democrats want anything they can remove once in power.  They can't remove a wall.  That's why they are scared to death of it. 

And saying that we should not build a will because people may dig under it is as ridiculous as saying we shouldn't have prisons or jails because some people broke out of them.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm doing is simply pointing out reality.  And HTF am I a danger to society by not taking drugs for ADD?   And what does beer have to do with it?  It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> The Constitution protects you from GOVERNMENT searches and seizures which as I already explained, a violation that happens to us all the time.  However the Constitution is limited to government only.  You do not have the right to free speech at work.  You do not have the right to vote on the administration of the healthcare facility that takes care of you.  You do not have the right to take your gun into a church or various other places that restrict you from being armed.  You do not have the right to free speech by your local newspaper.  You do not have the right to free assembly at your doughnut shop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People with ADD that consume alcohol have a much higher incidence to impulsive behaviors.
> 
> I guess we could split hairs, but the issue is, should the government be able to give up personal information on you or I without our consent?
> 
> It's bad enough that you nor I can look at what the government makes available and do a thorough quantitative and  qualitative analysis of the information.  It's that the information is available at all in the context that the government keeping records on us and there is no way for us to have any input in them.
> 
> In the private sector, if you have a bad credit rating, you can get misinformation removed; you can make a statement on a bad report giving your side of the dispute.
> 
> If we apply the principle to other Rights, you begin to develop a different picture of the situation.  A man goes to a psychologist.  His real reason for going is sexual dysfunction despite taking drugs like viaxxx (actual word banned LMAO) and having all physical issues eliminated.  Because he went to the psychologist, should we then have laws that prohibit him from owning a firearm?
> 
> We're way off topic from the wall idea, but once you establish a bad precedent, then it follows in areas of the law that you cannot even begin to fathom.  The worse that thing that culminates from your way of thinking is that a person is NEVER presumed innocent; that they do not have a Right to privacy; that the person never rises above their personal demons so that they can operate in a free society.  I might be wrong, but reading between the lines, I'm beginning to sense that you would be okay with certain degrees of tyranny on the pretext that "they are already doing this or that now."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you see a psychiatrist it's a private matter between you and your doctor.  Doctors should not be briefing government on their patients.  However when you commit a crime, that is between you and the government.  Part of the penalty in committing a crime is public exposure to those who need that information.
> 
> Your stance is it's more important to protect the privacy of law breakers than those who will interact with the con and jeopardize their safety, safety of others, or property.  I disagree.  Landlords, employers and employees didn't do anything wrong to have dangers hidden from them.  I didn't do anything wrong to have one of my apartments boarded up for a year because I unknowingly rented to a pusher who used the apartment as a place to sell drugs.
> 
> When you consciously break the law, you know full well what the penalties are.  You may get locked up for some time.  You may lose your house.  Your name and picture may get publicized in the media or newspaper.  You may not be able to find a job when you get out.  You won't be able to vote.  Your criminal record is on public file available to anybody that has the internet.
> 
> If you don't like the penalties of crime, then don't commit crimes.  Penalties exist to provide a deterrent to crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be new to America.  Let me be the first to welcome you in.  Now, this how our de jure / constitutional / lawful / legal Republic works:
> 
> A person has the Right to be secure in their "papers."  I'm positive that the founders would then apply that today to the records that are kept on you.  You are not secure in your papers when the government can circumvent the Constitution by making your past available to any Tom, Slick, or Harry on God's green earth.
> 
> Next, one must be realistic.  Yesterday, Hush Bimbo (er... Rush Limbaugh) made the point that the feds lured Michael Flynn into a situation whereby they lied to him and led him - even coaxed him into breaking the law.  Then, the prosecutors tell him that he will plead guilty OR be convicted and serve the maximum amount of time.  So, even if he were NOT guilty, he's going to follow the path of least resistance.  Unless you have relatives by the last name of Jobs, Gates, or Trump you are NOT going to take on the system.  No rational person is going to take a chance on prison when the government can LIE about you and all you're doing is making a statement about your personal convictions.
> 
> You want to take the government's word for things and condemn a person for life.  Then you want to mislead people as to what I believe.  Your safety is NOT probable cause to rummage around in a person's legal past.  The government cannot be trusted.  Neither can you interpret their documents.  And you would not read a court transcript to find out if an individual got railroaded.  MILLIONS do get the shaft.
> 
> The best indicators YOU need to avail yourself of are the following:
> 
> 1)  Where does the person work and how long have they been there?
> 
> 2)  What does their present and past employer have to say about them?
> 
> 3)  What is their credit score?
> 
> 4)  How many residences have they lived in over the last five years?
> 
> 5)  Who are their personal references and how long have they known your potential renter?
> 
> You will find that to be a HELL of a lot more relevant than what a corrupt government has to say.  BTW, my parents owned rental homes and an 84 lot mobile home park when I was growing up.  That was what they did and it worked more times than not.  Fact is, the worse tenants the old man had were Section 8 renters that the government vouched for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong on so many levels.
> 
> If a person responds to my ad for an apartment and was a convicted child molester, do you think I want to rent to him if one of my other tenants was a frail single mother who lived alone?  Should that very piece of important information be hidden from me and my tenant, and most importantly, her three year old daughter?
> 
> I have every right to know who I'm renting to and not just by their job or past rental history.  I have tenants to protect,  I have property to protect, I have myself to protect.  I don't want to be put in a position of having to evict somebody who was a violent murderer.
> 
> Like myself, employers have the right to protect their workers and themselves as well.
> 
> Years ago our state had a program to help ex-cons work.  They paid employers to hire them and give them a full-time job.  The employer we worked with thought that was a great idea.  So he loaded his floor with ex-cons.  Next thing you know, fist fights were breaking out, so he hired a security guard.  Then the security guard got hurt so he hired a team of security guards.
> 
> After a while, his other employees quit their job; some with the company for many years because of threats and assaults.  Some even had their vehicles broken into and stolen.  After a while, he quit the program.  Even though he was making a killing by paying them low wages (nobody else would hire them) getting a kickback from the state, his workman's compensations claims were killing him.  Nobody else wanted to work there and a reputation of the company grew. The security team was very costly.  It just didn't work out.
> 
> There are very few zebras you can change the stripes on.  And one of the responsibilities the government has is to protect their citizens.  Keeping dangers hidden from them is not protecting innocent people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your only problem is listening to garbage propaganda Non-Stop... Rush Limbaugh during the day and Fox at night?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall is stupid and will not work and is unamerican. Very happy to see the ten billion for Mexico and Central America which will do more good. This problem will of illegals will go on forever until the GOP comes out for national ID card like every other modern country that has this problem. Democrats no longer will do it because the GOP just caused the Communist and fear-mongers it..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Was that a joke?  The Tea Party Republicans passed the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify YEARS ago.  Who have here?  Rip Van Winkle?  LOL.
> 
> The wall is a done deal.  Then, when Pelosi gets total gun control, the Democrats can laugh all the way to the voting booth when they take over in 2020.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad e verify is a joke doesn't work... I think the GOP Masters love illegal workers because they are cheap and easily bullied... GOP voters only care during a GOP depression or recession anyway. They like the cheap maids and Gardeners.
Click to expand...


Republicans are about corporate profit.  It's a concept lost on Tea Party Republicans.

Infringe on corporate profit and you cause the corporations to load up and move to another country - again that's a concept lost of those who hate the word Liberty.

There is an answer, just not one the wall advocates will listen to.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've admitted to being on drugs for what you think is a behavioral issue;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did? When?  Show me one post where I said I take drugs for behavior issues.  I never wrote that.  You are just listening to voices in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> you've admitted that you like to drink beer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I did.  So what?
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the liberals get through, you will not be allowed to own a firearm - and possibly your own avatar will be your worst enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are they going to do that?  They don't have nearly enough people to amend the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What counts is what a person is doing today - and what they have been doing in the recent past. If you're saying people cannot be rehabilitated, then we should keep them locked up forever. What you're promoting is plain out stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am saying is that once you are a criminal, the people who deal with you have the right to know that.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A person gets a criminal record. They are locked out of society. The Americans who committed a crime are unemployable. A foreigner comes in and works the job the Americans get locked out of and you're unhappy. I propose to put those Americans back to work and you fight me tooth and nail. You are only consistent with inconsistency. And you're not going to appreciate what I've said to you until it's your ass that is on the chopping block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't want your ass on a chopping block, then don't be a criminal.
> 
> I am against all immigration.  However I am not for employers being forced to hire anybody.  I am not for hiding criminal records from employers, local governments or even landlords.
Click to expand...



You could be very right.  I'm not willing to look through the posts when we're approaching 1100 of them to find where you said something positive about drugs and ADD ADHD, claiming you had that very condition.

There are other ways of changing laws without amending the Constitution.  The United States Supreme Court has done it; Obama did it; Trump tries to do it on a regular basis... and the people have many ways of changing the laws WITHOUT amending the Constitution.  If it's good enough for the government, it's good enough for the people.

In a de jure / lawful / constitutional / legal Republic you do NOT have a Right to government records.  It's simply NOT in the Constitution.  Just because someone has the POWER to declare something "legal" does not make it so.  

If you were not for telling employers who they can and cannot hire, you'd quit hiding behind the pretext of this crap being legal or illegal.  Simply put, if the farmer down the road can hire 100 Mexicans, but I can't due to some unconstitutional quota system, it puts me, as an employer in an UNEQUAL position, denying to me the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed in the 14th Amendment... UNLESS you want to join in with me in dismantling it.

You hide behind the POWER of Democracy shielded by "it's legal" regardless of its unconstitutionality.  So, who are you really trying to convince - me or you?  You like BIG GOVERNMENT.  

I can give you options that give everyone involved something.  You're going to reject them because you are part of a political movement that smells blood.  You're going to get your wall so I can't imagine what you're crying about.  It's just that you cannot face the fact that you got played and when it comes time to pay - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of lost Liberties, I'm still going to come back and tell you I told you so.  You don't get something for nothing.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've admitted to being on drugs for what you think is a behavioral issue;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did? When?  Show me one post where I said I take drugs for behavior issues.  I never wrote that.  You are just listening to voices in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> you've admitted that you like to drink beer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I did.  So what?
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the liberals get through, you will not be allowed to own a firearm - and possibly your own avatar will be your worst enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are they going to do that?  They don't have nearly enough people to amend the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What counts is what a person is doing today - and what they have been doing in the recent past. If you're saying people cannot be rehabilitated, then we should keep them locked up forever. What you're promoting is plain out stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am saying is that once you are a criminal, the people who deal with you have the right to know that.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A person gets a criminal record. They are locked out of society. The Americans who committed a crime are unemployable. A foreigner comes in and works the job the Americans get locked out of and you're unhappy. I propose to put those Americans back to work and you fight me tooth and nail. You are only consistent with inconsistency. And you're not going to appreciate what I've said to you until it's your ass that is on the chopping block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't want your ass on a chopping block, then don't be a criminal.
> 
> I am against all immigration.  However I am not for employers being forced to hire anybody.  I am not for hiding criminal records from employers, local governments or even landlords.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You could be very right.  I'm not willing to look through the posts when we're approaching 1100 of them to find where you said something positive about drugs and ADD ADHD, claiming you had that very condition.
> 
> There are other ways of changing laws without amending the Constitution.  The United States Supreme Court has done it; Obama did it; Trump tries to do it on a regular basis... and the people have many ways of changing the laws WITHOUT amending the Constitution.  If it's good enough for the government, it's good enough for the people.
> 
> In a de jure / lawful / constitutional / legal Republic you do NOT have a Right to government records.  It's simply NOT in the Constitution.  Just because someone has the POWER to declare something "legal" does not make it so.
> 
> If you were not for telling employers who they can and cannot hire, you'd quit hiding behind the pretext of this crap being legal or illegal.  Simply put, if the farmer down the road can hire 100 Mexicans, but I can't due to some unconstitutional quota system, it puts me, as an employer in an UNEQUAL position, denying to me the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed in the 14th Amendment... UNLESS you want to join in with me in dismantling it.
> 
> You hide behind the POWER of Democracy shielded by "it's legal" regardless of its unconstitutionality.  So, who are you really trying to convince - me or you?  You like BIG GOVERNMENT.
> 
> I can give you options that give everyone involved something.  You're going to reject them because you are part of a political movement that smells blood.  You're going to get your wall so I can't imagine what you're crying about.  It's just that you cannot face the fact that you got played and when it comes time to pay - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of lost Liberties, I'm still going to come back and tell you I told you so.  You don't get something for nothing.
Click to expand...


There is no constitutional protection of criminal records.  Search and Seizure is in regards to a persons personal records--not government records.  Furthermore there is a huge difference between supporting medications for certain conditions and using them.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've admitted to being on drugs for what you think is a behavioral issue;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did? When?  Show me one post where I said I take drugs for behavior issues.  I never wrote that.  You are just listening to voices in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> you've admitted that you like to drink beer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I did.  So what?
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the liberals get through, you will not be allowed to own a firearm - and possibly your own avatar will be your worst enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are they going to do that?  They don't have nearly enough people to amend the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What counts is what a person is doing today - and what they have been doing in the recent past. If you're saying people cannot be rehabilitated, then we should keep them locked up forever. What you're promoting is plain out stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am saying is that once you are a criminal, the people who deal with you have the right to know that.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A person gets a criminal record. They are locked out of society. The Americans who committed a crime are unemployable. A foreigner comes in and works the job the Americans get locked out of and you're unhappy. I propose to put those Americans back to work and you fight me tooth and nail. You are only consistent with inconsistency. And you're not going to appreciate what I've said to you until it's your ass that is on the chopping block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't want your ass on a chopping block, then don't be a criminal.
> 
> I am against all immigration.  However I am not for employers being forced to hire anybody.  I am not for hiding criminal records from employers, local governments or even landlords.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You could be very right.  I'm not willing to look through the posts when we're approaching 1100 of them to find where you said something positive about drugs and ADD ADHD, claiming you had that very condition.
> 
> There are other ways of changing laws without amending the Constitution.  The United States Supreme Court has done it; Obama did it; Trump tries to do it on a regular basis... and the people have many ways of changing the laws WITHOUT amending the Constitution.  If it's good enough for the government, it's good enough for the people.
> 
> In a de jure / lawful / constitutional / legal Republic you do NOT have a Right to government records.  It's simply NOT in the Constitution.  Just because someone has the POWER to declare something "legal" does not make it so.
> 
> If you were not for telling employers who they can and cannot hire, you'd quit hiding behind the pretext of this crap being legal or illegal.  Simply put, if the farmer down the road can hire 100 Mexicans, but I can't due to some unconstitutional quota system, it puts me, as an employer in an UNEQUAL position, denying to me the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed in the 14th Amendment... UNLESS you want to join in with me in dismantling it.
> 
> You hide behind the POWER of Democracy shielded by "it's legal" regardless of its unconstitutionality.  So, who are you really trying to convince - me or you?  You like BIG GOVERNMENT.
> 
> I can give you options that give everyone involved something.  You're going to reject them because you are part of a political movement that smells blood.  You're going to get your wall so I can't imagine what you're crying about.  It's just that you cannot face the fact that you got played and when it comes time to pay - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of lost Liberties, I'm still going to come back and tell you I told you so.  You don't get something for nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional protection of criminal records.  Search and Seizure is in regards to a persons personal records--not government records.  Furthermore there is a huge difference between supporting medications for certain conditions and using them.
Click to expand...



Criminal records ARE government records.  Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the authority to give out the information for the general public to go on a fishing expedition.  You shouldn't argue this as one day, you or a loved one WILL be denied a constitutional protection and it will because of people just like you.  

One last time:  the government can lie to you and they can lie about you... AND THEY DO.  By their own estimates 30 percent of the people in jails and prisons never actually committed a crime.  

You were given an alternative, so if you choose to be a subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER, that is your prerogative.  It's mine not to subject myself to a foreign jurisdiction just because a de facto government makes a false claim against me.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back on topic...
> We should be building barriers with new technologies such as drones, electronic monitoring, smart fencing. Walls were great 5,000 years ago but they will be no match for the technologies of the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with a wall AND technology?
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you build a wall it will be there for a hundred years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think the Democrats are so scared to death of a wall they are even willing to shutdown the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we could add technology to the cost of the wall and we it could be upgraded as new technology becomes available but adding 5 feet to the top or the foundation of a 1000 mile wall is another story.
> 
> My point is that we are not living in stagnation.  More Mexicans are returning to Mexico than arriving.  This trend started over 10 years ago and seems to be accelerating.  The problems in the northern triangle are responsible for the large number of Central Americans arriving in the US.  There have been proposals from both sides to increase aid and provide US personal to assist in clearing out the drug cartels and gangs that have made life a living hell for the people.  Lastly, immigration reform is far from dead.  It can't happen with Republican control of government but certain can and will happen with Democrat control.  Even if democrats only control one House of congress, we can still get immigration reform because many republicans agree with democrats on a number of immigration issues.  These changes will dramatically reduce illegal immigration without spending tens of billions of dollars on a wall, taking property away from hundreds of land owners, destruction of a fragile environment, and a sending a message to the world that the United States seeks to isolate itself by hiding behind a wall.
> 
> It is not the wall democrats fear.  It is what it represents, isolationism and the victory of hate and racism over reason.
Click to expand...


Hush Bimbo (Rush Limbaugh), the NWO lackey, won't allow Ray to see both sides of the issue.  Personally, if the U.S. declares against Mexico and every country south of there all the way through Colombia, I couldn't care less.  But wall or no wall, as long as we keep breeding drug users, there will be people willing to meet the demand.


----------



## dblack

I. Dee. Uh

We could build the wall out of the metal we recycle from the Statue of Liberty when we tear it down.


----------



## deanrd

oreo said:


> According to Trump--we're no longer talking about a WALL it's down to steel slats.   Of course this is G.W. Bush's design that he installed on 700 miles of the border---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump now describes his border wall as "steel slats" - WDEF
> 
> Very easily compromised as this video shows.
> 
> And let's not forget about those tunnels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have found 240 of these in the San Diego region alone, and they know there's more that they haven't found.
> 
> So House Republicans put on their last Hoorah yesterday by passing a bill that included 5.1 billion for the WAAAAALLL.  Of course this is dead on arrival in the Senate.  Republicans had a full house over the last 2 years, and all of a sudden up pops this bill as they're making their exit out of the back door.  5.7 BILLION is the equivalent of teaspoon of water thrown on a bonfire, as the wall would cost 47 BILLION dollars.
> 
> So up comes the steel slats.  Democrats have stated they want more border security but want to use *HIGH TECH* to secure the border, stating that border patrol and border experts have told them it would work better than walls & fences.  It would be much more effective and efficient for the above reasons.  It's true.  Anything they can see, can and will ALWAYS be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> So we will see who is more interested in border security.  I imagine the Ass Clown--will turn down the HIGH TECH option and go with his POS wall (I mean slats now) and shut down the government over it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back on topic...
> We should be building barriers with new technologies such as drones, electronic monitoring, smart fencing. Walls were great 5,000 years ago but they will be no match for the technologies of the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with a wall AND technology?
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you build a wall it will be there for a hundred years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think the Democrats are so scared to death of a wall they are even willing to shutdown the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we could add technology to the cost of the wall and we it could be upgraded as new technology becomes available but adding 5 feet to the top or the foundation of a 1000 mile wall is another story.
> 
> My point is that we are not living in stagnation.  More Mexicans are returning to Mexico than arriving.  This trend started over 10 years ago and seems to be accelerating.  The problems in the northern triangle are responsible for the large number of Central Americans arriving in the US.  There have been proposals from both sides to increase aid and provide US personal to assist in clearing out the drug cartels and gangs that have made life a living hell for the people.  Lastly, immigration reform is far from dead.  It can't happen with Republican control of government but certain can and will happen with Democrat control.  Even if democrats only control one House of congress, we can still get immigration reform because many republicans agree with democrats on a number of immigration issues.  These changes will dramatically reduce illegal immigration without spending tens of billions of dollars on a wall, taking property away from hundreds of land owners, destruction of a fragile environment, and a sending a message to the world that the United States seeks to isolate itself by hiding behind a wall.
> 
> It is not the wall democrats fear.  It is what it represents, isolationism and the victory of hate and racism over reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hush Bimbo (Rush Limbaugh), the NWO lackey, won't allow Ray to see both sides of the issue.  Personally, if the U.S. declares against Mexico and every country south of there all the way through Colombia, I couldn't care less.  But wall or no wall, as long as we keep breeding drug users, there will be people willing to meet the demand.
Click to expand...


Correct, because we have such ability to control drug users.  Duh!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've admitted to being on drugs for what you think is a behavioral issue;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did? When?  Show me one post where I said I take drugs for behavior issues.  I never wrote that.  You are just listening to voices in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> you've admitted that you like to drink beer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I did.  So what?
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the liberals get through, you will not be allowed to own a firearm - and possibly your own avatar will be your worst enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are they going to do that?  They don't have nearly enough people to amend the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What counts is what a person is doing today - and what they have been doing in the recent past. If you're saying people cannot be rehabilitated, then we should keep them locked up forever. What you're promoting is plain out stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am saying is that once you are a criminal, the people who deal with you have the right to know that.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A person gets a criminal record. They are locked out of society. The Americans who committed a crime are unemployable. A foreigner comes in and works the job the Americans get locked out of and you're unhappy. I propose to put those Americans back to work and you fight me tooth and nail. You are only consistent with inconsistency. And you're not going to appreciate what I've said to you until it's your ass that is on the chopping block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't want your ass on a chopping block, then don't be a criminal.
> 
> I am against all immigration.  However I am not for employers being forced to hire anybody.  I am not for hiding criminal records from employers, local governments or even landlords.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You could be very right.  I'm not willing to look through the posts when we're approaching 1100 of them to find where you said something positive about drugs and ADD ADHD, claiming you had that very condition.
> 
> There are other ways of changing laws without amending the Constitution.  The United States Supreme Court has done it; Obama did it; Trump tries to do it on a regular basis... and the people have many ways of changing the laws WITHOUT amending the Constitution.  If it's good enough for the government, it's good enough for the people.
> 
> In a de jure / lawful / constitutional / legal Republic you do NOT have a Right to government records.  It's simply NOT in the Constitution.  Just because someone has the POWER to declare something "legal" does not make it so.
> 
> If you were not for telling employers who they can and cannot hire, you'd quit hiding behind the pretext of this crap being legal or illegal.  Simply put, if the farmer down the road can hire 100 Mexicans, but I can't due to some unconstitutional quota system, it puts me, as an employer in an UNEQUAL position, denying to me the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed in the 14th Amendment... UNLESS you want to join in with me in dismantling it.
> 
> You hide behind the POWER of Democracy shielded by "it's legal" regardless of its unconstitutionality.  So, who are you really trying to convince - me or you?  You like BIG GOVERNMENT.
> 
> I can give you options that give everyone involved something.  You're going to reject them because you are part of a political movement that smells blood.  You're going to get your wall so I can't imagine what you're crying about.  It's just that you cannot face the fact that you got played and when it comes time to pay - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of lost Liberties, I'm still going to come back and tell you I told you so.  You don't get something for nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional protection of criminal records.  Search and Seizure is in regards to a persons personal records--not government records.  Furthermore there is a huge difference between supporting medications for certain conditions and using them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Criminal records ARE government records.  Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the authority to give out the information for the general public to go on a fishing expedition.  You shouldn't argue this as one day, you or a loved one WILL be denied a constitutional protection and it will because of people just like you.
> 
> One last time:  the government can lie to you and they can lie about you... AND THEY DO.  By their own estimates 30 percent of the people in jails and prisons never actually committed a crime.
> 
> You were given an alternative, so if you choose to be a subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER, that is your prerogative.  It's mine not to subject myself to a foreign jurisdiction just because a de facto government makes a false claim against me.
Click to expand...


Wow, you really are off your rocker.  Public records equate to a New World Order?  And let me see this evidence that 30% of inmates never did anything wrong to be imprisoned; not that I believe you have any credible link (but it will be fun if you try to post something) however I just want to see where you make this stuff up from. 

Yes, criminal records are government records, and nothing in the Constitution "prohibits" government from sharing those records with the people.  It would be an injustice to not warn people of potentially dangerous people.  But I'm sure in the name of privacy, you wouldn't mind a rapist to move in next door to your mother or sister without your knowledge.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back on topic...
> We should be building barriers with new technologies such as drones, electronic monitoring, smart fencing. Walls were great 5,000 years ago but they will be no match for the technologies of the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with a wall AND technology?
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you build a wall it will be there for a hundred years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think the Democrats are so scared to death of a wall they are even willing to shutdown the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we could add technology to the cost of the wall and we it could be upgraded as new technology becomes available but adding 5 feet to the top or the foundation of a 1000 mile wall is another story.
> 
> My point is that we are not living in stagnation.  More Mexicans are returning to Mexico than arriving.  This trend started over 10 years ago and seems to be accelerating.  The problems in the northern triangle are responsible for the large number of Central Americans arriving in the US.  There have been proposals from both sides to increase aid and provide US personal to assist in clearing out the drug cartels and gangs that have made life a living hell for the people.  Lastly, immigration reform is far from dead.  It can't happen with Republican control of government but certain can and will happen with Democrat control.  Even if democrats only control one House of congress, we can still get immigration reform because many republicans agree with democrats on a number of immigration issues.  These changes will dramatically reduce illegal immigration without spending tens of billions of dollars on a wall, taking property away from hundreds of land owners, destruction of a fragile environment, and a sending a message to the world that the United States seeks to isolate itself by hiding behind a wall.
> 
> It is not the wall democrats fear.  It is what it represents, isolationism and the victory of hate and racism over reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they have you brainwashed too.......a damn shame.
> 
> Racism is what Democrats have used for many years to get their way.  It has nothing to do with racism.  This isn't a race issue.  If it were Canadians or Europeans attacking our country, we would feel the same way.  We don't need more uneducated diseased unskilled people in our country  no matter who they are.
> 
> And what immigration reform do we need?  There is nothing wrong with our immigration system now.  Do you know what immigration reform means?  It means surrendering to those who can't easily get in now.
Click to expand...

Uneducated, diseased, unskilled people, is this how you see immigrants to the US?  If so, I feel sorry for you because you are delusional.

Just because these people are poor does not mean they are uneducated, diseased, and unskilled.   Many of these people are skilled and can be an asset to the country.  Plus many of them have more intestinal fortitude than a dozen native born American.  With the right kind of immigration reform we can bring these people into the country and keep out those that mean us harm. 

Our immigration system is incredibly fucked up.  We select immigrants based on country of origin and having some relative living in the US.  Immigration agents spend 10 mins selecting who is allowed to immigrate and months on deportation.   We deny people the right to work in the US even if they have skills we need.  Our laws would deport people who have lived in this country for decades and have been an asset to their community. Those same laws would also deport people who were brought to the US as children and raised as Americans.  We force people to break our laws in order apply for asylum.  We were instrumental in creating the international refugee system and protocols and we violate the very rules we created.  The biggest problem in illegal immigration is not people coming into the country illegally but overstaying visa and our immigration laws don't even consider this a crime in most cases and there is no provision for tracking these people.  Our E-Verify system is completely voluntary and it's data is as much as 6 months out of date.  Employers that use contract labor are shielded from immigration law that forbids employing of undocumented immigrants.
And you say there's nothing wrong with our immigration system


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back on topic...
> We should be building barriers with new technologies such as drones, electronic monitoring, smart fencing. Walls were great 5,000 years ago but they will be no match for the technologies of the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with a wall AND technology?
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you build a wall it will be there for a hundred years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think the Democrats are so scared to death of a wall they are even willing to shutdown the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we could add technology to the cost of the wall and we it could be upgraded as new technology becomes available but adding 5 feet to the top or the foundation of a 1000 mile wall is another story.
> 
> My point is that we are not living in stagnation.  More Mexicans are returning to Mexico than arriving.  This trend started over 10 years ago and seems to be accelerating.  The problems in the northern triangle are responsible for the large number of Central Americans arriving in the US.  There have been proposals from both sides to increase aid and provide US personal to assist in clearing out the drug cartels and gangs that have made life a living hell for the people.  Lastly, immigration reform is far from dead.  It can't happen with Republican control of government but certain can and will happen with Democrat control.  Even if democrats only control one House of congress, we can still get immigration reform because many republicans agree with democrats on a number of immigration issues.  These changes will dramatically reduce illegal immigration without spending tens of billions of dollars on a wall, taking property away from hundreds of land owners, destruction of a fragile environment, and a sending a message to the world that the United States seeks to isolate itself by hiding behind a wall.
> 
> It is not the wall democrats fear.  It is what it represents, isolationism and the victory of hate and racism over reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they have you brainwashed too.......a damn shame.
> 
> Racism is what Democrats have used for many years to get their way.  It has nothing to do with racism.  This isn't a race issue.  If it were Canadians or Europeans attacking our country, we would feel the same way.  We don't need more uneducated diseased unskilled people in our country  no matter who they are.
> 
> And what immigration reform do we need?  There is nothing wrong with our immigration system now.  Do you know what immigration reform means?  It means surrendering to those who can't easily get in now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uneducated, diseased, unskilled people, is this how you see immigrants to the US?  If so, I feel sorry for you because you are delusional.
> 
> Just because these people are poor does not mean they are uneducated, diseased, and unskilled.   Many of these people are skilled and can be an asset to the country.  Plus many of them have more intestinal fortitude than a dozen native born American.  With the right kind of immigration reform we can bring these people into the country and keep out those that mean us harm.
> 
> Our immigration system is incredibly fucked up.  We select immigrants based on country of origin and having some relative living in the US.  Immigration agents spend 10 mins selecting who is allowed to immigrate and months on deportation.   We deny people the right to work in the US even if they have skills we need.  Our laws would deport people who have lived in this country for decades and have been an asset to their community. Those same laws would also deport people who were brought to the US as children and raised as Americans.  We force people to break our laws in order apply for asylum.  We were instrumental in creating the international refugee system and protocols and we violate the very rules we created.  The biggest problem in illegal immigration is not people coming into the country illegally but overstaying visa and our immigration laws don't even consider this a crime in most cases and there is no provision for tracking these people.  Our E-Verify system is completely voluntary and it's data is as much as 6 months out of date.  Employers that use contract labor are shielded from immigration law that forbids employing of undocumented immigrants.
> And you say there's nothing wrong with our immigration system
Click to expand...


Immigration reform for the anti-white party means getting more foreigners into this country.  They don't care who they are: unskilled, scientists, diseased, uneducated, they don't care, just as long as they are wiping out the white vote in this country.  

People who are here illegally being model citizens, paying taxes, being here since children is no reason to let them stay.  They are still here breaking our laws.  They are still here illegally.  I don't know what you on the left don't understand about that.  You think being here illegally is okay in most cases.  

We don't need to set the precedent that if you come here illegally and be a good boy for X amount of years, you won't be bothered the least.  That's a blanket invitation to the other 7.2 billion people in the world that America is weak on immigration which we really are.  But we don't need to amplify that.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've admitted to being on drugs for what you think is a behavioral issue;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did? When?  Show me one post where I said I take drugs for behavior issues.  I never wrote that.  You are just listening to voices in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> you've admitted that you like to drink beer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I did.  So what?
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the liberals get through, you will not be allowed to own a firearm - and possibly your own avatar will be your worst enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are they going to do that?  They don't have nearly enough people to amend the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What counts is what a person is doing today - and what they have been doing in the recent past. If you're saying people cannot be rehabilitated, then we should keep them locked up forever. What you're promoting is plain out stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am saying is that once you are a criminal, the people who deal with you have the right to know that.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A person gets a criminal record. They are locked out of society. The Americans who committed a crime are unemployable. A foreigner comes in and works the job the Americans get locked out of and you're unhappy. I propose to put those Americans back to work and you fight me tooth and nail. You are only consistent with inconsistency. And you're not going to appreciate what I've said to you until it's your ass that is on the chopping block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't want your ass on a chopping block, then don't be a criminal.
> 
> I am against all immigration.  However I am not for employers being forced to hire anybody.  I am not for hiding criminal records from employers, local governments or even landlords.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You could be very right.  I'm not willing to look through the posts when we're approaching 1100 of them to find where you said something positive about drugs and ADD ADHD, claiming you had that very condition.
> 
> There are other ways of changing laws without amending the Constitution.  The United States Supreme Court has done it; Obama did it; Trump tries to do it on a regular basis... and the people have many ways of changing the laws WITHOUT amending the Constitution.  If it's good enough for the government, it's good enough for the people.
> 
> In a de jure / lawful / constitutional / legal Republic you do NOT have a Right to government records.  It's simply NOT in the Constitution.  Just because someone has the POWER to declare something "legal" does not make it so.
> 
> If you were not for telling employers who they can and cannot hire, you'd quit hiding behind the pretext of this crap being legal or illegal.  Simply put, if the farmer down the road can hire 100 Mexicans, but I can't due to some unconstitutional quota system, it puts me, as an employer in an UNEQUAL position, denying to me the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed in the 14th Amendment... UNLESS you want to join in with me in dismantling it.
> 
> You hide behind the POWER of Democracy shielded by "it's legal" regardless of its unconstitutionality.  So, who are you really trying to convince - me or you?  You like BIG GOVERNMENT.
> 
> I can give you options that give everyone involved something.  You're going to reject them because you are part of a political movement that smells blood.  You're going to get your wall so I can't imagine what you're crying about.  It's just that you cannot face the fact that you got played and when it comes time to pay - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of lost Liberties, I'm still going to come back and tell you I told you so.  You don't get something for nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional protection of criminal records.  Search and Seizure is in regards to a persons personal records--not government records.  Furthermore there is a huge difference between supporting medications for certain conditions and using them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Criminal records ARE government records.  Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the authority to give out the information for the general public to go on a fishing expedition.  You shouldn't argue this as one day, you or a loved one WILL be denied a constitutional protection and it will because of people just like you.
> 
> One last time:  the government can lie to you and they can lie about you... AND THEY DO.  By their own estimates 30 percent of the people in jails and prisons never actually committed a crime.
> 
> You were given an alternative, so if you choose to be a subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER, that is your prerogative.  It's mine not to subject myself to a foreign jurisdiction just because a de facto government makes a false claim against me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are off your rocker.  Public records equate to a New World Order?  And let me see this evidence that 30% of inmates never did anything wrong to be imprisoned; not that I believe you have any credible link (but it will be fun if you try to post something) however I just want to see where you make this stuff up from.
> 
> Yes, criminal records are government records, and nothing in the Constitution "prohibits" government from sharing those records with the people.  It would be an injustice to not warn people of potentially dangerous people.  But I'm sure in the name of privacy, you wouldn't mind a rapist to move in next door to your mother or sister without your knowledge.
Click to expand...


If you would not believe it, then there is no point in posting a link. It would be wasted verification.

One thing is for sure.  You live on this board to argue the wall as if it were your lifeblood - your religion.  Yet you fail to comprehend simple truths.  For example:

Not too long back the liberals wanted to declare that any veteran who had been diagnosed with PTSD be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms.  You won't believe that either, but it's true.  The point is, the liberals would use your mental health records to deny you the Right to keep and bear Arms.

You argued against ADD / ADHD, claiming you are afflicted with such, but then denying that you are not on the drugs for it.  Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, if you have a real condition, you either have it or you don't.  If you're born with juvenile diabetes, you have it.  You don't wake up one morning and say I feel fine so I must be cured.

You cannot understand that I'm sometimes on YOUR side for IF ADD / ADHD were real conditions and IF you were not on your meds, the liberals would most assuredly pass legislation to address people like you.  IF you think a person's criminal record is something the public should know about, then ditto for their mental health records.  

WHEN mental health records become fair game, then you can be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms as well as be turned down for a job because you have a "mental health record."  Does it matter that you went to see the psychologist because you lost interest in sex or that you needed a referral from a psychologist to go out of network and be hypnotized so that you could quit smoking?  HELL NO.  It will be just like a "criminal record."  Nobody is going to read the transcripts nor weigh the value of the treatment nor more than they read court transcripts to find out that you were threatened with pleading guilty or facing a maximum prison sentence when the facts clearly dictate you were innocent.  I leave you with the wisdom of Thomas Paine:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Read more at: Thomas Paine Quotes


----------



## Lesh

Build that Slat Fence !

Build that Slat Fence !

Build that Slat Fence !


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back on topic...
> We should be building barriers with new technologies such as drones, electronic monitoring, smart fencing. Walls were great 5,000 years ago but they will be no match for the technologies of the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with a wall AND technology?
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you build a wall it will be there for a hundred years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think the Democrats are so scared to death of a wall they are even willing to shutdown the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we could add technology to the cost of the wall and we it could be upgraded as new technology becomes available but adding 5 feet to the top or the foundation of a 1000 mile wall is another story.
> 
> My point is that we are not living in stagnation.  More Mexicans are returning to Mexico than arriving.  This trend started over 10 years ago and seems to be accelerating.  The problems in the northern triangle are responsible for the large number of Central Americans arriving in the US.  There have been proposals from both sides to increase aid and provide US personal to assist in clearing out the drug cartels and gangs that have made life a living hell for the people.  Lastly, immigration reform is far from dead.  It can't happen with Republican control of government but certain can and will happen with Democrat control.  Even if democrats only control one House of congress, we can still get immigration reform because many republicans agree with democrats on a number of immigration issues.  These changes will dramatically reduce illegal immigration without spending tens of billions of dollars on a wall, taking property away from hundreds of land owners, destruction of a fragile environment, and a sending a message to the world that the United States seeks to isolate itself by hiding behind a wall.
> 
> It is not the wall democrats fear.  It is what it represents, isolationism and the victory of hate and racism over reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they have you brainwashed too.......a damn shame.
> 
> Racism is what Democrats have used for many years to get their way.  It has nothing to do with racism.  This isn't a race issue.  If it were Canadians or Europeans attacking our country, we would feel the same way.  We don't need more uneducated diseased unskilled people in our country  no matter who they are.
> 
> And what immigration reform do we need?  There is nothing wrong with our immigration system now.  Do you know what immigration reform means?  It means surrendering to those who can't easily get in now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uneducated, diseased, unskilled people, is this how you see immigrants to the US?  If so, I feel sorry for you because you are delusional.
> 
> Just because these people are poor does not mean they are uneducated, diseased, and unskilled.   Many of these people are skilled and can be an asset to the country.  Plus many of them have more intestinal fortitude than a dozen native born American.  With the right kind of immigration reform we can bring these people into the country and keep out those that mean us harm.
> 
> Our immigration system is incredibly fucked up.  We select immigrants based on country of origin and having some relative living in the US.  Immigration agents spend 10 mins selecting who is allowed to immigrate and months on deportation.   We deny people the right to work in the US even if they have skills we need.  Our laws would deport people who have lived in this country for decades and have been an asset to their community. Those same laws would also deport people who were brought to the US as children and raised as Americans.  We force people to break our laws in order apply for asylum.  We were instrumental in creating the international refugee system and protocols and we violate the very rules we created.  The biggest problem in illegal immigration is not people coming into the country illegally but overstaying visa and our immigration laws don't even consider this a crime in most cases and there is no provision for tracking these people.  Our E-Verify system is completely voluntary and it's data is as much as 6 months out of date.  Employers that use contract labor are shielded from immigration law that forbids employing of undocumented immigrants.
> And you say there's nothing wrong with our immigration system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration reform for the anti-white party means getting more foreigners into this country.  They don't care who they are: unskilled, scientists, diseased, uneducated, they don't care, just as long as they are wiping out the white vote in this country.
> 
> People who are here illegally being model citizens, paying taxes, being here since children is no reason to let them stay.  They are still here breaking our laws.  They are still here illegally.  I don't know what you on the left don't understand about that.  You think being here illegally is okay in most cases.
> 
> We don't need to set the precedent that if you come here illegally and be a good boy for X amount of years, you won't be bothered the least.  That's a blanket invitation to the other 7.2 billion people in the world that America is weak on immigration which we really are.  But we don't need to amplify that.
Click to expand...


I know this is going to be a great big freaking surprise to you and one guaranteed to open a can of worms, but being in the United States without papers is not a crime.  Furthermore, what happened to that doctrine that we are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of our peers?  

Yeah, I know Ray.  Government is God and the only Rights men have are those they get from the government in exchanging for becoming subjects of the de facto system and carrying human registration papers on us.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.

Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Lesh said:


> Build that Slat Fence !
> 
> Build that Slat Fence !
> 
> Build that Slat Fence !



Proof that a lie told a thousand times is easier to believe than a truth you've never heard.  Chant the mantra and be good little subjects.


----------



## dblack

mikegriffith1 said:


> Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.
> 
> Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.



Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

mikegriffith1 said:


> Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.
> 
> Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.



I am not liberal and I realize that the Israelis are at war.  We are not.  I also know that our situation is different; therefore, applying the wrong solution to the problem does not solve it any more than giving you Prevacid would cure you of impotence.


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back on topic...
> We should be building barriers with new technologies such as drones, electronic monitoring, smart fencing. Walls were great 5,000 years ago but they will be no match for the technologies of the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with a wall AND technology?
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you build a wall it will be there for a hundred years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think the Democrats are so scared to death of a wall they are even willing to shutdown the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we could add technology to the cost of the wall and we it could be upgraded as new technology becomes available but adding 5 feet to the top or the foundation of a 1000 mile wall is another story.
> 
> My point is that we are not living in stagnation.  More Mexicans are returning to Mexico than arriving.  This trend started over 10 years ago and seems to be accelerating.  The problems in the northern triangle are responsible for the large number of Central Americans arriving in the US.  There have been proposals from both sides to increase aid and provide US personal to assist in clearing out the drug cartels and gangs that have made life a living hell for the people.  Lastly, immigration reform is far from dead.  It can't happen with Republican control of government but certain can and will happen with Democrat control.  Even if democrats only control one House of congress, we can still get immigration reform because many republicans agree with democrats on a number of immigration issues.  These changes will dramatically reduce illegal immigration without spending tens of billions of dollars on a wall, taking property away from hundreds of land owners, destruction of a fragile environment, and a sending a message to the world that the United States seeks to isolate itself by hiding behind a wall.
> 
> It is not the wall democrats fear.  It is what it represents, isolationism and the victory of hate and racism over reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they have you brainwashed too.......a damn shame.
> 
> Racism is what Democrats have used for many years to get their way.  It has nothing to do with racism.  This isn't a race issue.  If it were Canadians or Europeans attacking our country, we would feel the same way.  We don't need more uneducated diseased unskilled people in our country  no matter who they are.
> 
> And what immigration reform do we need?  There is nothing wrong with our immigration system now.  Do you know what immigration reform means?  It means surrendering to those who can't easily get in now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uneducated, diseased, unskilled people, is this how you see immigrants to the US?  If so, I feel sorry for you because you are delusional.
> 
> Just because these people are poor does not mean they are uneducated, diseased, and unskilled.   Many of these people are skilled and can be an asset to the country.  Plus many of them have more intestinal fortitude than a dozen native born American.  With the right kind of immigration reform we can bring these people into the country and keep out those that mean us harm.
> 
> Our immigration system is incredibly fucked up.  We select immigrants based on country of origin and having some relative living in the US.  Immigration agents spend 10 mins selecting who is allowed to immigrate and months on deportation.   We deny people the right to work in the US even if they have skills we need.  Our laws would deport people who have lived in this country for decades and have been an asset to their community. Those same laws would also deport people who were brought to the US as children and raised as Americans.  We force people to break our laws in order apply for asylum.  We were instrumental in creating the international refugee system and protocols and we violate the very rules we created.  The biggest problem in illegal immigration is not people coming into the country illegally but overstaying visa and our immigration laws don't even consider this a crime in most cases and there is no provision for tracking these people.  Our E-Verify system is completely voluntary and it's data is as much as 6 months out of date.  Employers that use contract labor are shielded from immigration law that forbids employing of undocumented immigrants.
> And you say there's nothing wrong with our immigration system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration reform for the anti-white party means getting more foreigners into this country.  They don't care who they are: unskilled, scientists, diseased, uneducated, they don't care, just as long as they are wiping out the white vote in this country.
> 
> People who are here illegally being model citizens, paying taxes, being here since children is no reason to let them stay.  They are still here breaking our laws.  They are still here illegally.  I don't know what you on the left don't understand about that.  You think being here illegally is okay in most cases.
> 
> We don't need to set the precedent that if you come here illegally and be a good boy for X amount of years, you won't be bothered the least.  That's a blanket invitation to the other 7.2 billion people in the world that America is weak on immigration which we really are.  But we don't need to amplify that.
Click to expand...


That is the Perfect example of fear.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did? When?  Show me one post where I said I take drugs for behavior issues.  I never wrote that.  You are just listening to voices in your head.
> 
> Yes I did.  So what?
> 
> How are they going to do that?  They don't have nearly enough people to amend the Constitution.
> 
> What I am saying is that once you are a criminal, the people who deal with you have the right to know that.
> 
> If you don't want your ass on a chopping block, then don't be a criminal.
> 
> I am against all immigration.  However I am not for employers being forced to hire anybody.  I am not for hiding criminal records from employers, local governments or even landlords.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could be very right.  I'm not willing to look through the posts when we're approaching 1100 of them to find where you said something positive about drugs and ADD ADHD, claiming you had that very condition.
> 
> There are other ways of changing laws without amending the Constitution.  The United States Supreme Court has done it; Obama did it; Trump tries to do it on a regular basis... and the people have many ways of changing the laws WITHOUT amending the Constitution.  If it's good enough for the government, it's good enough for the people.
> 
> In a de jure / lawful / constitutional / legal Republic you do NOT have a Right to government records.  It's simply NOT in the Constitution.  Just because someone has the POWER to declare something "legal" does not make it so.
> 
> If you were not for telling employers who they can and cannot hire, you'd quit hiding behind the pretext of this crap being legal or illegal.  Simply put, if the farmer down the road can hire 100 Mexicans, but I can't due to some unconstitutional quota system, it puts me, as an employer in an UNEQUAL position, denying to me the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed in the 14th Amendment... UNLESS you want to join in with me in dismantling it.
> 
> You hide behind the POWER of Democracy shielded by "it's legal" regardless of its unconstitutionality.  So, who are you really trying to convince - me or you?  You like BIG GOVERNMENT.
> 
> I can give you options that give everyone involved something.  You're going to reject them because you are part of a political movement that smells blood.  You're going to get your wall so I can't imagine what you're crying about.  It's just that you cannot face the fact that you got played and when it comes time to pay - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of lost Liberties, I'm still going to come back and tell you I told you so.  You don't get something for nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional protection of criminal records.  Search and Seizure is in regards to a persons personal records--not government records.  Furthermore there is a huge difference between supporting medications for certain conditions and using them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Criminal records ARE government records.  Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the authority to give out the information for the general public to go on a fishing expedition.  You shouldn't argue this as one day, you or a loved one WILL be denied a constitutional protection and it will because of people just like you.
> 
> One last time:  the government can lie to you and they can lie about you... AND THEY DO.  By their own estimates 30 percent of the people in jails and prisons never actually committed a crime.
> 
> You were given an alternative, so if you choose to be a subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER, that is your prerogative.  It's mine not to subject myself to a foreign jurisdiction just because a de facto government makes a false claim against me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are off your rocker.  Public records equate to a New World Order?  And let me see this evidence that 30% of inmates never did anything wrong to be imprisoned; not that I believe you have any credible link (but it will be fun if you try to post something) however I just want to see where you make this stuff up from.
> 
> Yes, criminal records are government records, and nothing in the Constitution "prohibits" government from sharing those records with the people.  It would be an injustice to not warn people of potentially dangerous people.  But I'm sure in the name of privacy, you wouldn't mind a rapist to move in next door to your mother or sister without your knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would not believe it, then there is no point in posting a link. It would be wasted verification.
> 
> One thing is for sure.  You live on this board to argue the wall as if it were your lifeblood - your religion.  Yet you fail to comprehend simple truths.  For example:
> 
> Not too long back the liberals wanted to declare that any veteran who had been diagnosed with PTSD be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms.  You won't believe that either, but it's true.  The point is, the liberals would use your mental health records to deny you the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> You argued against ADD / ADHD, claiming you are afflicted with such, but then denying that you are not on the drugs for it.  Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, if you have a real condition, you either have it or you don't.  If you're born with juvenile diabetes, you have it.  You don't wake up one morning and say I feel fine so I must be cured.
> 
> You cannot understand that I'm sometimes on YOUR side for IF ADD / ADHD were real conditions and IF you were not on your meds, the liberals would most assuredly pass legislation to address people like you.  IF you think a person's criminal record is something the public should know about, then ditto for their mental health records.
> 
> WHEN mental health records become fair game, then you can be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms as well as be turned down for a job because you have a "mental health record."  Does it matter that you went to see the psychologist because you lost interest in sex or that you needed a referral from a psychologist to go out of network and be hypnotized so that you could quit smoking?  HELL NO.  It will be just like a "criminal record."  Nobody is going to read the transcripts nor weigh the value of the treatment nor more than they read court transcripts to find out that you were threatened with pleading guilty or facing a maximum prison sentence when the facts clearly dictate you were innocent.  I leave you with the wisdom of Thomas Paine:
> 
> "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
> 
> Read more at: Thomas Paine Quotes
Click to expand...


You're right about one thing, I have no idea where you're at half the time.  

ADD is difficulty paying attention or your mind drifting off of a subject.  It's something you can live with without taking medication.  We were talking about criminal records, not mental records.  You keep detouring the subject all the time.  

What you don't understand is the Doctor/ patient relationship is sacred.  Criminal records are not.  Doctors take an oath to protect the confidence between themselves and their clients unless they believe a serious threat to the public is at large.  

The government puts guardrails on our roads so you don't accidentally drive off a cliff or into a river.   The government forces companies to put warnings on medications and various devices so you don't get hurt.  The government forces companies to put something in front of dock doors so an employee doesn't fall out of it or a tow motor drive off of it.  The government regulation is that we truck drivers chock our wheels (putting a rubber or metal wedge under the tire) even though tractor-trailers have two independent brake systems that make it virtually impossible for the system to fail. 

In other words, government takes measures to insure our safety.  So if government is aware of a potentially dangerous person; a person who may cause me serious grief; a person who may be a threat to my business or family, it's governments duty to warn me of this potential--not hide it from me so I have no idea.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

dblack said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.
> 
> Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.
Click to expand...


That is a point well taken.  If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse.  BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse.  Times change.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.
> 
> Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a point well taken.  If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse.  BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse.  Times change.
Click to expand...


It has nothing to do with "how far we will go" it has to do with legality.  The Supreme court ruled (a few years back) that eminent domain even applies to private companies wishing to make improvements to an area.  In other words, being able to buy structures and evicting people out of them to tear those homes down and build new ones.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could be very right.  I'm not willing to look through the posts when we're approaching 1100 of them to find where you said something positive about drugs and ADD ADHD, claiming you had that very condition.
> 
> There are other ways of changing laws without amending the Constitution.  The United States Supreme Court has done it; Obama did it; Trump tries to do it on a regular basis... and the people have many ways of changing the laws WITHOUT amending the Constitution.  If it's good enough for the government, it's good enough for the people.
> 
> In a de jure / lawful / constitutional / legal Republic you do NOT have a Right to government records.  It's simply NOT in the Constitution.  Just because someone has the POWER to declare something "legal" does not make it so.
> 
> If you were not for telling employers who they can and cannot hire, you'd quit hiding behind the pretext of this crap being legal or illegal.  Simply put, if the farmer down the road can hire 100 Mexicans, but I can't due to some unconstitutional quota system, it puts me, as an employer in an UNEQUAL position, denying to me the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed in the 14th Amendment... UNLESS you want to join in with me in dismantling it.
> 
> You hide behind the POWER of Democracy shielded by "it's legal" regardless of its unconstitutionality.  So, who are you really trying to convince - me or you?  You like BIG GOVERNMENT.
> 
> I can give you options that give everyone involved something.  You're going to reject them because you are part of a political movement that smells blood.  You're going to get your wall so I can't imagine what you're crying about.  It's just that you cannot face the fact that you got played and when it comes time to pay - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of lost Liberties, I'm still going to come back and tell you I told you so.  You don't get something for nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional protection of criminal records.  Search and Seizure is in regards to a persons personal records--not government records.  Furthermore there is a huge difference between supporting medications for certain conditions and using them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Criminal records ARE government records.  Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the authority to give out the information for the general public to go on a fishing expedition.  You shouldn't argue this as one day, you or a loved one WILL be denied a constitutional protection and it will because of people just like you.
> 
> One last time:  the government can lie to you and they can lie about you... AND THEY DO.  By their own estimates 30 percent of the people in jails and prisons never actually committed a crime.
> 
> You were given an alternative, so if you choose to be a subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER, that is your prerogative.  It's mine not to subject myself to a foreign jurisdiction just because a de facto government makes a false claim against me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are off your rocker.  Public records equate to a New World Order?  And let me see this evidence that 30% of inmates never did anything wrong to be imprisoned; not that I believe you have any credible link (but it will be fun if you try to post something) however I just want to see where you make this stuff up from.
> 
> Yes, criminal records are government records, and nothing in the Constitution "prohibits" government from sharing those records with the people.  It would be an injustice to not warn people of potentially dangerous people.  But I'm sure in the name of privacy, you wouldn't mind a rapist to move in next door to your mother or sister without your knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would not believe it, then there is no point in posting a link. It would be wasted verification.
> 
> One thing is for sure.  You live on this board to argue the wall as if it were your lifeblood - your religion.  Yet you fail to comprehend simple truths.  For example:
> 
> Not too long back the liberals wanted to declare that any veteran who had been diagnosed with PTSD be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms.  You won't believe that either, but it's true.  The point is, the liberals would use your mental health records to deny you the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> You argued against ADD / ADHD, claiming you are afflicted with such, but then denying that you are not on the drugs for it.  Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, if you have a real condition, you either have it or you don't.  If you're born with juvenile diabetes, you have it.  You don't wake up one morning and say I feel fine so I must be cured.
> 
> You cannot understand that I'm sometimes on YOUR side for IF ADD / ADHD were real conditions and IF you were not on your meds, the liberals would most assuredly pass legislation to address people like you.  IF you think a person's criminal record is something the public should know about, then ditto for their mental health records.
> 
> WHEN mental health records become fair game, then you can be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms as well as be turned down for a job because you have a "mental health record."  Does it matter that you went to see the psychologist because you lost interest in sex or that you needed a referral from a psychologist to go out of network and be hypnotized so that you could quit smoking?  HELL NO.  It will be just like a "criminal record."  Nobody is going to read the transcripts nor weigh the value of the treatment nor more than they read court transcripts to find out that you were threatened with pleading guilty or facing a maximum prison sentence when the facts clearly dictate you were innocent.  I leave you with the wisdom of Thomas Paine:
> 
> "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
> 
> Read more at: Thomas Paine Quotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right about one thing, I have no idea where you're at half the time.
> 
> ADD is difficulty paying attention or your mind drifting off of a subject.  It's something you can live with without taking medication.  We were talking about criminal records, not mental records.  You keep detouring the subject all the time.
> 
> What you don't understand is the Doctor/ patient relationship is sacred.  Criminal records are not.  Doctors take an oath to protect the confidence between themselves and their clients unless they believe a serious threat to the public is at large.
> 
> The government puts guardrails on our roads so you don't accidentally drive off a cliff or into a river.   The government forces companies to put warnings on medications and various devices so you don't get hurt.  The government forces companies to put something in front of dock doors so an employee doesn't fall out of it or a tow motor drive off of it.  The government regulation is that we truck drivers chock our wheels (putting a rubber or metal wedge under the tire) even though tractor-trailers have two independent brake systems that make it virtually impossible for the system to fail.
> 
> In other words, government takes measures to insure our safety.  So if government is aware of a potentially dangerous person; a person who may cause me serious grief; a person who may be a threat to my business or family, it's governments duty to warn me of this potential--not hide it from me so I have no idea.
Click to expand...


You open your post with a straw man argument, add utter nonsense and then end it with the weakest argument you've ever had.

Mental health records are not sacred.  There are legislators wanting them to be used right now to make sure you cannot exercise your Rights.  WHEN it happens, get back to me.  

Finally, building a guard-rail poses no threat to your constitutional Liberties.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

mikegriffith1 said:


> Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.
> 
> Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.



Hypocrites.  It's like when actors or other famous people tell us the public doesn't need to be armed, but when they go out in public, they have armed security guards.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional protection of criminal records.  Search and Seizure is in regards to a persons personal records--not government records.  Furthermore there is a huge difference between supporting medications for certain conditions and using them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criminal records ARE government records.  Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the authority to give out the information for the general public to go on a fishing expedition.  You shouldn't argue this as one day, you or a loved one WILL be denied a constitutional protection and it will because of people just like you.
> 
> One last time:  the government can lie to you and they can lie about you... AND THEY DO.  By their own estimates 30 percent of the people in jails and prisons never actually committed a crime.
> 
> You were given an alternative, so if you choose to be a subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER, that is your prerogative.  It's mine not to subject myself to a foreign jurisdiction just because a de facto government makes a false claim against me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are off your rocker.  Public records equate to a New World Order?  And let me see this evidence that 30% of inmates never did anything wrong to be imprisoned; not that I believe you have any credible link (but it will be fun if you try to post something) however I just want to see where you make this stuff up from.
> 
> Yes, criminal records are government records, and nothing in the Constitution "prohibits" government from sharing those records with the people.  It would be an injustice to not warn people of potentially dangerous people.  But I'm sure in the name of privacy, you wouldn't mind a rapist to move in next door to your mother or sister without your knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would not believe it, then there is no point in posting a link. It would be wasted verification.
> 
> One thing is for sure.  You live on this board to argue the wall as if it were your lifeblood - your religion.  Yet you fail to comprehend simple truths.  For example:
> 
> Not too long back the liberals wanted to declare that any veteran who had been diagnosed with PTSD be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms.  You won't believe that either, but it's true.  The point is, the liberals would use your mental health records to deny you the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> You argued against ADD / ADHD, claiming you are afflicted with such, but then denying that you are not on the drugs for it.  Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, if you have a real condition, you either have it or you don't.  If you're born with juvenile diabetes, you have it.  You don't wake up one morning and say I feel fine so I must be cured.
> 
> You cannot understand that I'm sometimes on YOUR side for IF ADD / ADHD were real conditions and IF you were not on your meds, the liberals would most assuredly pass legislation to address people like you.  IF you think a person's criminal record is something the public should know about, then ditto for their mental health records.
> 
> WHEN mental health records become fair game, then you can be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms as well as be turned down for a job because you have a "mental health record."  Does it matter that you went to see the psychologist because you lost interest in sex or that you needed a referral from a psychologist to go out of network and be hypnotized so that you could quit smoking?  HELL NO.  It will be just like a "criminal record."  Nobody is going to read the transcripts nor weigh the value of the treatment nor more than they read court transcripts to find out that you were threatened with pleading guilty or facing a maximum prison sentence when the facts clearly dictate you were innocent.  I leave you with the wisdom of Thomas Paine:
> 
> "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
> 
> Read more at: Thomas Paine Quotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right about one thing, I have no idea where you're at half the time.
> 
> ADD is difficulty paying attention or your mind drifting off of a subject.  It's something you can live with without taking medication.  We were talking about criminal records, not mental records.  You keep detouring the subject all the time.
> 
> What you don't understand is the Doctor/ patient relationship is sacred.  Criminal records are not.  Doctors take an oath to protect the confidence between themselves and their clients unless they believe a serious threat to the public is at large.
> 
> The government puts guardrails on our roads so you don't accidentally drive off a cliff or into a river.   The government forces companies to put warnings on medications and various devices so you don't get hurt.  The government forces companies to put something in front of dock doors so an employee doesn't fall out of it or a tow motor drive off of it.  The government regulation is that we truck drivers chock our wheels (putting a rubber or metal wedge under the tire) even though tractor-trailers have two independent brake systems that make it virtually impossible for the system to fail.
> 
> In other words, government takes measures to insure our safety.  So if government is aware of a potentially dangerous person; a person who may cause me serious grief; a person who may be a threat to my business or family, it's governments duty to warn me of this potential--not hide it from me so I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You open your post with a straw man argument, add utter nonsense and then end it with the weakest argument you've ever had.
> 
> Mental health records are not sacred.  There are legislators wanting them to be used right now to make sure you cannot exercise your Rights.  WHEN it happens, get back to me.
> 
> Finally, building a guard-rail poses no threat to your constitutional Liberties.
Click to expand...


And neither does criminal records being public.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with a wall AND technology?
> 
> Why do you think the Democrats are so scared to death of a wall they are even willing to shutdown the government?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we could add technology to the cost of the wall and we it could be upgraded as new technology becomes available but adding 5 feet to the top or the foundation of a 1000 mile wall is another story.
> 
> My point is that we are not living in stagnation.  More Mexicans are returning to Mexico than arriving.  This trend started over 10 years ago and seems to be accelerating.  The problems in the northern triangle are responsible for the large number of Central Americans arriving in the US.  There have been proposals from both sides to increase aid and provide US personal to assist in clearing out the drug cartels and gangs that have made life a living hell for the people.  Lastly, immigration reform is far from dead.  It can't happen with Republican control of government but certain can and will happen with Democrat control.  Even if democrats only control one House of congress, we can still get immigration reform because many republicans agree with democrats on a number of immigration issues.  These changes will dramatically reduce illegal immigration without spending tens of billions of dollars on a wall, taking property away from hundreds of land owners, destruction of a fragile environment, and a sending a message to the world that the United States seeks to isolate itself by hiding behind a wall.
> 
> It is not the wall democrats fear.  It is what it represents, isolationism and the victory of hate and racism over reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they have you brainwashed too.......a damn shame.
> 
> Racism is what Democrats have used for many years to get their way.  It has nothing to do with racism.  This isn't a race issue.  If it were Canadians or Europeans attacking our country, we would feel the same way.  We don't need more uneducated diseased unskilled people in our country  no matter who they are.
> 
> And what immigration reform do we need?  There is nothing wrong with our immigration system now.  Do you know what immigration reform means?  It means surrendering to those who can't easily get in now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uneducated, diseased, unskilled people, is this how you see immigrants to the US?  If so, I feel sorry for you because you are delusional.
> 
> Just because these people are poor does not mean they are uneducated, diseased, and unskilled.   Many of these people are skilled and can be an asset to the country.  Plus many of them have more intestinal fortitude than a dozen native born American.  With the right kind of immigration reform we can bring these people into the country and keep out those that mean us harm.
> 
> Our immigration system is incredibly fucked up.  We select immigrants based on country of origin and having some relative living in the US.  Immigration agents spend 10 mins selecting who is allowed to immigrate and months on deportation.   We deny people the right to work in the US even if they have skills we need.  Our laws would deport people who have lived in this country for decades and have been an asset to their community. Those same laws would also deport people who were brought to the US as children and raised as Americans.  We force people to break our laws in order apply for asylum.  We were instrumental in creating the international refugee system and protocols and we violate the very rules we created.  The biggest problem in illegal immigration is not people coming into the country illegally but overstaying visa and our immigration laws don't even consider this a crime in most cases and there is no provision for tracking these people.  Our E-Verify system is completely voluntary and it's data is as much as 6 months out of date.  Employers that use contract labor are shielded from immigration law that forbids employing of undocumented immigrants.
> And you say there's nothing wrong with our immigration system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration reform for the anti-white party means getting more foreigners into this country.  They don't care who they are: unskilled, scientists, diseased, uneducated, they don't care, just as long as they are wiping out the white vote in this country.
> 
> People who are here illegally being model citizens, paying taxes, being here since children is no reason to let them stay.  They are still here breaking our laws.  They are still here illegally.  I don't know what you on the left don't understand about that.  You think being here illegally is okay in most cases.
> 
> We don't need to set the precedent that if you come here illegally and be a good boy for X amount of years, you won't be bothered the least.  That's a blanket invitation to the other 7.2 billion people in the world that America is weak on immigration which we really are.  But we don't need to amplify that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know this is going to be a great big freaking surprise to you and one guaranteed to open a can of worms, but being in the United States without papers is not a crime.  Furthermore, what happened to that doctrine that we are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of our peers?
> 
> Yeah, I know Ray.  Government is God and the only Rights men have are those they get from the government in exchanging for becoming subjects of the de facto system and carrying human registration papers on us.
Click to expand...


Being here illegally is illegal.  That's where they got the term from--the word illegal.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminal records ARE government records.  Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the authority to give out the information for the general public to go on a fishing expedition.  You shouldn't argue this as one day, you or a loved one WILL be denied a constitutional protection and it will because of people just like you.
> 
> One last time:  the government can lie to you and they can lie about you... AND THEY DO.  By their own estimates 30 percent of the people in jails and prisons never actually committed a crime.
> 
> You were given an alternative, so if you choose to be a subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER, that is your prerogative.  It's mine not to subject myself to a foreign jurisdiction just because a de facto government makes a false claim against me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are off your rocker.  Public records equate to a New World Order?  And let me see this evidence that 30% of inmates never did anything wrong to be imprisoned; not that I believe you have any credible link (but it will be fun if you try to post something) however I just want to see where you make this stuff up from.
> 
> Yes, criminal records are government records, and nothing in the Constitution "prohibits" government from sharing those records with the people.  It would be an injustice to not warn people of potentially dangerous people.  But I'm sure in the name of privacy, you wouldn't mind a rapist to move in next door to your mother or sister without your knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would not believe it, then there is no point in posting a link. It would be wasted verification.
> 
> One thing is for sure.  You live on this board to argue the wall as if it were your lifeblood - your religion.  Yet you fail to comprehend simple truths.  For example:
> 
> Not too long back the liberals wanted to declare that any veteran who had been diagnosed with PTSD be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms.  You won't believe that either, but it's true.  The point is, the liberals would use your mental health records to deny you the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> You argued against ADD / ADHD, claiming you are afflicted with such, but then denying that you are not on the drugs for it.  Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, if you have a real condition, you either have it or you don't.  If you're born with juvenile diabetes, you have it.  You don't wake up one morning and say I feel fine so I must be cured.
> 
> You cannot understand that I'm sometimes on YOUR side for IF ADD / ADHD were real conditions and IF you were not on your meds, the liberals would most assuredly pass legislation to address people like you.  IF you think a person's criminal record is something the public should know about, then ditto for their mental health records.
> 
> WHEN mental health records become fair game, then you can be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms as well as be turned down for a job because you have a "mental health record."  Does it matter that you went to see the psychologist because you lost interest in sex or that you needed a referral from a psychologist to go out of network and be hypnotized so that you could quit smoking?  HELL NO.  It will be just like a "criminal record."  Nobody is going to read the transcripts nor weigh the value of the treatment nor more than they read court transcripts to find out that you were threatened with pleading guilty or facing a maximum prison sentence when the facts clearly dictate you were innocent.  I leave you with the wisdom of Thomas Paine:
> 
> "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
> 
> Read more at: Thomas Paine Quotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right about one thing, I have no idea where you're at half the time.
> 
> ADD is difficulty paying attention or your mind drifting off of a subject.  It's something you can live with without taking medication.  We were talking about criminal records, not mental records.  You keep detouring the subject all the time.
> 
> What you don't understand is the Doctor/ patient relationship is sacred.  Criminal records are not.  Doctors take an oath to protect the confidence between themselves and their clients unless they believe a serious threat to the public is at large.
> 
> The government puts guardrails on our roads so you don't accidentally drive off a cliff or into a river.   The government forces companies to put warnings on medications and various devices so you don't get hurt.  The government forces companies to put something in front of dock doors so an employee doesn't fall out of it or a tow motor drive off of it.  The government regulation is that we truck drivers chock our wheels (putting a rubber or metal wedge under the tire) even though tractor-trailers have two independent brake systems that make it virtually impossible for the system to fail.
> 
> In other words, government takes measures to insure our safety.  So if government is aware of a potentially dangerous person; a person who may cause me serious grief; a person who may be a threat to my business or family, it's governments duty to warn me of this potential--not hide it from me so I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You open your post with a straw man argument, add utter nonsense and then end it with the weakest argument you've ever had.
> 
> Mental health records are not sacred.  There are legislators wanting them to be used right now to make sure you cannot exercise your Rights.  WHEN it happens, get back to me.
> 
> Finally, building a guard-rail poses no threat to your constitutional Liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither does criminal records being public.
Click to expand...


The point is, Ray, you have admitted that ADD / ADHD are not real conditions - you know conditions where people need to be on drugs.  You have admitted that, sir.

What you cannot see is that whether you do or do not, the public should NOT have access to your records because they cannot properly evaluate them.

In order to end this argument, I'll offer you an idea.  If you want to hire someone, rent to them, etc. then since you trust the government so much why not submit the application along with the reason and let them just say they recommend that you hire them, rent to them, or you don't.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we could add technology to the cost of the wall and we it could be upgraded as new technology becomes available but adding 5 feet to the top or the foundation of a 1000 mile wall is another story.
> 
> My point is that we are not living in stagnation.  More Mexicans are returning to Mexico than arriving.  This trend started over 10 years ago and seems to be accelerating.  The problems in the northern triangle are responsible for the large number of Central Americans arriving in the US.  There have been proposals from both sides to increase aid and provide US personal to assist in clearing out the drug cartels and gangs that have made life a living hell for the people.  Lastly, immigration reform is far from dead.  It can't happen with Republican control of government but certain can and will happen with Democrat control.  Even if democrats only control one House of congress, we can still get immigration reform because many republicans agree with democrats on a number of immigration issues.  These changes will dramatically reduce illegal immigration without spending tens of billions of dollars on a wall, taking property away from hundreds of land owners, destruction of a fragile environment, and a sending a message to the world that the United States seeks to isolate itself by hiding behind a wall.
> 
> It is not the wall democrats fear.  It is what it represents, isolationism and the victory of hate and racism over reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they have you brainwashed too.......a damn shame.
> 
> Racism is what Democrats have used for many years to get their way.  It has nothing to do with racism.  This isn't a race issue.  If it were Canadians or Europeans attacking our country, we would feel the same way.  We don't need more uneducated diseased unskilled people in our country  no matter who they are.
> 
> And what immigration reform do we need?  There is nothing wrong with our immigration system now.  Do you know what immigration reform means?  It means surrendering to those who can't easily get in now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uneducated, diseased, unskilled people, is this how you see immigrants to the US?  If so, I feel sorry for you because you are delusional.
> 
> Just because these people are poor does not mean they are uneducated, diseased, and unskilled.   Many of these people are skilled and can be an asset to the country.  Plus many of them have more intestinal fortitude than a dozen native born American.  With the right kind of immigration reform we can bring these people into the country and keep out those that mean us harm.
> 
> Our immigration system is incredibly fucked up.  We select immigrants based on country of origin and having some relative living in the US.  Immigration agents spend 10 mins selecting who is allowed to immigrate and months on deportation.   We deny people the right to work in the US even if they have skills we need.  Our laws would deport people who have lived in this country for decades and have been an asset to their community. Those same laws would also deport people who were brought to the US as children and raised as Americans.  We force people to break our laws in order apply for asylum.  We were instrumental in creating the international refugee system and protocols and we violate the very rules we created.  The biggest problem in illegal immigration is not people coming into the country illegally but overstaying visa and our immigration laws don't even consider this a crime in most cases and there is no provision for tracking these people.  Our E-Verify system is completely voluntary and it's data is as much as 6 months out of date.  Employers that use contract labor are shielded from immigration law that forbids employing of undocumented immigrants.
> And you say there's nothing wrong with our immigration system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration reform for the anti-white party means getting more foreigners into this country.  They don't care who they are: unskilled, scientists, diseased, uneducated, they don't care, just as long as they are wiping out the white vote in this country.
> 
> People who are here illegally being model citizens, paying taxes, being here since children is no reason to let them stay.  They are still here breaking our laws.  They are still here illegally.  I don't know what you on the left don't understand about that.  You think being here illegally is okay in most cases.
> 
> We don't need to set the precedent that if you come here illegally and be a good boy for X amount of years, you won't be bothered the least.  That's a blanket invitation to the other 7.2 billion people in the world that America is weak on immigration which we really are.  But we don't need to amplify that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know this is going to be a great big freaking surprise to you and one guaranteed to open a can of worms, but being in the United States without papers is not a crime.  Furthermore, what happened to that doctrine that we are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of our peers?
> 
> Yeah, I know Ray.  Government is God and the only Rights men have are those they get from the government in exchanging for becoming subjects of the de facto system and carrying human registration papers on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being here illegally is illegal.  That's where they got the term from--the word illegal.
Click to expand...


No it is NOT.  The United States Supreme Court says so.  If I prove that, will you quit arguing and find something substantial to bitch about?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray, I'm off to go to a gun show.  If you like my last offer, I will post the case citation for you this afternoon.


----------



## Lesh

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.
> 
> Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a point well taken.  If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse.  BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse.  Times change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with "how far we will go" it has to do with legality.  The Supreme court ruled (a few years back) that eminent domain even applies to private companies wishing to make improvements to an area.  In other words, being able to buy structures and evicting people out of them to tear those homes down and build new ones.
Click to expand...

That's what you get when you have a "conservative" (corporatist) SCOTUS


----------



## Dragonlady

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux



You don't even list the REAL reasons why the wall is a total waste of time and money.  It doesn't work.  This is the first, last and most important reason.  And it gives a false sense of security.  The Southern Border isn't the source of most illegal immigration.  The money would be better spent on infrastructure to better track and verify Social Security numbers for employers.


----------



## dblack

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.
> 
> Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a point well taken.  If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse.  BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse.  Times change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with "how far we will go" it has to do with legality.  The Supreme court ruled (a few years back) that eminent domain even applies to private companies wishing to make improvements to an area.  In other words, being able to buy structures and evicting people out of them to tear those homes down and build new ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what you get when you have a "conservative" (corporatist) SCOTUS
Click to expand...


I'm curious about your usage of corporatist. What definition? It's a word that get equivocated on a lot.


----------



## Lesh

Build the Slat Fence !

Build the Slat Fence !

Build the Slat Fence !


----------



## Lesh

dblack said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.
> 
> Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a point well taken.  If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse.  BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse.  Times change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with "how far we will go" it has to do with legality.  The Supreme court ruled (a few years back) that eminent domain even applies to private companies wishing to make improvements to an area.  In other words, being able to buy structures and evicting people out of them to tear those homes down and build new ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what you get when you have a "conservative" (corporatist) SCOTUS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm curious about your usage of corporatist. What definition? It's a word that get equivocated on a lot.
Click to expand...

It's pretty simple. These "conservatives" will always rule in favor of corporations over people...in fact they think corporations should have the same rights as citizens

Eminent Domain

CItizens United...and on and on


----------



## dblack

Lesh said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a point well taken.  If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse.  BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse.  Times change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with "how far we will go" it has to do with legality.  The Supreme court ruled (a few years back) that eminent domain even applies to private companies wishing to make improvements to an area.  In other words, being able to buy structures and evicting people out of them to tear those homes down and build new ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what you get when you have a "conservative" (corporatist) SCOTUS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm curious about your usage of corporatist. What definition? It's a word that get equivocated on a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's pretty simple. These "conservatives" will always rule in favor of corporations over people...in fact they think corporations should have the same rights as citizens
> 
> Eminent Domain
> 
> CItizens United...and on and on
Click to expand...

Ok. Just checking. For what it's worth, that's not what I mean when I use the term. And if you hear folks like Ron Paul, or other libertarians, using the term, it's not referring to what you cited. Here's what I'm referring to: Corporatism - Wikipedia. It's essentially "special interest politics", where one's rights and power in society depend on what interest group they belong to.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back on topic...
> We should be building barriers with new technologies such as drones, electronic monitoring, smart fencing. Walls were great 5,000 years ago but they will be no match for the technologies of the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with a wall AND technology?
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you build a wall it will be there for a hundred years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think the Democrats are so scared to death of a wall they are even willing to shutdown the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we could add technology to the cost of the wall and we it could be upgraded as new technology becomes available but adding 5 feet to the top or the foundation of a 1000 mile wall is another story.
> 
> My point is that we are not living in stagnation.  More Mexicans are returning to Mexico than arriving.  This trend started over 10 years ago and seems to be accelerating.  The problems in the northern triangle are responsible for the large number of Central Americans arriving in the US.  There have been proposals from both sides to increase aid and provide US personal to assist in clearing out the drug cartels and gangs that have made life a living hell for the people.  Lastly, immigration reform is far from dead.  It can't happen with Republican control of government but certain can and will happen with Democrat control.  Even if democrats only control one House of congress, we can still get immigration reform because many republicans agree with democrats on a number of immigration issues.  These changes will dramatically reduce illegal immigration without spending tens of billions of dollars on a wall, taking property away from hundreds of land owners, destruction of a fragile environment, and a sending a message to the world that the United States seeks to isolate itself by hiding behind a wall.
> 
> It is not the wall democrats fear.  It is what it represents, isolationism and the victory of hate and racism over reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they have you brainwashed too.......a damn shame.
> 
> Racism is what Democrats have used for many years to get their way.  It has nothing to do with racism.  This isn't a race issue.  If it were Canadians or Europeans attacking our country, we would feel the same way.  We don't need more uneducated diseased unskilled people in our country  no matter who they are.
> 
> And what immigration reform do we need?  There is nothing wrong with our immigration system now.  Do you know what immigration reform means?  It means surrendering to those who can't easily get in now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uneducated, diseased, unskilled people, is this how you see immigrants to the US?  If so, I feel sorry for you because you are delusional.
> 
> Just because these people are poor does not mean they are uneducated, diseased, and unskilled.   Many of these people are skilled and can be an asset to the country.  Plus many of them have more intestinal fortitude than a dozen native born American.  With the right kind of immigration reform we can bring these people into the country and keep out those that mean us harm.
> 
> Our immigration system is incredibly fucked up.  We select immigrants based on country of origin and having some relative living in the US.  Immigration agents spend 10 mins selecting who is allowed to immigrate and months on deportation.   We deny people the right to work in the US even if they have skills we need.  Our laws would deport people who have lived in this country for decades and have been an asset to their community. Those same laws would also deport people who were brought to the US as children and raised as Americans.  We force people to break our laws in order apply for asylum.  We were instrumental in creating the international refugee system and protocols and we violate the very rules we created.  The biggest problem in illegal immigration is not people coming into the country illegally but overstaying visa and our immigration laws don't even consider this a crime in most cases and there is no provision for tracking these people.  Our E-Verify system is completely voluntary and it's data is as much as 6 months out of date.  Employers that use contract labor are shielded from immigration law that forbids employing of undocumented immigrants.
> And you say there's nothing wrong with our immigration system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration reform for the anti-white party means getting more foreigners into this country.  They don't care who they are: unskilled, scientists, diseased, uneducated, they don't care, just as long as they are wiping out the white vote in this country.
> 
> People who are here illegally being model citizens, paying taxes, being here since children is no reason to let them stay.  They are still here breaking our laws.  They are still here illegally.  I don't know what you on the left don't understand about that.  You think being here illegally is okay in most cases.
> 
> We don't need to set the precedent that if you come here illegally and be a good boy for X amount of years, you won't be bothered the least.  That's a blanket invitation to the other 7.2 billion people in the world that America is weak on immigration which we really are.  But we don't need to amplify that.
Click to expand...

I could go through the points in democrat plans for immigration reform but why waste the time.  Discussing immigration with you is lot like discussing the need for green vegetables with a 5 year old.  You don't want any part of it.  You have made that abundantly clear. 

You seem to believe that America can prosper by hiding behind walls and creating laws that keeps the rest of the world out but you're dead wrong.


----------



## danielpalos

Good Capitalists build new cities not new walls.


----------



## Flopper

mikegriffith1 said:


> Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.
> 
> Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.


Your analogy is faulty. You can't compare an individual's home with a country that is shared by hundreds of millions of people.


----------



## Flopper

Porter Rockwell said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.
> 
> Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a point well taken.  If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse.  BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse.  Times change.
Click to expand...




Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could be very right.  I'm not willing to look through the posts when we're approaching 1100 of them to find where you said something positive about drugs and ADD ADHD, claiming you had that very condition.
> 
> There are other ways of changing laws without amending the Constitution.  The United States Supreme Court has done it; Obama did it; Trump tries to do it on a regular basis... and the people have many ways of changing the laws WITHOUT amending the Constitution.  If it's good enough for the government, it's good enough for the people.
> 
> In a de jure / lawful / constitutional / legal Republic you do NOT have a Right to government records.  It's simply NOT in the Constitution.  Just because someone has the POWER to declare something "legal" does not make it so.
> 
> If you were not for telling employers who they can and cannot hire, you'd quit hiding behind the pretext of this crap being legal or illegal.  Simply put, if the farmer down the road can hire 100 Mexicans, but I can't due to some unconstitutional quota system, it puts me, as an employer in an UNEQUAL position, denying to me the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed in the 14th Amendment... UNLESS you want to join in with me in dismantling it.
> 
> You hide behind the POWER of Democracy shielded by "it's legal" regardless of its unconstitutionality.  So, who are you really trying to convince - me or you?  You like BIG GOVERNMENT.
> 
> I can give you options that give everyone involved something.  You're going to reject them because you are part of a political movement that smells blood.  You're going to get your wall so I can't imagine what you're crying about.  It's just that you cannot face the fact that you got played and when it comes time to pay - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of lost Liberties, I'm still going to come back and tell you I told you so.  You don't get something for nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional protection of criminal records.  Search and Seizure is in regards to a persons personal records--not government records.  Furthermore there is a huge difference between supporting medications for certain conditions and using them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Criminal records ARE government records.  Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the authority to give out the information for the general public to go on a fishing expedition.  You shouldn't argue this as one day, you or a loved one WILL be denied a constitutional protection and it will because of people just like you.
> 
> One last time:  the government can lie to you and they can lie about you... AND THEY DO.  By their own estimates 30 percent of the people in jails and prisons never actually committed a crime.
> 
> You were given an alternative, so if you choose to be a subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER, that is your prerogative.  It's mine not to subject myself to a foreign jurisdiction just because a de facto government makes a false claim against me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are off your rocker.  Public records equate to a New World Order?  And let me see this evidence that 30% of inmates never did anything wrong to be imprisoned; not that I believe you have any credible link (but it will be fun if you try to post something) however I just want to see where you make this stuff up from.
> 
> Yes, criminal records are government records, and nothing in the Constitution "prohibits" government from sharing those records with the people.  It would be an injustice to not warn people of potentially dangerous people.  But I'm sure in the name of privacy, you wouldn't mind a rapist to move in next door to your mother or sister without your knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would not believe it, then there is no point in posting a link. It would be wasted verification.
> 
> One thing is for sure.  You live on this board to argue the wall as if it were your lifeblood - your religion.  Yet you fail to comprehend simple truths.  For example:
> 
> Not too long back the liberals wanted to declare that any veteran who had been diagnosed with PTSD be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms.  You won't believe that either, but it's true.  The point is, the liberals would use your mental health records to deny you the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> You argued against ADD / ADHD, claiming you are afflicted with such, but then denying that you are not on the drugs for it.  Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, if you have a real condition, you either have it or you don't.  If you're born with juvenile diabetes, you have it.  You don't wake up one morning and say I feel fine so I must be cured.
> 
> You cannot understand that I'm sometimes on YOUR side for IF ADD / ADHD were real conditions and IF you were not on your meds, the liberals would most assuredly pass legislation to address people like you.  IF you think a person's criminal record is something the public should know about, then ditto for their mental health records.
> 
> WHEN mental health records become fair game, then you can be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms as well as be turned down for a job because you have a "mental health record."  Does it matter that you went to see the psychologist because you lost interest in sex or that you needed a referral from a psychologist to go out of network and be hypnotized so that you could quit smoking?  HELL NO.  It will be just like a "criminal record."  Nobody is going to read the transcripts nor weigh the value of the treatment nor more than they read court transcripts to find out that you were threatened with pleading guilty or facing a maximum prison sentence when the facts clearly dictate you were innocent.  I leave you with the wisdom of Thomas Paine:
> 
> "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
> 
> Read more at: Thomas Paine Quotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right about one thing, I have no idea where you're at half the time.
> 
> ADD is difficulty paying attention or your mind drifting off of a subject.  It's something you can live with without taking medication.  We were talking about criminal records, not mental records.  You keep detouring the subject all the time.
> 
> What you don't understand is the Doctor/ patient relationship is sacred.  Criminal records are not.  Doctors take an oath to protect the confidence between themselves and their clients unless they believe a serious threat to the public is at large.
> 
> The government puts guardrails on our roads so you don't accidentally drive off a cliff or into a river.   The government forces companies to put warnings on medications and various devices so you don't get hurt.  The government forces companies to put something in front of dock doors so an employee doesn't fall out of it or a tow motor drive off of it.  The government regulation is that we truck drivers chock our wheels (putting a rubber or metal wedge under the tire) even though tractor-trailers have two independent brake systems that make it virtually impossible for the system to fail.
> 
> In other words, government takes measures to insure our safety.  So if government is aware of a potentially dangerous person; a person who may cause me serious grief; a person who may be a threat to my business or family, it's governments duty to warn me of this potential--not hide it from me so I have no idea.
Click to expand...

No, it is not the government's duty to warn you of a "potentially" dangerous person.  It maybe governments duty to warn you of "known" dangerous person.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.
> 
> Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a point well taken.  If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse.  BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse.  Times change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional protection of criminal records.  Search and Seizure is in regards to a persons personal records--not government records.  Furthermore there is a huge difference between supporting medications for certain conditions and using them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Criminal records ARE government records.  Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the authority to give out the information for the general public to go on a fishing expedition.  You shouldn't argue this as one day, you or a loved one WILL be denied a constitutional protection and it will because of people just like you.
> 
> One last time:  the government can lie to you and they can lie about you... AND THEY DO.  By their own estimates 30 percent of the people in jails and prisons never actually committed a crime.
> 
> You were given an alternative, so if you choose to be a subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER, that is your prerogative.  It's mine not to subject myself to a foreign jurisdiction just because a de facto government makes a false claim against me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are off your rocker.  Public records equate to a New World Order?  And let me see this evidence that 30% of inmates never did anything wrong to be imprisoned; not that I believe you have any credible link (but it will be fun if you try to post something) however I just want to see where you make this stuff up from.
> 
> Yes, criminal records are government records, and nothing in the Constitution "prohibits" government from sharing those records with the people.  It would be an injustice to not warn people of potentially dangerous people.  But I'm sure in the name of privacy, you wouldn't mind a rapist to move in next door to your mother or sister without your knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would not believe it, then there is no point in posting a link. It would be wasted verification.
> 
> One thing is for sure.  You live on this board to argue the wall as if it were your lifeblood - your religion.  Yet you fail to comprehend simple truths.  For example:
> 
> Not too long back the liberals wanted to declare that any veteran who had been diagnosed with PTSD be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms.  You won't believe that either, but it's true.  The point is, the liberals would use your mental health records to deny you the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> You argued against ADD / ADHD, claiming you are afflicted with such, but then denying that you are not on the drugs for it.  Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, if you have a real condition, you either have it or you don't.  If you're born with juvenile diabetes, you have it.  You don't wake up one morning and say I feel fine so I must be cured.
> 
> You cannot understand that I'm sometimes on YOUR side for IF ADD / ADHD were real conditions and IF you were not on your meds, the liberals would most assuredly pass legislation to address people like you.  IF you think a person's criminal record is something the public should know about, then ditto for their mental health records.
> 
> WHEN mental health records become fair game, then you can be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms as well as be turned down for a job because you have a "mental health record."  Does it matter that you went to see the psychologist because you lost interest in sex or that you needed a referral from a psychologist to go out of network and be hypnotized so that you could quit smoking?  HELL NO.  It will be just like a "criminal record."  Nobody is going to read the transcripts nor weigh the value of the treatment nor more than they read court transcripts to find out that you were threatened with pleading guilty or facing a maximum prison sentence when the facts clearly dictate you were innocent.  I leave you with the wisdom of Thomas Paine:
> 
> "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
> 
> Read more at: Thomas Paine Quotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right about one thing, I have no idea where you're at half the time.
> 
> ADD is difficulty paying attention or your mind drifting off of a subject.  It's something you can live with without taking medication.  We were talking about criminal records, not mental records.  You keep detouring the subject all the time.
> 
> What you don't understand is the Doctor/ patient relationship is sacred.  Criminal records are not.  Doctors take an oath to protect the confidence between themselves and their clients unless they believe a serious threat to the public is at large.
> 
> The government puts guardrails on our roads so you don't accidentally drive off a cliff or into a river.   The government forces companies to put warnings on medications and various devices so you don't get hurt.  The government forces companies to put something in front of dock doors so an employee doesn't fall out of it or a tow motor drive off of it.  The government regulation is that we truck drivers chock our wheels (putting a rubber or metal wedge under the tire) even though tractor-trailers have two independent brake systems that make it virtually impossible for the system to fail.
> 
> In other words, government takes measures to insure our safety.  So if government is aware of a potentially dangerous person; a person who may cause me serious grief; a person who may be a threat to my business or family, it's governments duty to warn me of this potential--not hide it from me so I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is not the government's duty to warn you of a "potentially" dangerous person.  It maybe governments duty to warn you of "known" dangerous person.
Click to expand...


No, a person who is a criminal is potentially dangerous.  The government is we the people.  When the government sends somebody to jail, we the people sent them to jail.  We have a right to know who our government sent to prison for our own protection.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.
> 
> Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> Your analogy is faulty. You can't compare an individual's home with a country that is shared by hundreds of millions of people.
Click to expand...


Why not?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with a wall AND technology?
> 
> Why do you think the Democrats are so scared to death of a wall they are even willing to shutdown the government?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we could add technology to the cost of the wall and we it could be upgraded as new technology becomes available but adding 5 feet to the top or the foundation of a 1000 mile wall is another story.
> 
> My point is that we are not living in stagnation.  More Mexicans are returning to Mexico than arriving.  This trend started over 10 years ago and seems to be accelerating.  The problems in the northern triangle are responsible for the large number of Central Americans arriving in the US.  There have been proposals from both sides to increase aid and provide US personal to assist in clearing out the drug cartels and gangs that have made life a living hell for the people.  Lastly, immigration reform is far from dead.  It can't happen with Republican control of government but certain can and will happen with Democrat control.  Even if democrats only control one House of congress, we can still get immigration reform because many republicans agree with democrats on a number of immigration issues.  These changes will dramatically reduce illegal immigration without spending tens of billions of dollars on a wall, taking property away from hundreds of land owners, destruction of a fragile environment, and a sending a message to the world that the United States seeks to isolate itself by hiding behind a wall.
> 
> It is not the wall democrats fear.  It is what it represents, isolationism and the victory of hate and racism over reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they have you brainwashed too.......a damn shame.
> 
> Racism is what Democrats have used for many years to get their way.  It has nothing to do with racism.  This isn't a race issue.  If it were Canadians or Europeans attacking our country, we would feel the same way.  We don't need more uneducated diseased unskilled people in our country  no matter who they are.
> 
> And what immigration reform do we need?  There is nothing wrong with our immigration system now.  Do you know what immigration reform means?  It means surrendering to those who can't easily get in now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uneducated, diseased, unskilled people, is this how you see immigrants to the US?  If so, I feel sorry for you because you are delusional.
> 
> Just because these people are poor does not mean they are uneducated, diseased, and unskilled.   Many of these people are skilled and can be an asset to the country.  Plus many of them have more intestinal fortitude than a dozen native born American.  With the right kind of immigration reform we can bring these people into the country and keep out those that mean us harm.
> 
> Our immigration system is incredibly fucked up.  We select immigrants based on country of origin and having some relative living in the US.  Immigration agents spend 10 mins selecting who is allowed to immigrate and months on deportation.   We deny people the right to work in the US even if they have skills we need.  Our laws would deport people who have lived in this country for decades and have been an asset to their community. Those same laws would also deport people who were brought to the US as children and raised as Americans.  We force people to break our laws in order apply for asylum.  We were instrumental in creating the international refugee system and protocols and we violate the very rules we created.  The biggest problem in illegal immigration is not people coming into the country illegally but overstaying visa and our immigration laws don't even consider this a crime in most cases and there is no provision for tracking these people.  Our E-Verify system is completely voluntary and it's data is as much as 6 months out of date.  Employers that use contract labor are shielded from immigration law that forbids employing of undocumented immigrants.
> And you say there's nothing wrong with our immigration system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration reform for the anti-white party means getting more foreigners into this country.  They don't care who they are: unskilled, scientists, diseased, uneducated, they don't care, just as long as they are wiping out the white vote in this country.
> 
> People who are here illegally being model citizens, paying taxes, being here since children is no reason to let them stay.  They are still here breaking our laws.  They are still here illegally.  I don't know what you on the left don't understand about that.  You think being here illegally is okay in most cases.
> 
> We don't need to set the precedent that if you come here illegally and be a good boy for X amount of years, you won't be bothered the least.  That's a blanket invitation to the other 7.2 billion people in the world that America is weak on immigration which we really are.  But we don't need to amplify that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I could go through the points in democrat plans for immigration reform but why waste the time.  Discussing immigration with you is lot like discussing the need for green vegetables with a 5 year old.  You don't want any part of it.  You have made that abundantly clear.
> 
> You seem to believe that America can prosper by hiding behind walls and creating laws that keeps the rest of the world out but you're dead wrong.
Click to expand...


If we build a wall, it's not for US to hide behind.  Our country does not belong to the rest of the world where we need to hide.  It belongs to us--the American people.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dragonlady said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even list the REAL reasons why the wall is a total waste of time and money.  It doesn't work.  This is the first, last and most important reason.  And it gives a false sense of security.  The Southern Border isn't the source of most illegal immigration.  The money would be better spent on infrastructure to better track and verify Social Security numbers for employers.
Click to expand...


You on the left keep saying that in spite of the fact that borders have worked for every other country that uses them. 

Not only am I for a wall, I'm for a bridge from Mexico to Canada.  Then you can deal with them and tell us how terrible we are for protecting our country.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.
> 
> Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a point well taken.  If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse.  BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse.  Times change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with "how far we will go" it has to do with legality.  The Supreme court ruled (a few years back) that eminent domain even applies to private companies wishing to make improvements to an area.  In other words, being able to buy structures and evicting people out of them to tear those homes down and build new ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what you get when you have a "conservative" (corporatist) SCOTUS
Click to expand...


We didn't have a conservative corporatist court at the time.  We don't even have one now.  That's why the Supreme Court just ruled that Trump can't deny asylum to people caught sneaking into the country.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are off your rocker.  Public records equate to a New World Order?  And let me see this evidence that 30% of inmates never did anything wrong to be imprisoned; not that I believe you have any credible link (but it will be fun if you try to post something) however I just want to see where you make this stuff up from.
> 
> Yes, criminal records are government records, and nothing in the Constitution "prohibits" government from sharing those records with the people.  It would be an injustice to not warn people of potentially dangerous people.  But I'm sure in the name of privacy, you wouldn't mind a rapist to move in next door to your mother or sister without your knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you would not believe it, then there is no point in posting a link. It would be wasted verification.
> 
> One thing is for sure.  You live on this board to argue the wall as if it were your lifeblood - your religion.  Yet you fail to comprehend simple truths.  For example:
> 
> Not too long back the liberals wanted to declare that any veteran who had been diagnosed with PTSD be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms.  You won't believe that either, but it's true.  The point is, the liberals would use your mental health records to deny you the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> You argued against ADD / ADHD, claiming you are afflicted with such, but then denying that you are not on the drugs for it.  Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, if you have a real condition, you either have it or you don't.  If you're born with juvenile diabetes, you have it.  You don't wake up one morning and say I feel fine so I must be cured.
> 
> You cannot understand that I'm sometimes on YOUR side for IF ADD / ADHD were real conditions and IF you were not on your meds, the liberals would most assuredly pass legislation to address people like you.  IF you think a person's criminal record is something the public should know about, then ditto for their mental health records.
> 
> WHEN mental health records become fair game, then you can be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms as well as be turned down for a job because you have a "mental health record."  Does it matter that you went to see the psychologist because you lost interest in sex or that you needed a referral from a psychologist to go out of network and be hypnotized so that you could quit smoking?  HELL NO.  It will be just like a "criminal record."  Nobody is going to read the transcripts nor weigh the value of the treatment nor more than they read court transcripts to find out that you were threatened with pleading guilty or facing a maximum prison sentence when the facts clearly dictate you were innocent.  I leave you with the wisdom of Thomas Paine:
> 
> "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
> 
> Read more at: Thomas Paine Quotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right about one thing, I have no idea where you're at half the time.
> 
> ADD is difficulty paying attention or your mind drifting off of a subject.  It's something you can live with without taking medication.  We were talking about criminal records, not mental records.  You keep detouring the subject all the time.
> 
> What you don't understand is the Doctor/ patient relationship is sacred.  Criminal records are not.  Doctors take an oath to protect the confidence between themselves and their clients unless they believe a serious threat to the public is at large.
> 
> The government puts guardrails on our roads so you don't accidentally drive off a cliff or into a river.   The government forces companies to put warnings on medications and various devices so you don't get hurt.  The government forces companies to put something in front of dock doors so an employee doesn't fall out of it or a tow motor drive off of it.  The government regulation is that we truck drivers chock our wheels (putting a rubber or metal wedge under the tire) even though tractor-trailers have two independent brake systems that make it virtually impossible for the system to fail.
> 
> In other words, government takes measures to insure our safety.  So if government is aware of a potentially dangerous person; a person who may cause me serious grief; a person who may be a threat to my business or family, it's governments duty to warn me of this potential--not hide it from me so I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You open your post with a straw man argument, add utter nonsense and then end it with the weakest argument you've ever had.
> 
> Mental health records are not sacred.  There are legislators wanting them to be used right now to make sure you cannot exercise your Rights.  WHEN it happens, get back to me.
> 
> Finally, building a guard-rail poses no threat to your constitutional Liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither does criminal records being public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is, Ray, you have admitted that ADD / ADHD are not real conditions - you know conditions where people need to be on drugs.  You have admitted that, sir.
> 
> What you cannot see is that whether you do or do not, the public should NOT have access to your records because they cannot properly evaluate them.
> 
> In order to end this argument, I'll offer you an idea.  If you want to hire someone, rent to them, etc. then since you trust the government so much why not submit the application along with the reason and let them just say they recommend that you hire them, rent to them, or you don't.
Click to expand...


Because government doesn't make my decisions for me.  I make my own decisions, and I make those decisions based on the information I have.  One landlord might want to rent to an ex-con.  I don't.  I've had experience doing that and I base my future decisions on past experiences.


----------



## Rocko

candycorn said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a perfect solution but unarguably is would reduce crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But at what cost ??  You know the “wall” plan includes drones and  all kinds of high tech sensors , roving border guards .  It’s not just some one time cost and you are done .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How high is a preprogrammed drones salary? How many bathroom breaks does he need? How much gas for an 8 hour shift? Does he need a college educated driver who also requires an absurd salary?
> 
> DO YOU HAVE A BRAIN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you do not.  Drones don’t fly themselves….someone monitors what they see…for just one thing.
> 
> How much time do you spend thinking about illegal immigration in a day?  Whatever it is…it’s too much.
> 
> The blob tells you your enemy is down there; you’re dumb enough to believe it.   That is all.
> That is the reason there is a supposed immigration crisis in the nation.
> 
> Essentially the same number people crossing today were crossing 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30, years ago….50 years ago;  Somehow we managed to build the greatest society on the planet.  Ever.  But now you’re told there is a problem with a group of people who, by and large, are just here to do menial labor for little money…and you guys believe it.
> 
> Damn
> You
> Are
> Stupid.
Click to expand...


In other words open boarders are fine with you!


----------



## ph3iron

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall


----------



## ph3iron

Rocko said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a perfect solution but unarguably is would reduce crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But at what cost ??  You know the “wall” plan includes drones and  all kinds of high tech sensors , roving border guards .  It’s not just some one time cost and you are done .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How high is a preprogrammed drones salary? How many bathroom breaks does he need? How much gas for an 8 hour shift? Does he need a college educated driver who also requires an absurd salary?
> 
> DO YOU HAVE A BRAIN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you do not.  Drones don’t fly themselves….someone monitors what they see…for just one thing.
> 
> How much time do you spend thinking about illegal immigration in a day?  Whatever it is…it’s too much.
> 
> The blob tells you your enemy is down there; you’re dumb enough to believe it.   That is all.
> That is the reason there is a supposed immigration crisis in the nation.
> 
> Essentially the same number people crossing today were crossing 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30, years ago….50 years ago;  Somehow we managed to build the greatest society on the planet.  Ever.  But now you’re told there is a problem with a group of people who, by and large, are just here to do menial labor for little money…and you guys believe it.
> 
> Damn
> You
> Are
> Stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words open boarders are fine with you!
Click to expand...


Like our con 5 deferment Pres You can't spell borders either or are you joking?
Do you know anyone who supports open borders?
I don't 
Is that what knees news spews out?


----------



## Rocko

ph3iron said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a perfect solution but unarguably is would reduce crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But at what cost ??  You know the “wall” plan includes drones and  all kinds of high tech sensors , roving border guards .  It’s not just some one time cost and you are done .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How high is a preprogrammed drones salary? How many bathroom breaks does he need? How much gas for an 8 hour shift? Does he need a college educated driver who also requires an absurd salary?
> 
> DO YOU HAVE A BRAIN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you do not.  Drones don’t fly themselves….someone monitors what they see…for just one thing.
> 
> How much time do you spend thinking about illegal immigration in a day?  Whatever it is…it’s too much.
> 
> The blob tells you your enemy is down there; you’re dumb enough to believe it.   That is all.
> That is the reason there is a supposed immigration crisis in the nation.
> 
> Essentially the same number people crossing today were crossing 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30, years ago….50 years ago;  Somehow we managed to build the greatest society on the planet.  Ever.  But now you’re told there is a problem with a group of people who, by and large, are just here to do menial labor for little money…and you guys believe it.
> 
> Damn
> You
> Are
> Stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words open boarders are fine with you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like our con 5 deferment Pres You can't spell borders either or are you joking?
> Do you know anyone who supports open borders?
> I don't
> Is that what knees news spews out?
Click to expand...


You don’t capitalize the p in president. A lot of liberals if not the majority of them are for open borders.


----------



## Dragonlady

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.
> 
> Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a point well taken.  If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse.  BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse.  Times change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with "how far we will go" it has to do with legality.  The Supreme court ruled (a few years back) that eminent domain even applies to private companies wishing to make improvements to an area.  In other words, being able to buy structures and evicting people out of them to tear those homes down and build new ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what you get when you have a "conservative" (corporatist) SCOTUS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We didn't have a conservative corporatist court at the time.  We don't even have one now.  That's why the Supreme Court just ruled that Trump can't deny asylum to people caught sneaking into the country.
Click to expand...


Building a wall is applying a solution that the Chinese used in the 4th Century AD, and it didn't work then.  The Great Wall proved no deterrent at all to attacking armies, despite 15 centuries of construction, fortification and expansion and was abandoned altogether by the last army which overall it.  

The Eminent Domain cases from the last attempt to fence the entire southern border have still not cleared the dockets in Texas, and local residents are gearing up for another fight.

Cartels are now using drones to smuggle drugs across the border, so a wall is absolutely not deterrent to drugs.

And last but not least, Trump promised Mexico would pay for it, and now he's giving us some bullshit line that the new NAFTA 2.0 is paying for it.  The American people will be paying for it.  That's on top of the $4000 raises he promised everyone from the corporate tax cut that never materialized.


----------



## danielpalos

what happened to free trade and less regulation, right wingers?  just talk.


----------



## Lesh

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.
> 
> Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a point well taken.  If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse.  BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse.  Times change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with "how far we will go" it has to do with legality.  The Supreme court ruled (a few years back) that eminent domain even applies to private companies wishing to make improvements to an area.  In other words, being able to buy structures and evicting people out of them to tear those homes down and build new ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what you get when you have a "conservative" (corporatist) SCOTUS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We didn't have a conservative corporatist court at the time.  We don't even have one now.  That's why the Supreme Court just ruled that Trump can't deny asylum to people caught sneaking into the country.
Click to expand...

Asylum is non corporatist?

You mean corporations don't want that cheap labor?

Of course they do


----------



## candycorn

Rocko said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t .   Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.
> 
> If we were talking 20 miles .  Fine .   We are talking 1,400 miles!!!
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a perfect solution but unarguably is would reduce crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But at what cost ??  You know the “wall” plan includes drones and  all kinds of high tech sensors , roving border guards .  It’s not just some one time cost and you are done .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How high is a preprogrammed drones salary? How many bathroom breaks does he need? How much gas for an 8 hour shift? Does he need a college educated driver who also requires an absurd salary?
> 
> DO YOU HAVE A BRAIN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you do not.  Drones don’t fly themselves….someone monitors what they see…for just one thing.
> 
> How much time do you spend thinking about illegal immigration in a day?  Whatever it is…it’s too much.
> 
> The blob tells you your enemy is down there; you’re dumb enough to believe it.   That is all.
> That is the reason there is a supposed immigration crisis in the nation.
> 
> Essentially the same number people crossing today were crossing 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30, years ago….50 years ago;  Somehow we managed to build the greatest society on the planet.  Ever.  But now you’re told there is a problem with a group of people who, by and large, are just here to do menial labor for little money…and you guys believe it.
> 
> Damn
> You
> Are
> Stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words open boarders are fine with you!
Click to expand...


If they rent a room from me, they can be as open as they like I suppose


----------



## candycorn

Rocko said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> But at what cost ??  You know the “wall” plan includes drones and  all kinds of high tech sensors , roving border guards .  It’s not just some one time cost and you are done .
> 
> 
> 
> How high is a preprogrammed drones salary? How many bathroom breaks does he need? How much gas for an 8 hour shift? Does he need a college educated driver who also requires an absurd salary?
> 
> DO YOU HAVE A BRAIN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you do not.  Drones don’t fly themselves….someone monitors what they see…for just one thing.
> 
> How much time do you spend thinking about illegal immigration in a day?  Whatever it is…it’s too much.
> 
> The blob tells you your enemy is down there; you’re dumb enough to believe it.   That is all.
> That is the reason there is a supposed immigration crisis in the nation.
> 
> Essentially the same number people crossing today were crossing 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30, years ago….50 years ago;  Somehow we managed to build the greatest society on the planet.  Ever.  But now you’re told there is a problem with a group of people who, by and large, are just here to do menial labor for little money…and you guys believe it.
> 
> Damn
> You
> Are
> Stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words open boarders are fine with you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like our con 5 deferment Pres You can't spell borders either or are you joking?
> Do you know anyone who supports open borders?
> I don't
> Is that what knees news spews out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don’t capitalize the p in president. A lot of liberals if not the majority of them are for open borders.
Click to expand...

Not me.


----------



## Leo123

ph3iron said:


> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall



You you won't even HAVE a country without strong defensible borders which includes a wall.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dragonlady said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a point well taken.  If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse.  BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse.  Times change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with "how far we will go" it has to do with legality.  The Supreme court ruled (a few years back) that eminent domain even applies to private companies wishing to make improvements to an area.  In other words, being able to buy structures and evicting people out of them to tear those homes down and build new ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what you get when you have a "conservative" (corporatist) SCOTUS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We didn't have a conservative corporatist court at the time.  We don't even have one now.  That's why the Supreme Court just ruled that Trump can't deny asylum to people caught sneaking into the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Building a wall is applying a solution that the Chinese used in the 4th Century AD, and it didn't work then.  The Great Wall proved no deterrent at all to attacking armies, despite 15 centuries of construction, fortification and expansion and was abandoned altogether by the last army which overall it.
> 
> The Eminent Domain cases from the last attempt to fence the entire southern border have still not cleared the dockets in Texas, and local residents are gearing up for another fight.
> 
> Cartels are now using drones to smuggle drugs across the border, so a wall is absolutely not deterrent to drugs.
> 
> And last but not least, Trump promised Mexico would pay for it, and now he's giving us some bullshit line that the new NAFTA 2.0 is paying for it.  The American people will be paying for it.  That's on top of the $4000 raises he promised everyone from the corporate tax cut that never materialized.
Click to expand...


$4,000 raises?  That's a new one on me.  I never heard of that before and I watched the elections pretty closely.  

So now your stance is to compare a 4th century wall to today?  Then why is it where walls and fences are erected, they made noticeable improvement if not total improvement?  

And you're claiming all drugs are coming in on drones?  Very well, even though I don't believe a word of that (I know they use drones from time to time) what happens when we find a solution to that problem?  Start the wall talk again?  Wouldn't it be better to have the wall in place already when that happens?  

Did you ever take notice that we pro-wall people don't give a rats ass who is paying for the wall, yet you on the left keep bringing that up like it's a relevant point to stop it?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

ph3iron said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
Click to expand...


Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.


----------



## Issa

I'm proud to say that I go out of my way and hire illegals and pay them extra. Being an immigrant myself,  I appareciate their willingness to better their life....if someone walked miles and miles and risk their lives to make their lives better, and work as hard most of them do...I would give them green cards and path to citizenship.
They are more productive than lot of fat fuck racists here on this board who spend qll day hating on everything and leave off the system.


----------



## Issa

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a point well taken.  If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse.  BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse.  Times change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with "how far we will go" it has to do with legality.  The Supreme court ruled (a few years back) that eminent domain even applies to private companies wishing to make improvements to an area.  In other words, being able to buy structures and evicting people out of them to tear those homes down and build new ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what you get when you have a "conservative" (corporatist) SCOTUS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We didn't have a conservative corporatist court at the time.  We don't even have one now.  That's why the Supreme Court just ruled that Trump can't deny asylum to people caught sneaking into the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Building a wall is applying a solution that the Chinese used in the 4th Century AD, and it didn't work then.  The Great Wall proved no deterrent at all to attacking armies, despite 15 centuries of construction, fortification and expansion and was abandoned altogether by the last army which overall it.
> 
> The Eminent Domain cases from the last attempt to fence the entire southern border have still not cleared the dockets in Texas, and local residents are gearing up for another fight.
> 
> Cartels are now using drones to smuggle drugs across the border, so a wall is absolutely not deterrent to drugs.
> 
> And last but not least, Trump promised Mexico would pay for it, and now he's giving us some bullshit line that the new NAFTA 2.0 is paying for it.  The American people will be paying for it.  That's on top of the $4000 raises he promised everyone from the corporate tax cut that never materialized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $4,000 raises?  That's a new one on me.  I never heard of that before and I watched the elections pretty closely.
> 
> So now your stance is to compare a 4th century wall to today?  Then why is it where walls and fences are erected, they made noticeable improvement if not total improvement?
> 
> And you're claiming all drugs are coming in on drones?  Very well, even though I don't believe a word of that (I know they use drones from time to time) what happens when we find a solution to that problem?  Start the wall talk again?  Wouldn't it be better to have the wall in place already when that happens?
> 
> Did you ever take notice that we pro-wall people don't give a rats ass who is paying for the wall, yet you on the left keep bringing that up like it's a relevant point to stop it?
Click to expand...

Drugs go through checkpoints, also most illegals came by plane by the way. That's why we keep telling you a wall is useless.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Issa said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with "how far we will go" it has to do with legality.  The Supreme court ruled (a few years back) that eminent domain even applies to private companies wishing to make improvements to an area.  In other words, being able to buy structures and evicting people out of them to tear those homes down and build new ones.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you get when you have a "conservative" (corporatist) SCOTUS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We didn't have a conservative corporatist court at the time.  We don't even have one now.  That's why the Supreme Court just ruled that Trump can't deny asylum to people caught sneaking into the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Building a wall is applying a solution that the Chinese used in the 4th Century AD, and it didn't work then.  The Great Wall proved no deterrent at all to attacking armies, despite 15 centuries of construction, fortification and expansion and was abandoned altogether by the last army which overall it.
> 
> The Eminent Domain cases from the last attempt to fence the entire southern border have still not cleared the dockets in Texas, and local residents are gearing up for another fight.
> 
> Cartels are now using drones to smuggle drugs across the border, so a wall is absolutely not deterrent to drugs.
> 
> And last but not least, Trump promised Mexico would pay for it, and now he's giving us some bullshit line that the new NAFTA 2.0 is paying for it.  The American people will be paying for it.  That's on top of the $4000 raises he promised everyone from the corporate tax cut that never materialized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $4,000 raises?  That's a new one on me.  I never heard of that before and I watched the elections pretty closely.
> 
> So now your stance is to compare a 4th century wall to today?  Then why is it where walls and fences are erected, they made noticeable improvement if not total improvement?
> 
> And you're claiming all drugs are coming in on drones?  Very well, even though I don't believe a word of that (I know they use drones from time to time) what happens when we find a solution to that problem?  Start the wall talk again?  Wouldn't it be better to have the wall in place already when that happens?
> 
> Did you ever take notice that we pro-wall people don't give a rats ass who is paying for the wall, yet you on the left keep bringing that up like it's a relevant point to stop it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drugs go through checkpoints, also most illegals came by plane by the way. That's why we keep telling you a wall is useless.
Click to expand...


Hmmm.  Makes you wonder how those border agencies make thousands of busts every year by the border.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Issa said:


> I'm proud to say that I go out of my way and hire illegals and pay them extra. Being an immigrant myself,  I appareciate their willingness to better their life....if someone walked miles and miles and risk their lives to make their lives better, and work as hard most of them do...I would give them green cards and path to citizenship.
> They are more productive than lot of fat fuck racists here on this board who spend qll day hating on everything and leave off the system.



Well outside of the US, the population of the rest of the world is 7.2 billion people.  How many of those 7.2 billion would you be willing to give a green card to?


----------



## Issa

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you get when you have a "conservative" (corporatist) SCOTUS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't have a conservative corporatist court at the time.  We don't even have one now.  That's why the Supreme Court just ruled that Trump can't deny asylum to people caught sneaking into the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Building a wall is applying a solution that the Chinese used in the 4th Century AD, and it didn't work then.  The Great Wall proved no deterrent at all to attacking armies, despite 15 centuries of construction, fortification and expansion and was abandoned altogether by the last army which overall it.
> 
> The Eminent Domain cases from the last attempt to fence the entire southern border have still not cleared the dockets in Texas, and local residents are gearing up for another fight.
> 
> Cartels are now using drones to smuggle drugs across the border, so a wall is absolutely not deterrent to drugs.
> 
> And last but not least, Trump promised Mexico would pay for it, and now he's giving us some bullshit line that the new NAFTA 2.0 is paying for it.  The American people will be paying for it.  That's on top of the $4000 raises he promised everyone from the corporate tax cut that never materialized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $4,000 raises?  That's a new one on me.  I never heard of that before and I watched the elections pretty closely.
> 
> So now your stance is to compare a 4th century wall to today?  Then why is it where walls and fences are erected, they made noticeable improvement if not total improvement?
> 
> And you're claiming all drugs are coming in on drones?  Very well, even though I don't believe a word of that (I know they use drones from time to time) what happens when we find a solution to that problem?  Start the wall talk again?  Wouldn't it be better to have the wall in place already when that happens?
> 
> Did you ever take notice that we pro-wall people don't give a rats ass who is paying for the wall, yet you on the left keep bringing that up like it's a relevant point to stop it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drugs go through checkpoints, also most illegals came by plane by the way. That's why we keep telling you a wall is useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  Makes you wonder how those border agencies make thousands of busts every year by the border.
Click to expand...

It makes wonder also how some of those border agents make more than their salaries, and dozens got arrested.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.
> 
> Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a point well taken.  If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse.  BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse.  Times change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminal records ARE government records.  Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the authority to give out the information for the general public to go on a fishing expedition.  You shouldn't argue this as one day, you or a loved one WILL be denied a constitutional protection and it will because of people just like you.
> 
> One last time:  the government can lie to you and they can lie about you... AND THEY DO.  By their own estimates 30 percent of the people in jails and prisons never actually committed a crime.
> 
> You were given an alternative, so if you choose to be a subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER, that is your prerogative.  It's mine not to subject myself to a foreign jurisdiction just because a de facto government makes a false claim against me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are off your rocker.  Public records equate to a New World Order?  And let me see this evidence that 30% of inmates never did anything wrong to be imprisoned; not that I believe you have any credible link (but it will be fun if you try to post something) however I just want to see where you make this stuff up from.
> 
> Yes, criminal records are government records, and nothing in the Constitution "prohibits" government from sharing those records with the people.  It would be an injustice to not warn people of potentially dangerous people.  But I'm sure in the name of privacy, you wouldn't mind a rapist to move in next door to your mother or sister without your knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would not believe it, then there is no point in posting a link. It would be wasted verification.
> 
> One thing is for sure.  You live on this board to argue the wall as if it were your lifeblood - your religion.  Yet you fail to comprehend simple truths.  For example:
> 
> Not too long back the liberals wanted to declare that any veteran who had been diagnosed with PTSD be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms.  You won't believe that either, but it's true.  The point is, the liberals would use your mental health records to deny you the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> You argued against ADD / ADHD, claiming you are afflicted with such, but then denying that you are not on the drugs for it.  Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, if you have a real condition, you either have it or you don't.  If you're born with juvenile diabetes, you have it.  You don't wake up one morning and say I feel fine so I must be cured.
> 
> You cannot understand that I'm sometimes on YOUR side for IF ADD / ADHD were real conditions and IF you were not on your meds, the liberals would most assuredly pass legislation to address people like you.  IF you think a person's criminal record is something the public should know about, then ditto for their mental health records.
> 
> WHEN mental health records become fair game, then you can be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms as well as be turned down for a job because you have a "mental health record."  Does it matter that you went to see the psychologist because you lost interest in sex or that you needed a referral from a psychologist to go out of network and be hypnotized so that you could quit smoking?  HELL NO.  It will be just like a "criminal record."  Nobody is going to read the transcripts nor weigh the value of the treatment nor more than they read court transcripts to find out that you were threatened with pleading guilty or facing a maximum prison sentence when the facts clearly dictate you were innocent.  I leave you with the wisdom of Thomas Paine:
> 
> "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
> 
> Read more at: Thomas Paine Quotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right about one thing, I have no idea where you're at half the time.
> 
> ADD is difficulty paying attention or your mind drifting off of a subject.  It's something you can live with without taking medication.  We were talking about criminal records, not mental records.  You keep detouring the subject all the time.
> 
> What you don't understand is the Doctor/ patient relationship is sacred.  Criminal records are not.  Doctors take an oath to protect the confidence between themselves and their clients unless they believe a serious threat to the public is at large.
> 
> The government puts guardrails on our roads so you don't accidentally drive off a cliff or into a river.   The government forces companies to put warnings on medications and various devices so you don't get hurt.  The government forces companies to put something in front of dock doors so an employee doesn't fall out of it or a tow motor drive off of it.  The government regulation is that we truck drivers chock our wheels (putting a rubber or metal wedge under the tire) even though tractor-trailers have two independent brake systems that make it virtually impossible for the system to fail.
> 
> In other words, government takes measures to insure our safety.  So if government is aware of a potentially dangerous person; a person who may cause me serious grief; a person who may be a threat to my business or family, it's governments duty to warn me of this potential--not hide it from me so I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is not the government's duty to warn you of a "potentially" dangerous person.  It maybe governments duty to warn you of "known" dangerous person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, a person who is a criminal is potentially dangerous.  The government is we the people.  When the government sends somebody to jail, we the people sent them to jail.  We have a right to know who our government sent to prison for our own protection.
Click to expand...


So if a guy loses his job and doesn't pay child support is dangerous?  A guy who has a beef with the tax authorities is dangerous?  Only in Ray's world.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you would not believe it, then there is no point in posting a link. It would be wasted verification.
> 
> One thing is for sure.  You live on this board to argue the wall as if it were your lifeblood - your religion.  Yet you fail to comprehend simple truths.  For example:
> 
> Not too long back the liberals wanted to declare that any veteran who had been diagnosed with PTSD be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms.  You won't believe that either, but it's true.  The point is, the liberals would use your mental health records to deny you the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> You argued against ADD / ADHD, claiming you are afflicted with such, but then denying that you are not on the drugs for it.  Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, if you have a real condition, you either have it or you don't.  If you're born with juvenile diabetes, you have it.  You don't wake up one morning and say I feel fine so I must be cured.
> 
> You cannot understand that I'm sometimes on YOUR side for IF ADD / ADHD were real conditions and IF you were not on your meds, the liberals would most assuredly pass legislation to address people like you.  IF you think a person's criminal record is something the public should know about, then ditto for their mental health records.
> 
> WHEN mental health records become fair game, then you can be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms as well as be turned down for a job because you have a "mental health record."  Does it matter that you went to see the psychologist because you lost interest in sex or that you needed a referral from a psychologist to go out of network and be hypnotized so that you could quit smoking?  HELL NO.  It will be just like a "criminal record."  Nobody is going to read the transcripts nor weigh the value of the treatment nor more than they read court transcripts to find out that you were threatened with pleading guilty or facing a maximum prison sentence when the facts clearly dictate you were innocent.  I leave you with the wisdom of Thomas Paine:
> 
> "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
> 
> Read more at: Thomas Paine Quotes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right about one thing, I have no idea where you're at half the time.
> 
> ADD is difficulty paying attention or your mind drifting off of a subject.  It's something you can live with without taking medication.  We were talking about criminal records, not mental records.  You keep detouring the subject all the time.
> 
> What you don't understand is the Doctor/ patient relationship is sacred.  Criminal records are not.  Doctors take an oath to protect the confidence between themselves and their clients unless they believe a serious threat to the public is at large.
> 
> The government puts guardrails on our roads so you don't accidentally drive off a cliff or into a river.   The government forces companies to put warnings on medications and various devices so you don't get hurt.  The government forces companies to put something in front of dock doors so an employee doesn't fall out of it or a tow motor drive off of it.  The government regulation is that we truck drivers chock our wheels (putting a rubber or metal wedge under the tire) even though tractor-trailers have two independent brake systems that make it virtually impossible for the system to fail.
> 
> In other words, government takes measures to insure our safety.  So if government is aware of a potentially dangerous person; a person who may cause me serious grief; a person who may be a threat to my business or family, it's governments duty to warn me of this potential--not hide it from me so I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You open your post with a straw man argument, add utter nonsense and then end it with the weakest argument you've ever had.
> 
> Mental health records are not sacred.  There are legislators wanting them to be used right now to make sure you cannot exercise your Rights.  WHEN it happens, get back to me.
> 
> Finally, building a guard-rail poses no threat to your constitutional Liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither does criminal records being public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is, Ray, you have admitted that ADD / ADHD are not real conditions - you know conditions where people need to be on drugs.  You have admitted that, sir.
> 
> What you cannot see is that whether you do or do not, the public should NOT have access to your records because they cannot properly evaluate them.
> 
> In order to end this argument, I'll offer you an idea.  If you want to hire someone, rent to them, etc. then since you trust the government so much why not submit the application along with the reason and let them just say they recommend that you hire them, rent to them, or you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because government doesn't make my decisions for me.  I make my own decisions, and I make those decisions based on the information I have.  One landlord might want to rent to an ex-con.  I don't.  I've had experience doing that and I base my future decisions on past experiences.
Click to expand...


It's obvious that the government don't make your decisions for you.  Rush Limbaugh does that.  But, you clearly WISH that the government would be your personal Santa Claus.


----------



## toobfreak

Timmy said:


> It’s a waste of money .






 
It's a waste of skin.

Only a colossal dolt would argue against protection of one's own border.  The Pentagon has misplaced more money MANY TIMES OVER over the years than what the wall would cost to build.

AND THAT IS WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING THE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS (AND BILLIONS) WE WOULD SAVE IN NOT-WASTED RESOURCES ONCE IT IS FINISHED.

*PROVE ME WRONG.* Once the wall is built, if it turns out to be a colossal mistake like you predict that backfires in our faces, we can always TEAR IT BACK DOWN, melt the steel, and use the metal to make free housing for illegal Latinos.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
Click to expand...


I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.

Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.

Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.

I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.  

For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

toobfreak said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236224
> It's a waste of skin.
> 
> Only a colossal dolt would argue against protection of one's own border.  The Pentagon has misplaced more money MANY TIMES OVER over the years than what the wall would cost to build.
> 
> AND THAT IS WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING THE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS (AND BILLIONS) WE WOULD SAVE IN NOT-WASTED RESOURCES ONCE IT IS FINISHED.
> 
> *PROVE ME WRONG.* Once the wall is built, if it turns out to be a colossal mistake like you predict that backfires in our faces, we can always TEAR IT BACK DOWN, melt the steel, and use the metal to make free housing for illegal Latinos.
Click to expand...


It is HIGHLY disingenuous for anyone to suggest that those opposed to the wall don't care about border security.  Not having a case, the build the wall proponents are slinging the scare word liberal around and making a baseless and false accusation.

The people once known as patriots and constitutionalists had the issue under control and were successfully working toward permanent solutions to this issue.  History has already proven you wrong.

The thing of it is, the really ignorant people are those who are for the wall, but against using their common sense.  Rather than call people names; rather than question the motives of others, you should sit down and ask yourself what happens if you get the wall - and be OBJECTIVE.  How will the law affect YOUR Liberty?

Having ninja clad, machine gun toting federal mercenaries patrolling a wall that cannot stop free enterprise nor cure people of their drug habit only brings cries for a bigger and bigger - and more intrusive government.  With that more and more of your Liberties go south until you cannot reclaim them.  I'd rather fight that inevitability because, once the wall is built, and proves ineffective we will not be able to stop it any more than we stopped the once TEMPORARY tax known as the income tax.  And what has the 16th Amendment brought you besides a private corporation of murderers that makes the average American quake in their shoes?  Most people would rather face an armed robber than the IRS.  Yet you don't learn from history.


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.



*looking for a problem to solve*

*

 *

*looking for a problem to solve*

*

 *

*looking for a problem to solve*



 


*looking for a problem to solve*

*

 *


FUCK YOU, Rockhead.  We're sick of your blind obtuseness, your refusal to face reality, while attacking anyone who differs with you with the claim of having a "low IQ."  If you want these people so much, MOVE THEM INTO YOUR BACKYARD.  I don't want these unskilled, uneducated, disease-ridden losers taking up my hard-won land and tax dollars.


----------



## Leo123

Issa said:


> I'm proud to say that I go out of my way and hire illegals and pay them extra. Being an immigrant myself,  I appareciate their willingness to better their life....if someone walked miles and miles and risk their lives to make their lives better, and work as hard most of them do...I would give them green cards and path to citizenship.
> They are more productive than lot of fat fuck racists here on this board who spend qll day hating on everything and leave off the system.



So you are an illegal alien?


----------



## Issa

Leo123 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm proud to say that I go out of my way and hire illegals and pay them extra. Being an immigrant myself,  I appareciate their willingness to better their life....if someone walked miles and miles and risk their lives to make their lives better, and work as hard most of them do...I would give them green cards and path to citizenship.
> They are more productive than lot of fat fuck racists here on this board who spend qll day hating on everything and leave off the system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are an illegal alien?
Click to expand...

Nope. What if I was ?


----------



## Issa

toobfreak said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *looking for a problem to solve*
> 
> *View attachment 236231 *
> 
> *looking for a problem to solve*
> 
> *View attachment 236232 *
> 
> *looking for a problem to solve*
> 
> View attachment 236233
> 
> 
> *looking for a problem to solve*
> 
> *View attachment 236234 *
> 
> 
> FUCK YOU, Rockhead.  We're sick of your blind obtuseness, your refusal to face reality, while attacking anyone who differs with you with the claim of having a "low IQ."  If you want these people so much, MOVE THEM INTO YOUR BACKYARD.  I don't want these unskilled, uneducated, disease-ridden losers taking up my hard-won land and tax dollars.
Click to expand...

Cut the military budget if you dont want your tax money wasted.


----------



## Synthaholic

For one thing it a wall would be an ecological disaster for wildlife and the Rio Grande.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

toobfreak said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *looking for a problem to solve*
> 
> *View attachment 236231 *
> 
> *looking for a problem to solve*
> 
> *View attachment 236232 *
> 
> *looking for a problem to solve*
> 
> View attachment 236233
> 
> 
> *looking for a problem to solve*
> 
> *View attachment 236234 *
> 
> 
> FUCK YOU, Rockhead.  We're sick of your blind obtuseness, your refusal to face reality, while attacking anyone who differs with you with the claim of having a "low IQ."  If you want these people so much, MOVE THEM INTO YOUR BACKYARD.  I don't want these unskilled, uneducated, disease-ridden losers taking up my hard-won land and tax dollars.
Click to expand...


You post pictures of a staged event and call me names.  How absolutely bright of you!

If I call you names and point to your abject ignorance, will it get your attention?

You missed the part where I told you that BEFORE this issue became front page news, the patriots and constitutionalists had this issue under control.  BTW, do you always talk about yourself in the third person?

I'll tell you some of the things I'm sick of:

1)  I'm sick of the government, parents, doctors, mental health officials and Big Pharma making drug users out of children

2)  I'm sick of those people growing up without a chance in Hell at any kind of life

3)  I'm tired of an America where we have more people in prisons than any nation on the planet

4) I'm tired of there being ten drug addicts in prison to every one drug addict in treatment

5)  I'm tired of parents thinking their children are special so they make drug addicts out of them, then mollycoddle them, eventually getting them on welfare for the rest of their lives

6) I'm REALLY sick of a society that creates drug users, guarantees that they will also have a criminal record and get locked out of the job market

7)  I'm sick of the twenty something year old standing in line to pay for groceries with his debit card, knowing he sits on his ass and complains about America while I work and pay the money that feeds that parasite

8)  I'm sick of people that don't want to work unless they get to charge a surgeon's wages for a skill set it takes under two years to learn and then complain when a foreigner WILL work for a decent wage - though not a surgeon's wages (i.e. jobs that pay $20 to $40 an hour that most any dumb ass with an IQ higher than their shoe size can do if they are physically capable)

9)  I'm sick of people wanting to blame foreigners when it is idiots that want to lock the foreigners out and not accept the fact that locking them out will not make generational welfarites go out and get a job - AND, adding insult to injury, you lock Americans out and then bitch about foreigners supposedly "stealing jobs"

10)  I'm sick of the games and the build the wall proponents inability to have an honest and civil conversation about the issue.

You're really pissed that someone challenged the IQ of those who support the wall.  Yet it was a build the wall proponent who accused those who oppose the wall of being liberals.  What a freaking joke!  The whole genesis of the build the wall mentality began with the liberals and socialists.  NOTHING you can do or say will alter the truth.

Get Americans back to work and off drugs and your immigration problem will resolve itself.


----------



## danielpalos

Leo123 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You you won't even HAVE a country without strong defensible borders which includes a wall.
Click to expand...

we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.


----------



## danielpalos

Issa said:


> I'm proud to say that I go out of my way and hire illegals and pay them extra. Being an immigrant myself,  I appareciate their willingness to better their life....if someone walked miles and miles and risk their lives to make their lives better, and work as hard most of them do...I would give them green cards and path to citizenship.
> They are more productive than lot of fat fuck racists here on this board who spend qll day hating on everything and leave off the system.


that's right! natives should try to better their lives on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.


----------



## Leo123

danielpalos said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You you won't even HAVE a country without strong defensible borders which includes a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
Click to expand...


People who illegally crash our border are NOT refugees they are ILLEGAL ALIENS!!  A refugee is NOT a refugee until identified as so by our border authorities.  How can you be so ignorant?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Synthaholic said:


> For one thing it a wall would be an ecological disaster for wildlife and the Rio Grande.



Oh......well that settles it.  We have to let anybody enter this country that wants to.  We can't have any sad coyotes.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236224
> It's a waste of skin.
> 
> Only a colossal dolt would argue against protection of one's own border.  The Pentagon has misplaced more money MANY TIMES OVER over the years than what the wall would cost to build.
> 
> AND THAT IS WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING THE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS (AND BILLIONS) WE WOULD SAVE IN NOT-WASTED RESOURCES ONCE IT IS FINISHED.
> 
> *PROVE ME WRONG.* Once the wall is built, if it turns out to be a colossal mistake like you predict that backfires in our faces, we can always TEAR IT BACK DOWN, melt the steel, and use the metal to make free housing for illegal Latinos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is HIGHLY disingenuous for anyone to suggest that those opposed to the wall don't care about border security.  Not having a case, the build the wall proponents are slinging the scare word liberal around and making a baseless and false accusation.
> 
> The people once known as patriots and constitutionalists had the issue under control and were successfully working toward permanent solutions to this issue.  History has already proven you wrong.
> 
> The thing of it is, the really ignorant people are those who are for the wall, but against using their common sense.  Rather than call people names; rather than question the motives of others, you should sit down and ask yourself what happens if you get the wall - and be OBJECTIVE.  How will the law affect YOUR Liberty?
> 
> Having ninja clad, machine gun toting federal mercenaries patrolling a wall that cannot stop free enterprise nor cure people of their drug habit only brings cries for a bigger and bigger - and more intrusive government.  With that more and more of your Liberties go south until you cannot reclaim them.  I'd rather fight that inevitability because, once the wall is built, and proves ineffective we will not be able to stop it any more than we stopped the once TEMPORARY tax known as the income tax.  And what has the 16th Amendment brought you besides a private corporation of murderers that makes the average American quake in their shoes?  Most people would rather face an armed robber than the IRS.  Yet you don't learn from history.
Click to expand...


If the Democrats thought the wall wouldn't work, they wouldn't be fighting it so hard.  In fact, it would be a dream come true.  

They would be able to use the failure as a campaign issue against Republicans for the next two generations.  They would be able to remove the wall by popular demand.  So why are they fighting so hard against it?  Because it's something they can't remove if they ever regain total power in the federal government.  

A wall would not only retard drugs and invaders, it would send a message to the rest of the south that America is no longer a place you can run to if you get sick of where you're living now.  You can't play the system anymore by filing a phony asylum claim and then being allowed to roam our country for two or three years before your court date, and not attend your court date when it finally arrives.  

Instead, find some Democrat sanctuary city to hide in.  Not only will you live your life like an American citizen, you can commit crimes and the cops won't inform ICE.  They will give you drivers licenses, allow your illegal kids to attend their schools paid for by taxpayers, and look the other way if you find a place to work.  They will even give you welfare and medical care for your kids; something our government doesn't give to some of their very own law abiding people.


----------



## Dragonlady

Leo123 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You you won't even HAVE a country without strong defensible borders which includes a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who illegally crash our border are NOT refugees they are ILLEGAL ALIENS!!  A refugee is NOT a refugee until identified as so by our border authorities.  How can you be so ignorant?
Click to expand...


You have it backwards, they are refugees unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction declares otherwise.  People seeking asylum are ALLOWED to legally crash the borders in an effort to ask for asylum.  What is wrong about what is happening at the border is the Trump Administration's bald faced attempt to prevent refugees from crossing into the USA to make that asylum claim.  And then incarcerating those who claim asylum until their cases are heard.

What Trump is doing, is limiting how many people the system will process in a day, allowing a huge waiting list to accumulate in order to discourage those seeking to get in.  This is both illegal and inhumane, and therein lies the problem.  People don't have the resources to wait for months to claim asylum and the Trump Administration is gambling they will quit and leave, or even better, that conditions in the camps will get so bad that violence breaks out.  Violence would be the fulfillment of all of your fears.  

Trump and his acolytes has consistently attempted to de-humanize immigrants and asylum seekers.  Just reading your post you've bought into this nazi bullshit wholeheartedly.  If they're not really human, it doesn't matter what we do to them does it.  Tear gas their children, let them go into convulsions without medical treatment and die, separate the parents from their children with no care or consideration for returning them to their families.  Teaching an entire generation of Central Americans to hate the USA for turning their backs on them.

Immigrants are not "aliens", they are human beings, just like you and I.  When you refer to refugees and asylum seekers as an "invasion", an "infestation", "alien", or "animals", it is YOU who are revealed to be subhuman, and unworthy of any consideration whatsoever.  

As a purportedly Christian nation, I would remind you of the words of Jesus "That which you have done to the least among you, you have done to me!".  If the barefoot and poor Jesus Christ had walked out of the desert and asked for asylum, you would turn Him away too.


----------



## Butch_Coolidge

Timmy said:


> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .



How about we keep them from entering first, then we don’t have to risk agents lives. We also don’t need them destroying whatever is in their path, and needing to be supported. Not to mention the resources they use that should go to legal tax payers. Then there is the crime they commit. We also don’t need to tie up the court system with bullshit. They should also track down the visa violators, and send them back. Steel construction, and razor wire should do the trick. Like what they use to keep criminals in jail. We already have enough people who don’t contribute anything to society. Why do we need more. You seem to have quick fixes for everything dimmy. What have you done personally to address these issues, or assist they poor people?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
Click to expand...


That's nutty?  I say that anybody who equates a border wall with losing all freedoms is nutty. 

Correct, there are many Republicans who don't want the wall.  But they took note at what just happened the last presidential election.  Like any other election, they all said basically the same thing: the jobs, the economy, our international interaction and so on.  But only one person stood for what the American people want; one person who said "I'm going to build a wall."  With zero experience in politics, not even so much as a job on a  school board somewhere, people elected Donald Trump.  He not only beat out the over dozen Republican contenders, he beat out a very well known career politician, the wife of a former President who was beloved by nearly everybody in the Democrat party.  

There is nothing Socialist about a wall.  If you have no secure border, you really don't have a country.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right about one thing, I have no idea where you're at half the time.
> 
> ADD is difficulty paying attention or your mind drifting off of a subject.  It's something you can live with without taking medication.  We were talking about criminal records, not mental records.  You keep detouring the subject all the time.
> 
> What you don't understand is the Doctor/ patient relationship is sacred.  Criminal records are not.  Doctors take an oath to protect the confidence between themselves and their clients unless they believe a serious threat to the public is at large.
> 
> The government puts guardrails on our roads so you don't accidentally drive off a cliff or into a river.   The government forces companies to put warnings on medications and various devices so you don't get hurt.  The government forces companies to put something in front of dock doors so an employee doesn't fall out of it or a tow motor drive off of it.  The government regulation is that we truck drivers chock our wheels (putting a rubber or metal wedge under the tire) even though tractor-trailers have two independent brake systems that make it virtually impossible for the system to fail.
> 
> In other words, government takes measures to insure our safety.  So if government is aware of a potentially dangerous person; a person who may cause me serious grief; a person who may be a threat to my business or family, it's governments duty to warn me of this potential--not hide it from me so I have no idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You open your post with a straw man argument, add utter nonsense and then end it with the weakest argument you've ever had.
> 
> Mental health records are not sacred.  There are legislators wanting them to be used right now to make sure you cannot exercise your Rights.  WHEN it happens, get back to me.
> 
> Finally, building a guard-rail poses no threat to your constitutional Liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither does criminal records being public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is, Ray, you have admitted that ADD / ADHD are not real conditions - you know conditions where people need to be on drugs.  You have admitted that, sir.
> 
> What you cannot see is that whether you do or do not, the public should NOT have access to your records because they cannot properly evaluate them.
> 
> In order to end this argument, I'll offer you an idea.  If you want to hire someone, rent to them, etc. then since you trust the government so much why not submit the application along with the reason and let them just say they recommend that you hire them, rent to them, or you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because government doesn't make my decisions for me.  I make my own decisions, and I make those decisions based on the information I have.  One landlord might want to rent to an ex-con.  I don't.  I've had experience doing that and I base my future decisions on past experiences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious that the government don't make your decisions for you.  Rush Limbaugh does that.  But, you clearly WISH that the government would be your personal Santa Claus.
Click to expand...


Asking that government not hide information from me that could cause me harm either physically or financially is not Santa Clause.  It's asking government to do it's job by protecting us from enemies foreign and domestic.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Dragonlady said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You you won't even HAVE a country without strong defensible borders which includes a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who illegally crash our border are NOT refugees they are ILLEGAL ALIENS!!  A refugee is NOT a refugee until identified as so by our border authorities.  How can you be so ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it backwards, they are refugees unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction declares otherwise.  People seeking asylum are ALLOWED to legally crash the borders in an effort to ask for asylum.  What is wrong about what is happening at the border is the Trump Administration's bald faced attempt to prevent refugees from crossing into the USA to make that asylum claim.  And then incarcerating those who claim asylum until their cases are heard.
> 
> What Trump is doing, is limiting how many people the system will process in a day, allowing a huge waiting list to accumulate in order to discourage those seeking to get in.  This is both illegal and inhumane, and therein lies the problem.  People don't have the resources to wait for months to claim asylum and the Trump Administration is gambling they will quit and leave, or even better, that conditions in the camps will get so bad that violence breaks out.  Violence would be the fulfillment of all of your fears.
> 
> Trump and his acolytes has consistently attempted to de-humanize immigrants and asylum seekers.  Just reading your post you've bought into this nazi bullshit wholeheartedly.  If they're not really human, it doesn't matter what we do to them does it.  Tear gas their children, let them go into convulsions without medical treatment and die, separate the parents from their children with no care or consideration for returning them to their families.  Teaching an entire generation of Central Americans to hate the USA for turning their backs on them.
> 
> Immigrants are not "aliens", they are human beings, just like you and I.  When you refer to refugees and asylum seekers as an "invasion", an "infestation", "alien", or "animals", it is YOU who are revealed to be subhuman, and unworthy of any consideration whatsoever.
> 
> As a purportedly Christian nation, I would remind you of the words of Jesus "That which you have done to the least among you, you have done to me!".  If the barefoot and poor Jesus Christ had walked out of the desert and asked for asylum, you would turn Him away too.
Click to expand...



Then we should just drop off the Illegal killer rapist Mexicans in Canada, you take care of them 

.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.
> 
> Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a point well taken.  If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse.  BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse.  Times change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are off your rocker.  Public records equate to a New World Order?  And let me see this evidence that 30% of inmates never did anything wrong to be imprisoned; not that I believe you have any credible link (but it will be fun if you try to post something) however I just want to see where you make this stuff up from.
> 
> Yes, criminal records are government records, and nothing in the Constitution "prohibits" government from sharing those records with the people.  It would be an injustice to not warn people of potentially dangerous people.  But I'm sure in the name of privacy, you wouldn't mind a rapist to move in next door to your mother or sister without your knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would not believe it, then there is no point in posting a link. It would be wasted verification.
> 
> One thing is for sure.  You live on this board to argue the wall as if it were your lifeblood - your religion.  Yet you fail to comprehend simple truths.  For example:
> 
> Not too long back the liberals wanted to declare that any veteran who had been diagnosed with PTSD be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms.  You won't believe that either, but it's true.  The point is, the liberals would use your mental health records to deny you the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> You argued against ADD / ADHD, claiming you are afflicted with such, but then denying that you are not on the drugs for it.  Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, if you have a real condition, you either have it or you don't.  If you're born with juvenile diabetes, you have it.  You don't wake up one morning and say I feel fine so I must be cured.
> 
> You cannot understand that I'm sometimes on YOUR side for IF ADD / ADHD were real conditions and IF you were not on your meds, the liberals would most assuredly pass legislation to address people like you.  IF you think a person's criminal record is something the public should know about, then ditto for their mental health records.
> 
> WHEN mental health records become fair game, then you can be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms as well as be turned down for a job because you have a "mental health record."  Does it matter that you went to see the psychologist because you lost interest in sex or that you needed a referral from a psychologist to go out of network and be hypnotized so that you could quit smoking?  HELL NO.  It will be just like a "criminal record."  Nobody is going to read the transcripts nor weigh the value of the treatment nor more than they read court transcripts to find out that you were threatened with pleading guilty or facing a maximum prison sentence when the facts clearly dictate you were innocent.  I leave you with the wisdom of Thomas Paine:
> 
> "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
> 
> Read more at: Thomas Paine Quotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right about one thing, I have no idea where you're at half the time.
> 
> ADD is difficulty paying attention or your mind drifting off of a subject.  It's something you can live with without taking medication.  We were talking about criminal records, not mental records.  You keep detouring the subject all the time.
> 
> What you don't understand is the Doctor/ patient relationship is sacred.  Criminal records are not.  Doctors take an oath to protect the confidence between themselves and their clients unless they believe a serious threat to the public is at large.
> 
> The government puts guardrails on our roads so you don't accidentally drive off a cliff or into a river.   The government forces companies to put warnings on medications and various devices so you don't get hurt.  The government forces companies to put something in front of dock doors so an employee doesn't fall out of it or a tow motor drive off of it.  The government regulation is that we truck drivers chock our wheels (putting a rubber or metal wedge under the tire) even though tractor-trailers have two independent brake systems that make it virtually impossible for the system to fail.
> 
> In other words, government takes measures to insure our safety.  So if government is aware of a potentially dangerous person; a person who may cause me serious grief; a person who may be a threat to my business or family, it's governments duty to warn me of this potential--not hide it from me so I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is not the government's duty to warn you of a "potentially" dangerous person.  It maybe governments duty to warn you of "known" dangerous person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, a person who is a criminal is potentially dangerous.  The government is we the people.  When the government sends somebody to jail, we the people sent them to jail.  We have a right to know who our government sent to prison for our own protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if a guy loses his job and doesn't pay child support is dangerous?  A guy who has a beef with the tax authorities is dangerous?  Only in Ray's world.
Click to expand...


That's up to me and employers to decide, not you and not the government.  I need to know who and what I'm dealing with to make a safe and sound decision.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Issa said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't have a conservative corporatist court at the time.  We don't even have one now.  That's why the Supreme Court just ruled that Trump can't deny asylum to people caught sneaking into the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Building a wall is applying a solution that the Chinese used in the 4th Century AD, and it didn't work then.  The Great Wall proved no deterrent at all to attacking armies, despite 15 centuries of construction, fortification and expansion and was abandoned altogether by the last army which overall it.
> 
> The Eminent Domain cases from the last attempt to fence the entire southern border have still not cleared the dockets in Texas, and local residents are gearing up for another fight.
> 
> Cartels are now using drones to smuggle drugs across the border, so a wall is absolutely not deterrent to drugs.
> 
> And last but not least, Trump promised Mexico would pay for it, and now he's giving us some bullshit line that the new NAFTA 2.0 is paying for it.  The American people will be paying for it.  That's on top of the $4000 raises he promised everyone from the corporate tax cut that never materialized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $4,000 raises?  That's a new one on me.  I never heard of that before and I watched the elections pretty closely.
> 
> So now your stance is to compare a 4th century wall to today?  Then why is it where walls and fences are erected, they made noticeable improvement if not total improvement?
> 
> And you're claiming all drugs are coming in on drones?  Very well, even though I don't believe a word of that (I know they use drones from time to time) what happens when we find a solution to that problem?  Start the wall talk again?  Wouldn't it be better to have the wall in place already when that happens?
> 
> Did you ever take notice that we pro-wall people don't give a rats ass who is paying for the wall, yet you on the left keep bringing that up like it's a relevant point to stop it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drugs go through checkpoints, also most illegals came by plane by the way. That's why we keep telling you a wall is useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  Makes you wonder how those border agencies make thousands of busts every year by the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It makes wonder also how some of those border agents make more than their salaries, and dozens got arrested.
Click to expand...


Really?  When?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bear513 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You you won't even HAVE a country without strong defensible borders which includes a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who illegally crash our border are NOT refugees they are ILLEGAL ALIENS!!  A refugee is NOT a refugee until identified as so by our border authorities.  How can you be so ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it backwards, they are refugees unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction declares otherwise.  People seeking asylum are ALLOWED to legally crash the borders in an effort to ask for asylum.  What is wrong about what is happening at the border is the Trump Administration's bald faced attempt to prevent refugees from crossing into the USA to make that asylum claim.  And then incarcerating those who claim asylum until their cases are heard.
> 
> What Trump is doing, is limiting how many people the system will process in a day, allowing a huge waiting list to accumulate in order to discourage those seeking to get in.  This is both illegal and inhumane, and therein lies the problem.  People don't have the resources to wait for months to claim asylum and the Trump Administration is gambling they will quit and leave, or even better, that conditions in the camps will get so bad that violence breaks out.  Violence would be the fulfillment of all of your fears.
> 
> Trump and his acolytes has consistently attempted to de-humanize immigrants and asylum seekers.  Just reading your post you've bought into this nazi bullshit wholeheartedly.  If they're not really human, it doesn't matter what we do to them does it.  Tear gas their children, let them go into convulsions without medical treatment and die, separate the parents from their children with no care or consideration for returning them to their families.  Teaching an entire generation of Central Americans to hate the USA for turning their backs on them.
> 
> Immigrants are not "aliens", they are human beings, just like you and I.  When you refer to refugees and asylum seekers as an "invasion", an "infestation", "alien", or "animals", it is YOU who are revealed to be subhuman, and unworthy of any consideration whatsoever.
> 
> As a purportedly Christian nation, I would remind you of the words of Jesus "That which you have done to the least among you, you have done to me!".  If the barefoot and poor Jesus Christ had walked out of the desert and asked for asylum, you would turn Him away too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then we should just drop off the Illegal killer rapist Mexicans in Canada, you take care of them
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Which is why I said besides the wall, we should build a super highway from Mexico to Canada.  It will be elevated and enclosed so nobody could jump off of it.  Bet she sings a different tune then.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Butch_Coolidge said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we keep them from entering first, then we don’t have to risk agents lives. We also don’t need them destroying whatever is in their path, and needing to be supported. Not to mention the resources they use that should go to legal tax payers. Then there is the crime they commit. We also don’t need to tie up the court system with bullshit. They should also track down the visa violators, and send them back. Steel construction, and razor wire should do the trick. Like what they use to keep criminals in jail. We already have enough people who don’t contribute anything to society. Why do we need more. You seem to have quick fixes for everything dimmy. What have you done personally to address these issues, or assist they poor people?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


The solution to this problem is simple: anybody caught here illegally will be charged with a first degree felony.  It carries a minimum of five years in prison.  Then we wouldn't need a wall or even border security.  If you want to see what 20 million people rushing to get out of a country would look like, pass a law like that and that's exactly what you'd see.


----------



## bripat9643

Dragonlady said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even list the REAL reasons why the wall is a total waste of time and money.  It doesn't work.  This is the first, last and most important reason.  And it gives a false sense of security.  The Southern Border isn't the source of most illegal immigration.  The money would be better spent on infrastructure to better track and verify Social Security numbers for employers.
Click to expand...

We all know it does work.  Even you know it, but you lie about it.


----------



## Butch_Coolidge

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we keep them from entering first, then we don’t have to risk agents lives. We also don’t need them destroying whatever is in their path, and needing to be supported. Not to mention the resources they use that should go to legal tax payers. Then there is the crime they commit. We also don’t need to tie up the court system with bullshit. They should also track down the visa violators, and send them back. Steel construction, and razor wire should do the trick. Like what they use to keep criminals in jail. We already have enough people who don’t contribute anything to society. Why do we need more. You seem to have quick fixes for everything dimmy. What have you done personally to address these issues, or assist they poor people?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The solution to this problem is simple: anybody caught here illegally will be charged with a first degree felony.  It carries a minimum of five years in prison.  Then we wouldn't need a wall or even border security.  If you want to see what 20 million people rushing to get out of a country would look like, pass a law like that and that's exactly what you'd see.
Click to expand...


I like the way you think. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with a wall AND technology?
> 
> Why do you think the Democrats are so scared to death of a wall they are even willing to shutdown the government?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we could add technology to the cost of the wall and we it could be upgraded as new technology becomes available but adding 5 feet to the top or the foundation of a 1000 mile wall is another story.
> 
> My point is that we are not living in stagnation.  More Mexicans are returning to Mexico than arriving.  This trend started over 10 years ago and seems to be accelerating.  The problems in the northern triangle are responsible for the large number of Central Americans arriving in the US.  There have been proposals from both sides to increase aid and provide US personal to assist in clearing out the drug cartels and gangs that have made life a living hell for the people.  Lastly, immigration reform is far from dead.  It can't happen with Republican control of government but certain can and will happen with Democrat control.  Even if democrats only control one House of congress, we can still get immigration reform because many republicans agree with democrats on a number of immigration issues.  These changes will dramatically reduce illegal immigration without spending tens of billions of dollars on a wall, taking property away from hundreds of land owners, destruction of a fragile environment, and a sending a message to the world that the United States seeks to isolate itself by hiding behind a wall.
> 
> It is not the wall democrats fear.  It is what it represents, isolationism and the victory of hate and racism over reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they have you brainwashed too.......a damn shame.
> 
> Racism is what Democrats have used for many years to get their way.  It has nothing to do with racism.  This isn't a race issue.  If it were Canadians or Europeans attacking our country, we would feel the same way.  We don't need more uneducated diseased unskilled people in our country  no matter who they are.
> 
> And what immigration reform do we need?  There is nothing wrong with our immigration system now.  Do you know what immigration reform means?  It means surrendering to those who can't easily get in now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uneducated, diseased, unskilled people, is this how you see immigrants to the US?  If so, I feel sorry for you because you are delusional.
> 
> Just because these people are poor does not mean they are uneducated, diseased, and unskilled.   Many of these people are skilled and can be an asset to the country.  Plus many of them have more intestinal fortitude than a dozen native born American.  With the right kind of immigration reform we can bring these people into the country and keep out those that mean us harm.
> 
> Our immigration system is incredibly fucked up.  We select immigrants based on country of origin and having some relative living in the US.  Immigration agents spend 10 mins selecting who is allowed to immigrate and months on deportation.   We deny people the right to work in the US even if they have skills we need.  Our laws would deport people who have lived in this country for decades and have been an asset to their community. Those same laws would also deport people who were brought to the US as children and raised as Americans.  We force people to break our laws in order apply for asylum.  We were instrumental in creating the international refugee system and protocols and we violate the very rules we created.  The biggest problem in illegal immigration is not people coming into the country illegally but overstaying visa and our immigration laws don't even consider this a crime in most cases and there is no provision for tracking these people.  Our E-Verify system is completely voluntary and it's data is as much as 6 months out of date.  Employers that use contract labor are shielded from immigration law that forbids employing of undocumented immigrants.
> And you say there's nothing wrong with our immigration system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration reform for the anti-white party means getting more foreigners into this country.  They don't care who they are: unskilled, scientists, diseased, uneducated, they don't care, just as long as they are wiping out the white vote in this country.
> 
> People who are here illegally being model citizens, paying taxes, being here since children is no reason to let them stay.  They are still here breaking our laws.  They are still here illegally.  I don't know what you on the left don't understand about that.  You think being here illegally is okay in most cases.
> 
> We don't need to set the precedent that if you come here illegally and be a good boy for X amount of years, you won't be bothered the least.  That's a blanket invitation to the other 7.2 billion people in the world that America is weak on immigration which we really are.  But we don't need to amplify that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I could go through the points in democrat plans for immigration reform but why waste the time.  Discussing immigration with you is lot like discussing the need for green vegetables with a 5 year old.  You don't want any part of it.  You have made that abundantly clear.
> 
> You seem to believe that America can prosper by hiding behind walls and creating laws that keeps the rest of the world out but you're dead wrong.
Click to expand...


We saw what they planned in 2013:  amnesty first, and then measures to control the border second.  The latter depended on Dims approving the funding for them, and we've all seen how that works.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.
> 
> Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a point well taken.  If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse.  BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse.  Times change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional protection of criminal records.  Search and Seizure is in regards to a persons personal records--not government records.  Furthermore there is a huge difference between supporting medications for certain conditions and using them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Criminal records ARE government records.  Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the authority to give out the information for the general public to go on a fishing expedition.  You shouldn't argue this as one day, you or a loved one WILL be denied a constitutional protection and it will because of people just like you.
> 
> One last time:  the government can lie to you and they can lie about you... AND THEY DO.  By their own estimates 30 percent of the people in jails and prisons never actually committed a crime.
> 
> You were given an alternative, so if you choose to be a subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER, that is your prerogative.  It's mine not to subject myself to a foreign jurisdiction just because a de facto government makes a false claim against me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are off your rocker.  Public records equate to a New World Order?  And let me see this evidence that 30% of inmates never did anything wrong to be imprisoned; not that I believe you have any credible link (but it will be fun if you try to post something) however I just want to see where you make this stuff up from.
> 
> Yes, criminal records are government records, and nothing in the Constitution "prohibits" government from sharing those records with the people.  It would be an injustice to not warn people of potentially dangerous people.  But I'm sure in the name of privacy, you wouldn't mind a rapist to move in next door to your mother or sister without your knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would not believe it, then there is no point in posting a link. It would be wasted verification.
> 
> One thing is for sure.  You live on this board to argue the wall as if it were your lifeblood - your religion.  Yet you fail to comprehend simple truths.  For example:
> 
> Not too long back the liberals wanted to declare that any veteran who had been diagnosed with PTSD be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms.  You won't believe that either, but it's true.  The point is, the liberals would use your mental health records to deny you the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> You argued against ADD / ADHD, claiming you are afflicted with such, but then denying that you are not on the drugs for it.  Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, if you have a real condition, you either have it or you don't.  If you're born with juvenile diabetes, you have it.  You don't wake up one morning and say I feel fine so I must be cured.
> 
> You cannot understand that I'm sometimes on YOUR side for IF ADD / ADHD were real conditions and IF you were not on your meds, the liberals would most assuredly pass legislation to address people like you.  IF you think a person's criminal record is something the public should know about, then ditto for their mental health records.
> 
> WHEN mental health records become fair game, then you can be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms as well as be turned down for a job because you have a "mental health record."  Does it matter that you went to see the psychologist because you lost interest in sex or that you needed a referral from a psychologist to go out of network and be hypnotized so that you could quit smoking?  HELL NO.  It will be just like a "criminal record."  Nobody is going to read the transcripts nor weigh the value of the treatment nor more than they read court transcripts to find out that you were threatened with pleading guilty or facing a maximum prison sentence when the facts clearly dictate you were innocent.  I leave you with the wisdom of Thomas Paine:
> 
> "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
> 
> Read more at: Thomas Paine Quotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right about one thing, I have no idea where you're at half the time.
> 
> ADD is difficulty paying attention or your mind drifting off of a subject.  It's something you can live with without taking medication.  We were talking about criminal records, not mental records.  You keep detouring the subject all the time.
> 
> What you don't understand is the Doctor/ patient relationship is sacred.  Criminal records are not.  Doctors take an oath to protect the confidence between themselves and their clients unless they believe a serious threat to the public is at large.
> 
> The government puts guardrails on our roads so you don't accidentally drive off a cliff or into a river.   The government forces companies to put warnings on medications and various devices so you don't get hurt.  The government forces companies to put something in front of dock doors so an employee doesn't fall out of it or a tow motor drive off of it.  The government regulation is that we truck drivers chock our wheels (putting a rubber or metal wedge under the tire) even though tractor-trailers have two independent brake systems that make it virtually impossible for the system to fail.
> 
> In other words, government takes measures to insure our safety.  So if government is aware of a potentially dangerous person; a person who may cause me serious grief; a person who may be a threat to my business or family, it's governments duty to warn me of this potential--not hide it from me so I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is not the government's duty to warn you of a "potentially" dangerous person.  It maybe governments duty to warn you of "known" dangerous person.
Click to expand...

it's the government's duty to keep dangerous persons out of this country.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dragonlady said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You you won't even HAVE a country without strong defensible borders which includes a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who illegally crash our border are NOT refugees they are ILLEGAL ALIENS!!  A refugee is NOT a refugee until identified as so by our border authorities.  How can you be so ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it backwards, they are refugees unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction declares otherwise.  People seeking asylum are ALLOWED to legally crash the borders in an effort to ask for asylum.  What is wrong about what is happening at the border is the Trump Administration's bald faced attempt to prevent refugees from crossing into the USA to make that asylum claim.  And then incarcerating those who claim asylum until their cases are heard.
> 
> What Trump is doing, is limiting how many people the system will process in a day, allowing a huge waiting list to accumulate in order to discourage those seeking to get in.  This is both illegal and inhumane, and therein lies the problem.  People don't have the resources to wait for months to claim asylum and the Trump Administration is gambling they will quit and leave, or even better, that conditions in the camps will get so bad that violence breaks out.  Violence would be the fulfillment of all of your fears.
> 
> Trump and his acolytes has consistently attempted to de-humanize immigrants and asylum seekers.  Just reading your post you've bought into this nazi bullshit wholeheartedly.  If they're not really human, it doesn't matter what we do to them does it.  Tear gas their children, let them go into convulsions without medical treatment and die, separate the parents from their children with no care or consideration for returning them to their families.  Teaching an entire generation of Central Americans to hate the USA for turning their backs on them.
> 
> Immigrants are not "aliens", they are human beings, just like you and I.  When you refer to refugees and asylum seekers as an "invasion", an "infestation", "alien", or "animals", it is YOU who are revealed to be subhuman, and unworthy of any consideration whatsoever.
> 
> As a purportedly Christian nation, I would remind you of the words of Jesus "That which you have done to the least among you, you have done to me!".  If the barefoot and poor Jesus Christ had walked out of the desert and asked for asylum, you would turn Him away too.
Click to expand...


I don't think Jesus would be lying about his asylum claim as most of the asylum seekers do.  I don't think Jesus would throw rocks at our border agents or break down a temporary wall to enter illegally. 

Yes, the worse you treat these people, the less will come.  There were supposed to be tens of thousands more joining this current caravan.  Where are they?  Where did they go?  

It's working.  Finally, a President who is doing things that actually work.  If you don't want to sit around for years picking your nose, if you don't want to be separated from your supposed children, if you don't want to be detained, then STF in your own country.  Don't come here.  Problem solved.


----------



## bripat9643

ph3iron said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
Click to expand...

I don't like to live in a country full of aliens content with living in a shit hole and doing everything they can to make it one.  Calling those who oppose unlimited immigration "cowards" is the ultimate in stupid.  It's like calling someone who declines to stick his finger in a light socket a coward.  Prudence isn't cowardice, but calling a prudent person a coward is the sign of a douchebag.


----------



## bripat9643

Dragonlady said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a point well taken.  If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse.  BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse.  Times change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with "how far we will go" it has to do with legality.  The Supreme court ruled (a few years back) that eminent domain even applies to private companies wishing to make improvements to an area.  In other words, being able to buy structures and evicting people out of them to tear those homes down and build new ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what you get when you have a "conservative" (corporatist) SCOTUS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We didn't have a conservative corporatist court at the time.  We don't even have one now.  That's why the Supreme Court just ruled that Trump can't deny asylum to people caught sneaking into the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Building a wall is applying a solution that the Chinese used in the 4th Century AD, and it didn't work then.  The Great Wall proved no deterrent at all to attacking armies, despite 15 centuries of construction, fortification and expansion and was abandoned altogether by the last army which overall it.
> 
> The Eminent Domain cases from the last attempt to fence the entire southern border have still not cleared the dockets in Texas, and local residents are gearing up for another fight.
> 
> Cartels are now using drones to smuggle drugs across the border, so a wall is absolutely not deterrent to drugs.
> 
> And last but not least, Trump promised Mexico would pay for it, and now he's giving us some bullshit line that the new NAFTA 2.0 is paying for it.  The American people will be paying for it.  That's on top of the $4000 raises he promised everyone from the corporate tax cut that never materialized.
Click to expand...

Actually, it did work.  Putting off a Mongol invasion for hundreds of years is the sure sign that it worked.  

The rest of your post is equally stupid, but that should be enough to convince anyone reading it that you're an idiot.


----------



## bripat9643

ph3iron said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a perfect solution but unarguably is would reduce crossings
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But at what cost ??  You know the “wall” plan includes drones and  all kinds of high tech sensors , roving border guards .  It’s not just some one time cost and you are done .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How high is a preprogrammed drones salary? How many bathroom breaks does he need? How much gas for an 8 hour shift? Does he need a college educated driver who also requires an absurd salary?
> 
> DO YOU HAVE A BRAIN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you do not.  Drones don’t fly themselves….someone monitors what they see…for just one thing.
> 
> How much time do you spend thinking about illegal immigration in a day?  Whatever it is…it’s too much.
> 
> The blob tells you your enemy is down there; you’re dumb enough to believe it.   That is all.
> That is the reason there is a supposed immigration crisis in the nation.
> 
> Essentially the same number people crossing today were crossing 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30, years ago….50 years ago;  Somehow we managed to build the greatest society on the planet.  Ever.  But now you’re told there is a problem with a group of people who, by and large, are just here to do menial labor for little money…and you guys believe it.
> 
> Damn
> You
> Are
> Stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words open boarders are fine with you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like our con 5 deferment Pres You can't spell borders either or are you joking?
> Do you know anyone who supports open borders?
> I don't
> Is that what knees news spews out?
Click to expand...

You and all the other Hillary voters in here are for open borders.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
Click to expand...

Sorry, turd, but you'll never convince me that you're a Republican.  You walk like a Democrat, waddle like a Democrat and talk like a Democrat.


----------



## beautress

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
Click to expand...

Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:

*Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.

According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.

FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.

The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?

And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.

Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.

Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
​


----------



## Lesh

Build that Fence

Build that Fence


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> You post pictures of a staged event



Right.  Were you in on the staging?



> How absolutely bright of you!



I have shoes with more brains than you.



> I'll tell you some of the things I'm sick of:
> 
> 1)  I'm sick
> 
> 2)  I'm sick
> 
> 3)  I'm tired
> 
> 4) I'm tired
> 
> 5)  I'm tired
> 
> 6) I'm REALLY sick
> 
> 7)  I'm sick
> 
> 8)  I'm sick
> 
> 9)  I'm sick
> 
> 10)  I'm sick



tl;dr  But I think you nailed it right on the head.  You're sick.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236224
> It's a waste of skin.
> 
> Only a colossal dolt would argue against protection of one's own border.  The Pentagon has misplaced more money MANY TIMES OVER over the years than what the wall would cost to build.
> 
> AND THAT IS WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING THE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS (AND BILLIONS) WE WOULD SAVE IN NOT-WASTED RESOURCES ONCE IT IS FINISHED.
> 
> *PROVE ME WRONG.* Once the wall is built, if it turns out to be a colossal mistake like you predict that backfires in our faces, we can always TEAR IT BACK DOWN, melt the steel, and use the metal to make free housing for illegal Latinos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is HIGHLY disingenuous for anyone to suggest that those opposed to the wall don't care about border security.  Not having a case, the build the wall proponents are slinging the scare word liberal around and making a baseless and false accusation.
> 
> The people once known as patriots and constitutionalists had the issue under control and were successfully working toward permanent solutions to this issue.  History has already proven you wrong.
> 
> The thing of it is, the really ignorant people are those who are for the wall, but against using their common sense.  Rather than call people names; rather than question the motives of others, you should sit down and ask yourself what happens if you get the wall - and be OBJECTIVE.  How will the law affect YOUR Liberty?
> 
> Having ninja clad, machine gun toting federal mercenaries patrolling a wall that cannot stop free enterprise nor cure people of their drug habit only brings cries for a bigger and bigger - and more intrusive government.  With that more and more of your Liberties go south until you cannot reclaim them.  I'd rather fight that inevitability because, once the wall is built, and proves ineffective we will not be able to stop it any more than we stopped the once TEMPORARY tax known as the income tax.  And what has the 16th Amendment brought you besides a private corporation of murderers that makes the average American quake in their shoes?  Most people would rather face an armed robber than the IRS.  Yet you don't learn from history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Democrats thought the wall wouldn't work, they wouldn't be fighting it so hard.  In fact, it would be a dream come true.
> 
> They would be able to use the failure as a campaign issue against Republicans for the next two generations.  They would be able to remove the wall by popular demand.  So why are they fighting so hard against it?  Because it's something they can't remove if they ever regain total power in the federal government.
> 
> A wall would not only retard drugs and invaders, it would send a message to the rest of the south that America is no longer a place you can run to if you get sick of where you're living now.  You can't play the system anymore by filing a phony asylum claim and then being allowed to roam our country for two or three years before your court date, and not attend your court date when it finally arrives.
> 
> Instead, find some Democrat sanctuary city to hide in.  Not only will you live your life like an American citizen, you can commit crimes and the cops won't inform ICE.  They will give you drivers licenses, allow your illegal kids to attend their schools paid for by taxpayers, and look the other way if you find a place to work.  They will even give you welfare and medical care for your kids; something our government doesn't give to some of their very own law abiding people.
Click to expand...


At BEST, the Democrats give token resistance to the nutty wall idea.  Since I never voted for a Democrat until this election (and then for the Public Service Commission)  I don't know what their objections are; however, they have not (to my knowledge) made the objections I have.

Your overreactions, and being too melodramatic aren't working.  You're working over-time posting on this while avoiding the real question.  With the facts mounting against you, who are you trying to convince?  Us or yourself?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's nutty?  I say that anybody who equates a border wall with losing all freedoms is nutty.
> 
> Correct, there are many Republicans who don't want the wall.  But they took note at what just happened the last presidential election.  Like any other election, they all said basically the same thing: the jobs, the economy, our international interaction and so on.  But only one person stood for what the American people want; one person who said "I'm going to build a wall."  With zero experience in politics, not even so much as a job on a  school board somewhere, people elected Donald Trump.  He not only beat out the over dozen Republican contenders, he beat out a very well known career politician, the wife of a former President who was beloved by nearly everybody in the Democrat party.
> 
> There is nothing Socialist about a wall.  If you have no secure border, you really don't have a country.
Click to expand...


Two days ago even Rush Limbaugh admitted on the radio that you can have secure borders without a wall.  So, not even those who agree with your advocacy of the wall agree that the border cannot be secured without it.

Dude, you need a life outside of that damn wall.  You're working me to death making all those posts that are easily refuted.  

The first people in modern times that started the current movement was former neo - nazi turned Klansman, David Duke in 1977  Research the subject "border Watch".  Then came the so - called Minutemen headed up by Jim Gilchrist.  Gilchrist had Chris Simcox to help him found the organization.  Simcox was PROVEN to be a neo-nazi that recruited at nazi rallies.  His best friend was neo - nazi J.T. Ready.  Ready was filmed with Simcox at nazi rallies wailing about the border and the need for a wall.  Ready would go on to commit a mass shooting and committing suicide.  In addition, another of the major players in the founding of the advocacy of a wall was neo - nazi, Shawna Forde.  Forde would later be convicted of a double murder at the border.  National Socialists and socialists.

The FUNDING for the wall rhetoric and the pretexts was made possible from organizations like the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIRUS) and NumbersUSA.  The founder and primary financial financier for those organizations was a pro-eugenics millionaire by the name of John Tanton.  Tanton had previously developed the same talking points for David Duke.  

In the early to mid 1990s Bill Clinton and the Democrats (and Democrats have a socialist view of politics) was advocating much of what Donald Trump advocates today.  You need to get your head screwed on right.

Adding insult to injury, EVERY example you've cited in favor of a wall was where socialist / communist countries used and benefited off them with the only exceptions being with nations at war... and we are NOT at war with those from south of the border.

Finally, after the 2020 Census is taken, Congressional districts will be redrawn.  If the Republicans do not regain the House in the next election cycle, the Democrats will redraw the lines so as to benefit the Democrats.  Hate to tell you this, but Trump LOST the popular vote and if the Congressional lines are redrawn, you are looking at the END of the Republican party.  So, once again, you better learn the facts and heed sound counsel:

ANY solution should be a permanent one that the Democrats are willing to live with going into 2020.  But, even that point is irrelevant as the Democrats are playing the Tea Party Republicans.  The trade off is that, in the Art of the Deal, your Second Amendment Rights were negotiated away for that silly wall.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You open your post with a straw man argument, add utter nonsense and then end it with the weakest argument you've ever had.
> 
> Mental health records are not sacred.  There are legislators wanting them to be used right now to make sure you cannot exercise your Rights.  WHEN it happens, get back to me.
> 
> Finally, building a guard-rail poses no threat to your constitutional Liberties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And neither does criminal records being public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is, Ray, you have admitted that ADD / ADHD are not real conditions - you know conditions where people need to be on drugs.  You have admitted that, sir.
> 
> What you cannot see is that whether you do or do not, the public should NOT have access to your records because they cannot properly evaluate them.
> 
> In order to end this argument, I'll offer you an idea.  If you want to hire someone, rent to them, etc. then since you trust the government so much why not submit the application along with the reason and let them just say they recommend that you hire them, rent to them, or you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because government doesn't make my decisions for me.  I make my own decisions, and I make those decisions based on the information I have.  One landlord might want to rent to an ex-con.  I don't.  I've had experience doing that and I base my future decisions on past experiences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious that the government don't make your decisions for you.  Rush Limbaugh does that.  But, you clearly WISH that the government would be your personal Santa Claus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking that government not hide information from me that could cause me harm either physically or financially is not Santa Clause.  It's asking government to do it's job by protecting us from enemies foreign and domestic.
Click to expand...


In 2005, a news article reported this:

"WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm..."

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

You are FACTUALLY wrong again.  

Another article quoted the above, but the United States Supreme Court is still ruling all the time on this question.  A more recent article states this:

"However, did you know that the government, and specifically law enforcement, does not have any duty to protect the general public? Based on the headline and this information, you might assume this is a new, landmark decision. However, it has long been the court’s stance that, essentially, the American people are responsible for taking case of their own personal safety."

https://tribunist.com/news/supreme-court-ruling-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-general-public/

The government has NO duty to you as an individual when your personal safety is the issue.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a point well taken.  If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse.  BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse.  Times change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you would not believe it, then there is no point in posting a link. It would be wasted verification.
> 
> One thing is for sure.  You live on this board to argue the wall as if it were your lifeblood - your religion.  Yet you fail to comprehend simple truths.  For example:
> 
> Not too long back the liberals wanted to declare that any veteran who had been diagnosed with PTSD be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms.  You won't believe that either, but it's true.  The point is, the liberals would use your mental health records to deny you the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> You argued against ADD / ADHD, claiming you are afflicted with such, but then denying that you are not on the drugs for it.  Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, if you have a real condition, you either have it or you don't.  If you're born with juvenile diabetes, you have it.  You don't wake up one morning and say I feel fine so I must be cured.
> 
> You cannot understand that I'm sometimes on YOUR side for IF ADD / ADHD were real conditions and IF you were not on your meds, the liberals would most assuredly pass legislation to address people like you.  IF you think a person's criminal record is something the public should know about, then ditto for their mental health records.
> 
> WHEN mental health records become fair game, then you can be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms as well as be turned down for a job because you have a "mental health record."  Does it matter that you went to see the psychologist because you lost interest in sex or that you needed a referral from a psychologist to go out of network and be hypnotized so that you could quit smoking?  HELL NO.  It will be just like a "criminal record."  Nobody is going to read the transcripts nor weigh the value of the treatment nor more than they read court transcripts to find out that you were threatened with pleading guilty or facing a maximum prison sentence when the facts clearly dictate you were innocent.  I leave you with the wisdom of Thomas Paine:
> 
> "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
> 
> Read more at: Thomas Paine Quotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right about one thing, I have no idea where you're at half the time.
> 
> ADD is difficulty paying attention or your mind drifting off of a subject.  It's something you can live with without taking medication.  We were talking about criminal records, not mental records.  You keep detouring the subject all the time.
> 
> What you don't understand is the Doctor/ patient relationship is sacred.  Criminal records are not.  Doctors take an oath to protect the confidence between themselves and their clients unless they believe a serious threat to the public is at large.
> 
> The government puts guardrails on our roads so you don't accidentally drive off a cliff or into a river.   The government forces companies to put warnings on medications and various devices so you don't get hurt.  The government forces companies to put something in front of dock doors so an employee doesn't fall out of it or a tow motor drive off of it.  The government regulation is that we truck drivers chock our wheels (putting a rubber or metal wedge under the tire) even though tractor-trailers have two independent brake systems that make it virtually impossible for the system to fail.
> 
> In other words, government takes measures to insure our safety.  So if government is aware of a potentially dangerous person; a person who may cause me serious grief; a person who may be a threat to my business or family, it's governments duty to warn me of this potential--not hide it from me so I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is not the government's duty to warn you of a "potentially" dangerous person.  It maybe governments duty to warn you of "known" dangerous person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, a person who is a criminal is potentially dangerous.  The government is we the people.  When the government sends somebody to jail, we the people sent them to jail.  We have a right to know who our government sent to prison for our own protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if a guy loses his job and doesn't pay child support is dangerous?  A guy who has a beef with the tax authorities is dangerous?  Only in Ray's world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's up to me and employers to decide, not you and not the government.  I need to know who and what I'm dealing with to make a safe and sound decision.
Click to expand...


Under our Constitution as originally written and intended you are finally RIGHT.  That is precisely why it's not the government's business who a company does or does not offer a job to.  It's not your freaking job; it belongs to the employer that created it.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's nutty?  I say that anybody who equates a border wall with losing all freedoms is nutty.
> 
> Correct, there are many Republicans who don't want the wall.  But they took note at what just happened the last presidential election.  Like any other election, they all said basically the same thing: the jobs, the economy, our international interaction and so on.  But only one person stood for what the American people want; one person who said "I'm going to build a wall."  With zero experience in politics, not even so much as a job on a  school board somewhere, people elected Donald Trump.  He not only beat out the over dozen Republican contenders, he beat out a very well known career politician, the wife of a former President who was beloved by nearly everybody in the Democrat party.
> 
> There is nothing Socialist about a wall.  If you have no secure border, you really don't have a country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two days ago even Rush Limbaugh admitted on the radio that you can have secure borders without a wall.  So, not even those who agree with your advocacy of the wall agree that the border cannot be secured without it.
> 
> Dude, you need a life outside of that damn wall.  You're working me to death making all those posts that are easily refuted.
> 
> The first people in modern times that started the current movement was former neo - nazi turned Klansman, David Duke in 1977  Research the subject "border Watch".  Then came the so - called Minutemen headed up by Jim Gilchrist.  Gilchrist had Chris Simcox to help him found the organization.  Simcox was PROVEN to be a neo-nazi that recruited at nazi rallies.  His best friend was neo - nazi J.T. Ready.  Ready was filmed with Simcox at nazi rallies wailing about the border and the need for a wall.  Ready would go on to commit a mass shooting and committing suicide.  In addition, another of the major players in the founding of the advocacy of a wall was neo - nazi, Shawna Forde.  Forde would later be convicted of a double murder at the border.  National Socialists and socialists.
> 
> The FUNDING for the wall rhetoric and the pretexts was made possible from organizations like the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIRUS) and NumbersUSA.  The founder and primary financial financier for those organizations was a pro-eugenics millionaire by the name of John Tanton.  Tanton had previously developed the same talking points for David Duke.
> 
> In the early to mid 1990s Bill Clinton and the Democrats (and Democrats have a socialist view of politics) was advocating much of what Donald Trump advocates today.  You need to get your head screwed on right.
> 
> Adding insult to injury, EVERY example you've cited in favor of a wall was where socialist / communist countries used and benefited off them with the only exceptions being with nations at war... and we are NOT at war with those from south of the border.
> 
> Finally, after the 2020 Census is taken, Congressional districts will be redrawn.  If the Republicans do not regain the House in the next election cycle, the Democrats will redraw the lines so as to benefit the Democrats.  Hate to tell you this, but Trump LOST the popular vote and if the Congressional lines are redrawn, you are looking at the END of the Republican party.  So, once again, you better learn the facts and heed sound counsel:
> 
> ANY solution should be a permanent one that the Democrats are willing to live with going into 2020.  But, even that point is irrelevant as the Democrats are playing the Tea Party Republicans.  The trade off is that, in the Art of the Deal, your Second Amendment Rights were negotiated away for that silly wall.
Click to expand...

Rush Limbaugh admitted you can have secure borders without a wall? 

When?


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a point well taken.  If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse.  BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse.  Times change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right about one thing, I have no idea where you're at half the time.
> 
> ADD is difficulty paying attention or your mind drifting off of a subject.  It's something you can live with without taking medication.  We were talking about criminal records, not mental records.  You keep detouring the subject all the time.
> 
> What you don't understand is the Doctor/ patient relationship is sacred.  Criminal records are not.  Doctors take an oath to protect the confidence between themselves and their clients unless they believe a serious threat to the public is at large.
> 
> The government puts guardrails on our roads so you don't accidentally drive off a cliff or into a river.   The government forces companies to put warnings on medications and various devices so you don't get hurt.  The government forces companies to put something in front of dock doors so an employee doesn't fall out of it or a tow motor drive off of it.  The government regulation is that we truck drivers chock our wheels (putting a rubber or metal wedge under the tire) even though tractor-trailers have two independent brake systems that make it virtually impossible for the system to fail.
> 
> In other words, government takes measures to insure our safety.  So if government is aware of a potentially dangerous person; a person who may cause me serious grief; a person who may be a threat to my business or family, it's governments duty to warn me of this potential--not hide it from me so I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is not the government's duty to warn you of a "potentially" dangerous person.  It maybe governments duty to warn you of "known" dangerous person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, a person who is a criminal is potentially dangerous.  The government is we the people.  When the government sends somebody to jail, we the people sent them to jail.  We have a right to know who our government sent to prison for our own protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if a guy loses his job and doesn't pay child support is dangerous?  A guy who has a beef with the tax authorities is dangerous?  Only in Ray's world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's up to me and employers to decide, not you and not the government.  I need to know who and what I'm dealing with to make a safe and sound decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under our Constitution as originally written and intended you are finally RIGHT.  That is precisely why it's not the government's business who a company does or does not offer a job to.  It's not your freaking job; it belongs to the employer that created it.
Click to expand...

It is the government's business if the person you hire is not in the country legally.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we keep them from entering first, then we don’t have to risk agents lives. We also don’t need them destroying whatever is in their path, and needing to be supported. Not to mention the resources they use that should go to legal tax payers. Then there is the crime they commit. We also don’t need to tie up the court system with bullshit. They should also track down the visa violators, and send them back. Steel construction, and razor wire should do the trick. Like what they use to keep criminals in jail. We already have enough people who don’t contribute anything to society. Why do we need more. You seem to have quick fixes for everything dimmy. What have you done personally to address these issues, or assist they poor people?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The solution to this problem is simple: anybody caught here illegally will be charged with a first degree felony.  It carries a minimum of five years in prison.  Then we wouldn't need a wall or even border security.  If you want to see what 20 million people rushing to get out of a country would look like, pass a law like that and that's exactly what you'd see.
Click to expand...



Let us put an end to this idiocy right now:

"As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States."  Arizona v US

ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES

Like it or not the moment a foreigner's feet hit U.S. soil, they have constitutional rights as per the 14th Amendment.  

Adding insult to injury, had the build the wall advocates kept their butts at home, the constitutionalists and patriots in favor of the Constitution had this under control and were winning the fight.  That court case above - that decision is all on the build the wall advocates.  They own it and now you choose to misrepresent it???


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's nutty?  I say that anybody who equates a border wall with losing all freedoms is nutty.
> 
> Correct, there are many Republicans who don't want the wall.  But they took note at what just happened the last presidential election.  Like any other election, they all said basically the same thing: the jobs, the economy, our international interaction and so on.  But only one person stood for what the American people want; one person who said "I'm going to build a wall."  With zero experience in politics, not even so much as a job on a  school board somewhere, people elected Donald Trump.  He not only beat out the over dozen Republican contenders, he beat out a very well known career politician, the wife of a former President who was beloved by nearly everybody in the Democrat party.
> 
> There is nothing Socialist about a wall.  If you have no secure border, you really don't have a country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two days ago even Rush Limbaugh admitted on the radio that you can have secure borders without a wall.  So, not even those who agree with your advocacy of the wall agree that the border cannot be secured without it.
> 
> Dude, you need a life outside of that damn wall.  You're working me to death making all those posts that are easily refuted.
> 
> The first people in modern times that started the current movement was former neo - nazi turned Klansman, David Duke in 1977  Research the subject "border Watch".  Then came the so - called Minutemen headed up by Jim Gilchrist.  Gilchrist had Chris Simcox to help him found the organization.  Simcox was PROVEN to be a neo-nazi that recruited at nazi rallies.  His best friend was neo - nazi J.T. Ready.  Ready was filmed with Simcox at nazi rallies wailing about the border and the need for a wall.  Ready would go on to commit a mass shooting and committing suicide.  In addition, another of the major players in the founding of the advocacy of a wall was neo - nazi, Shawna Forde.  Forde would later be convicted of a double murder at the border.  National Socialists and socialists.
> 
> The FUNDING for the wall rhetoric and the pretexts was made possible from organizations like the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIRUS) and NumbersUSA.  The founder and primary financial financier for those organizations was a pro-eugenics millionaire by the name of John Tanton.  Tanton had previously developed the same talking points for David Duke.
> 
> In the early to mid 1990s Bill Clinton and the Democrats (and Democrats have a socialist view of politics) was advocating much of what Donald Trump advocates today.  You need to get your head screwed on right.
> 
> Adding insult to injury, EVERY example you've cited in favor of a wall was where socialist / communist countries used and benefited off them with the only exceptions being with nations at war... and we are NOT at war with those from south of the border.
> 
> Finally, after the 2020 Census is taken, Congressional districts will be redrawn.  If the Republicans do not regain the House in the next election cycle, the Democrats will redraw the lines so as to benefit the Democrats.  Hate to tell you this, but Trump LOST the popular vote and if the Congressional lines are redrawn, you are looking at the END of the Republican party.  So, once again, you better learn the facts and heed sound counsel:
> 
> ANY solution should be a permanent one that the Democrats are willing to live with going into 2020.  But, even that point is irrelevant as the Democrats are playing the Tea Party Republicans.  The trade off is that, in the Art of the Deal, your Second Amendment Rights were negotiated away for that silly wall.
Click to expand...




Porter Rockwell said:


> Hate to tell you this, but Trump LOST the popular vote and if the Congressional lines are redrawn, you are looking at the END of the Republican party.



Well WTF do you think their goal is now?  Do you think they are fighting this thing because they are such gracious people and love their fellow man so much?  What they are doing is trying to wipe out white people.  They need to make us a minority so THEY DO have the ability for a single-party government.  

Every other group outside of whites vote a majority Democrat.  Get white people out of the way, and that becomes possible. 

Democrats don't care about selling out Americans for power.  The white Democrats don't care about selling out their own race.  These are selfish and greedy people, and you are falling right into their hands.  They've conned you into believing that borders are actually anti-American.  They've conned you into believing a wall will never work in spite of border performance in other countries.  

Let me tell you, this is a path to the end of our country.  First takeover politics.  Next introduce Socialism.  Next it's Communism, and then we will be just like any other country of controlled people.  

Generations after us (if they have the ability to learn what a great country this once was) will be asking why people like you ushered in their demise.  They will be asking what would make people stupid enough to surrender all they worked for and give what they had to the rest of the world.  

I don't have any children, but when my niece and nephews grandchildren asked what happened, they will be proud to say their Uncle fought against it.  It was him (and people like him) who resisted the MSM brainwashing.  

As for your great grandchildren, good luck.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, turd, but you'll never convince me that you're a Republican.  You walk like a Democrat, waddle like a Democrat and talk like a Democrat.
Click to expand...


When you stoop to name calling, it negates ANY argument you bring to the table.  Furthermore, NO liberal has ever offered up ANY argument I've made on this subject.  NO liberal has quote me; I've not quoted ANY liberal in support of my position.  But, I can damn well cite a liberal arguing YOUR point of view:


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a point well taken.  If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse.  BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse.  Times change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right about one thing, I have no idea where you're at half the time.
> 
> ADD is difficulty paying attention or your mind drifting off of a subject.  It's something you can live with without taking medication.  We were talking about criminal records, not mental records.  You keep detouring the subject all the time.
> 
> What you don't understand is the Doctor/ patient relationship is sacred.  Criminal records are not.  Doctors take an oath to protect the confidence between themselves and their clients unless they believe a serious threat to the public is at large.
> 
> The government puts guardrails on our roads so you don't accidentally drive off a cliff or into a river.   The government forces companies to put warnings on medications and various devices so you don't get hurt.  The government forces companies to put something in front of dock doors so an employee doesn't fall out of it or a tow motor drive off of it.  The government regulation is that we truck drivers chock our wheels (putting a rubber or metal wedge under the tire) even though tractor-trailers have two independent brake systems that make it virtually impossible for the system to fail.
> 
> In other words, government takes measures to insure our safety.  So if government is aware of a potentially dangerous person; a person who may cause me serious grief; a person who may be a threat to my business or family, it's governments duty to warn me of this potential--not hide it from me so I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is not the government's duty to warn you of a "potentially" dangerous person.  It maybe governments duty to warn you of "known" dangerous person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, a person who is a criminal is potentially dangerous.  The government is we the people.  When the government sends somebody to jail, we the people sent them to jail.  We have a right to know who our government sent to prison for our own protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if a guy loses his job and doesn't pay child support is dangerous?  A guy who has a beef with the tax authorities is dangerous?  Only in Ray's world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's up to me and employers to decide, not you and not the government.  I need to know who and what I'm dealing with to make a safe and sound decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under our Constitution as originally written and intended you are finally RIGHT.  That is precisely why it's not the government's business who a company does or does not offer a job to.  It's not your freaking job; it belongs to the employer that created it.
Click to expand...


And yet you stand by an employees past being hidden from an employer so the employer doesn't know what kind of jeopardy he or she is putting their company in.  Wonderful.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, turd, but you'll never convince me that you're a Republican.  You walk like a Democrat, waddle like a Democrat and talk like a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you stoop to name calling, it negates ANY argument you bring to the table.  Furthermore, NO liberal has ever offered up ANY argument I've made on this subject.  NO liberal has quote me; I've not quoted ANY liberal in support of my position.  But, I can damn well cite a liberal arguing YOUR point of view:
Click to expand...


Right.  Isn't that the same guy who ran on welfare reform, and when it was finally introduced by THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, he vetoed the bill twice?  Isn't it the same guy who was forced to sign it because the Republicans introduced it a third time right before his reelection bid?


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, turd, but you'll never convince me that you're a Republican.  You walk like a Democrat, waddle like a Democrat and talk like a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you stoop to name calling, it negates ANY argument you bring to the table.  Furthermore, NO liberal has ever offered up ANY argument I've made on this subject.  NO liberal has quote me; I've not quoted ANY liberal in support of my position.  But, I can damn well cite a liberal arguing YOUR point of view:
Click to expand...

Plenty of liberals have used the exact same arguments.  There are no new arguments in this debate.  Either your for the wall or you're against it.  In the latter case, you lie to support your position.  That's the bottom line.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, turd, but you'll never convince me that you're a Republican.  You walk like a Democrat, waddle like a Democrat and talk like a Democrat.
Click to expand...


When you stoop to having to call people names you negate your own argument.  The facts are that NO liberal has EVER quoted me.  I have NEVER quoted a liberal in support of my position.  The liberals have never made the same argument I have...but, they've damn well argued the points you make here on a daily basis:


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And neither does criminal records being public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, Ray, you have admitted that ADD / ADHD are not real conditions - you know conditions where people need to be on drugs.  You have admitted that, sir.
> 
> What you cannot see is that whether you do or do not, the public should NOT have access to your records because they cannot properly evaluate them.
> 
> In order to end this argument, I'll offer you an idea.  If you want to hire someone, rent to them, etc. then since you trust the government so much why not submit the application along with the reason and let them just say they recommend that you hire them, rent to them, or you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because government doesn't make my decisions for me.  I make my own decisions, and I make those decisions based on the information I have.  One landlord might want to rent to an ex-con.  I don't.  I've had experience doing that and I base my future decisions on past experiences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious that the government don't make your decisions for you.  Rush Limbaugh does that.  But, you clearly WISH that the government would be your personal Santa Claus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking that government not hide information from me that could cause me harm either physically or financially is not Santa Clause.  It's asking government to do it's job by protecting us from enemies foreign and domestic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 2005, a news article reported this:
> 
> "WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm..."
> 
> Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
> 
> You are FACTUALLY wrong again.
> 
> Another article quoted the above, but the United States Supreme Court is still ruling all the time on this question.  A more recent article states this:
> 
> "However, did you know that the government, and specifically law enforcement, does not have any duty to protect the general public? Based on the headline and this information, you might assume this is a new, landmark decision. However, it has long been the court’s stance that, essentially, the American people are responsible for taking case of their own personal safety."
> 
> https://tribunist.com/news/supreme-court-ruling-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-general-public/
> 
> The government has NO duty to you as an individual when your personal safety is the issue.
Click to expand...


And the government has no right to restrict information from me that may lead to physical harm or property damage.  Public record should remain just that--public.  

In spite of the devil whispering in your ear, I'm in favor of protecting law abiding citizens.  You are for protection of the criminal element.


----------



## Butch_Coolidge

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we keep them from entering first, then we don’t have to risk agents lives. We also don’t need them destroying whatever is in their path, and needing to be supported. Not to mention the resources they use that should go to legal tax payers. Then there is the crime they commit. We also don’t need to tie up the court system with bullshit. They should also track down the visa violators, and send them back. Steel construction, and razor wire should do the trick. Like what they use to keep criminals in jail. We already have enough people who don’t contribute anything to society. Why do we need more. You seem to have quick fixes for everything dimmy. What have you done personally to address these issues, or assist they poor people?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The solution to this problem is simple: anybody caught here illegally will be charged with a first degree felony.  It carries a minimum of five years in prison.  Then we wouldn't need a wall or even border security.  If you want to see what 20 million people rushing to get out of a country would look like, pass a law like that and that's exactly what you'd see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let us put an end to this idiocy right now:
> 
> "As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States."  Arizona v US
> 
> ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES
> 
> Like it or not the moment a foreigner's feet hit U.S. soil, they have constitutional rights as per the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Adding insult to injury, had the build the wall advocates kept their butts at home, the constitutionalists and patriots in favor of the Constitution had this under control and were winning the fight.  That court case above - that decision is all on the build the wall advocates.  They own it and now you choose to misrepresent it???
Click to expand...


I understand the manipulation of the law. It still doesn’t make it right. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Porter Rockwell

beautress said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
Click to expand...



I don't play to the humanitarian side.  I've already exposed WHO the organizations you cite really are.  A mind is like a parachute.  It only operates when it's open.

The build the wall advocates make an idiotic claim about how much so called illegal aliens "cost," but they NEVER examine the other side of the ledger in order to understand why they are here.  The reason I call their method idiotic is that it is BLATANTLY dishonest as if the rest of society is too stupid to examine the three most important facts:

1)  As much as it makes Tea Party Republicans cringe, there are two sides of an accounting ledger and the supposed facts you cite do not figure in how much  foreign labor contributes and how much wealth they create

2)  The people on this thread, advocating for the wall, fight tooth and nail against the effort to rehabilitate those who are disenfranchised and get them working so that there is less demand for foreign labor

3)  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a segment of their own people locked out of society and then blame the people that take the jobs Americans CANNOT take due to double minded people that want to keep some Americans from getting a job AND denying employers their unalienable Right to hire the person they want to hire for the job.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's nutty?  I say that anybody who equates a border wall with losing all freedoms is nutty.
> 
> Correct, there are many Republicans who don't want the wall.  But they took note at what just happened the last presidential election.  Like any other election, they all said basically the same thing: the jobs, the economy, our international interaction and so on.  But only one person stood for what the American people want; one person who said "I'm going to build a wall."  With zero experience in politics, not even so much as a job on a  school board somewhere, people elected Donald Trump.  He not only beat out the over dozen Republican contenders, he beat out a very well known career politician, the wife of a former President who was beloved by nearly everybody in the Democrat party.
> 
> There is nothing Socialist about a wall.  If you have no secure border, you really don't have a country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two days ago even Rush Limbaugh admitted on the radio that you can have secure borders without a wall.  So, not even those who agree with your advocacy of the wall agree that the border cannot be secured without it.
> 
> Dude, you need a life outside of that damn wall.  You're working me to death making all those posts that are easily refuted.
> 
> The first people in modern times that started the current movement was former neo - nazi turned Klansman, David Duke in 1977  Research the subject "border Watch".  Then came the so - called Minutemen headed up by Jim Gilchrist.  Gilchrist had Chris Simcox to help him found the organization.  Simcox was PROVEN to be a neo-nazi that recruited at nazi rallies.  His best friend was neo - nazi J.T. Ready.  Ready was filmed with Simcox at nazi rallies wailing about the border and the need for a wall.  Ready would go on to commit a mass shooting and committing suicide.  In addition, another of the major players in the founding of the advocacy of a wall was neo - nazi, Shawna Forde.  Forde would later be convicted of a double murder at the border.  National Socialists and socialists.
> 
> The FUNDING for the wall rhetoric and the pretexts was made possible from organizations like the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIRUS) and NumbersUSA.  The founder and primary financial financier for those organizations was a pro-eugenics millionaire by the name of John Tanton.  Tanton had previously developed the same talking points for David Duke.
> 
> In the early to mid 1990s Bill Clinton and the Democrats (and Democrats have a socialist view of politics) was advocating much of what Donald Trump advocates today.  You need to get your head screwed on right.
> 
> Adding insult to injury, EVERY example you've cited in favor of a wall was where socialist / communist countries used and benefited off them with the only exceptions being with nations at war... and we are NOT at war with those from south of the border.
> 
> Finally, after the 2020 Census is taken, Congressional districts will be redrawn.  If the Republicans do not regain the House in the next election cycle, the Democrats will redraw the lines so as to benefit the Democrats.  Hate to tell you this, but Trump LOST the popular vote and if the Congressional lines are redrawn, you are looking at the END of the Republican party.  So, once again, you better learn the facts and heed sound counsel:
> 
> ANY solution should be a permanent one that the Democrats are willing to live with going into 2020.  But, even that point is irrelevant as the Democrats are playing the Tea Party Republicans.  The trade off is that, in the Art of the Deal, your Second Amendment Rights were negotiated away for that silly wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rush Limbaugh admitted you can have secure borders without a wall?
> 
> When?
Click to expand...


Yesterday on his radio program


----------



## Lesh

beautress said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
Click to expand...

According to the CATO Institute...no liberal organization...the real cost is between 3 and 16 billion.
But you don't care


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not the government's duty to warn you of a "potentially" dangerous person.  It maybe governments duty to warn you of "known" dangerous person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, a person who is a criminal is potentially dangerous.  The government is we the people.  When the government sends somebody to jail, we the people sent them to jail.  We have a right to know who our government sent to prison for our own protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if a guy loses his job and doesn't pay child support is dangerous?  A guy who has a beef with the tax authorities is dangerous?  Only in Ray's world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's up to me and employers to decide, not you and not the government.  I need to know who and what I'm dealing with to make a safe and sound decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under our Constitution as originally written and intended you are finally RIGHT.  That is precisely why it's not the government's business who a company does or does not offer a job to.  It's not your freaking job; it belongs to the employer that created it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the government's business if the person you hire is not in the country legally.
Click to expand...


Under the Constitution as originally written and intended, government has no AUTHORITY over employers hiring foreigners.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not the government's duty to warn you of a "potentially" dangerous person.  It maybe governments duty to warn you of "known" dangerous person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, a person who is a criminal is potentially dangerous.  The government is we the people.  When the government sends somebody to jail, we the people sent them to jail.  We have a right to know who our government sent to prison for our own protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if a guy loses his job and doesn't pay child support is dangerous?  A guy who has a beef with the tax authorities is dangerous?  Only in Ray's world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's up to me and employers to decide, not you and not the government.  I need to know who and what I'm dealing with to make a safe and sound decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under our Constitution as originally written and intended you are finally RIGHT.  That is precisely why it's not the government's business who a company does or does not offer a job to.  It's not your freaking job; it belongs to the employer that created it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you stand by an employees past being hidden from an employer so the employer doesn't know what kind of jeopardy he or she is putting their company in.  Wonderful.
Click to expand...


That is a straight out LIE and you know it.  I said no such thing.  I also instructed you on how to find out about people via private sources.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, turd, but you'll never convince me that you're a Republican.  You walk like a Democrat, waddle like a Democrat and talk like a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you stoop to name calling, it negates ANY argument you bring to the table.  Furthermore, NO liberal has ever offered up ANY argument I've made on this subject.  NO liberal has quote me; I've not quoted ANY liberal in support of my position.  But, I can damn well cite a liberal arguing YOUR point of view:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  Isn't that the same guy who ran on welfare reform, and when it was finally introduced by THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, he vetoed the bill twice?  Isn't it the same guy who was forced to sign it because the Republicans introduced it a third time right before his reelection bid?
Click to expand...


All of that is irrelevant to immigration.  I'm not a Democrat.  You're grasping at straws with your off topic deflection.


----------



## beautress

Building the Wall may seem expensive, but it's not as expensive as the $116,000,000,000 tab for accommodating the kind of traffic we have at the southern border.

One other thing: Mexico never settled this country. It was replete with native American tribes that fought tooth and nail with Mexican pisanos, and they beat them back to the southlands. A few were able to live in peace here, but not many. The Indians had no intention of sharing their hunting grounds with Mexican dictators like Santa Ana.He slaughtered them the same as he slaughtered Davy Crockett, James Bowie, and others at the Alamo in that 400 to 1 fight. In turn, the Mexican government has marginalized this nation by propaganda that they owned bordering states before the Battle of San Jacinto. That was all a huge crock.

The plan they have is this: take over the border states by overpopulating it with Latinos, then take it by vote out of the Union.

The Wall is just the ounce of prevention that will preclude the pound of cure that a war would be to take back Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and possibly Colorado, considering how many of the illegals wind up in the Denver area.

The other problem we have is the blindness to this reality created by the thought that our good will can override Chicano greed for land that isn't theirs and never was.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, turd, but you'll never convince me that you're a Republican.  You walk like a Democrat, waddle like a Democrat and talk like a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you stoop to name calling, it negates ANY argument you bring to the table.  Furthermore, NO liberal has ever offered up ANY argument I've made on this subject.  NO liberal has quote me; I've not quoted ANY liberal in support of my position.  But, I can damn well cite a liberal arguing YOUR point of view:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of liberals have used the exact same arguments.  There are no new arguments in this debate.  Either your for the wall or you're against it.  In the latter case, you lie to support your position.  That's the bottom line.
Click to expand...


The only thing you have not lied about thus far is that you're either for the wall or against it.

I'm against it and know there are better ways to secure the border.  Admit it, you don't care about anything but the wall.  You'd sell your soul for a wall.  You don't even know what's being traded off in order to get it built.

No liberal has ever quoted me; I've never quoted a liberal and they do NOT make the same arguments I do.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Butch_Coolidge said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we keep them from entering first, then we don’t have to risk agents lives. We also don’t need them destroying whatever is in their path, and needing to be supported. Not to mention the resources they use that should go to legal tax payers. Then there is the crime they commit. We also don’t need to tie up the court system with bullshit. They should also track down the visa violators, and send them back. Steel construction, and razor wire should do the trick. Like what they use to keep criminals in jail. We already have enough people who don’t contribute anything to society. Why do we need more. You seem to have quick fixes for everything dimmy. What have you done personally to address these issues, or assist they poor people?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The solution to this problem is simple: anybody caught here illegally will be charged with a first degree felony.  It carries a minimum of five years in prison.  Then we wouldn't need a wall or even border security.  If you want to see what 20 million people rushing to get out of a country would look like, pass a law like that and that's exactly what you'd see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let us put an end to this idiocy right now:
> 
> "As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States."  Arizona v US
> 
> ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES
> 
> Like it or not the moment a foreigner's feet hit U.S. soil, they have constitutional rights as per the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Adding insult to injury, had the build the wall advocates kept their butts at home, the constitutionalists and patriots in favor of the Constitution had this under control and were winning the fight.  That court case above - that decision is all on the build the wall advocates.  They own it and now you choose to misrepresent it???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand the manipulation of the law. It still doesn’t make it right.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Then you should understand how the law got manipulated and how the Tea Party Republicans adopted a no win strategy on dealing with the flooding of America by foreign workers.


----------



## beautress

Porter Rockwell said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play to the humanitarian side.  I've already exposed WHO the organizations you cite really are.  A mind is like a parachute.  It only operates when it's open.
> 
> The build the wall advocates make an idiotic claim about how much so called illegal aliens "cost," but they NEVER examine the other side of the ledger in order to understand why they are here.  The reason I call their method idiotic is that it is BLATANTLY dishonest as if the rest of society is too stupid to examine the three most important facts:
> 
> 1)  As much as it makes Tea Party Republicans cringe, there are two sides of an accounting ledger and the supposed facts you cite do not figure in how much  foreign labor contributes and how much wealth they create
> 
> 2)  The people on this thread, advocating for the wall, fight tooth and nail against the effort to rehabilitate those who are disenfranchised and get them working so that there is less demand for foreign labor
> 
> 3)  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a segment of their own people locked out of society and then blame the people that take the jobs Americans CANNOT take due to double minded people that want to keep some Americans from getting a job AND denying employers their unalienable Right to hire the person they want to hire for the job.
Click to expand...

You're talking to a woman who lived on the border growing up and knows the lay of the land. It belongs to the people who pioneered it, had loved ones die at the Alamo for it, and have been here for generations. I'm not impressed with your lack of humanity for American citizens. That is all.

One other thing you may not know. The few Mexicans who lived here were on the Texican side when Santa Ana brought his 8 thousand man army over to San Antonio to kill anybody who opposed him. His own people hated him. They even came to San Jacinto to see him go down for the coward he was--disguising himself as a Pisano to escape capture. No hero was that slimy fellow. He caused the Texicans to say "Remember the Alamo" as a handful of us took out the thousands he brought with him to kill our people.

You think anything has changed? It hasn't. Mexico who doesn't take care of its own wants our land for all the improvements we've made on it for the last 200 years.Nothin' doin', buddy.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, Ray, you have admitted that ADD / ADHD are not real conditions - you know conditions where people need to be on drugs.  You have admitted that, sir.
> 
> What you cannot see is that whether you do or do not, the public should NOT have access to your records because they cannot properly evaluate them.
> 
> In order to end this argument, I'll offer you an idea.  If you want to hire someone, rent to them, etc. then since you trust the government so much why not submit the application along with the reason and let them just say they recommend that you hire them, rent to them, or you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because government doesn't make my decisions for me.  I make my own decisions, and I make those decisions based on the information I have.  One landlord might want to rent to an ex-con.  I don't.  I've had experience doing that and I base my future decisions on past experiences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious that the government don't make your decisions for you.  Rush Limbaugh does that.  But, you clearly WISH that the government would be your personal Santa Claus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking that government not hide information from me that could cause me harm either physically or financially is not Santa Clause.  It's asking government to do it's job by protecting us from enemies foreign and domestic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 2005, a news article reported this:
> 
> "WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm..."
> 
> Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
> 
> You are FACTUALLY wrong again.
> 
> Another article quoted the above, but the United States Supreme Court is still ruling all the time on this question.  A more recent article states this:
> 
> "However, did you know that the government, and specifically law enforcement, does not have any duty to protect the general public? Based on the headline and this information, you might assume this is a new, landmark decision. However, it has long been the court’s stance that, essentially, the American people are responsible for taking case of their own personal safety."
> 
> https://tribunist.com/news/supreme-court-ruling-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-general-public/
> 
> The government has NO duty to you as an individual when your personal safety is the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the government has no right to restrict information from me that may lead to physical harm or property damage.  Public record should remain just that--public.
> 
> In spite of the devil whispering in your ear, I'm in favor of protecting law abiding citizens.  You are for protection of the criminal element.
Click to expand...


I am for protecting Americans.  You're lying and have zero credibility.  That allegation is not only baseless, but ridiculous.  YOU are the criminal element.  I won't defend you any longer.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

beautress said:


> Building the Wall may seem expensive, but it's not as expensive as the $116,000,000,000 tab for accommodating the kind of traffic we have at the southern border.
> 
> One other thing: Mexico never settled this country. It was replete with native American tribes that fought tooth and nail with Mexican pisanos, and they beat them back to the southlands. A few were able to live in peace here, but not many. The Indians had no intention of sharing their hunting grounds with Mexican dictators like Santa Ana.He slaughtered them the same as he slaughtered Davy Crockett, James Bowie, and others at the Alamo in that 400 to 1 fight. In turn, the Mexican government has marginalized this nation by propaganda that they owned bordering states before the Battle of San Jacinto. That was all a huge crock.
> 
> The plan they have is this: take over the border states by overpopulating it with Latinos, then take it by vote out of the Union.
> 
> The Wall is just the ounce of prevention that will preclude the pound of cure that a war would be to take back Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and possibly Colorado, considering how many of the illegals wind up in the Denver area.
> 
> The other problem we have is the blindness to this reality created by the thought that our good will can override Chicano greed for land that isn't theirs and never was.



Did you bother to even READ this thread before posting that?


----------



## Dragonlady

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You you won't even HAVE a country without strong defensible borders which includes a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who illegally crash our border are NOT refugees they are ILLEGAL ALIENS!!  A refugee is NOT a refugee until identified as so by our border authorities.  How can you be so ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it backwards, they are refugees unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction declares otherwise.  People seeking asylum are ALLOWED to legally crash the borders in an effort to ask for asylum.  What is wrong about what is happening at the border is the Trump Administration's bald faced attempt to prevent refugees from crossing into the USA to make that asylum claim.  And then incarcerating those who claim asylum until their cases are heard.
> 
> What Trump is doing, is limiting how many people the system will process in a day, allowing a huge waiting list to accumulate in order to discourage those seeking to get in.  This is both illegal and inhumane, and therein lies the problem.  People don't have the resources to wait for months to claim asylum and the Trump Administration is gambling they will quit and leave, or even better, that conditions in the camps will get so bad that violence breaks out.  Violence would be the fulfillment of all of your fears.
> 
> Trump and his acolytes has consistently attempted to de-humanize immigrants and asylum seekers.  Just reading your post you've bought into this nazi bullshit wholeheartedly.  If they're not really human, it doesn't matter what we do to them does it.  Tear gas their children, let them go into convulsions without medical treatment and die, separate the parents from their children with no care or consideration for returning them to their families.  Teaching an entire generation of Central Americans to hate the USA for turning their backs on them.
> 
> Immigrants are not "aliens", they are human beings, just like you and I.  When you refer to refugees and asylum seekers as an "invasion", an "infestation", "alien", or "animals", it is YOU who are revealed to be subhuman, and unworthy of any consideration whatsoever.
> 
> As a purportedly Christian nation, I would remind you of the words of Jesus "That which you have done to the least among you, you have done to me!".  If the barefoot and poor Jesus Christ had walked out of the desert and asked for asylum, you would turn Him away too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think Jesus would be lying about his asylum claim as most of the asylum seekers do.  I don't think Jesus would throw rocks at our border agents or break down a temporary wall to enter illegally.
> 
> Yes, the worse you treat these people, the less will come.  There were supposed to be tens of thousands more joining this current caravan.  Where are they?  Where did they go?
> 
> It's working.  Finally, a President who is doing things that actually work.  If you don't want to sit around for years picking your nose, if you don't want to be separated from your supposed children, if you don't want to be detained, then STF in your own country.  Don't come here.  Problem solved.
Click to expand...


Most asylum seekers are not lying.  But of course you think they are because . . .?

More people are coming regardless of how you treat them because they HAVE NO OTHER OPTIONS.  Their countries have been taken over by American narco-terrorists gangs.  As long as you do nothing about the narco terrorists, refugees will continue to come.

There weren't tens of thousands joining the caravan.  That would be another lie from FOX and Trump, ginning up support from fools like you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

beautress said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play to the humanitarian side.  I've already exposed WHO the organizations you cite really are.  A mind is like a parachute.  It only operates when it's open.
> 
> The build the wall advocates make an idiotic claim about how much so called illegal aliens "cost," but they NEVER examine the other side of the ledger in order to understand why they are here.  The reason I call their method idiotic is that it is BLATANTLY dishonest as if the rest of society is too stupid to examine the three most important facts:
> 
> 1)  As much as it makes Tea Party Republicans cringe, there are two sides of an accounting ledger and the supposed facts you cite do not figure in how much  foreign labor contributes and how much wealth they create
> 
> 2)  The people on this thread, advocating for the wall, fight tooth and nail against the effort to rehabilitate those who are disenfranchised and get them working so that there is less demand for foreign labor
> 
> 3)  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a segment of their own people locked out of society and then blame the people that take the jobs Americans CANNOT take due to double minded people that want to keep some Americans from getting a job AND denying employers their unalienable Right to hire the person they want to hire for the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're talking to a woman who lived on the border growing up and knows the lay of the land. It belongs to the people who pioneered it, had loved ones die at the Alamo for it, and have been here for generations. I'm not impressed with your lack of humanity for American citizens. That is all.
Click to expand...


Again, did you bother to even READ this thread?  Your insult shows a lack of honesty and understanding.

The people YOU SUPPORT hate the American citizenry and do not want them to be put back into the work-force.

If you want to look like you know what you're talking about you should read the thread or, if you're too lazy, ask questions before making ignorant assumptions.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, turd, but you'll never convince me that you're a Republican.  You walk like a Democrat, waddle like a Democrat and talk like a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you stoop to having to call people names you negate your own argument.  The facts are that NO liberal has EVER quoted me.  I have NEVER quoted a liberal in support of my position.  The liberals have never made the same argument I have...but, they've damn well argued the points you make here on a daily basis:
Click to expand...

What argument against the wall have you posted that hasn't been used by the left?


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play to the humanitarian side.  I've already exposed WHO the organizations you cite really are.  A mind is like a parachute.  It only operates when it's open.
> 
> The build the wall advocates make an idiotic claim about how much so called illegal aliens "cost," but they NEVER examine the other side of the ledger in order to understand why they are here.  The reason I call their method idiotic is that it is BLATANTLY dishonest as if the rest of society is too stupid to examine the three most important facts:
> 
> 1)  As much as it makes Tea Party Republicans cringe, there are two sides of an accounting ledger and the supposed facts you cite do not figure in how much  foreign labor contributes and how much wealth they create
> 
> 2)  The people on this thread, advocating for the wall, fight tooth and nail against the effort to rehabilitate those who are disenfranchised and get them working so that there is less demand for foreign labor
> 
> 3)  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a segment of their own people locked out of society and then blame the people that take the jobs Americans CANNOT take due to double minded people that want to keep some Americans from getting a job AND denying employers their unalienable Right to hire the person they want to hire for the job.
Click to expand...

Even if they are "rehabilitated," they are still going to take a job that would otherwise go to a native born American.  The are also going to create downward pressure on wages since they are will to work for a much lower wage than most Americans.

Employers have no "unalienable right" to hire people who are not in this country legally.


----------



## beautress

Porter Rockwell said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play to the humanitarian side.  I've already exposed WHO the organizations you cite really are.  A mind is like a parachute.  It only operates when it's open.
> 
> The build the wall advocates make an idiotic claim about how much so called illegal aliens "cost," but they NEVER examine the other side of the ledger in order to understand why they are here.  The reason I call their method idiotic is that it is BLATANTLY dishonest as if the rest of society is too stupid to examine the three most important facts:
> 
> 1)  As much as it makes Tea Party Republicans cringe, there are two sides of an accounting ledger and the supposed facts you cite do not figure in how much  foreign labor contributes and how much wealth they create
> 
> 2)  The people on this thread, advocating for the wall, fight tooth and nail against the effort to rehabilitate those who are disenfranchised and get them working so that there is less demand for foreign labor
> 
> 3)  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a segment of their own people locked out of society and then blame the people that take the jobs Americans CANNOT take due to double minded people that want to keep some Americans from getting a job AND denying employers their unalienable Right to hire the person they want to hire for the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're talking to a woman who lived on the border growing up and knows the lay of the land. It belongs to the people who pioneered it, had loved ones die at the Alamo for it, and have been here for generations. I'm not impressed with your lack of humanity for American citizens. That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, did you bother to even READ this thread?  Your insult shows a lack of honesty and understanding.
> 
> The people YOU SUPPORT hate the American citizenry and do not want them to be put back into the work-force.
> 
> If you want to look like you know what you're talking about you should read the thread or, if you're too lazy, ask questions before making ignorant assumptions.
Click to expand...

I don't need to read every post you wrote to know where I stand on the Wall. It's right. It's appropriate. It prevents drug and criminal elements, and I'll fight tooth and nail over it because I lived on the border as a young person, and I have an absolutely perfect understanding of what is going on down there. You're the one who doesn't know anything about the people invading this country. Did you pay attention to the ones who were going to sue us for keeping them out? Ten years ago minute men guarded that border with the guns out of their home to discourage them from coming over here until the wall was built in some areas.

You're a heartless, thoughtless man who doesn't care about the people whose properties lie on the border, and they've had to pick up stuff we charge people $200 for litering the highways for a lot less garbage they throw out their windows.

And where the hell are you going to find landfill space for 200,000,000 more people in the next 20 years? Your backyard, maybe?

Yeah. Put it all in your back yard along with the road trimmings left here by those crossing the border who disrespect the environment. Make up all the you cans but we cannot rules you want to, but I'm betting on the wall, and that is never going to change until Mexico takes care of its own. That ain't gonna happen, because they like the kingpin idea with millions of poor people around to do their bidding. That ain't gonna happen if they take our border states away and let Mexico turn American citizens into pisanos.

I'll go buy a gun, although I have never owned one to keep them off my land, if you persist and win a walless world that is just waiting to kill all Americans.

So praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition!


----------



## Leo123

Dragonlady said:


> Most asylum seekers are not lying.  But of course you think they are because . . .?



Asylum is easier than applying for citizenship. 



> More people are coming regardless of how you treat them because they HAVE NO OTHER OPTIONS.  Their countries have been taken over by American narco-terrorists gangs.  As long as you do nothing about the narco terrorists, refugees will continue to come.



I think we should legalize those drugs.   Currently, they are an excuse for doing nothing and giving law enforcement lots of $$$$ that will never make a dent.



> There weren't tens of thousands joining the caravan.  That would be another lie from FOX and Trump, ginning up support from fools like you



The fact you call it a 'caravan' goes to the obvious conclusion that these 'immigrants' are part of a planned invasion.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dragonlady said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You you won't even HAVE a country without strong defensible borders which includes a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who illegally crash our border are NOT refugees they are ILLEGAL ALIENS!!  A refugee is NOT a refugee until identified as so by our border authorities.  How can you be so ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it backwards, they are refugees unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction declares otherwise.  People seeking asylum are ALLOWED to legally crash the borders in an effort to ask for asylum.  What is wrong about what is happening at the border is the Trump Administration's bald faced attempt to prevent refugees from crossing into the USA to make that asylum claim.  And then incarcerating those who claim asylum until their cases are heard.
> 
> What Trump is doing, is limiting how many people the system will process in a day, allowing a huge waiting list to accumulate in order to discourage those seeking to get in.  This is both illegal and inhumane, and therein lies the problem.  People don't have the resources to wait for months to claim asylum and the Trump Administration is gambling they will quit and leave, or even better, that conditions in the camps will get so bad that violence breaks out.  Violence would be the fulfillment of all of your fears.
> 
> Trump and his acolytes has consistently attempted to de-humanize immigrants and asylum seekers.  Just reading your post you've bought into this nazi bullshit wholeheartedly.  If they're not really human, it doesn't matter what we do to them does it.  Tear gas their children, let them go into convulsions without medical treatment and die, separate the parents from their children with no care or consideration for returning them to their families.  Teaching an entire generation of Central Americans to hate the USA for turning their backs on them.
> 
> Immigrants are not "aliens", they are human beings, just like you and I.  When you refer to refugees and asylum seekers as an "invasion", an "infestation", "alien", or "animals", it is YOU who are revealed to be subhuman, and unworthy of any consideration whatsoever.
> 
> As a purportedly Christian nation, I would remind you of the words of Jesus "That which you have done to the least among you, you have done to me!".  If the barefoot and poor Jesus Christ had walked out of the desert and asked for asylum, you would turn Him away too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think Jesus would be lying about his asylum claim as most of the asylum seekers do.  I don't think Jesus would throw rocks at our border agents or break down a temporary wall to enter illegally.
> 
> Yes, the worse you treat these people, the less will come.  There were supposed to be tens of thousands more joining this current caravan.  Where are they?  Where did they go?
> 
> It's working.  Finally, a President who is doing things that actually work.  If you don't want to sit around for years picking your nose, if you don't want to be separated from your supposed children, if you don't want to be detained, then STF in your own country.  Don't come here.  Problem solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most asylum seekers are not lying.  But of course you think they are because . . .?
> 
> More people are coming regardless of how you treat them because they HAVE NO OTHER OPTIONS.  Their countries have been taken over by American narco-terrorists gangs.  As long as you do nothing about the narco terrorists, refugees will continue to come.
> 
> There weren't tens of thousands joining the caravan.  That would be another lie from FOX and Trump, ginning up support from fools like you.
Click to expand...


Nope, that was all news agencies reporting those figures; some claiming into the millions.  Not just Fox news. 

It was also reported as the first caravan was approaching that other caravans were forming.  Never happened after they heard the reports of the strong stance Trump was taking.  

How do I know asylum seekers are lying?  Because over 80% of asylum applications are rejected.  All they really do is plug up the system.  

Yes, they do have other options.  One of course was to accept the asylum offerings by Mexico which most did not.  Secondly is the option for those young men approaching our borders to fight in their own country to gain freedom.  

And I never read your response on my suggestion that we just send these poor souls to Canada for you to deal with them instead of us.  What's wrong, don't you Canadians want to be humanitarians?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because government doesn't make my decisions for me.  I make my own decisions, and I make those decisions based on the information I have.  One landlord might want to rent to an ex-con.  I don't.  I've had experience doing that and I base my future decisions on past experiences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious that the government don't make your decisions for you.  Rush Limbaugh does that.  But, you clearly WISH that the government would be your personal Santa Claus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking that government not hide information from me that could cause me harm either physically or financially is not Santa Clause.  It's asking government to do it's job by protecting us from enemies foreign and domestic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 2005, a news article reported this:
> 
> "WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm..."
> 
> Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
> 
> You are FACTUALLY wrong again.
> 
> Another article quoted the above, but the United States Supreme Court is still ruling all the time on this question.  A more recent article states this:
> 
> "However, did you know that the government, and specifically law enforcement, does not have any duty to protect the general public? Based on the headline and this information, you might assume this is a new, landmark decision. However, it has long been the court’s stance that, essentially, the American people are responsible for taking case of their own personal safety."
> 
> https://tribunist.com/news/supreme-court-ruling-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-general-public/
> 
> The government has NO duty to you as an individual when your personal safety is the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the government has no right to restrict information from me that may lead to physical harm or property damage.  Public record should remain just that--public.
> 
> In spite of the devil whispering in your ear, I'm in favor of protecting law abiding citizens.  You are for protection of the criminal element.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am for protecting Americans.  You're lying and have zero credibility.  That allegation is not only baseless, but ridiculous.  YOU are the criminal element.  I won't defend you any longer.
Click to expand...


I never asked you to defend me in the first place.  I don't need your defense. 

No, you are not protecting Americans by insisting government restrict employers, landlords and the public in general about ex-cons interaction with them.  You want to hide dangerous people from the public until they act in criminality again which could lead to harm, property damage, and even death.  You're fine with that, so don't say you are for protecting Americans.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, turd, but you'll never convince me that you're a Republican.  You walk like a Democrat, waddle like a Democrat and talk like a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you stoop to name calling, it negates ANY argument you bring to the table.  Furthermore, NO liberal has ever offered up ANY argument I've made on this subject.  NO liberal has quote me; I've not quoted ANY liberal in support of my position.  But, I can damn well cite a liberal arguing YOUR point of view:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of liberals have used the exact same arguments.  There are no new arguments in this debate.  Either your for the wall or you're against it.  In the latter case, you lie to support your position.  That's the bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you have not lied about thus far is that you're either for the wall or against it.
> 
> I'm against it and know there are better ways to secure the border.  Admit it, you don't care about anything but the wall.  You'd sell your soul for a wall.  You don't even know what's being traded off in order to get it built.
> 
> No liberal has ever quoted me; I've never quoted a liberal and they do NOT make the same arguments I do.
Click to expand...


You and the liberals are both against the wall because a wall would work.  What more do we need to know?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, turd, but you'll never convince me that you're a Republican.  You walk like a Democrat, waddle like a Democrat and talk like a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you stoop to name calling, it negates ANY argument you bring to the table.  Furthermore, NO liberal has ever offered up ANY argument I've made on this subject.  NO liberal has quote me; I've not quoted ANY liberal in support of my position.  But, I can damn well cite a liberal arguing YOUR point of view:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  Isn't that the same guy who ran on welfare reform, and when it was finally introduced by THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, he vetoed the bill twice?  Isn't it the same guy who was forced to sign it because the Republicans introduced it a third time right before his reelection bid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of that is irrelevant to immigration.  I'm not a Democrat.  You're grasping at straws with your off topic deflection.
Click to expand...


There is nothing off topic about it.  Democrats are born liars.  As Limbaugh said repeatedly, when Democrats want to win elections, they talk like Republicans.  The Democrats never wanted a wall.  If they did, it would have been built in the first two years of Obama, or the first year of Clinton. Much like Welfare Reform, they simply state they are for it when they are really not.  

But do tell (since you believe their BS) what Democrat President ever took action on building a wall?  More importantly, what Republican ever fought a Democrat President from building one? 

Starting to get the picture yet?  If not, sleep on it, and maybe it will come to you.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, a person who is a criminal is potentially dangerous.  The government is we the people.  When the government sends somebody to jail, we the people sent them to jail.  We have a right to know who our government sent to prison for our own protection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if a guy loses his job and doesn't pay child support is dangerous?  A guy who has a beef with the tax authorities is dangerous?  Only in Ray's world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's up to me and employers to decide, not you and not the government.  I need to know who and what I'm dealing with to make a safe and sound decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under our Constitution as originally written and intended you are finally RIGHT.  That is precisely why it's not the government's business who a company does or does not offer a job to.  It's not your freaking job; it belongs to the employer that created it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you stand by an employees past being hidden from an employer so the employer doesn't know what kind of jeopardy he or she is putting their company in.  Wonderful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a straight out LIE and you know it.  I said no such thing.  I also instructed you on how to find out about people via private sources.
Click to expand...


I don't need your instruction about doing investigative searches on tenants.  Your stance was that criminal records should be kept away from the public; particularly employers and landlords.  If you challenge me on this, I'm on vacation and have the time, and I'll be happy to quote you on this and even provide a post number(s).


----------



## Leo123

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, turd, but you'll never convince me that you're a Republican.  You walk like a Democrat, waddle like a Democrat and talk like a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you stoop to name calling, it negates ANY argument you bring to the table.  Furthermore, NO liberal has ever offered up ANY argument I've made on this subject.  NO liberal has quote me; I've not quoted ANY liberal in support of my position.  But, I can damn well cite a liberal arguing YOUR point of view:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  Isn't that the same guy who ran on welfare reform, and when it was finally introduced by THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, he vetoed the bill twice?  Isn't it the same guy who was forced to sign it because the Republicans introduced it a third time right before his reelection bid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of that is irrelevant to immigration.  I'm not a Democrat.  You're grasping at straws with your off topic deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing off topic about it.  Democrats are born liars.  As Limbaugh said repeatedly, when Democrats want to win elections, they talk like Republicans.  The Democrats never wanted a wall.  If they did, it would have been built in the first two years of Obama, or the first year of Clinton. Much like Welfare Reform, they simply state they are for it when they are really not.
> 
> But do tell (since you believe their BS) what Democrat President ever took action on building a wall?  More importantly, what Republican ever fought a Democrat President from building one?
> 
> Starting to get the picture yet?  If not, sleep on it, and maybe it will come to you.
Click to expand...


Democrats misrepresent themselves as the pulse of 'The People' however, more often than not, they represent leftist, political opinion disguised as "critical thinking' which is pushed by the liberal academic establishment and is not anchored in reality of any kind.


----------



## william104

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


There are plenty of walls to put tRump and his felonious treasonous GOPer cronies behind.


----------



## Issa

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Building a wall is applying a solution that the Chinese used in the 4th Century AD, and it didn't work then.  The Great Wall proved no deterrent at all to attacking armies, despite 15 centuries of construction, fortification and expansion and was abandoned altogether by the last army which overall it.
> 
> The Eminent Domain cases from the last attempt to fence the entire southern border have still not cleared the dockets in Texas, and local residents are gearing up for another fight.
> 
> Cartels are now using drones to smuggle drugs across the border, so a wall is absolutely not deterrent to drugs.
> 
> And last but not least, Trump promised Mexico would pay for it, and now he's giving us some bullshit line that the new NAFTA 2.0 is paying for it.  The American people will be paying for it.  That's on top of the $4000 raises he promised everyone from the corporate tax cut that never materialized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $4,000 raises?  That's a new one on me.  I never heard of that before and I watched the elections pretty closely.
> 
> So now your stance is to compare a 4th century wall to today?  Then why is it where walls and fences are erected, they made noticeable improvement if not total improvement?
> 
> And you're claiming all drugs are coming in on drones?  Very well, even though I don't believe a word of that (I know they use drones from time to time) what happens when we find a solution to that problem?  Start the wall talk again?  Wouldn't it be better to have the wall in place already when that happens?
> 
> Did you ever take notice that we pro-wall people don't give a rats ass who is paying for the wall, yet you on the left keep bringing that up like it's a relevant point to stop it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drugs go through checkpoints, also most illegals came by plane by the way. That's why we keep telling you a wall is useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  Makes you wonder how those border agencies make thousands of busts every year by the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It makes wonder also how some of those border agents make more than their salaries, and dozens got arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  When?
Click to expand...

Dude I keep telling you the primary problem with you guys, anti immigrants, pro trump I'd being ignorant of facts and you live ina bunnle....we lose our shit trying to explain to you but your fear and ignorance is blinding uou.
Here read the article, and don't tell me is fake news. 

U.S. Border Agency Says Hundreds of Employees Have Been Arrested Over 2 Years


----------



## Globalist

Why is building a wall wrong? 
1.) Why bother going to such drastic lengths to tackle a "problem" that's been on the decline? (See: Pew Research) 
2.) Do the wall advocates realize there will never actually be a "full" wall? Recall the recent border fence and Landowner lawsuits. The Trump administration could use eminent domain to acquire the land but will have to negotiate compensation and WILL face lawsuits. More than 90 such lawsuits in southern Texas alone are still open from the effort to build a fence there.
3.) The wall isn't going to fix the drug problem. According to the DEA, most drugs come through legal ports of entry. 
etc,etc,etc...


----------



## Olde Europe

Globalist said:


> Why is building a wall wrong?
> 1.) Why bother going to such drastic lengths to tackle a "problem" that's been on the decline? (See: Pew Research)
> 2.) Do the wall advocates realize there will never actually be a "full" wall? Recall the recent border fence and Landowner lawsuits. The Trump administration could use eminent domain to acquire the land but will have to negotiate compensation and WILL face lawsuits. More than 90 such lawsuits in southern Texas alone are still open from the effort to build a fence there.
> 3.) The wall isn't going to fix the drug problem. According to the DEA, most drugs come through legal ports of entry.
> etc,etc,etc...



Trump has nothing to offer to ordinary Americans.  Protection against predatory vultures, workers' bargaining powers, a healthy environment, a stable future for their kids, affordable (higher) education (etc.), there is nothing on the table.  So, he lets himself be seen fighting like a lion against the imaginary Swamp, against the "establishment", to "protect" Americans against the "darkies" - their crime, disease, their drugs, and whatnot.  A political ploy, and a boondoggle, campaign antics that have one major benefit: to be paid for by the taxpayers themselves.

What could be more alluring to the Trumpster Fire than that?


----------



## Dragonlady

toobfreak said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236224
> It's a waste of skin.
> 
> Only a colossal dolt would argue against protection of one's own border.  The Pentagon has misplaced more money MANY TIMES OVER over the years than what the wall would cost to build.
> 
> AND THAT IS WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING THE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS (AND BILLIONS) WE WOULD SAVE IN NOT-WASTED RESOURCES ONCE IT IS FINISHED.
> 
> *PROVE ME WRONG.* Once the wall is built, if it turns out to be a colossal mistake like you predict that backfires in our faces, we can always TEAR IT BACK DOWN, melt the steel, and use the metal to make free housing for illegal Latinos.
Click to expand...


You Russians REALLY want that wall. 

First off, not wanting to waste money on a 4th Century solution to a 21st Century problem doesn’t mean we don’t want secure borders. Trump says that but it isn’t true, like most things Trump says. 

It is asinine to say that the wall should be built and if it doesn’t work, tear it down. No real American would say that but then you’re not a real American. It’s not your tax dollars being flushed. 

I have noticed all of the Russian trolls are absolutely bat shit crazy for the wall. The Berlin Wall didn’t work either. Nor do gated communities or walled off properties. These places get robbed just like every other property.


----------



## Paulie

candycorn said:


> A&B mostly.  Most illegal immigration does not come over the border by foot.  And if we’re 21T in debt, a quarter T on building a wall is not a good investment.
> 
> So as an immigration barrier, it’s a bad idea; also in the stark light of the reality that illegal immigration has been largely beneficial to the economy despite the horror stories and cherry picked anecdotes.
> 
> That being said, it seems to me that a fantastic idea would be to create an alternative to the Panama canal from San Diego to Brownsville TX or so that allows goods to bypass the trip through Central America and can possibly bring irrigation to the desert Southwest.  Not right along the border but something like that would serve multiple purposes;
> 
> Jobs during the construction
> Immigration barrier to those that do cross illegally
> Irrigation
> Commerce
> National Security.
> 
> 
> All a pipe dream.
> It would be a multi decade project of course and We don’t do big things any longer.
> 
> Space Force!


A quarter T? Who said the wall was going to cost 250 billion?  I've seen estimates of somewhere around 20 billion on the high end


----------



## danielpalos

Leo123 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You you won't even HAVE a country without strong defensible borders which includes a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who illegally crash our border are NOT refugees they are ILLEGAL ALIENS!!  A refugee is NOT a refugee until identified as so by our border authorities.  How can you be so ignorant?
Click to expand...

you don't get to redefine the situation.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, turd, but you'll never convince me that you're a Republican.  You walk like a Democrat, waddle like a Democrat and talk like a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you stoop to having to call people names you negate your own argument.  The facts are that NO liberal has EVER quoted me.  I have NEVER quoted a liberal in support of my position.  The liberals have never made the same argument I have...but, they've damn well argued the points you make here on a daily basis:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What argument against the wall have you posted that hasn't been used by the left?
Click to expand...


You've failed to state ANY position I've taken that the left agrees with.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Issa said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> $4,000 raises?  That's a new one on me.  I never heard of that before and I watched the elections pretty closely.
> 
> So now your stance is to compare a 4th century wall to today?  Then why is it where walls and fences are erected, they made noticeable improvement if not total improvement?
> 
> And you're claiming all drugs are coming in on drones?  Very well, even though I don't believe a word of that (I know they use drones from time to time) what happens when we find a solution to that problem?  Start the wall talk again?  Wouldn't it be better to have the wall in place already when that happens?
> 
> Did you ever take notice that we pro-wall people don't give a rats ass who is paying for the wall, yet you on the left keep bringing that up like it's a relevant point to stop it?
> 
> 
> 
> Drugs go through checkpoints, also most illegals came by plane by the way. That's why we keep telling you a wall is useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  Makes you wonder how those border agencies make thousands of busts every year by the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It makes wonder also how some of those border agents make more than their salaries, and dozens got arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  When?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude I keep telling you the primary problem with you guys, anti immigrants, pro trump I'd being ignorant of facts and you live ina bunnle....we lose our shit trying to explain to you but your fear and ignorance is blinding uou.
> Here read the article, and don't tell me is fake news.
> 
> U.S. Border Agency Says Hundreds of Employees Have Been Arrested Over 2 Years
Click to expand...


I couldn't get to the site because they want money which I'm not about the pay.  So I did a Google search to find a credible news source reporting on the story as well, and can't find one.  I did find a story from some internet site called Pogo.com, however I never heard of them before and it's likely they just parroted the NYT story.

But in that story their claim is that 200 agents (80 of them border patrol) were arrested since 2004.  No elaboration on how many were charged or actually convicted and for what offense.


----------



## bripat9643

Olde Europe said:


> Globalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is building a wall wrong?
> 1.) Why bother going to such drastic lengths to tackle a "problem" that's been on the decline? (See: Pew Research)
> 2.) Do the wall advocates realize there will never actually be a "full" wall? Recall the recent border fence and Landowner lawsuits. The Trump administration could use eminent domain to acquire the land but will have to negotiate compensation and WILL face lawsuits. More than 90 such lawsuits in southern Texas alone are still open from the effort to build a fence there.
> 3.) The wall isn't going to fix the drug problem. According to the DEA, most drugs come through legal ports of entry.
> etc,etc,etc...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has nothing to offer to ordinary Americans.  Protection against predatory vultures, workers' bargaining powers, a healthy environment, a stable future for their kids, affordable (higher) education (etc.), there is nothing on the table.  So, he lets himself be seen fighting like a lion against the imaginary Swamp, against the "establishment", to "protect" Americans against the "darkies" - their crime, disease, their drugs, and whatnot.  A political ploy, and a boondoggle, campaign antics that have one major benefit: to be paid for by the taxpayers themselves.
> 
> What could be more alluring to the Trumpster Fire than that?
Click to expand...

What a load of horseshit.  I marvel at how you morons construct these fantasies based on a total lack of facts.  Trump has reduced black unemployment to the lowest point it's ever been.  Only a dumbass like you believes having a job is not important.  I could go down your list of lies and deconstruct each one, but why bother?  they are all obvious horseshit driven by hatred.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, turd, but you'll never convince me that you're a Republican.  You walk like a Democrat, waddle like a Democrat and talk like a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you stoop to having to call people names you negate your own argument.  The facts are that NO liberal has EVER quoted me.  I have NEVER quoted a liberal in support of my position.  The liberals have never made the same argument I have...but, they've damn well argued the points you make here on a daily basis:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What argument against the wall have you posted that hasn't been used by the left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've failed to state ANY position I've taken that the left agrees with.
Click to expand...

You oppose the wall.  You use all the same arguments as the left.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

beautress said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play to the humanitarian side.  I've already exposed WHO the organizations you cite really are.  A mind is like a parachute.  It only operates when it's open.
> 
> The build the wall advocates make an idiotic claim about how much so called illegal aliens "cost," but they NEVER examine the other side of the ledger in order to understand why they are here.  The reason I call their method idiotic is that it is BLATANTLY dishonest as if the rest of society is too stupid to examine the three most important facts:
> 
> 1)  As much as it makes Tea Party Republicans cringe, there are two sides of an accounting ledger and the supposed facts you cite do not figure in how much  foreign labor contributes and how much wealth they create
> 
> 2)  The people on this thread, advocating for the wall, fight tooth and nail against the effort to rehabilitate those who are disenfranchised and get them working so that there is less demand for foreign labor
> 
> 3)  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a segment of their own people locked out of society and then blame the people that take the jobs Americans CANNOT take due to double minded people that want to keep some Americans from getting a job AND denying employers their unalienable Right to hire the person they want to hire for the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're talking to a woman who lived on the border growing up and knows the lay of the land. It belongs to the people who pioneered it, had loved ones die at the Alamo for it, and have been here for generations. I'm not impressed with your lack of humanity for American citizens. That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, did you bother to even READ this thread?  Your insult shows a lack of honesty and understanding.
> 
> The people YOU SUPPORT hate the American citizenry and do not want them to be put back into the work-force.
> 
> If you want to look like you know what you're talking about you should read the thread or, if you're too lazy, ask questions before making ignorant assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to read every post you wrote to know where I stand on the Wall. It's right. It's appropriate. It prevents drug and criminal elements, and I'll fight tooth and nail over it because I lived on the border as a young person, and I have an absolutely perfect understanding of what is going on down there. You're the one who doesn't know anything about the people invading this country. Did you pay attention to the ones who were going to sue us for keeping them out? Ten years ago minute men guarded that border with the guns out of their home to discourage them from coming over here until the wall was built in some areas.
> 
> You're a heartless, thoughtless man who doesn't care about the people whose properties lie on the border, and they've had to pick up stuff we charge people $200 for litering the highways for a lot less garbage they throw out their windows.
> 
> And where the hell are you going to find landfill space for 200,000,000 more people in the next 20 years? Your backyard, maybe?
> 
> Yeah. Put it all in your back yard along with the road trimmings left here by those crossing the border who disrespect the environment. Make up all the you cans but we cannot rules you want to, but I'm betting on the wall, and that is never going to change until Mexico takes care of its own. That ain't gonna happen, because they like the kingpin idea with millions of poor people around to do their bidding. That ain't gonna happen if they take our border states away and let Mexico turn American citizens into pisanos.
> 
> I'll go buy a gun, although I have never owned one to keep them off my land, if you persist and win a walless world that is just waiting to kill all Americans.
> 
> So praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition!
Click to expand...


Today's lessons:

"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him"  Proverbs 18: 13

"*1*Judge not, that you be not judged. *2*For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again."

You do not know me and you won't read the thread because if one is not for the wall, they are are heartless and don't care about their fellow man.  That's your position?

Bear in mind it is those who want the wall that have not spoken out against build the wall advocates that believe in a 24 / 7 / 365 surveillance society that builds dossiers on Americans and locks them out of society.  Those people cannot be reintroduced to society, but I'm supposed to be for a wall AND against reintroducing people to the workforce at the same time.

The reality is, I manned the border BEFORE it was an issue for any of you.  I helped protect private property, lobbied for the Right of private property owners to protect their personal property, and fought against eminent domain abuse.

The border patrol advocates started out on the same page as I, but when they went to court and the judge ruled that civilian border patrollers were violating the civil rights of undocumented foreigners, the build the wall advocates did NOT appeal the decision.  The law is what the law is the law is and the build the wall advocates are B.S. artists when they make the "Rule of Law" argument.  The law is those undocumented foreigners have civil rights.  That is the law and that decision is one that rests on the build the wall advocates.

As such, building a wall will bring new challenges to the table that will affect my Liberty, yours and generations yet to come.  If subjected to a Cost / Benefits Analysis, the nutty wall idea will cost you most if not ALL your constitutional Rights.  I'm working to get the American people who are disenfranchised and locked out a second chance.  So, your uneducated and ignorant attacks are not worthy of any serious consideration.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play to the humanitarian side.  I've already exposed WHO the organizations you cite really are.  A mind is like a parachute.  It only operates when it's open.
> 
> The build the wall advocates make an idiotic claim about how much so called illegal aliens "cost," but they NEVER examine the other side of the ledger in order to understand why they are here.  The reason I call their method idiotic is that it is BLATANTLY dishonest as if the rest of society is too stupid to examine the three most important facts:
> 
> 1)  As much as it makes Tea Party Republicans cringe, there are two sides of an accounting ledger and the supposed facts you cite do not figure in how much  foreign labor contributes and how much wealth they create
> 
> 2)  The people on this thread, advocating for the wall, fight tooth and nail against the effort to rehabilitate those who are disenfranchised and get them working so that there is less demand for foreign labor
> 
> 3)  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a segment of their own people locked out of society and then blame the people that take the jobs Americans CANNOT take due to double minded people that want to keep some Americans from getting a job AND denying employers their unalienable Right to hire the person they want to hire for the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if they are "rehabilitated," they are still going to take a job that would otherwise go to a native born American.  The are also going to create downward pressure on wages since they are will to work for a much lower wage than most Americans.
> 
> Employers have no "unalienable right" to hire people who are not in this country legally.
Click to expand...


YES, under the original intent position of constitutional interpretation the employers DO have a Right to hire foreigners AND you cannot use the law to circumvent their Liberties.  When it comes to foreigners, Congress has one very narrow area of AUTHORITY.  Let me quote it for you:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8

Now, let's prove you wrong.  Within six months of the ratification of the Constitution, the first Naturalization Act was passed.  It specified that only whites could become citizens.  Yet MILLIONS of foreigners poured in to accept jobs willingly offered, realizing they would never become a part of the body politic.

Miscegenation laws were passed; voting and holding public office became privileges of citizenship and that was limited to white Protestants.  Still foreigners came here and employers hired them.  

What you're claiming has no basis in fact.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who illegally crash our border are NOT refugees they are ILLEGAL ALIENS!!  A refugee is NOT a refugee until identified as so by our border authorities.  How can you be so ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it backwards, they are refugees unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction declares otherwise.  People seeking asylum are ALLOWED to legally crash the borders in an effort to ask for asylum.  What is wrong about what is happening at the border is the Trump Administration's bald faced attempt to prevent refugees from crossing into the USA to make that asylum claim.  And then incarcerating those who claim asylum until their cases are heard.
> 
> What Trump is doing, is limiting how many people the system will process in a day, allowing a huge waiting list to accumulate in order to discourage those seeking to get in.  This is both illegal and inhumane, and therein lies the problem.  People don't have the resources to wait for months to claim asylum and the Trump Administration is gambling they will quit and leave, or even better, that conditions in the camps will get so bad that violence breaks out.  Violence would be the fulfillment of all of your fears.
> 
> Trump and his acolytes has consistently attempted to de-humanize immigrants and asylum seekers.  Just reading your post you've bought into this nazi bullshit wholeheartedly.  If they're not really human, it doesn't matter what we do to them does it.  Tear gas their children, let them go into convulsions without medical treatment and die, separate the parents from their children with no care or consideration for returning them to their families.  Teaching an entire generation of Central Americans to hate the USA for turning their backs on them.
> 
> Immigrants are not "aliens", they are human beings, just like you and I.  When you refer to refugees and asylum seekers as an "invasion", an "infestation", "alien", or "animals", it is YOU who are revealed to be subhuman, and unworthy of any consideration whatsoever.
> 
> As a purportedly Christian nation, I would remind you of the words of Jesus "That which you have done to the least among you, you have done to me!".  If the barefoot and poor Jesus Christ had walked out of the desert and asked for asylum, you would turn Him away too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think Jesus would be lying about his asylum claim as most of the asylum seekers do.  I don't think Jesus would throw rocks at our border agents or break down a temporary wall to enter illegally.
> 
> Yes, the worse you treat these people, the less will come.  There were supposed to be tens of thousands more joining this current caravan.  Where are they?  Where did they go?
> 
> It's working.  Finally, a President who is doing things that actually work.  If you don't want to sit around for years picking your nose, if you don't want to be separated from your supposed children, if you don't want to be detained, then STF in your own country.  Don't come here.  Problem solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most asylum seekers are not lying.  But of course you think they are because . . .?
> 
> More people are coming regardless of how you treat them because they HAVE NO OTHER OPTIONS.  Their countries have been taken over by American narco-terrorists gangs.  As long as you do nothing about the narco terrorists, refugees will continue to come.
> 
> There weren't tens of thousands joining the caravan.  That would be another lie from FOX and Trump, ginning up support from fools like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, that was all news agencies reporting those figures; some claiming into the millions.  Not just Fox news.
> 
> It was also reported as the first caravan was approaching that other caravans were forming.  Never happened after they heard the reports of the strong stance Trump was taking.
> 
> How do I know asylum seekers are lying?  Because over 80% of asylum applications are rejected.  All they really do is plug up the system.
> 
> Yes, they do have other options.  One of course was to accept the asylum offerings by Mexico which most did not.  Secondly is the option for those young men approaching our borders to fight in their own country to gain freedom.
> 
> And I never read your response on my suggestion that we just send these poor souls to Canada for you to deal with them instead of us.  What's wrong, don't you Canadians want to be humanitarians?
Click to expand...


Do you realize you've NEVER cited a single source except those from socialists as verification for your inane ideas?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, turd, but you'll never convince me that you're a Republican.  You walk like a Democrat, waddle like a Democrat and talk like a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you stoop to name calling, it negates ANY argument you bring to the table.  Furthermore, NO liberal has ever offered up ANY argument I've made on this subject.  NO liberal has quote me; I've not quoted ANY liberal in support of my position.  But, I can damn well cite a liberal arguing YOUR point of view:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of liberals have used the exact same arguments.  There are no new arguments in this debate.  Either your for the wall or you're against it.  In the latter case, you lie to support your position.  That's the bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you have not lied about thus far is that you're either for the wall or against it.
> 
> I'm against it and know there are better ways to secure the border.  Admit it, you don't care about anything but the wall.  You'd sell your soul for a wall.  You don't even know what's being traded off in order to get it built.
> 
> No liberal has ever quoted me; I've never quoted a liberal and they do NOT make the same arguments I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and the liberals are both against the wall because a wall would work.  What more do we need to know?
Click to expand...


The wall would work to expand the POLICE POWERS of the state at the expense of our God given Rights; it will NOT work because the United States of America is not a communist country; however, after you get your silly wall it will be.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, turd, but you'll never convince me that you're a Republican.  You walk like a Democrat, waddle like a Democrat and talk like a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you stoop to name calling, it negates ANY argument you bring to the table.  Furthermore, NO liberal has ever offered up ANY argument I've made on this subject.  NO liberal has quote me; I've not quoted ANY liberal in support of my position.  But, I can damn well cite a liberal arguing YOUR point of view:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  Isn't that the same guy who ran on welfare reform, and when it was finally introduced by THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, he vetoed the bill twice?  Isn't it the same guy who was forced to sign it because the Republicans introduced it a third time right before his reelection bid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of that is irrelevant to immigration.  I'm not a Democrat.  You're grasping at straws with your off topic deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing off topic about it.  Democrats are born liars.  As Limbaugh said repeatedly, when Democrats want to win elections, they talk like Republicans.  The Democrats never wanted a wall.  If they did, it would have been built in the first two years of Obama, or the first year of Clinton. Much like Welfare Reform, they simply state they are for it when they are really not.
> 
> But do tell (since you believe their BS) what Democrat President ever took action on building a wall?  More importantly, what Republican ever fought a Democrat President from building one?
> 
> Starting to get the picture yet?  If not, sleep on it, and maybe it will come to you.
Click to expand...


You have a very limited (if any) capacity to see how politics work.

The objective of the NEW WORLD ORDER is to seize all the power and make resistance to tyranny an impossibility.  Why stop at with just the wall when sheeple will screw themselves out of the Bill of Rights for the illusion of a win on the nutty wall idea?  They win two fights for the price of one - and useful idiots will assist them in converting our Republic into the world's shining example of a POLICE STATE?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, turd, but you'll never convince me that you're a Republican.  You walk like a Democrat, waddle like a Democrat and talk like a Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you stoop to name calling, it negates ANY argument you bring to the table.  Furthermore, NO liberal has ever offered up ANY argument I've made on this subject.  NO liberal has quote me; I've not quoted ANY liberal in support of my position.  But, I can damn well cite a liberal arguing YOUR point of view:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of liberals have used the exact same arguments.  There are no new arguments in this debate.  Either your for the wall or you're against it.  In the latter case, you lie to support your position.  That's the bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you have not lied about thus far is that you're either for the wall or against it.
> 
> I'm against it and know there are better ways to secure the border.  Admit it, you don't care about anything but the wall.  You'd sell your soul for a wall.  You don't even know what's being traded off in order to get it built.
> 
> No liberal has ever quoted me; I've never quoted a liberal and they do NOT make the same arguments I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and the liberals are both against the wall because a wall would work.  What more do we need to know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall would work to expand the POLICE POWERS of the state at the expense of our God given Rights; it will NOT work because the United States of America is not a communist country; however, after you get your silly wall it will be.
Click to expand...


Only Communist countries secure their borders?  And how would a wall change an entire system of government?  

Guess what?  I won't lose one right if we get that border wall.......not one.  Which rights do you think you'd be losing?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if a guy loses his job and doesn't pay child support is dangerous?  A guy who has a beef with the tax authorities is dangerous?  Only in Ray's world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's up to me and employers to decide, not you and not the government.  I need to know who and what I'm dealing with to make a safe and sound decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under our Constitution as originally written and intended you are finally RIGHT.  That is precisely why it's not the government's business who a company does or does not offer a job to.  It's not your freaking job; it belongs to the employer that created it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you stand by an employees past being hidden from an employer so the employer doesn't know what kind of jeopardy he or she is putting their company in.  Wonderful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a straight out LIE and you know it.  I said no such thing.  I also instructed you on how to find out about people via private sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need your instruction about doing investigative searches on tenants.  Your stance was that criminal records should be kept away from the public; particularly employers and landlords.  If you challenge me on this, I'm on vacation and have the time, and I'll be happy to quote you on this and even provide a post number(s).
Click to expand...


Use your time to research the Fourth Amendment and show us the AUTHORITY in the Constitution for the government to be able to give you that information.  I've cited at least two United States Supreme Court decisions that refute your position.  

You don't read the posts of others.  At best you skim read it and then don't read the court rulings.  That is WHY you're consistently wrong.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, turd, but you'll never convince me that you're a Republican.  You walk like a Democrat, waddle like a Democrat and talk like a Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you stoop to name calling, it negates ANY argument you bring to the table.  Furthermore, NO liberal has ever offered up ANY argument I've made on this subject.  NO liberal has quote me; I've not quoted ANY liberal in support of my position.  But, I can damn well cite a liberal arguing YOUR point of view:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  Isn't that the same guy who ran on welfare reform, and when it was finally introduced by THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, he vetoed the bill twice?  Isn't it the same guy who was forced to sign it because the Republicans introduced it a third time right before his reelection bid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of that is irrelevant to immigration.  I'm not a Democrat.  You're grasping at straws with your off topic deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing off topic about it.  Democrats are born liars.  As Limbaugh said repeatedly, when Democrats want to win elections, they talk like Republicans.  The Democrats never wanted a wall.  If they did, it would have been built in the first two years of Obama, or the first year of Clinton. Much like Welfare Reform, they simply state they are for it when they are really not.
> 
> But do tell (since you believe their BS) what Democrat President ever took action on building a wall?  More importantly, what Republican ever fought a Democrat President from building one?
> 
> Starting to get the picture yet?  If not, sleep on it, and maybe it will come to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a very limited (if any) capacity to see how politics work.
> 
> The objective of the NEW WORLD ORDER is to seize all the power and make resistance to tyranny an impossibility.  Why stop at with just the wall when sheeple will screw themselves out of the Bill of Rights for the illusion of a win on the nutty wall idea?  They win two fights for the price of one - and useful idiots will assist them in converting our Republic into the world's shining example of a POLICE STATE?
Click to expand...


It's difficult to have a serious discussion with you Black Helicopter people.  If you want to discuss issues, do it in reality, not television movies.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, turd, but you'll never convince me that you're a Republican.  You walk like a Democrat, waddle like a Democrat and talk like a Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you stoop to name calling, it negates ANY argument you bring to the table.  Furthermore, NO liberal has ever offered up ANY argument I've made on this subject.  NO liberal has quote me; I've not quoted ANY liberal in support of my position.  But, I can damn well cite a liberal arguing YOUR point of view:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of liberals have used the exact same arguments.  There are no new arguments in this debate.  Either your for the wall or you're against it.  In the latter case, you lie to support your position.  That's the bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you have not lied about thus far is that you're either for the wall or against it.
> 
> I'm against it and know there are better ways to secure the border.  Admit it, you don't care about anything but the wall.  You'd sell your soul for a wall.  You don't even know what's being traded off in order to get it built.
> 
> No liberal has ever quoted me; I've never quoted a liberal and they do NOT make the same arguments I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and the liberals are both against the wall because a wall would work.  What more do we need to know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall would work to expand the POLICE POWERS of the state at the expense of our God given Rights; it will NOT work because the United States of America is not a communist country; however, after you get your silly wall it will be.
Click to expand...

How would the wall expand the police powers of the state?  If anything, it would reduce the need for border patrol and reduce the need for policing for illegals hundreds of miles from the border and stopping American citizens to determine their immigration status.  

The stuff you post is obvious hooey.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's up to me and employers to decide, not you and not the government.  I need to know who and what I'm dealing with to make a safe and sound decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under our Constitution as originally written and intended you are finally RIGHT.  That is precisely why it's not the government's business who a company does or does not offer a job to.  It's not your freaking job; it belongs to the employer that created it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you stand by an employees past being hidden from an employer so the employer doesn't know what kind of jeopardy he or she is putting their company in.  Wonderful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a straight out LIE and you know it.  I said no such thing.  I also instructed you on how to find out about people via private sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need your instruction about doing investigative searches on tenants.  Your stance was that criminal records should be kept away from the public; particularly employers and landlords.  If you challenge me on this, I'm on vacation and have the time, and I'll be happy to quote you on this and even provide a post number(s).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Use your time to research the Fourth Amendment and show us the AUTHORITY in the Constitution for the government to be able to give you that information.  I've cited at least two United States Supreme Court decisions that refute your position.
> 
> You don't read the posts of others.  At best you skim read it and then don't read the court rulings.  That is WHY you're consistently wrong.
Click to expand...


It has nothing to do with the fourth amendment.  Your criminal records are not your personal property, it's governments property.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Globalist said:


> Why is building a wall wrong?
> 1.) Why bother going to such drastic lengths to tackle a "problem" that's been on the decline? (See: Pew Research)
> 2.) Do the wall advocates realize there will never actually be a "full" wall? Recall the recent border fence and Landowner lawsuits. The Trump administration could use eminent domain to acquire the land but will have to negotiate compensation and WILL face lawsuits. More than 90 such lawsuits in southern Texas alone are still open from the effort to build a fence there.
> 3.) The wall isn't going to fix the drug problem. According to the DEA, most drugs come through legal ports of entry.
> etc,etc,etc...



My critics keep saying I use liberal arguments.  There are your top three liberal talking points.  I've never made any of those arguments.

I don't care how drugs come into the United States.  If the parents, government, doctors, mental health officials, and Big Pharma were put out of the business of deliberately creating drug addicts, there would be no need for drug cartels.


----------



## Dragonlady

bripat9643 said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Globalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is building a wall wrong?
> 1.) Why bother going to such drastic lengths to tackle a "problem" that's been on the decline? (See: Pew Research)
> 2.) Do the wall advocates realize there will never actually be a "full" wall? Recall the recent border fence and Landowner lawsuits. The Trump administration could use eminent domain to acquire the land but will have to negotiate compensation and WILL face lawsuits. More than 90 such lawsuits in southern Texas alone are still open from the effort to build a fence there.
> 3.) The wall isn't going to fix the drug problem. According to the DEA, most drugs come through legal ports of entry.
> etc,etc,etc...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has nothing to offer to ordinary Americans.  Protection against predatory vultures, workers' bargaining powers, a healthy environment, a stable future for their kids, affordable (higher) education (etc.), there is nothing on the table.  So, he lets himself be seen fighting like a lion against the imaginary Swamp, against the "establishment", to "protect" Americans against the "darkies" - their crime, disease, their drugs, and whatnot.  A political ploy, and a boondoggle, campaign antics that have one major benefit: to be paid for by the taxpayers themselves.
> 
> What could be more alluring to the Trumpster Fire than that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a load of horseshit.  I marvel at how you morons construct these fantasies based on a total lack of facts.  Trump has reduced black unemployment to the lowest point it's ever been.  Only a dumbass like you believes having a job is not important.  I could go down your list of lies and deconstruct each one, but why bother?  they are all obvious horseshit driven by hatred.
Click to expand...


Trump didn't reduce black unemployment  - Obama did that.  The decline in the rate of unemployment for blacks has SLOWED under Trump. And the black unemployment rate is still more than double the rate for whites. 

Everything positive in the Trump economy is riding the coattails of the Obama recovery.  All of which is now disappearing under Trump.  Job creation is slowed, and the stock market is now declining daily.  Another two weeks of chaos and uncertainty like the past two weeks and all of the gains of the past two years will be wiped out.

The economy needs stability and certainty for planning and Trump provides neither.  His policies have damaged the US economy for a generation to come.  The deficit, the tax cuts, lunacy on the hoof.  Now that recession is looming, you can't cuts taxes or increase spending, or do any of the things one would normally do to fight a recession, because Trump did them all in a growing economy.  The only thing left is to start a war (always good for the economy), and that's not really a positive solution for anything.

You're not capable of "deconstructing" anybody's argument.  You haven't the critical thinking ability to do so.  All you can do is to repeat Trump's tweets and talking points - lies, distortions and completely fact-free.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drugs go through checkpoints, also most illegals came by plane by the way. That's why we keep telling you a wall is useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  Makes you wonder how those border agencies make thousands of busts every year by the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It makes wonder also how some of those border agents make more than their salaries, and dozens got arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  When?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude I keep telling you the primary problem with you guys, anti immigrants, pro trump I'd being ignorant of facts and you live ina bunnle....we lose our shit trying to explain to you but your fear and ignorance is blinding uou.
> Here read the article, and don't tell me is fake news.
> 
> U.S. Border Agency Says Hundreds of Employees Have Been Arrested Over 2 Years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't get to the site because they want money which I'm not about the pay.  So I did a Google search to find a credible news source reporting on the story as well, and can't find one.  I did find a story from some internet site called Pogo.com, however I never heard of them before and it's likely they just parroted the NYT story.
> 
> But in that story their claim is that 200 agents (80 of them border patrol) were arrested since 2004.  No elaboration on how many were charged or actually convicted and for what offense.
Click to expand...


I think you're FOS.  I know facts from experience and then look for verification.  Those sites didn't cost me a plug nickel to access


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you stoop to name calling, it negates ANY argument you bring to the table.  Furthermore, NO liberal has ever offered up ANY argument I've made on this subject.  NO liberal has quote me; I've not quoted ANY liberal in support of my position.  But, I can damn well cite a liberal arguing YOUR point of view:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of liberals have used the exact same arguments.  There are no new arguments in this debate.  Either your for the wall or you're against it.  In the latter case, you lie to support your position.  That's the bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you have not lied about thus far is that you're either for the wall or against it.
> 
> I'm against it and know there are better ways to secure the border.  Admit it, you don't care about anything but the wall.  You'd sell your soul for a wall.  You don't even know what's being traded off in order to get it built.
> 
> No liberal has ever quoted me; I've never quoted a liberal and they do NOT make the same arguments I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and the liberals are both against the wall because a wall would work.  What more do we need to know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall would work to expand the POLICE POWERS of the state at the expense of our God given Rights; it will NOT work because the United States of America is not a communist country; however, after you get your silly wall it will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would the wall expand the police powers of the state?  If anything, it would reduce the need for border patrol and reduce the need for policing for illegals hundreds of miles from the border and stopping American citizens to determine their immigration status.
> 
> The stuff you post is obvious hooey.
Click to expand...



The position of the build the wall advocates is that we use state and local LEOs to enforce federal laws.

A few years ago conservatives went to the United States Supreme Court and successfully fought AGAINST such an idea.  You CANNOT limit the power grab to immigration.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious that the government don't make your decisions for you.  Rush Limbaugh does that.  But, you clearly WISH that the government would be your personal Santa Claus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asking that government not hide information from me that could cause me harm either physically or financially is not Santa Clause.  It's asking government to do it's job by protecting us from enemies foreign and domestic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 2005, a news article reported this:
> 
> "WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm..."
> 
> Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
> 
> You are FACTUALLY wrong again.
> 
> Another article quoted the above, but the United States Supreme Court is still ruling all the time on this question.  A more recent article states this:
> 
> "However, did you know that the government, and specifically law enforcement, does not have any duty to protect the general public? Based on the headline and this information, you might assume this is a new, landmark decision. However, it has long been the court’s stance that, essentially, the American people are responsible for taking case of their own personal safety."
> 
> https://tribunist.com/news/supreme-court-ruling-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-general-public/
> 
> The government has NO duty to you as an individual when your personal safety is the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the government has no right to restrict information from me that may lead to physical harm or property damage.  Public record should remain just that--public.
> 
> In spite of the devil whispering in your ear, I'm in favor of protecting law abiding citizens.  You are for protection of the criminal element.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am for protecting Americans.  You're lying and have zero credibility.  That allegation is not only baseless, but ridiculous.  YOU are the criminal element.  I won't defend you any longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never asked you to defend me in the first place.  I don't need your defense.
> 
> No, you are not protecting Americans by insisting government restrict employers, landlords and the public in general about ex-cons interaction with them.  You want to hide dangerous people from the public until they act in criminality again which could lead to harm, property damage, and even death.  You're fine with that, so don't say you are for protecting Americans.
Click to expand...


Obviously you need defending.  YOU claimed to have a behavioral condition upon which drugs are being prescribed AND you now claim to be off your meds.  Soon, due to your own ignorance of what laws can be passed, Uncle Scam will take your weapons because you have a mental health record.  He's one bill short of having that law.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you stoop to name calling, it negates ANY argument you bring to the table.  Furthermore, NO liberal has ever offered up ANY argument I've made on this subject.  NO liberal has quote me; I've not quoted ANY liberal in support of my position.  But, I can damn well cite a liberal arguing YOUR point of view:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of liberals have used the exact same arguments.  There are no new arguments in this debate.  Either your for the wall or you're against it.  In the latter case, you lie to support your position.  That's the bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you have not lied about thus far is that you're either for the wall or against it.
> 
> I'm against it and know there are better ways to secure the border.  Admit it, you don't care about anything but the wall.  You'd sell your soul for a wall.  You don't even know what's being traded off in order to get it built.
> 
> No liberal has ever quoted me; I've never quoted a liberal and they do NOT make the same arguments I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and the liberals are both against the wall because a wall would work.  What more do we need to know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall would work to expand the POLICE POWERS of the state at the expense of our God given Rights; it will NOT work because the United States of America is not a communist country; however, after you get your silly wall it will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only Communist countries secure their borders?  And how would a wall change an entire system of government?
> 
> Guess what?  I won't lose one right if we get that border wall.......not one.  Which rights do you think you'd be losing?
Click to expand...


You would be shitcanning the Bill of Rights


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you stoop to name calling, it negates ANY argument you bring to the table.  Furthermore, NO liberal has ever offered up ANY argument I've made on this subject.  NO liberal has quote me; I've not quoted ANY liberal in support of my position.  But, I can damn well cite a liberal arguing YOUR point of view:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of liberals have used the exact same arguments.  There are no new arguments in this debate.  Either your for the wall or you're against it.  In the latter case, you lie to support your position.  That's the bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you have not lied about thus far is that you're either for the wall or against it.
> 
> I'm against it and know there are better ways to secure the border.  Admit it, you don't care about anything but the wall.  You'd sell your soul for a wall.  You don't even know what's being traded off in order to get it built.
> 
> No liberal has ever quoted me; I've never quoted a liberal and they do NOT make the same arguments I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and the liberals are both against the wall because a wall would work.  What more do we need to know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall would work to expand the POLICE POWERS of the state at the expense of our God given Rights; it will NOT work because the United States of America is not a communist country; however, after you get your silly wall it will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only Communist countries secure their borders?  And how would a wall change an entire system of government?
> 
> Guess what?  I won't lose one right if we get that border wall.......not one.  Which rights do you think you'd be losing?
Click to expand...


What absolute dishonesty stupidity.  Communists, dictators and PEOPLE AT WAR use walls.  All others use other forms of solutions to resolve the problem and secure their borders.


----------



## Dragonlady

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you stoop to name calling, it negates ANY argument you bring to the table.  Furthermore, NO liberal has ever offered up ANY argument I've made on this subject.  NO liberal has quote me; I've not quoted ANY liberal in support of my position.  But, I can damn well cite a liberal arguing YOUR point of view:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of liberals have used the exact same arguments.  There are no new arguments in this debate.  Either your for the wall or you're against it.  In the latter case, you lie to support your position.  That's the bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you have not lied about thus far is that you're either for the wall or against it.
> 
> I'm against it and know there are better ways to secure the border.  Admit it, you don't care about anything but the wall.  You'd sell your soul for a wall.  You don't even know what's being traded off in order to get it built.
> 
> No liberal has ever quoted me; I've never quoted a liberal and they do NOT make the same arguments I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and the liberals are both against the wall because a wall would work.  What more do we need to know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall would work to expand the POLICE POWERS of the state at the expense of our God given Rights; it will NOT work because the United States of America is not a communist country; however, after you get your silly wall it will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only Communist countries secure their borders?  And how would a wall change an entire system of government?
> 
> Guess what?  I won't lose one right if we get that border wall.......not one.  Which rights do you think you'd be losing?
Click to expand...


Nobody builds walls today, because they don't work, and they have never worked in all of history.  They give a false sense of security, though.    

Only a idiot would spend $25 billion dollars on something that has never worked throughout history. Even in Biblical times, Joshua fought the battle of Jericho and the walls came tumbling down!  Look at all of the people who escaped from East Berlin, despite the Wall.  The Great Wall of China was abandoned after the Ming Dynasty, which built most of the Great Wall we see today, because the last army that overran the Great Wall and defeated them thought it was a waste of time and money.

Gated communities - only in America.  They tried them in Canada and they were a "no sale".  We're not afraid of our neighbours.  But I am reminded of the Trayvon Martin case.  It was a gated community and yet it had been plagued by break-ins. That's why Zimmerman was following Trayvon - because he suspected the kid was casing properties for break-ins.  If walls keep the bad guys out, why was Zimmerman patrolling the neighbourhood at all?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you stoop to name calling, it negates ANY argument you bring to the table.  Furthermore, NO liberal has ever offered up ANY argument I've made on this subject.  NO liberal has quote me; I've not quoted ANY liberal in support of my position.  But, I can damn well cite a liberal arguing YOUR point of view:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  Isn't that the same guy who ran on welfare reform, and when it was finally introduced by THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, he vetoed the bill twice?  Isn't it the same guy who was forced to sign it because the Republicans introduced it a third time right before his reelection bid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of that is irrelevant to immigration.  I'm not a Democrat.  You're grasping at straws with your off topic deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing off topic about it.  Democrats are born liars.  As Limbaugh said repeatedly, when Democrats want to win elections, they talk like Republicans.  The Democrats never wanted a wall.  If they did, it would have been built in the first two years of Obama, or the first year of Clinton. Much like Welfare Reform, they simply state they are for it when they are really not.
> 
> But do tell (since you believe their BS) what Democrat President ever took action on building a wall?  More importantly, what Republican ever fought a Democrat President from building one?
> 
> Starting to get the picture yet?  If not, sleep on it, and maybe it will come to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a very limited (if any) capacity to see how politics work.
> 
> The objective of the NEW WORLD ORDER is to seize all the power and make resistance to tyranny an impossibility.  Why stop at with just the wall when sheeple will screw themselves out of the Bill of Rights for the illusion of a win on the nutty wall idea?  They win two fights for the price of one - and useful idiots will assist them in converting our Republic into the world's shining example of a POLICE STATE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's difficult to have a serious discussion with you Black Helicopter people.  If you want to discuss issues, do it in reality, not television movies.
Click to expand...


It's impossible to have a discussion with those of you who think Rush Limbaugh is an informed political strategist.  He is an entertainer.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under our Constitution as originally written and intended you are finally RIGHT.  That is precisely why it's not the government's business who a company does or does not offer a job to.  It's not your freaking job; it belongs to the employer that created it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you stand by an employees past being hidden from an employer so the employer doesn't know what kind of jeopardy he or she is putting their company in.  Wonderful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a straight out LIE and you know it.  I said no such thing.  I also instructed you on how to find out about people via private sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need your instruction about doing investigative searches on tenants.  Your stance was that criminal records should be kept away from the public; particularly employers and landlords.  If you challenge me on this, I'm on vacation and have the time, and I'll be happy to quote you on this and even provide a post number(s).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Use your time to research the Fourth Amendment and show us the AUTHORITY in the Constitution for the government to be able to give you that information.  I've cited at least two United States Supreme Court decisions that refute your position.
> 
> You don't read the posts of others.  At best you skim read it and then don't read the court rulings.  That is WHY you're consistently wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with the fourth amendment.  Your criminal records are not your personal property, it's governments property.
Click to expand...


And the United States government has no Right or duty to share those records with anyone.


----------



## candycorn

Paulie said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A&B mostly.  Most illegal immigration does not come over the border by foot.  And if we’re 21T in debt, a quarter T on building a wall is not a good investment.
> 
> So as an immigration barrier, it’s a bad idea; also in the stark light of the reality that illegal immigration has been largely beneficial to the economy despite the horror stories and cherry picked anecdotes.
> 
> That being said, it seems to me that a fantastic idea would be to create an alternative to the Panama canal from San Diego to Brownsville TX or so that allows goods to bypass the trip through Central America and can possibly bring irrigation to the desert Southwest.  Not right along the border but something like that would serve multiple purposes;
> 
> Jobs during the construction
> Immigration barrier to those that do cross illegally
> Irrigation
> Commerce
> National Security.
> 
> 
> All a pipe dream.
> It would be a multi decade project of course and We don’t do big things any longer.
> 
> Space Force!
> 
> 
> 
> A quarter T? Who said the wall was going to cost 250 billion?  I've seen estimates of somewhere around 20 billion on the high end
Click to expand...


Not sure what in the hell I was thinking.  A quarter B once you factor in buying the land, doing environmental studies, maintenance, etc seems high as well.  

The fact that the wall will not do what it is being sold stands though.


----------



## candycorn

bripat9643 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> But at what cost ??  You know the “wall” plan includes drones and  all kinds of high tech sensors , roving border guards .  It’s not just some one time cost and you are done .
> 
> 
> 
> How high is a preprogrammed drones salary? How many bathroom breaks does he need? How much gas for an 8 hour shift? Does he need a college educated driver who also requires an absurd salary?
> 
> DO YOU HAVE A BRAIN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you do not.  Drones don’t fly themselves….someone monitors what they see…for just one thing.
> 
> How much time do you spend thinking about illegal immigration in a day?  Whatever it is…it’s too much.
> 
> The blob tells you your enemy is down there; you’re dumb enough to believe it.   That is all.
> That is the reason there is a supposed immigration crisis in the nation.
> 
> Essentially the same number people crossing today were crossing 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30, years ago….50 years ago;  Somehow we managed to build the greatest society on the planet.  Ever.  But now you’re told there is a problem with a group of people who, by and large, are just here to do menial labor for little money…and you guys believe it.
> 
> Damn
> You
> Are
> Stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words open boarders are fine with you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like our con 5 deferment Pres You can't spell borders either or are you joking?
> Do you know anyone who supports open borders?
> I don't
> Is that what knees news spews out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and all the other Hillary voters in here are for open borders.
Click to expand...


Don’t be stupid


----------



## danielpalos

there is no express wall building power.  the right wing is simply being Frivolous, like usual.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you stand by an employees past being hidden from an employer so the employer doesn't know what kind of jeopardy he or she is putting their company in.  Wonderful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a straight out LIE and you know it.  I said no such thing.  I also instructed you on how to find out about people via private sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need your instruction about doing investigative searches on tenants.  Your stance was that criminal records should be kept away from the public; particularly employers and landlords.  If you challenge me on this, I'm on vacation and have the time, and I'll be happy to quote you on this and even provide a post number(s).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Use your time to research the Fourth Amendment and show us the AUTHORITY in the Constitution for the government to be able to give you that information.  I've cited at least two United States Supreme Court decisions that refute your position.
> 
> You don't read the posts of others.  At best you skim read it and then don't read the court rulings.  That is WHY you're consistently wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with the fourth amendment.  Your criminal records are not your personal property, it's governments property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the United States government has no Right or duty to share those records with anyone.
Click to expand...


Nor are they restricted from it either.  If a politician wants my vote, he or she better do what they can to not hide things from me that I need to know about.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  Isn't that the same guy who ran on welfare reform, and when it was finally introduced by THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, he vetoed the bill twice?  Isn't it the same guy who was forced to sign it because the Republicans introduced it a third time right before his reelection bid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of that is irrelevant to immigration.  I'm not a Democrat.  You're grasping at straws with your off topic deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing off topic about it.  Democrats are born liars.  As Limbaugh said repeatedly, when Democrats want to win elections, they talk like Republicans.  The Democrats never wanted a wall.  If they did, it would have been built in the first two years of Obama, or the first year of Clinton. Much like Welfare Reform, they simply state they are for it when they are really not.
> 
> But do tell (since you believe their BS) what Democrat President ever took action on building a wall?  More importantly, what Republican ever fought a Democrat President from building one?
> 
> Starting to get the picture yet?  If not, sleep on it, and maybe it will come to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a very limited (if any) capacity to see how politics work.
> 
> The objective of the NEW WORLD ORDER is to seize all the power and make resistance to tyranny an impossibility.  Why stop at with just the wall when sheeple will screw themselves out of the Bill of Rights for the illusion of a win on the nutty wall idea?  They win two fights for the price of one - and useful idiots will assist them in converting our Republic into the world's shining example of a POLICE STATE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's difficult to have a serious discussion with you Black Helicopter people.  If you want to discuss issues, do it in reality, not television movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's impossible to have a discussion with those of you who think Rush Limbaugh is an informed political strategist.  He is an entertainer.
Click to expand...


Then why do you keep bringing him up?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dragonlady said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of liberals have used the exact same arguments.  There are no new arguments in this debate.  Either your for the wall or you're against it.  In the latter case, you lie to support your position.  That's the bottom line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have not lied about thus far is that you're either for the wall or against it.
> 
> I'm against it and know there are better ways to secure the border.  Admit it, you don't care about anything but the wall.  You'd sell your soul for a wall.  You don't even know what's being traded off in order to get it built.
> 
> No liberal has ever quoted me; I've never quoted a liberal and they do NOT make the same arguments I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and the liberals are both against the wall because a wall would work.  What more do we need to know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall would work to expand the POLICE POWERS of the state at the expense of our God given Rights; it will NOT work because the United States of America is not a communist country; however, after you get your silly wall it will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only Communist countries secure their borders?  And how would a wall change an entire system of government?
> 
> Guess what?  I won't lose one right if we get that border wall.......not one.  Which rights do you think you'd be losing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody builds walls today, because they don't work, and they have never worked in all of history.  They give a false sense of security, though.
> 
> Only a idiot would spend $25 billion dollars on something that has never worked throughout history. Even in Biblical times, Joshua fought the battle of Jericho and the walls came tumbling down!  Look at all of the people who escaped from East Berlin, despite the Wall.  The Great Wall of China was abandoned after the Ming Dynasty, which built most of the Great Wall we see today, because the last army that overran the Great Wall and defeated them thought it was a waste of time and money.
> 
> Gated communities - only in America.  They tried them in Canada and they were a "no sale".  We're not afraid of our neighbours.  But I am reminded of the Trayvon Martin case.  It was a gated community and yet it had been plagued by break-ins. That's why Zimmerman was following Trayvon - because he suspected the kid was casing properties for break-ins.  If walls keep the bad guys out, why was Zimmerman patrolling the neighbourhood at all?
Click to expand...


Criminals like easy access to their targets.  They want to get in and then get out quickly.  Do gated communities work most times?  Yes.  All the time?  Perhaps not.  It really depends on the area. 

Will a wall stop all illegals? No it won't.  Will it reduce illegals and drugs to a more tolerable level, yes it will. 

While you relish in ancient history, we in modern times know walls and borders do work. 

Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.

Where do Border Fences work? Everywhere

https://nypost.com/2018/01/13/we-already-have-a-border-wall-and-it-works/

Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration


----------



## bripat9643

Dragonlady said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Globalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is building a wall wrong?
> 1.) Why bother going to such drastic lengths to tackle a "problem" that's been on the decline? (See: Pew Research)
> 2.) Do the wall advocates realize there will never actually be a "full" wall? Recall the recent border fence and Landowner lawsuits. The Trump administration could use eminent domain to acquire the land but will have to negotiate compensation and WILL face lawsuits. More than 90 such lawsuits in southern Texas alone are still open from the effort to build a fence there.
> 3.) The wall isn't going to fix the drug problem. According to the DEA, most drugs come through legal ports of entry.
> etc,etc,etc...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has nothing to offer to ordinary Americans.  Protection against predatory vultures, workers' bargaining powers, a healthy environment, a stable future for their kids, affordable (higher) education (etc.), there is nothing on the table.  So, he lets himself be seen fighting like a lion against the imaginary Swamp, against the "establishment", to "protect" Americans against the "darkies" - their crime, disease, their drugs, and whatnot.  A political ploy, and a boondoggle, campaign antics that have one major benefit: to be paid for by the taxpayers themselves.
> 
> What could be more alluring to the Trumpster Fire than that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a load of horseshit.  I marvel at how you morons construct these fantasies based on a total lack of facts.  Trump has reduced black unemployment to the lowest point it's ever been.  Only a dumbass like you believes having a job is not important.  I could go down your list of lies and deconstruct each one, but why bother?  they are all obvious horseshit driven by hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump didn't reduce black unemployment  - Obama did that.  The decline in the rate of unemployment for blacks has SLOWED under Trump. And the black unemployment rate is still more than double the rate for whites.
> 
> Everything positive in the Trump economy is riding the coattails of the Obama recovery.  All of which is now disappearing under Trump.  Job creation is slowed, and the stock market is now declining daily.  Another two weeks of chaos and uncertainty like the past two weeks and all of the gains of the past two years will be wiped out.
> 
> The economy needs stability and certainty for planning and Trump provides neither.  His policies have damaged the US economy for a generation to come.  The deficit, the tax cuts, lunacy on the hoof.  Now that recession is looming, you can't cuts taxes or increase spending, or do any of the things one would normally do to fight a recession, because Trump did them all in a growing economy.  The only thing left is to start a war (always good for the economy), and that's not really a positive solution for anything.
> 
> You're not capable of "deconstructing" anybody's argument.  You haven't the critical thinking ability to do so.  All you can do is to repeat Trump's tweets and talking points - lies, distortions and completely fact-free.
Click to expand...

Nothing could by more typically leftwing than giving Obama credit for stuff he isn't responsible for.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of liberals have used the exact same arguments.  There are no new arguments in this debate.  Either your for the wall or you're against it.  In the latter case, you lie to support your position.  That's the bottom line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have not lied about thus far is that you're either for the wall or against it.
> 
> I'm against it and know there are better ways to secure the border.  Admit it, you don't care about anything but the wall.  You'd sell your soul for a wall.  You don't even know what's being traded off in order to get it built.
> 
> No liberal has ever quoted me; I've never quoted a liberal and they do NOT make the same arguments I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and the liberals are both against the wall because a wall would work.  What more do we need to know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall would work to expand the POLICE POWERS of the state at the expense of our God given Rights; it will NOT work because the United States of America is not a communist country; however, after you get your silly wall it will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only Communist countries secure their borders?  And how would a wall change an entire system of government?
> 
> Guess what?  I won't lose one right if we get that border wall.......not one.  Which rights do you think you'd be losing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What absolute dishonesty stupidity.  Communists, dictators and PEOPLE AT WAR use walls.  All others use other forms of solutions to resolve the problem and secure their borders.
Click to expand...

Another leftwing argument.  People have used walls to defend themselves for thousands of years.  The Berlin wall is the only time a wall has been used to keep people in.  Is Israel a communist dictatorship?  Hungary?

You're just plain full of shit.


----------



## Issa

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drugs go through checkpoints, also most illegals came by plane by the way. That's why we keep telling you a wall is useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  Makes you wonder how those border agencies make thousands of busts every year by the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It makes wonder also how some of those border agents make more than their salaries, and dozens got arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  When?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude I keep telling you the primary problem with you guys, anti immigrants, pro trump I'd being ignorant of facts and you live ina bunnle....we lose our shit trying to explain to you but your fear and ignorance is blinding uou.
> Here read the article, and don't tell me is fake news.
> 
> U.S. Border Agency Says Hundreds of Employees Have Been Arrested Over 2 Years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't get to the site because they want money which I'm not about the pay.  So I did a Google search to find a credible news source reporting on the story as well, and can't find one.  I did find a story from some internet site called Pogo.com, however I never heard of them before and it's likely they just parroted the NYT story.
> 
> But in that story their claim is that 200 agents (80 of them border patrol) were arrested since 2004.  No elaboration on how many were charged or actually convicted and for what offense.
Click to expand...

Wow just wow....so you only beleive fox news and trump?
I live in California and things like these are known, CBP officers get caught all the time. 
Widen your sources and open your mind.


----------



## ph3iron

bripat9643 said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Globalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is building a wall wrong?
> 1.) Why bother going to such drastic lengths to tackle a "problem" that's been on the decline? (See: Pew Research)
> 2.) Do the wall advocates realize there will never actually be a "full" wall? Recall the recent border fence and Landowner lawsuits. The Trump administration could use eminent domain to acquire the land but will have to negotiate compensation and WILL face lawsuits. More than 90 such lawsuits in southern Texas alone are still open from the effort to build a fence there.
> 3.) The wall isn't going to fix the drug problem. According to the DEA, most drugs come through legal ports of entry.
> etc,etc,etc...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has nothing to offer to ordinary Americans.  Protection against predatory vultures, workers' bargaining powers, a healthy environment, a stable future for their kids, affordable (higher) education (etc.), there is nothing on the table.  So, he lets himself be seen fighting like a lion against the imaginary Swamp, against the "establishment", to "protect" Americans against the "darkies" - their crime, disease, their drugs, and whatnot.  A political ploy, and a boondoggle, campaign antics that have one major benefit: to be paid for by the taxpayers themselves.
> 
> What could be more alluring to the Trumpster Fire than that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a load of horseshit.  I marvel at how you morons construct these fantasies based on a total lack of facts.  Trump has reduced black unemployment to the lowest point it's ever been.  Only a dumbass like you believes having a job is not important.  I could go down your list of lies and deconstruct each one, but why bother?  they are all obvious horseshit driven by hatred.
Click to expand...


Obviously don't know the def of "projection"
You do know the unemploymeat is following the 8 years of Obama?
And you never mention don has created fewer jobs in his 2 years than Obama did in his last 2?
Can you deconstruct that?


----------



## ph3iron

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have not lied about thus far is that you're either for the wall or against it.
> 
> I'm against it and know there are better ways to secure the border.  Admit it, you don't care about anything but the wall.  You'd sell your soul for a wall.  You don't even know what's being traded off in order to get it built.
> 
> No liberal has ever quoted me; I've never quoted a liberal and they do NOT make the same arguments I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and the liberals are both against the wall because a wall would work.  What more do we need to know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall would work to expand the POLICE POWERS of the state at the expense of our God given Rights; it will NOT work because the United States of America is not a communist country; however, after you get your silly wall it will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only Communist countries secure their borders?  And how would a wall change an entire system of government?
> 
> Guess what?  I won't lose one right if we get that border wall.......not one.  Which rights do you think you'd be losing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What absolute dishonesty stupidity.  Communists, dictators and PEOPLE AT WAR use walls.  All others use other forms of solutions to resolve the problem and secure their borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another leftwing argument.  People have used walls to defend themselves for thousands of years.  The Berlin wall is the only time a wall has been used to keep people in.  Is Israel a communist dictatorship?  Hungary?
> 
> You're just plain full of shit.
Click to expand...


Nice foul mouth cowardly reply.
Looking forward to cowering behind it?
Detected any terrorists yet?
Only women and kids?
And apparently you don't know that first generation Italians, Germans, Asians all cost money.
2 nd and more add to our economy and your socialist benefits which I'm sure you are sucking off


----------



## ph3iron

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play to the humanitarian side.  I've already exposed WHO the organizations you cite really are.  A mind is like a parachute.  It only operates when it's open.
> 
> The build the wall advocates make an idiotic claim about how much so called illegal aliens "cost," but they NEVER examine the other side of the ledger in order to understand why they are here.  The reason I call their method idiotic is that it is BLATANTLY dishonest as if the rest of society is too stupid to examine the three most important facts:
> 
> 1)  As much as it makes Tea Party Republicans cringe, there are two sides of an accounting ledger and the supposed facts you cite do not figure in how much  foreign labor contributes and how much wealth they create
> 
> 2)  The people on this thread, advocating for the wall, fight tooth and nail against the effort to rehabilitate those who are disenfranchised and get them working so that there is less demand for foreign labor
> 
> 3)  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a segment of their own people locked out of society and then blame the people that take the jobs Americans CANNOT take due to double minded people that want to keep some Americans from getting a job AND denying employers their unalienable Right to hire the person they want to hire for the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if they are "rehabilitated," they are still going to take a job that would otherwise go to a native born American.  The are also going to create downward pressure on wages since they are will to work for a much lower wage than most Americans.
> 
> Employers have no "unalienable right" to hire people who are not in this country legally.
Click to expand...


Ones pics say it all.
But I'll try to be patient.
Italians, Germans, Asians and now Latinos all cost the first year.
All subsequent years they contribute way more than our old white farts here sucking off their socialist benefits


----------



## bripat9643

ph3iron said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play to the humanitarian side.  I've already exposed WHO the organizations you cite really are.  A mind is like a parachute.  It only operates when it's open.
> 
> The build the wall advocates make an idiotic claim about how much so called illegal aliens "cost," but they NEVER examine the other side of the ledger in order to understand why they are here.  The reason I call their method idiotic is that it is BLATANTLY dishonest as if the rest of society is too stupid to examine the three most important facts:
> 
> 1)  As much as it makes Tea Party Republicans cringe, there are two sides of an accounting ledger and the supposed facts you cite do not figure in how much  foreign labor contributes and how much wealth they create
> 
> 2)  The people on this thread, advocating for the wall, fight tooth and nail against the effort to rehabilitate those who are disenfranchised and get them working so that there is less demand for foreign labor
> 
> 3)  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a segment of their own people locked out of society and then blame the people that take the jobs Americans CANNOT take due to double minded people that want to keep some Americans from getting a job AND denying employers their unalienable Right to hire the person they want to hire for the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if they are "rehabilitated," they are still going to take a job that would otherwise go to a native born American.  The are also going to create downward pressure on wages since they are will to work for a much lower wage than most Americans.
> 
> Employers have no "unalienable right" to hire people who are not in this country legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ones pics say it all.
> But I'll try to be patient.
> Italians, Germans, Asians and now Latinos all cost the first year.
> All subsequent years they contribute way more than our old white farts here sucking off their socialist benefits
Click to expand...

Wrong, asshole.  We didn't have welfare, public schools, and government healthcare when the Italians and Germans came here.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play to the humanitarian side.  I've already exposed WHO the organizations you cite really are.  A mind is like a parachute.  It only operates when it's open.
> 
> The build the wall advocates make an idiotic claim about how much so called illegal aliens "cost," but they NEVER examine the other side of the ledger in order to understand why they are here.  The reason I call their method idiotic is that it is BLATANTLY dishonest as if the rest of society is too stupid to examine the three most important facts:
> 
> 1)  As much as it makes Tea Party Republicans cringe, there are two sides of an accounting ledger and the supposed facts you cite do not figure in how much  foreign labor contributes and how much wealth they create
> 
> 2)  The people on this thread, advocating for the wall, fight tooth and nail against the effort to rehabilitate those who are disenfranchised and get them working so that there is less demand for foreign labor
> 
> 3)  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a segment of their own people locked out of society and then blame the people that take the jobs Americans CANNOT take due to double minded people that want to keep some Americans from getting a job AND denying employers their unalienable Right to hire the person they want to hire for the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if they are "rehabilitated," they are still going to take a job that would otherwise go to a native born American.  The are also going to create downward pressure on wages since they are will to work for a much lower wage than most Americans.
> 
> Employers have no "unalienable right" to hire people who are not in this country legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ones pics say it all.
> But I'll try to be patient.
> Italians, Germans, Asians and now Latinos all cost the first year.
> All subsequent years they contribute way more than our old white farts here sucking off their socialist benefits
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, asshole.  We didn't have welfare, public schools, and government healthcare when the Italians and Germans came here.
Click to expand...

we didn't have a Great Depression, either or world wars.


----------



## bripat9643

ph3iron said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Globalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is building a wall wrong?
> 1.) Why bother going to such drastic lengths to tackle a "problem" that's been on the decline? (See: Pew Research)
> 2.) Do the wall advocates realize there will never actually be a "full" wall? Recall the recent border fence and Landowner lawsuits. The Trump administration could use eminent domain to acquire the land but will have to negotiate compensation and WILL face lawsuits. More than 90 such lawsuits in southern Texas alone are still open from the effort to build a fence there.
> 3.) The wall isn't going to fix the drug problem. According to the DEA, most drugs come through legal ports of entry.
> etc,etc,etc...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has nothing to offer to ordinary Americans.  Protection against predatory vultures, workers' bargaining powers, a healthy environment, a stable future for their kids, affordable (higher) education (etc.), there is nothing on the table.  So, he lets himself be seen fighting like a lion against the imaginary Swamp, against the "establishment", to "protect" Americans against the "darkies" - their crime, disease, their drugs, and whatnot.  A political ploy, and a boondoggle, campaign antics that have one major benefit: to be paid for by the taxpayers themselves.
> 
> What could be more alluring to the Trumpster Fire than that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a load of horseshit.  I marvel at how you morons construct these fantasies based on a total lack of facts.  Trump has reduced black unemployment to the lowest point it's ever been.  Only a dumbass like you believes having a job is not important.  I could go down your list of lies and deconstruct each one, but why bother?  they are all obvious horseshit driven by hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously don't know the def of "projection"
> You do know the unemploymeat is following the 8 years of Obama?
> And you never mention don has created fewer jobs in his 2 years than Obama did in his last 2?
> Can you deconstruct that?
Click to expand...

Projection is accurate about 1% of the time.  In 2007 the analysts were all saying the real estate boom would continue for the foreseeable future.


----------



## bripat9643

danielpalos said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play to the humanitarian side.  I've already exposed WHO the organizations you cite really are.  A mind is like a parachute.  It only operates when it's open.
> 
> The build the wall advocates make an idiotic claim about how much so called illegal aliens "cost," but they NEVER examine the other side of the ledger in order to understand why they are here.  The reason I call their method idiotic is that it is BLATANTLY dishonest as if the rest of society is too stupid to examine the three most important facts:
> 
> 1)  As much as it makes Tea Party Republicans cringe, there are two sides of an accounting ledger and the supposed facts you cite do not figure in how much  foreign labor contributes and how much wealth they create
> 
> 2)  The people on this thread, advocating for the wall, fight tooth and nail against the effort to rehabilitate those who are disenfranchised and get them working so that there is less demand for foreign labor
> 
> 3)  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a segment of their own people locked out of society and then blame the people that take the jobs Americans CANNOT take due to double minded people that want to keep some Americans from getting a job AND denying employers their unalienable Right to hire the person they want to hire for the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if they are "rehabilitated," they are still going to take a job that would otherwise go to a native born American.  The are also going to create downward pressure on wages since they are will to work for a much lower wage than most Americans.
> 
> Employers have no "unalienable right" to hire people who are not in this country legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ones pics say it all.
> But I'll try to be patient.
> Italians, Germans, Asians and now Latinos all cost the first year.
> All subsequent years they contribute way more than our old white farts here sucking off their socialist benefits
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, asshole.  We didn't have welfare, public schools, and government healthcare when the Italians and Germans came here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we didn't have a Great Depression, either or world wars.
Click to expand...

What's your point?


----------



## toobfreak

Dragonlady said:


> You Russians REALLY want that wall.



I have less Russian in me than Liz Warren has Indian blood, you twit.



> First off, not wanting to waste money on a 4th Century solution



If it's An outmoded 4th century solution, then why is it used around every gated community, every jail, and every home?  Do you lock your door at night?  Congrats you Twit, you've just proven as has 10 billion other places that walls and locks KEEP PEOPLE THE FUCK OUT.

After our wall/fence thingy keeps out 95+% of the intruders, it will be far cheaper and easier to deal with the remainder.  Meantime, that will be hundreds of thousands each year we don't need to spend money on processing through our legal system, courts, jails, hospitals, kitchens, and other facilities, you fucking Twit.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

ph3iron said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Globalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is building a wall wrong?
> 1.) Why bother going to such drastic lengths to tackle a "problem" that's been on the decline? (See: Pew Research)
> 2.) Do the wall advocates realize there will never actually be a "full" wall? Recall the recent border fence and Landowner lawsuits. The Trump administration could use eminent domain to acquire the land but will have to negotiate compensation and WILL face lawsuits. More than 90 such lawsuits in southern Texas alone are still open from the effort to build a fence there.
> 3.) The wall isn't going to fix the drug problem. According to the DEA, most drugs come through legal ports of entry.
> etc,etc,etc...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has nothing to offer to ordinary Americans.  Protection against predatory vultures, workers' bargaining powers, a healthy environment, a stable future for their kids, affordable (higher) education (etc.), there is nothing on the table.  So, he lets himself be seen fighting like a lion against the imaginary Swamp, against the "establishment", to "protect" Americans against the "darkies" - their crime, disease, their drugs, and whatnot.  A political ploy, and a boondoggle, campaign antics that have one major benefit: to be paid for by the taxpayers themselves.
> 
> What could be more alluring to the Trumpster Fire than that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a load of horseshit.  I marvel at how you morons construct these fantasies based on a total lack of facts.  Trump has reduced black unemployment to the lowest point it's ever been.  Only a dumbass like you believes having a job is not important.  I could go down your list of lies and deconstruct each one, but why bother?  they are all obvious horseshit driven by hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously don't know the def of "projection"
> You do know the unemploymeat is following the 8 years of Obama?
> And you never mention don has created fewer jobs in his 2 years than Obama did in his last 2?
> Can you deconstruct that?
Click to expand...


Presidents don't create jobs--the private sector does.  All a President can do is make it more or less inviting for the private sector TO create those jobs.  Hussein was the most anti-business President in our lifetime.  So he deserves zero credit.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Issa said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  Makes you wonder how those border agencies make thousands of busts every year by the border.
> 
> 
> 
> It makes wonder also how some of those border agents make more than their salaries, and dozens got arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  When?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude I keep telling you the primary problem with you guys, anti immigrants, pro trump I'd being ignorant of facts and you live ina bunnle....we lose our shit trying to explain to you but your fear and ignorance is blinding uou.
> Here read the article, and don't tell me is fake news.
> 
> U.S. Border Agency Says Hundreds of Employees Have Been Arrested Over 2 Years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't get to the site because they want money which I'm not about the pay.  So I did a Google search to find a credible news source reporting on the story as well, and can't find one.  I did find a story from some internet site called Pogo.com, however I never heard of them before and it's likely they just parroted the NYT story.
> 
> But in that story their claim is that 200 agents (80 of them border patrol) were arrested since 2004.  No elaboration on how many were charged or actually convicted and for what offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow just wow....so you only beleive fox news and trump?
> I live in California and things like these are known, CBP officers get caught all the time.
> Widen your sources and open your mind.
Click to expand...


Well according to what I read, it's about 200 in 14 years.   That boils down to about 14 per year, so I wouldn't say all the time.  And again, I couldn't find anything on conviction rate either.  

In other words, we probably have more bad cops in the country than that.  So because we do, is that any reason to not have a police force in this country?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a straight out LIE and you know it.  I said no such thing.  I also instructed you on how to find out about people via private sources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need your instruction about doing investigative searches on tenants.  Your stance was that criminal records should be kept away from the public; particularly employers and landlords.  If you challenge me on this, I'm on vacation and have the time, and I'll be happy to quote you on this and even provide a post number(s).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Use your time to research the Fourth Amendment and show us the AUTHORITY in the Constitution for the government to be able to give you that information.  I've cited at least two United States Supreme Court decisions that refute your position.
> 
> You don't read the posts of others.  At best you skim read it and then don't read the court rulings.  That is WHY you're consistently wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with the fourth amendment.  Your criminal records are not your personal property, it's governments property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the United States government has no Right or duty to share those records with anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor are they restricted from it either.  If a politician wants my vote, he or she better do what they can to not hide things from me that I need to know about.
Click to expand...


Yes, they ARE restricted.  That is why you have a Fourth Amendment.  You simply want to circumvent it with a records search without a warrant via a proxy.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of that is irrelevant to immigration.  I'm not a Democrat.  You're grasping at straws with your off topic deflection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing off topic about it.  Democrats are born liars.  As Limbaugh said repeatedly, when Democrats want to win elections, they talk like Republicans.  The Democrats never wanted a wall.  If they did, it would have been built in the first two years of Obama, or the first year of Clinton. Much like Welfare Reform, they simply state they are for it when they are really not.
> 
> But do tell (since you believe their BS) what Democrat President ever took action on building a wall?  More importantly, what Republican ever fought a Democrat President from building one?
> 
> Starting to get the picture yet?  If not, sleep on it, and maybe it will come to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a very limited (if any) capacity to see how politics work.
> 
> The objective of the NEW WORLD ORDER is to seize all the power and make resistance to tyranny an impossibility.  Why stop at with just the wall when sheeple will screw themselves out of the Bill of Rights for the illusion of a win on the nutty wall idea?  They win two fights for the price of one - and useful idiots will assist them in converting our Republic into the world's shining example of a POLICE STATE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's difficult to have a serious discussion with you Black Helicopter people.  If you want to discuss issues, do it in reality, not television movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's impossible to have a discussion with those of you who think Rush Limbaugh is an informed political strategist.  He is an entertainer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep bringing him up?
Click to expand...


You sound like a parakeet, always rehashing what Hush Bimbo said.



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have not lied about thus far is that you're either for the wall or against it.
> 
> I'm against it and know there are better ways to secure the border.  Admit it, you don't care about anything but the wall.  You'd sell your soul for a wall.  You don't even know what's being traded off in order to get it built.
> 
> No liberal has ever quoted me; I've never quoted a liberal and they do NOT make the same arguments I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and the liberals are both against the wall because a wall would work.  What more do we need to know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall would work to expand the POLICE POWERS of the state at the expense of our God given Rights; it will NOT work because the United States of America is not a communist country; however, after you get your silly wall it will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only Communist countries secure their borders?  And how would a wall change an entire system of government?
> 
> Guess what?  I won't lose one right if we get that border wall.......not one.  Which rights do you think you'd be losing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody builds walls today, because they don't work, and they have never worked in all of history.  They give a false sense of security, though.
> 
> Only a idiot would spend $25 billion dollars on something that has never worked throughout history. Even in Biblical times, Joshua fought the battle of Jericho and the walls came tumbling down!  Look at all of the people who escaped from East Berlin, despite the Wall.  The Great Wall of China was abandoned after the Ming Dynasty, which built most of the Great Wall we see today, because the last army that overran the Great Wall and defeated them thought it was a waste of time and money.
> 
> Gated communities - only in America.  They tried them in Canada and they were a "no sale".  We're not afraid of our neighbours.  But I am reminded of the Trayvon Martin case.  It was a gated community and yet it had been plagued by break-ins. That's why Zimmerman was following Trayvon - because he suspected the kid was casing properties for break-ins.  If walls keep the bad guys out, why was Zimmerman patrolling the neighbourhood at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criminals like easy access to their targets.  They want to get in and then get out quickly.  Do gated communities work most times?  Yes.  All the time?  Perhaps not.  It really depends on the area.
> 
> Will a wall stop all illegals? No it won't.  Will it reduce illegals and drugs to a more tolerable level, yes it will.
> 
> While you relish in ancient history, we in modern times know walls and borders do work.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Where do Border Fences work? Everywhere
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/01/13/we-already-have-a-border-wall-and-it-works/
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
Click to expand...


What your sources are not revealing is that they took OTHER precautions - which you conveniently ignore.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have not lied about thus far is that you're either for the wall or against it.
> 
> I'm against it and know there are better ways to secure the border.  Admit it, you don't care about anything but the wall.  You'd sell your soul for a wall.  You don't even know what's being traded off in order to get it built.
> 
> No liberal has ever quoted me; I've never quoted a liberal and they do NOT make the same arguments I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and the liberals are both against the wall because a wall would work.  What more do we need to know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall would work to expand the POLICE POWERS of the state at the expense of our God given Rights; it will NOT work because the United States of America is not a communist country; however, after you get your silly wall it will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only Communist countries secure their borders?  And how would a wall change an entire system of government?
> 
> Guess what?  I won't lose one right if we get that border wall.......not one.  Which rights do you think you'd be losing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What absolute dishonesty stupidity.  Communists, dictators and PEOPLE AT WAR use walls.  All others use other forms of solutions to resolve the problem and secure their borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another leftwing argument.  People have used walls to defend themselves for thousands of years.  The Berlin wall is the only time a wall has been used to keep people in.  Is Israel a communist dictatorship?  Hungary?
> 
> You're just plain full of shit.
Click to expand...


You're full of shit because you're LYING.  Got it? I did not say that the Israelis are communists.  Neither did I imply that "only" communist countries employed walls.  Quit lying about what I said.  Give the FULL quote.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ph3iron said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and the liberals are both against the wall because a wall would work.  What more do we need to know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall would work to expand the POLICE POWERS of the state at the expense of our God given Rights; it will NOT work because the United States of America is not a communist country; however, after you get your silly wall it will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only Communist countries secure their borders?  And how would a wall change an entire system of government?
> 
> Guess what?  I won't lose one right if we get that border wall.......not one.  Which rights do you think you'd be losing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What absolute dishonesty stupidity.  Communists, dictators and PEOPLE AT WAR use walls.  All others use other forms of solutions to resolve the problem and secure their borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another leftwing argument.  People have used walls to defend themselves for thousands of years.  The Berlin wall is the only time a wall has been used to keep people in.  Is Israel a communist dictatorship?  Hungary?
> 
> You're just plain full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice foul mouth cowardly reply.
> Looking forward to cowering behind it?
> Detected any terrorists yet?
> Only women and kids?
> And apparently you don't know that first generation Italians, Germans, Asians all cost money.
> 2 nd and more add to our economy and your socialist benefits which I'm sure you are sucking off
Click to expand...


Most of those who want the wall spend an inordinate amount of time trying to sell you on it... as if it were a religion.  I think you hit the nail on the head.  Most of them probably ARE getting a government check.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Globalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is building a wall wrong?
> 1.) Why bother going to such drastic lengths to tackle a "problem" that's been on the decline? (See: Pew Research)
> 2.) Do the wall advocates realize there will never actually be a "full" wall? Recall the recent border fence and Landowner lawsuits. The Trump administration could use eminent domain to acquire the land but will have to negotiate compensation and WILL face lawsuits. More than 90 such lawsuits in southern Texas alone are still open from the effort to build a fence there.
> 3.) The wall isn't going to fix the drug problem. According to the DEA, most drugs come through legal ports of entry.
> etc,etc,etc...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has nothing to offer to ordinary Americans.  Protection against predatory vultures, workers' bargaining powers, a healthy environment, a stable future for their kids, affordable (higher) education (etc.), there is nothing on the table.  So, he lets himself be seen fighting like a lion against the imaginary Swamp, against the "establishment", to "protect" Americans against the "darkies" - their crime, disease, their drugs, and whatnot.  A political ploy, and a boondoggle, campaign antics that have one major benefit: to be paid for by the taxpayers themselves.
> 
> What could be more alluring to the Trumpster Fire than that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a load of horseshit.  I marvel at how you morons construct these fantasies based on a total lack of facts.  Trump has reduced black unemployment to the lowest point it's ever been.  Only a dumbass like you believes having a job is not important.  I could go down your list of lies and deconstruct each one, but why bother?  they are all obvious horseshit driven by hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously don't know the def of "projection"
> You do know the unemploymeat is following the 8 years of Obama?
> And you never mention don has created fewer jobs in his 2 years than Obama did in his last 2?
> Can you deconstruct that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Presidents don't create jobs--the private sector does.  All a President can do is make it more or less inviting for the private sector TO create those jobs.  Hussein was the most anti-business President in our lifetime.  So he deserves zero credit.
Click to expand...


White boy talks out both sides of mouth.  If the private sector creates the job, then it belongs to them.  The government has NO constitutional authority to take that job and give it to someone on the pretext that the other guy is a citizen.

You can regulate immigration without a wall and without penalizing private property owners for not being subject to the control over private property.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> White boy talks out both sides of mouth. If the private sector creates the job, then it belongs to them. The government has NO constitutional authority to take that job and give it to someone on the pretext that the other guy is a citizen.



Yes they do, because the other guy IS ILLEGAL!  Illegal means the intruder broke our laws.  It means he or she is not supposed to be here in the first place yet alone taking jobs Americans can do.  That's like saying somebody snuck into Disneyland, and because they are inside the park, they have the right to go on the rides and see the exhibits.  

What you don't understand about the Constitution is that it's not a document that permits government to do anything, it's a document that restricts government from doing certain things.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> You sound like a parakeet, always rehashing what Hush Bimbo said.



How do you know what he said?  I don't bring up Rush, you do.  You have this problem of thinking people are saying something they never said.  



Porter Rockwell said:


> What your sources are not revealing is that they took OTHER precautions - which you conveniently ignore.



WTF difference would that make even if it were true.  The fact of the matter is border walls work.  They work around the world, they work here, and they will work even more when more wall is erected.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and the liberals are both against the wall because a wall would work.  What more do we need to know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall would work to expand the POLICE POWERS of the state at the expense of our God given Rights; it will NOT work because the United States of America is not a communist country; however, after you get your silly wall it will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only Communist countries secure their borders?  And how would a wall change an entire system of government?
> 
> Guess what?  I won't lose one right if we get that border wall.......not one.  Which rights do you think you'd be losing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What absolute dishonesty stupidity.  Communists, dictators and PEOPLE AT WAR use walls.  All others use other forms of solutions to resolve the problem and secure their borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another leftwing argument.  People have used walls to defend themselves for thousands of years.  The Berlin wall is the only time a wall has been used to keep people in.  Is Israel a communist dictatorship?  Hungary?
> 
> You're just plain full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're full of shit because you're LYING.  Got it? I did not say that the Israelis are communists.  Neither did I imply that "only" communist countries employed walls.  Quit lying about what I said.  Give the FULL quote.
Click to expand...

Then why do you keep talking about the Berlin wall?  You're obviously implying that only Stalinists would support the building of a wall.  You whine about "foul language," but you're accusing everyone who supports the wall of supporting the police state.

You're a fucking douchebag. You're probably also not a Republican.  So far I've seen no evidence of it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need your instruction about doing investigative searches on tenants.  Your stance was that criminal records should be kept away from the public; particularly employers and landlords.  If you challenge me on this, I'm on vacation and have the time, and I'll be happy to quote you on this and even provide a post number(s).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use your time to research the Fourth Amendment and show us the AUTHORITY in the Constitution for the government to be able to give you that information.  I've cited at least two United States Supreme Court decisions that refute your position.
> 
> You don't read the posts of others.  At best you skim read it and then don't read the court rulings.  That is WHY you're consistently wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with the fourth amendment.  Your criminal records are not your personal property, it's governments property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the United States government has no Right or duty to share those records with anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor are they restricted from it either.  If a politician wants my vote, he or she better do what they can to not hide things from me that I need to know about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they ARE restricted.  That is why you have a Fourth Amendment.  You simply want to circumvent it with a records search without a warrant via a proxy.
Click to expand...


One more time since you obviously don't get it: it's not the persons property.  It's property of the government.  The government can do whatever it wants with that information including making it public.  The Fourth Amendment prohibits GOVERNMENT from seizure of your PERSONAL PROPERTY that is in your possession.  Criminal records are not in your possession, therefore there is no way the government is violating your Fourth.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Globalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is building a wall wrong?
> 1.) Why bother going to such drastic lengths to tackle a "problem" that's been on the decline? (See: Pew Research)
> 2.) Do the wall advocates realize there will never actually be a "full" wall? Recall the recent border fence and Landowner lawsuits. The Trump administration could use eminent domain to acquire the land but will have to negotiate compensation and WILL face lawsuits. More than 90 such lawsuits in southern Texas alone are still open from the effort to build a fence there.
> 3.) The wall isn't going to fix the drug problem. According to the DEA, most drugs come through legal ports of entry.
> etc,etc,etc...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has nothing to offer to ordinary Americans.  Protection against predatory vultures, workers' bargaining powers, a healthy environment, a stable future for their kids, affordable (higher) education (etc.), there is nothing on the table.  So, he lets himself be seen fighting like a lion against the imaginary Swamp, against the "establishment", to "protect" Americans against the "darkies" - their crime, disease, their drugs, and whatnot.  A political ploy, and a boondoggle, campaign antics that have one major benefit: to be paid for by the taxpayers themselves.
> 
> What could be more alluring to the Trumpster Fire than that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a load of horseshit.  I marvel at how you morons construct these fantasies based on a total lack of facts.  Trump has reduced black unemployment to the lowest point it's ever been.  Only a dumbass like you believes having a job is not important.  I could go down your list of lies and deconstruct each one, but why bother?  they are all obvious horseshit driven by hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously don't know the def of "projection"
> You do know the unemploymeat is following the 8 years of Obama?
> And you never mention don has created fewer jobs in his 2 years than Obama did in his last 2?
> Can you deconstruct that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Presidents don't create jobs--the private sector does.  All a President can do is make it more or less inviting for the private sector TO create those jobs.  Hussein was the most anti-business President in our lifetime.  So he deserves zero credit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White boy talks out both sides of mouth.  If the private sector creates the job, then it belongs to them.  The government has NO constitutional authority to take that job and give it to someone on the pretext that the other guy is a citizen.
> 
> You can regulate immigration without a wall and without penalizing private property owners for not being subject to the control over private property.
Click to expand...


The government has the authority to deport anyone who isn't here legally, and it also has the authority to impose penalties on those who assist illegals to remain in the country.  Giving them a job is helping someone commit a crime.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play to the humanitarian side.  I've already exposed WHO the organizations you cite really are.  A mind is like a parachute.  It only operates when it's open.
> 
> The build the wall advocates make an idiotic claim about how much so called illegal aliens "cost," but they NEVER examine the other side of the ledger in order to understand why they are here.  The reason I call their method idiotic is that it is BLATANTLY dishonest as if the rest of society is too stupid to examine the three most important facts:
> 
> 1)  As much as it makes Tea Party Republicans cringe, there are two sides of an accounting ledger and the supposed facts you cite do not figure in how much  foreign labor contributes and how much wealth they create
> 
> 2)  The people on this thread, advocating for the wall, fight tooth and nail against the effort to rehabilitate those who are disenfranchised and get them working so that there is less demand for foreign labor
> 
> 3)  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a segment of their own people locked out of society and then blame the people that take the jobs Americans CANNOT take due to double minded people that want to keep some Americans from getting a job AND denying employers their unalienable Right to hire the person they want to hire for the job.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if they are "rehabilitated," they are still going to take a job that would otherwise go to a native born American.  The are also going to create downward pressure on wages since they are will to work for a much lower wage than most Americans.
> 
> Employers have no "unalienable right" to hire people who are not in this country legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ones pics say it all.
> But I'll try to be patient.
> Italians, Germans, Asians and now Latinos all cost the first year.
> All subsequent years they contribute way more than our old white farts here sucking off their socialist benefits
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, asshole.  We didn't have welfare, public schools, and government healthcare when the Italians and Germans came here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we didn't have a Great Depression, either or world wars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's your point?
Click to expand...

what's your point?


----------



## beautress

ph3iron said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play to the humanitarian side.  I've already exposed WHO the organizations you cite really are.  A mind is like a parachute.  It only operates when it's open.
> 
> The build the wall advocates make an idiotic claim about how much so called illegal aliens "cost," but they NEVER examine the other side of the ledger in order to understand why they are here.  The reason I call their method idiotic is that it is BLATANTLY dishonest as if the rest of society is too stupid to examine the three most important facts:
> 
> 1)  As much as it makes Tea Party Republicans cringe, there are two sides of an accounting ledger and the supposed facts you cite do not figure in how much  foreign labor contributes and how much wealth they create
> 
> 2)  The people on this thread, advocating for the wall, fight tooth and nail against the effort to rehabilitate those who are disenfranchised and get them working so that there is less demand for foreign labor
> 
> 3)  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a segment of their own people locked out of society and then blame the people that take the jobs Americans CANNOT take due to double minded people that want to keep some Americans from getting a job AND denying employers their unalienable Right to hire the person they want to hire for the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if they are "rehabilitated," they are still going to take a job that would otherwise go to a native born American.  The are also going to create downward pressure on wages since they are will to work for a much lower wage than most Americans.
> 
> Employers have no "unalienable right" to hire people who are not in this country legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ones pics say it all.
> But I'll try to be patient.
> Italians, Germans, Asians and now Latinos all cost the first year.
> All subsequent years they contribute way more than our old white farts here sucking off their socialist benefits
Click to expand...

You said, *"Italians, Germans, Asians and now Latinos all cost the first year. All subsequent years they contribute way more than our old white farts here sucking off their socialist benefits"*

You obviously are unaware that social security was paid for with taking out 7.5% of wages with employer requirements matching to the government for a lifetime of work--12 times a year or 52 times a year depending on whether we received monthly or weekly wages. The cruel part is that we were promised interest payments would be returned into Social Security right up until the time politicians got greedy and decided to "borrow" the interest and sometimes the principals for their pet rock projects. Call us what you will, but we paid for our retirement benefits way ahead of time and with no choice and no say in the investments which were expropriated by very evil people who used it to get higher salaries for themselves and the people who pleasured them. One thing about taxes and promises. What it buys is not only never good enough, it also is not what was intended when we agreed to pay it. I paid my fair share always, regardless of what foul name you care to call other people than yourself who receive the benefits every one of us has to pay from our earnings..


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> White boy talks out both sides of mouth. If the private sector creates the job, then it belongs to them. The government has NO constitutional authority to take that job and give it to someone on the pretext that the other guy is a citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they do, because the other guy IS ILLEGAL!  Illegal means the intruder broke our laws.  It means he or she is not supposed to be here in the first place yet alone taking jobs Americans can do.  That's like saying somebody snuck into Disneyland, and because they are inside the park, they have the right to go on the rides and see the exhibits.
> 
> What you don't understand about the Constitution is that it's not a document that permits government to do anything, it's a document that restricts government from doing certain things.
Click to expand...


I think YOU don't understand the Constitution.  The federal government has but one constitutional Authority relative to foreigners.  Here is it one more time for you:

The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization....  ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 4

So, NO, the government cannot do just anything.  In the case of Printz v. U.S., the United States Supreme Court ruled:

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments “a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same that each will be controlled by itself.”[11] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained

We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

Coming into the United States is a civil misdemeanor IF the subject coming in is caught. It is not, however, a crime to be in the United States without papers AND, the courts have invoked the Printz decision AGAINST those making the erroneous claims that you keep repeating.

That does not reflect my personal opinion; that is a matter of law.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a parakeet, always rehashing what Hush Bimbo said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what he said?  I don't bring up Rush, you do.  You have this problem of thinking people are saying something they never said.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What your sources are not revealing is that they took OTHER precautions - which you conveniently ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF difference would that make even if it were true.  The fact of the matter is border walls work.  They work around the world, they work here, and they will work even more when more wall is erected.
Click to expand...


When I'm traveling about in town, I get a few minutes of Rush here and there several times a week.  So, when you babble on about your precious wall, it's pretty evident that you are getting your info from Rush and / or the same sources he gets his drivel from.

A border wall will not work in a free society.  They work in totalitarian regimes for a reason.  I can explain that simple concept to you, but I cannot understand it for you.  You want to live in the ultimate POLICE STATE; I don't.  End of story.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall would work to expand the POLICE POWERS of the state at the expense of our God given Rights; it will NOT work because the United States of America is not a communist country; however, after you get your silly wall it will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only Communist countries secure their borders?  And how would a wall change an entire system of government?
> 
> Guess what?  I won't lose one right if we get that border wall.......not one.  Which rights do you think you'd be losing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What absolute dishonesty stupidity.  Communists, dictators and PEOPLE AT WAR use walls.  All others use other forms of solutions to resolve the problem and secure their borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another leftwing argument.  People have used walls to defend themselves for thousands of years.  The Berlin wall is the only time a wall has been used to keep people in.  Is Israel a communist dictatorship?  Hungary?
> 
> You're just plain full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're full of shit because you're LYING.  Got it? I did not say that the Israelis are communists.  Neither did I imply that "only" communist countries employed walls.  Quit lying about what I said.  Give the FULL quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why do you keep talking about the Berlin wall?  You're obviously implying that only Stalinists would support the building of a wall.  You whine about "foul language," but you're accusing everyone who supports the wall of supporting the police state.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag. You're probably also not a Republican.  So far I've seen no evidence of it.
Click to expand...


Your average Republican is against the nutty wall idea yet they fear people like you.  I don't fear you.  I'm not running for public office and I care about what happens to the next generation.

As I see it, I'm the only guy out there pointing out to you that there is cost WAY BEYOND DOLLARS AND CENTS for the implementation of the surveillance society.

Insofar as "foul language," it's a leap to compare my telling people they are supporting a POLICE STATE versus those who call their opposition a "fucking douchebag."  The POLICE STATE is not a personal attack like calling someone names.  But, you know what, you have the Right to do it... and you abusing that Right shows that you are afraid that if people access the information I refer to, they might develop a better understanding of the long term ramifications of the bigger and more intrusive government.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.
> 
> Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a point well taken.  If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse.  BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse.  Times change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminal records ARE government records.  Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the authority to give out the information for the general public to go on a fishing expedition.  You shouldn't argue this as one day, you or a loved one WILL be denied a constitutional protection and it will because of people just like you.
> 
> One last time:  the government can lie to you and they can lie about you... AND THEY DO.  By their own estimates 30 percent of the people in jails and prisons never actually committed a crime.
> 
> You were given an alternative, so if you choose to be a subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER, that is your prerogative.  It's mine not to subject myself to a foreign jurisdiction just because a de facto government makes a false claim against me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are off your rocker.  Public records equate to a New World Order?  And let me see this evidence that 30% of inmates never did anything wrong to be imprisoned; not that I believe you have any credible link (but it will be fun if you try to post something) however I just want to see where you make this stuff up from.
> 
> Yes, criminal records are government records, and nothing in the Constitution "prohibits" government from sharing those records with the people.  It would be an injustice to not warn people of potentially dangerous people.  But I'm sure in the name of privacy, you wouldn't mind a rapist to move in next door to your mother or sister without your knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would not believe it, then there is no point in posting a link. It would be wasted verification.
> 
> One thing is for sure.  You live on this board to argue the wall as if it were your lifeblood - your religion.  Yet you fail to comprehend simple truths.  For example:
> 
> Not too long back the liberals wanted to declare that any veteran who had been diagnosed with PTSD be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms.  You won't believe that either, but it's true.  The point is, the liberals would use your mental health records to deny you the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> You argued against ADD / ADHD, claiming you are afflicted with such, but then denying that you are not on the drugs for it.  Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, if you have a real condition, you either have it or you don't.  If you're born with juvenile diabetes, you have it.  You don't wake up one morning and say I feel fine so I must be cured.
> 
> You cannot understand that I'm sometimes on YOUR side for IF ADD / ADHD were real conditions and IF you were not on your meds, the liberals would most assuredly pass legislation to address people like you.  IF you think a person's criminal record is something the public should know about, then ditto for their mental health records.
> 
> WHEN mental health records become fair game, then you can be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms as well as be turned down for a job because you have a "mental health record."  Does it matter that you went to see the psychologist because you lost interest in sex or that you needed a referral from a psychologist to go out of network and be hypnotized so that you could quit smoking?  HELL NO.  It will be just like a "criminal record."  Nobody is going to read the transcripts nor weigh the value of the treatment nor more than they read court transcripts to find out that you were threatened with pleading guilty or facing a maximum prison sentence when the facts clearly dictate you were innocent.  I leave you with the wisdom of Thomas Paine:
> 
> "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
> 
> Read more at: Thomas Paine Quotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right about one thing, I have no idea where you're at half the time.
> 
> ADD is difficulty paying attention or your mind drifting off of a subject.  It's something you can live with without taking medication.  We were talking about criminal records, not mental records.  You keep detouring the subject all the time.
> 
> What you don't understand is the Doctor/ patient relationship is sacred.  Criminal records are not.  Doctors take an oath to protect the confidence between themselves and their clients unless they believe a serious threat to the public is at large.
> 
> The government puts guardrails on our roads so you don't accidentally drive off a cliff or into a river.   The government forces companies to put warnings on medications and various devices so you don't get hurt.  The government forces companies to put something in front of dock doors so an employee doesn't fall out of it or a tow motor drive off of it.  The government regulation is that we truck drivers chock our wheels (putting a rubber or metal wedge under the tire) even though tractor-trailers have two independent brake systems that make it virtually impossible for the system to fail.
> 
> In other words, government takes measures to insure our safety.  So if government is aware of a potentially dangerous person; a person who may cause me serious grief; a person who may be a threat to my business or family, it's governments duty to warn me of this potential--not hide it from me so I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is not the government's duty to warn you of a "potentially" dangerous person.  It maybe governments duty to warn you of "known" dangerous person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, a person who is a criminal is potentially dangerous.  The government is we the people.  When the government sends somebody to jail, we the people sent them to jail.  We have a right to know who our government sent to prison for our own protection.
Click to expand...

Potentially dangerous and know to be dangerous are not the same.


----------



## Flopper

danielpalos said:


> what happened to free trade and less regulation, right wingers?  just talk.


Yes, just talk.  Free trade, and less regulations for for those favored by republicans.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236224
> It's a waste of skin.
> 
> Only a colossal dolt would argue against protection of one's own border.  The Pentagon has misplaced more money MANY TIMES OVER over the years than what the wall would cost to build.
> 
> AND THAT IS WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING THE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS (AND BILLIONS) WE WOULD SAVE IN NOT-WASTED RESOURCES ONCE IT IS FINISHED.
> 
> *PROVE ME WRONG.* Once the wall is built, if it turns out to be a colossal mistake like you predict that backfires in our faces, we can always TEAR IT BACK DOWN, melt the steel, and use the metal to make free housing for illegal Latinos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is HIGHLY disingenuous for anyone to suggest that those opposed to the wall don't care about border security.  Not having a case, the build the wall proponents are slinging the scare word liberal around and making a baseless and false accusation.
> 
> The people once known as patriots and constitutionalists had the issue under control and were successfully working toward permanent solutions to this issue.  History has already proven you wrong.
> 
> The thing of it is, the really ignorant people are those who are for the wall, but against using their common sense.  Rather than call people names; rather than question the motives of others, you should sit down and ask yourself what happens if you get the wall - and be OBJECTIVE.  How will the law affect YOUR Liberty?
> 
> Having ninja clad, machine gun toting federal mercenaries patrolling a wall that cannot stop free enterprise nor cure people of their drug habit only brings cries for a bigger and bigger - and more intrusive government.  With that more and more of your Liberties go south until you cannot reclaim them.  I'd rather fight that inevitability because, once the wall is built, and proves ineffective we will not be able to stop it any more than we stopped the once TEMPORARY tax known as the income tax.  And what has the 16th Amendment brought you besides a private corporation of murderers that makes the average American quake in their shoes?  Most people would rather face an armed robber than the IRS.  Yet you don't learn from history.
Click to expand...




The border security says the 600 miles of walls we have now are highly effective.


.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a parakeet, always rehashing what Hush Bimbo said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what he said?  I don't bring up Rush, you do.  You have this problem of thinking people are saying something they never said.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What your sources are not revealing is that they took OTHER precautions - which you conveniently ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF difference would that make even if it were true.  The fact of the matter is border walls work.  They work around the world, they work here, and they will work even more when more wall is erected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I'm traveling about in town, I get a few minutes of Rush here and there several times a week.  So, when you babble on about your precious wall, it's pretty evident that you are getting your info from Rush and / or the same sources he gets his drivel from.
> 
> A border wall will not work in a free society.  They work in totalitarian regimes for a reason.  I can explain that simple concept to you, but I cannot understand it for you.  You want to live in the ultimate POLICE STATE; I don't.  End of story.
Click to expand...


Yes, I know.  You want to live in an invaded state instead.  

What you people on the left don't understand is that we turn on right-wing radio because the program is based around their audience--not the other way around.  Unlike your leftist MSM broadcasts, nobody tells us what to think and we are not easily brainwashed.  

True story:  Many years ago I started to become interested in politics, but knew little about it.  I tried reading the paper but it was difficult to follow.  

One day at a family doing, my father and I started to argue about social issues.  It's something me and my father enjoy doing.  My brother-in-law was bringing dinner to the table laughing.  He said to me "you must be a diehard Rush Limbaugh fan!"  I heard of the guy; this was when he first came to Cleveland, but I didn't know who he was or what he was about.  I was younger and only used the radio for rock music.  

Some time went by and the Democrats did something to really piss me off.  I forget what it was now.  But in any case, I remembered what my brother-in-law said to me, and I finally found this Limbaugh guy. 

I was amazed.  I really thought the country was turning Communist. But when I listened to Limbaugh, it was like somebody was stealing my thoughts and broadcasting them over the radio.  

So how did you become so brainwashed that right-wingers only parrot Limbaugh and Hannity?  Because it's what we've been accusing the left of for years, and they are trying to turn it around on us because they know they are guilty of just that.  

We on the right can explain our convictions.  Many on the left can't.  They are just told what to think, not why they should be thinking it.  It's why they stumble and fall when you ask them what Voter-ID has to do with race?  They don't know why they think it, but were told to think it.  Or why they believe disarming society will make the criminals disarm as well?  They can't explain their position, but only know that disarming good people will make the criminals stop.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Use your time to research the Fourth Amendment and show us the AUTHORITY in the Constitution for the government to be able to give you that information.  I've cited at least two United States Supreme Court decisions that refute your position.
> 
> You don't read the posts of others.  At best you skim read it and then don't read the court rulings.  That is WHY you're consistently wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with the fourth amendment.  Your criminal records are not your personal property, it's governments property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the United States government has no Right or duty to share those records with anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor are they restricted from it either.  If a politician wants my vote, he or she better do what they can to not hide things from me that I need to know about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they ARE restricted.  That is why you have a Fourth Amendment.  You simply want to circumvent it with a records search without a warrant via a proxy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more time since you obviously don't get it: it's not the persons property.  It's property of the government.  The government can do whatever it wants with that information including making it public.  The Fourth Amendment prohibits GOVERNMENT from seizure of your PERSONAL PROPERTY that is in your possession.  Criminal records are not in your possession, therefore there is no way the government is violating your Fourth.
Click to expand...


Your first argument was that the protection covered the federal government - now you're moving the goal posts once again.

Information obtained by the government ultimately belongs to the individual.  That is the essence of a Republican form of government.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees us a Right to be secure in our "papers."  Your idiotic argument don't hold water and you know it.  You're embarrassing yourself with strawman arguments, moving the goal posts and  filibustering with horse manure.  Your "papers" is inclusive of government records.

You may like the idea of the government circumventing the Constitution and spying on Americans via proxy by giving the general public access to data on individuals, but one day YOU personally are going to learn the cost.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has nothing to offer to ordinary Americans.  Protection against predatory vultures, workers' bargaining powers, a healthy environment, a stable future for their kids, affordable (higher) education (etc.), there is nothing on the table.  So, he lets himself be seen fighting like a lion against the imaginary Swamp, against the "establishment", to "protect" Americans against the "darkies" - their crime, disease, their drugs, and whatnot.  A political ploy, and a boondoggle, campaign antics that have one major benefit: to be paid for by the taxpayers themselves.
> 
> What could be more alluring to the Trumpster Fire than that?
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of horseshit.  I marvel at how you morons construct these fantasies based on a total lack of facts.  Trump has reduced black unemployment to the lowest point it's ever been.  Only a dumbass like you believes having a job is not important.  I could go down your list of lies and deconstruct each one, but why bother?  they are all obvious horseshit driven by hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously don't know the def of "projection"
> You do know the unemploymeat is following the 8 years of Obama?
> And you never mention don has created fewer jobs in his 2 years than Obama did in his last 2?
> Can you deconstruct that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Presidents don't create jobs--the private sector does.  All a President can do is make it more or less inviting for the private sector TO create those jobs.  Hussein was the most anti-business President in our lifetime.  So he deserves zero credit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White boy talks out both sides of mouth.  If the private sector creates the job, then it belongs to them.  The government has NO constitutional authority to take that job and give it to someone on the pretext that the other guy is a citizen.
> 
> You can regulate immigration without a wall and without penalizing private property owners for not being subject to the control over private property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government has the authority to deport anyone who isn't here legally, and it also has the authority to impose penalties on those who assist illegals to remain in the country.  Giving them a job is helping someone commit a crime.
Click to expand...


You do not understand the difference between a constitutional AUTHORITY and a claimed POWER.


----------



## Flopper

Issa said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with "how far we will go" it has to do with legality.  The Supreme court ruled (a few years back) that eminent domain even applies to private companies wishing to make improvements to an area.  In other words, being able to buy structures and evicting people out of them to tear those homes down and build new ones.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you get when you have a "conservative" (corporatist) SCOTUS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We didn't have a conservative corporatist court at the time.  We don't even have one now.  That's why the Supreme Court just ruled that Trump can't deny asylum to people caught sneaking into the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Building a wall is applying a solution that the Chinese used in the 4th Century AD, and it didn't work then.  The Great Wall proved no deterrent at all to attacking armies, despite 15 centuries of construction, fortification and expansion and was abandoned altogether by the last army which overall it.
> 
> The Eminent Domain cases from the last attempt to fence the entire southern border have still not cleared the dockets in Texas, and local residents are gearing up for another fight.
> 
> Cartels are now using drones to smuggle drugs across the border, so a wall is absolutely not deterrent to drugs.
> 
> And last but not least, Trump promised Mexico would pay for it, and now he's giving us some bullshit line that the new NAFTA 2.0 is paying for it.  The American people will be paying for it.  That's on top of the $4000 raises he promised everyone from the corporate tax cut that never materialized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $4,000 raises?  That's a new one on me.  I never heard of that before and I watched the elections pretty closely.
> 
> So now your stance is to compare a 4th century wall to today?  Then why is it where walls and fences are erected, they made noticeable improvement if not total improvement?
> 
> And you're claiming all drugs are coming in on drones?  Very well, even though I don't believe a word of that (I know they use drones from time to time) what happens when we find a solution to that problem?  Start the wall talk again?  Wouldn't it be better to have the wall in place already when that happens?
> 
> Did you ever take notice that we pro-wall people don't give a rats ass who is paying for the wall, yet you on the left keep bringing that up like it's a relevant point to stop it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drugs go through checkpoints, also most illegals came by plane by the way. That's why we keep telling you a wall is useless.
Click to expand...

True but that doesn't keep Trumpsters from repeating the same lie, just like their leader.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play to the humanitarian side.  I've already exposed WHO the organizations you cite really are.  A mind is like a parachute.  It only operates when it's open.
> 
> The build the wall advocates make an idiotic claim about how much so called illegal aliens "cost," but they NEVER examine the other side of the ledger in order to understand why they are here.  The reason I call their method idiotic is that it is BLATANTLY dishonest as if the rest of society is too stupid to examine the three most important facts:
> 
> 1)  As much as it makes Tea Party Republicans cringe, there are two sides of an accounting ledger and the supposed facts you cite do not figure in how much  foreign labor contributes and how much wealth they create
> 
> 2)  The people on this thread, advocating for the wall, fight tooth and nail against the effort to rehabilitate those who are disenfranchised and get them working so that there is less demand for foreign labor
> 
> 3)  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a segment of their own people locked out of society and then blame the people that take the jobs Americans CANNOT take due to double minded people that want to keep some Americans from getting a job AND denying employers their unalienable Right to hire the person they want to hire for the job.
Click to expand...





So you against minimum wage laws, since Illegal's work under the table 


.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236224
> It's a waste of skin.
> 
> Only a colossal dolt would argue against protection of one's own border.  The Pentagon has misplaced more money MANY TIMES OVER over the years than what the wall would cost to build.
> 
> AND THAT IS WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING THE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS (AND BILLIONS) WE WOULD SAVE IN NOT-WASTED RESOURCES ONCE IT IS FINISHED.
> 
> *PROVE ME WRONG.* Once the wall is built, if it turns out to be a colossal mistake like you predict that backfires in our faces, we can always TEAR IT BACK DOWN, melt the steel, and use the metal to make free housing for illegal Latinos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is HIGHLY disingenuous for anyone to suggest that those opposed to the wall don't care about border security.  Not having a case, the build the wall proponents are slinging the scare word liberal around and making a baseless and false accusation.
> 
> The people once known as patriots and constitutionalists had the issue under control and were successfully working toward permanent solutions to this issue.  History has already proven you wrong.
> 
> The thing of it is, the really ignorant people are those who are for the wall, but against using their common sense.  Rather than call people names; rather than question the motives of others, you should sit down and ask yourself what happens if you get the wall - and be OBJECTIVE.  How will the law affect YOUR Liberty?
> 
> Having ninja clad, machine gun toting federal mercenaries patrolling a wall that cannot stop free enterprise nor cure people of their drug habit only brings cries for a bigger and bigger - and more intrusive government.  With that more and more of your Liberties go south until you cannot reclaim them.  I'd rather fight that inevitability because, once the wall is built, and proves ineffective we will not be able to stop it any more than we stopped the once TEMPORARY tax known as the income tax.  And what has the 16th Amendment brought you besides a private corporation of murderers that makes the average American quake in their shoes?  Most people would rather face an armed robber than the IRS.  Yet you don't learn from history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The border security says the 600 miles of walls we have now are highly effective.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The border security?  Who are these people you speak of?  Show me their statistical analysis and the qualitative and quantitative analysis it's been subjected to.  Who verified it?


----------



## Flopper

Leo123 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You you won't even HAVE a country without strong defensible borders which includes a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who illegally crash our border are NOT refugees they are ILLEGAL ALIENS!!  A refugee is NOT a refugee until identified as so by our border authorities.  How can you be so ignorant?
Click to expand...

Refugees do not come to the US border.  They apply for refugee status through any us embassy, the UN, or a private organization.  Only people  seeking asylum apply at the border.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play to the humanitarian side.  I've already exposed WHO the organizations you cite really are.  A mind is like a parachute.  It only operates when it's open.
> 
> The build the wall advocates make an idiotic claim about how much so called illegal aliens "cost," but they NEVER examine the other side of the ledger in order to understand why they are here.  The reason I call their method idiotic is that it is BLATANTLY dishonest as if the rest of society is too stupid to examine the three most important facts:
> 
> 1)  As much as it makes Tea Party Republicans cringe, there are two sides of an accounting ledger and the supposed facts you cite do not figure in how much  foreign labor contributes and how much wealth they create
> 
> 2)  The people on this thread, advocating for the wall, fight tooth and nail against the effort to rehabilitate those who are disenfranchised and get them working so that there is less demand for foreign labor
> 
> 3)  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a segment of their own people locked out of society and then blame the people that take the jobs Americans CANNOT take due to double minded people that want to keep some Americans from getting a job AND denying employers their unalienable Right to hire the person they want to hire for the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you against minimum wage laws, since Illegal's work under the table
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


 Yes, I am against minimum wage laws.  Who an employer hires and how much they get hired for is a personal matter between the employer and the potential employee.

For once, hear me out:

Even with foreign laborers here and no minimum wage laws, the government has MANY options.  For example, local counties can figure out how much it costs to live in that county.  Then they could ask potential businesses how much they intend to pay their employees and what percentage of the jobs they will offer to local residents.

If the county don't get the answer they want, they don't issue the business license.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with the fourth amendment.  Your criminal records are not your personal property, it's governments property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the United States government has no Right or duty to share those records with anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor are they restricted from it either.  If a politician wants my vote, he or she better do what they can to not hide things from me that I need to know about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they ARE restricted.  That is why you have a Fourth Amendment.  You simply want to circumvent it with a records search without a warrant via a proxy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more time since you obviously don't get it: it's not the persons property.  It's property of the government.  The government can do whatever it wants with that information including making it public.  The Fourth Amendment prohibits GOVERNMENT from seizure of your PERSONAL PROPERTY that is in your possession.  Criminal records are not in your possession, therefore there is no way the government is violating your Fourth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your first argument was that the protection covered the federal government - now you're moving the goal posts once again.
> 
> Information obtained by the government ultimately belongs to the individual.  That is the essence of a Republican form of government.
> 
> The Fourth Amendment guarantees us a Right to be secure in our "papers."  Your idiotic argument don't hold water and you know it.  You're embarrassing yourself with strawman arguments, moving the goal posts and  filibustering with horse manure.  Your "papers" is inclusive of government records.
> 
> You may like the idea of the government circumventing the Constitution and spying on Americans via proxy by giving the general public access to data on individuals, but one day YOU personally are going to learn the cost.
Click to expand...


I'm not moving anything.  Government CREATES records on people.  Therefore it is government records.  It's their property--not the individual they are creating records for.  If an individual creates a record........let's say a tax form, gives it to the government, it is still personal information that the individual gave to the government.  Therefore it is protected unless ordered to be seen by a judge for some reason. 

The media reports on most of the serious cases such as rape, murder, serious assault and so on.  It's not a private thing.  Therefore anybody has access to that information because it was held in a public setting like a court.  The media reports when the crime happens, reports when an arrest is made, gives the name and even city of the offender, and reports the outcome of the trial.  It's not personal and it's not private.  They are even gone so far as to report on people abusing their animals for crying out loud.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of liberals have used the exact same arguments.  There are no new arguments in this debate.  Either your for the wall or you're against it.  In the latter case, you lie to support your position.  That's the bottom line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have not lied about thus far is that you're either for the wall or against it.
> 
> I'm against it and know there are better ways to secure the border.  Admit it, you don't care about anything but the wall.  You'd sell your soul for a wall.  You don't even know what's being traded off in order to get it built.
> 
> No liberal has ever quoted me; I've never quoted a liberal and they do NOT make the same arguments I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and the liberals are both against the wall because a wall would work.  What more do we need to know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall would work to expand the POLICE POWERS of the state at the expense of our God given Rights; it will NOT work because the United States of America is not a communist country; however, after you get your silly wall it will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only Communist countries secure their borders?  And how would a wall change an entire system of government?
> 
> Guess what?  I won't lose one right if we get that border wall.......not one.  Which rights do you think you'd be losing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What absolute dishonesty stupidity.  Communists, dictators and PEOPLE AT WAR use walls.  All others use other forms of solutions to resolve the problem and secure their borders.
Click to expand...



Lmfao you stupid .


----------



## MaryL

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


What is wrong with building the wall?  I voted for Trump. Trump is wrong, like the liberals. We need to tear down the border wall. What we really need make  a national identity card. Linked to fingerprints. You don't get a job if you can't prove your identity linked to  your real  immigration status . Why Replicratrats are so opposed to that, boggles my mind.


----------



## Flopper

beautress said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
Click to expand...

You do realize that you are referencing data from Federation for American Immigration Reform, FAIR, an organization dedicated to not only stopping illegal immigration but also legal immigration, not exactly and independent source.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing off topic about it.  Democrats are born liars.  As Limbaugh said repeatedly, when Democrats want to win elections, they talk like Republicans.  The Democrats never wanted a wall.  If they did, it would have been built in the first two years of Obama, or the first year of Clinton. Much like Welfare Reform, they simply state they are for it when they are really not.
> 
> But do tell (since you believe their BS) what Democrat President ever took action on building a wall?  More importantly, what Republican ever fought a Democrat President from building one?
> 
> Starting to get the picture yet?  If not, sleep on it, and maybe it will come to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a very limited (if any) capacity to see how politics work.
> 
> The objective of the NEW WORLD ORDER is to seize all the power and make resistance to tyranny an impossibility.  Why stop at with just the wall when sheeple will screw themselves out of the Bill of Rights for the illusion of a win on the nutty wall idea?  They win two fights for the price of one - and useful idiots will assist them in converting our Republic into the world's shining example of a POLICE STATE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's difficult to have a serious discussion with you Black Helicopter people.  If you want to discuss issues, do it in reality, not television movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's impossible to have a discussion with those of you who think Rush Limbaugh is an informed political strategist.  He is an entertainer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep bringing him up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a parakeet, always rehashing what Hush Bimbo said.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and the liberals are both against the wall because a wall would work.  What more do we need to know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall would work to expand the POLICE POWERS of the state at the expense of our God given Rights; it will NOT work because the United States of America is not a communist country; however, after you get your silly wall it will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only Communist countries secure their borders?  And how would a wall change an entire system of government?
> 
> Guess what?  I won't lose one right if we get that border wall.......not one.  Which rights do you think you'd be losing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody builds walls today, because they don't work, and they have never worked in all of history.  They give a false sense of security, though.
> 
> Only a idiot would spend $25 billion dollars on something that has never worked throughout history. Even in Biblical times, Joshua fought the battle of Jericho and the walls came tumbling down!  Look at all of the people who escaped from East Berlin, despite the Wall.  The Great Wall of China was abandoned after the Ming Dynasty, which built most of the Great Wall we see today, because the last army that overran the Great Wall and defeated them thought it was a waste of time and money.
> 
> Gated communities - only in America.  They tried them in Canada and they were a "no sale".  We're not afraid of our neighbours.  But I am reminded of the Trayvon Martin case.  It was a gated community and yet it had been plagued by break-ins. That's why Zimmerman was following Trayvon - because he suspected the kid was casing properties for break-ins.  If walls keep the bad guys out, why was Zimmerman patrolling the neighbourhood at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criminals like easy access to their targets.  They want to get in and then get out quickly.  Do gated communities work most times?  Yes.  All the time?  Perhaps not.  It really depends on the area.
> 
> Will a wall stop all illegals? No it won't.  Will it reduce illegals and drugs to a more tolerable level, yes it will.
> 
> While you relish in ancient history, we in modern times know walls and borders do work.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Where do Border Fences work? Everywhere
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/01/13/we-already-have-a-border-wall-and-it-works/
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What your sources are not revealing is that they took OTHER precautions - which you conveniently ignore.
Click to expand...



What's that gibberish?


I bet you go to a plumber to get an enema , instead of going to a doctor right?

.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.
> 
> Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a point well taken.  If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse.  BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse.  Times change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are off your rocker.  Public records equate to a New World Order?  And let me see this evidence that 30% of inmates never did anything wrong to be imprisoned; not that I believe you have any credible link (but it will be fun if you try to post something) however I just want to see where you make this stuff up from.
> 
> Yes, criminal records are government records, and nothing in the Constitution "prohibits" government from sharing those records with the people.  It would be an injustice to not warn people of potentially dangerous people.  But I'm sure in the name of privacy, you wouldn't mind a rapist to move in next door to your mother or sister without your knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would not believe it, then there is no point in posting a link. It would be wasted verification.
> 
> One thing is for sure.  You live on this board to argue the wall as if it were your lifeblood - your religion.  Yet you fail to comprehend simple truths.  For example:
> 
> Not too long back the liberals wanted to declare that any veteran who had been diagnosed with PTSD be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms.  You won't believe that either, but it's true.  The point is, the liberals would use your mental health records to deny you the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> You argued against ADD / ADHD, claiming you are afflicted with such, but then denying that you are not on the drugs for it.  Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, if you have a real condition, you either have it or you don't.  If you're born with juvenile diabetes, you have it.  You don't wake up one morning and say I feel fine so I must be cured.
> 
> You cannot understand that I'm sometimes on YOUR side for IF ADD / ADHD were real conditions and IF you were not on your meds, the liberals would most assuredly pass legislation to address people like you.  IF you think a person's criminal record is something the public should know about, then ditto for their mental health records.
> 
> WHEN mental health records become fair game, then you can be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms as well as be turned down for a job because you have a "mental health record."  Does it matter that you went to see the psychologist because you lost interest in sex or that you needed a referral from a psychologist to go out of network and be hypnotized so that you could quit smoking?  HELL NO.  It will be just like a "criminal record."  Nobody is going to read the transcripts nor weigh the value of the treatment nor more than they read court transcripts to find out that you were threatened with pleading guilty or facing a maximum prison sentence when the facts clearly dictate you were innocent.  I leave you with the wisdom of Thomas Paine:
> 
> "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
> 
> Read more at: Thomas Paine Quotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right about one thing, I have no idea where you're at half the time.
> 
> ADD is difficulty paying attention or your mind drifting off of a subject.  It's something you can live with without taking medication.  We were talking about criminal records, not mental records.  You keep detouring the subject all the time.
> 
> What you don't understand is the Doctor/ patient relationship is sacred.  Criminal records are not.  Doctors take an oath to protect the confidence between themselves and their clients unless they believe a serious threat to the public is at large.
> 
> The government puts guardrails on our roads so you don't accidentally drive off a cliff or into a river.   The government forces companies to put warnings on medications and various devices so you don't get hurt.  The government forces companies to put something in front of dock doors so an employee doesn't fall out of it or a tow motor drive off of it.  The government regulation is that we truck drivers chock our wheels (putting a rubber or metal wedge under the tire) even though tractor-trailers have two independent brake systems that make it virtually impossible for the system to fail.
> 
> In other words, government takes measures to insure our safety.  So if government is aware of a potentially dangerous person; a person who may cause me serious grief; a person who may be a threat to my business or family, it's governments duty to warn me of this potential--not hide it from me so I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is not the government's duty to warn you of a "potentially" dangerous person.  It maybe governments duty to warn you of "known" dangerous person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, a person who is a criminal is potentially dangerous.  The government is we the people.  When the government sends somebody to jail, we the people sent them to jail.  We have a right to know who our government sent to prison for our own protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Potentially dangerous and know to be dangerous are not the same.
Click to expand...


And therefore, the public doesn't have the right to know who the potentially dangerous people are?  

Let me ask:  if a convicted child molester moved to your neighborhood, wouldn't you want to be notified of that if you have children or grandchildren of a young age?  Or there was something suspicious about a character moving in, you have no ability to learn about this person?  And if you say no, you wouldn't want to know about it, what then if the con harms your children, rapes them or tricks them into taking dangerous narcotics?  

I think you'd be pretty pissed about it because government knew that was a possibility, but restricted you from knowing about it so you couldn't take extra precautions.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a parakeet, always rehashing what Hush Bimbo said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what he said?  I don't bring up Rush, you do.  You have this problem of thinking people are saying something they never said.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What your sources are not revealing is that they took OTHER precautions - which you conveniently ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF difference would that make even if it were true.  The fact of the matter is border walls work.  They work around the world, they work here, and they will work even more when more wall is erected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I'm traveling about in town, I get a few minutes of Rush here and there several times a week.  So, when you babble on about your precious wall, it's pretty evident that you are getting your info from Rush and / or the same sources he gets his drivel from.
> 
> A border wall will not work in a free society.  They work in totalitarian regimes for a reason.  I can explain that simple concept to you, but I cannot understand it for you.  You want to live in the ultimate POLICE STATE; I don't.  End of story.
Click to expand...



We already have 600 miles of walls, we do live in a free society , that protects us from rapist killers in mexico


.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a parakeet, always rehashing what Hush Bimbo said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what he said?  I don't bring up Rush, you do.  You have this problem of thinking people are saying something they never said.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What your sources are not revealing is that they took OTHER precautions - which you conveniently ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF difference would that make even if it were true.  The fact of the matter is border walls work.  They work around the world, they work here, and they will work even more when more wall is erected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I'm traveling about in town, I get a few minutes of Rush here and there several times a week.  So, when you babble on about your precious wall, it's pretty evident that you are getting your info from Rush and / or the same sources he gets his drivel from.
> 
> A border wall will not work in a free society.  They work in totalitarian regimes for a reason.  I can explain that simple concept to you, but I cannot understand it for you.  You want to live in the ultimate POLICE STATE; I don't.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know.  You want to live in an invaded state instead.
> 
> What you people on the left don't understand is that we turn on right-wing radio because the program is based around their audience--not the other way around.  Unlike your leftist MSM broadcasts, nobody tells us what to think and we are not easily brainwashed.
> 
> True story:  Many years ago I started to become interested in politics, but knew little about it.  I tried reading the paper but it was difficult to follow.
> 
> One day at a family doing, my father and I started to argue about social issues.  It's something me and my father enjoy doing.  My brother-in-law was bringing dinner to the table laughing.  He said to me "you must be a diehard Rush Limbaugh fan!"  I heard of the guy; this was when he first came to Cleveland, but I didn't know who he was or what he was about.  I was younger and only used the radio for rock music.
> 
> Some time went by and the Democrats did something to really piss me off.  I forget what it was now.  But in any case, I remembered what my brother-in-law said to me, and I finally found this Limbaugh guy.
> 
> I was amazed.  I really thought the country was turning Communist. But when I listened to Limbaugh, it was like somebody was stealing my thoughts and broadcasting them over the radio.
> 
> So how did you become so brainwashed that right-wingers only parrot Limbaugh and Hannity?  Because it's what we've been accusing the left of for years, and they are trying to turn it around on us because they know they are guilty of just that.
> 
> We on the right can explain our convictions.  Many on the left can't.  They are just told what to think, not why they should be thinking it.  It's why they stumble and fall when you ask them what Voter-ID has to do with race?  They don't know why they think it, but were told to think it.  Or why they believe disarming society will make the criminals disarm as well?  They can't explain their position, but only know that disarming good people will make the criminals stop.
Click to expand...


You are a VERY foolish individual.  I was a constitutionalist and patriot before you were a gleam in your daddy's eyes.  I knew Sean Hannity personally BEFORE he became the big deal he is today.

I point out to my fellow right wing friends and family that Hannity drew his paycheck from a company that was owned by a Board of Director of the Council on Foreign Relations and a Saudi Prince, most of people cannot connect the dots.  It's pretty naive to think that organizations like the CFR (who are diametrically OPPOSED to the message you're hawking on this site) would allow people to advocate against them on their dime - while paying the right wing mouthpieces a fortune to spew the moronic "solutions" they promote.

What in the Hell short circuits in that vast expanse between your ears that I see the problem as clearly as you, but disagree with the solution?  Tell me you're not that freaking stupid.  Please tell me that.

You hover over this site 24 / 7, protecting your only cause in the world - a damn wall - as if it were your daughter's cherry.  Yet you expect me to believe that the REAL LEFT, the CFR, not only allows you access to the Hannitys and Limbaughs, but pays them big bucks to spew stuff that contradicts the goals and objectives of the CFR.  You're out here posting horse dung as if it were manna from heaven.  Do you not understand the dichotomy?  

Hannity was a reasonable guy until the left began lining his pockets.  Today, he and Limbaugh are lackeys; they are entertainers and if they advocated a REAL constitutional approach to the issues, they would be unemployed.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236224
> It's a waste of skin.
> 
> Only a colossal dolt would argue against protection of one's own border.  The Pentagon has misplaced more money MANY TIMES OVER over the years than what the wall would cost to build.
> 
> AND THAT IS WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING THE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS (AND BILLIONS) WE WOULD SAVE IN NOT-WASTED RESOURCES ONCE IT IS FINISHED.
> 
> *PROVE ME WRONG.* Once the wall is built, if it turns out to be a colossal mistake like you predict that backfires in our faces, we can always TEAR IT BACK DOWN, melt the steel, and use the metal to make free housing for illegal Latinos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is HIGHLY disingenuous for anyone to suggest that those opposed to the wall don't care about border security.  Not having a case, the build the wall proponents are slinging the scare word liberal around and making a baseless and false accusation.
> 
> The people once known as patriots and constitutionalists had the issue under control and were successfully working toward permanent solutions to this issue.  History has already proven you wrong.
> 
> The thing of it is, the really ignorant people are those who are for the wall, but against using their common sense.  Rather than call people names; rather than question the motives of others, you should sit down and ask yourself what happens if you get the wall - and be OBJECTIVE.  How will the law affect YOUR Liberty?
> 
> Having ninja clad, machine gun toting federal mercenaries patrolling a wall that cannot stop free enterprise nor cure people of their drug habit only brings cries for a bigger and bigger - and more intrusive government.  With that more and more of your Liberties go south until you cannot reclaim them.  I'd rather fight that inevitability because, once the wall is built, and proves ineffective we will not be able to stop it any more than we stopped the once TEMPORARY tax known as the income tax.  And what has the 16th Amendment brought you besides a private corporation of murderers that makes the average American quake in their shoes?  Most people would rather face an armed robber than the IRS.  Yet you don't learn from history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The border security says the 600 miles of walls we have now are highly effective.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The border security?  Who are these people you speak of?  Show me their statistical analysis and the qualitative and quantitative analysis it's been subjected to.  Who verified it?
Click to expand...



So Im suppose to believe you a guy who appears that goes to a barber to get a broken leg fixed?


People have fences and walls all around the US according to you they are not effective...



.


----------



## basquebromance

$5 billion could give clean water to Flint, Michigan. $5 billion could provide universal pre-K to every child in America. $5 billion could house every homeless veteran on the street. There are a lot of useful ways to spend $5 billion. Building a wall isn’t one of them.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a parakeet, always rehashing what Hush Bimbo said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what he said?  I don't bring up Rush, you do.  You have this problem of thinking people are saying something they never said.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What your sources are not revealing is that they took OTHER precautions - which you conveniently ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF difference would that make even if it were true.  The fact of the matter is border walls work.  They work around the world, they work here, and they will work even more when more wall is erected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I'm traveling about in town, I get a few minutes of Rush here and there several times a week.  So, when you babble on about your precious wall, it's pretty evident that you are getting your info from Rush and / or the same sources he gets his drivel from.
> 
> A border wall will not work in a free society.  They work in totalitarian regimes for a reason.  I can explain that simple concept to you, but I cannot understand it for you.  You want to live in the ultimate POLICE STATE; I don't.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know.  You want to live in an invaded state instead.
> 
> What you people on the left don't understand is that we turn on right-wing radio because the program is based around their audience--not the other way around.  Unlike your leftist MSM broadcasts, nobody tells us what to think and we are not easily brainwashed.
> 
> True story:  Many years ago I started to become interested in politics, but knew little about it.  I tried reading the paper but it was difficult to follow.
> 
> One day at a family doing, my father and I started to argue about social issues.  It's something me and my father enjoy doing.  My brother-in-law was bringing dinner to the table laughing.  He said to me "you must be a diehard Rush Limbaugh fan!"  I heard of the guy; this was when he first came to Cleveland, but I didn't know who he was or what he was about.  I was younger and only used the radio for rock music.
> 
> Some time went by and the Democrats did something to really piss me off.  I forget what it was now.  But in any case, I remembered what my brother-in-law said to me, and I finally found this Limbaugh guy.
> 
> I was amazed.  I really thought the country was turning Communist. But when I listened to Limbaugh, it was like somebody was stealing my thoughts and broadcasting them over the radio.
> 
> So how did you become so brainwashed that right-wingers only parrot Limbaugh and Hannity?  Because it's what we've been accusing the left of for years, and they are trying to turn it around on us because they know they are guilty of just that.
> 
> We on the right can explain our convictions.  Many on the left can't.  They are just told what to think, not why they should be thinking it.  It's why they stumble and fall when you ask them what Voter-ID has to do with race?  They don't know why they think it, but were told to think it.  Or why they believe disarming society will make the criminals disarm as well?  They can't explain their position, but only know that disarming good people will make the criminals stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a VERY foolish individual.  I was a constitutionalist and patriot before you were a gleam in your daddy's eyes.  I knew Sean Hannity personally BEFORE he became the big deal he is today.
> 
> I point out to my fellow right wing friends and family that Hannity drew his paycheck from a company that was owned by a Board of Director of the Council on Foreign Relations and a Saudi Prince, most of people cannot connect the dots.  It's pretty naive to think that organizations like the CFR (who are diametrically OPPOSED to the message you're hawking on this site) would allow people to advocate against them on their dime - while paying the right wing mouthpieces a fortune to spew the moronic "solutions" they promote.
> 
> What in the Hell short circuits in that vast expanse between your ears that I see the problem as clearly as you, but disagree with the solution?  Tell me you're not that freaking stupid.  Please tell me that.
> 
> You hover over this site 24 / 7, protecting your only cause in the world - a damn wall - as if it were your daughter's cherry.  Yet you expect me to believe that the REAL LEFT, the CFR, not only allows you access to the Hannitys and Limbaughs, but pays them big bucks to spew stuff that contradicts the goals and objectives of the CFR.  You're out here posting horse dung as if it were manna from heaven.  Do you not understand the dichotomy?
> 
> Hannity was a reasonable guy until the left began lining his pockets.  Today, he and Limbaugh are lackeys; they are entertainers and if they advocated a REAL constitutional approach to the issues, they would be unemployed.
Click to expand...



Stop you bullshit and get off your high horse, you could care less about the all, you just don't want a monument to Trump 


.that's all what it's about to you admit it .


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the United States government has no Right or duty to share those records with anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor are they restricted from it either.  If a politician wants my vote, he or she better do what they can to not hide things from me that I need to know about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they ARE restricted.  That is why you have a Fourth Amendment.  You simply want to circumvent it with a records search without a warrant via a proxy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more time since you obviously don't get it: it's not the persons property.  It's property of the government.  The government can do whatever it wants with that information including making it public.  The Fourth Amendment prohibits GOVERNMENT from seizure of your PERSONAL PROPERTY that is in your possession.  Criminal records are not in your possession, therefore there is no way the government is violating your Fourth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your first argument was that the protection covered the federal government - now you're moving the goal posts once again.
> 
> Information obtained by the government ultimately belongs to the individual.  That is the essence of a Republican form of government.
> 
> The Fourth Amendment guarantees us a Right to be secure in our "papers."  Your idiotic argument don't hold water and you know it.  You're embarrassing yourself with strawman arguments, moving the goal posts and  filibustering with horse manure.  Your "papers" is inclusive of government records.
> 
> You may like the idea of the government circumventing the Constitution and spying on Americans via proxy by giving the general public access to data on individuals, but one day YOU personally are going to learn the cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not moving anything.  Government CREATES records on people.  Therefore it is government records.  It's their property--not the individual they are creating records for.  If an individual creates a record........let's say a tax form, gives it to the government, it is still personal information that the individual gave to the government.  Therefore it is protected unless ordered to be seen by a judge for some reason.
> 
> The media reports on most of the serious cases such as rape, murder, serious assault and so on.  It's not a private thing.  Therefore anybody has access to that information because it was held in a public setting like a court.  The media reports when the crime happens, reports when an arrest is made, gives the name and even city of the offender, and reports the outcome of the trial.  It's not personal and it's not private.  They are even gone so far as to report on people abusing their animals for crying out loud.
Click to expand...


I have made my point.  You are a master at filibustering.  But, let me repeat something I've told you repeatedly:

You told us earlier in this thread that you suffered from ADD (or was it ADHD), but were not taking meds.  YOU said it was a legitimate condition (I disagreed, trying to help you out.)

Well surprise, surprise the drugs prescribed for your condition are CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.  That means the government has a record of you're having been prescribed the drug. WHEN the government gets around to including mental conditions to be a bar to owning a firearm, the fact that you were taking the drugs, but no longer do WILL mean you cannot pass a background check.  Your lack of commitment to privacy will mean the government will take that gun in your avatar and stick up your arse.  You think I'm kidding?

The government has already considered taking away a veteran's Rights to own a firearm if they ask the VA for help with PTSD.  They WILL get to you.  Then all that shit you sling will come back to bite you in the arse.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a parakeet, always rehashing what Hush Bimbo said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what he said?  I don't bring up Rush, you do.  You have this problem of thinking people are saying something they never said.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What your sources are not revealing is that they took OTHER precautions - which you conveniently ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF difference would that make even if it were true.  The fact of the matter is border walls work.  They work around the world, they work here, and they will work even more when more wall is erected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I'm traveling about in town, I get a few minutes of Rush here and there several times a week.  So, when you babble on about your precious wall, it's pretty evident that you are getting your info from Rush and / or the same sources he gets his drivel from.
> 
> A border wall will not work in a free society.  They work in totalitarian regimes for a reason.  I can explain that simple concept to you, but I cannot understand it for you.  You want to live in the ultimate POLICE STATE; I don't.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know.  You want to live in an invaded state instead.
> 
> What you people on the left don't understand is that we turn on right-wing radio because the program is based around their audience--not the other way around.  Unlike your leftist MSM broadcasts, nobody tells us what to think and we are not easily brainwashed.
> 
> True story:  Many years ago I started to become interested in politics, but knew little about it.  I tried reading the paper but it was difficult to follow.
> 
> One day at a family doing, my father and I started to argue about social issues.  It's something me and my father enjoy doing.  My brother-in-law was bringing dinner to the table laughing.  He said to me "you must be a diehard Rush Limbaugh fan!"  I heard of the guy; this was when he first came to Cleveland, but I didn't know who he was or what he was about.  I was younger and only used the radio for rock music.
> 
> Some time went by and the Democrats did something to really piss me off.  I forget what it was now.  But in any case, I remembered what my brother-in-law said to me, and I finally found this Limbaugh guy.
> 
> I was amazed.  I really thought the country was turning Communist. But when I listened to Limbaugh, it was like somebody was stealing my thoughts and broadcasting them over the radio.
> 
> So how did you become so brainwashed that right-wingers only parrot Limbaugh and Hannity?  Because it's what we've been accusing the left of for years, and they are trying to turn it around on us because they know they are guilty of just that.
> 
> We on the right can explain our convictions.  Many on the left can't.  They are just told what to think, not why they should be thinking it.  It's why they stumble and fall when you ask them what Voter-ID has to do with race?  They don't know why they think it, but were told to think it.  Or why they believe disarming society will make the criminals disarm as well?  They can't explain their position, but only know that disarming good people will make the criminals stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a VERY foolish individual.  I was a constitutionalist and patriot before you were a gleam in your daddy's eyes.  I knew Sean Hannity personally BEFORE he became the big deal he is today.
> 
> I point out to my fellow right wing friends and family that Hannity drew his paycheck from a company that was owned by a Board of Director of the Council on Foreign Relations and a Saudi Prince, most of people cannot connect the dots.  It's pretty naive to think that organizations like the CFR (who are diametrically OPPOSED to the message you're hawking on this site) would allow people to advocate against them on their dime - while paying the right wing mouthpieces a fortune to spew the moronic "solutions" they promote.
> 
> What in the Hell short circuits in that vast expanse between your ears that I see the problem as clearly as you, but disagree with the solution?  Tell me you're not that freaking stupid.  Please tell me that.
> 
> You hover over this site 24 / 7, protecting your only cause in the world - a damn wall - as if it were your daughter's cherry.  Yet you expect me to believe that the REAL LEFT, the CFR, not only allows you access to the Hannitys and Limbaughs, but pays them big bucks to spew stuff that contradicts the goals and objectives of the CFR.  You're out here posting horse dung as if it were manna from heaven.  Do you not understand the dichotomy?
> 
> Hannity was a reasonable guy until the left began lining his pockets.  Today, he and Limbaugh are lackeys; they are entertainers and if they advocated a REAL constitutional approach to the issues, they would be unemployed.
Click to expand...


I don't watch or listen to Hannity.  I tried once but his show was too repetitive.  Same people on every night, same topics on every night.  He just wasn't informative.  

Rush doesn't need a job.  He's probably a billionaire by now.  He says what he believes in, it's just that you black helicopter people refuse to believe it.  You'd rather believe in your left-wing conspiracy theories instead.  It makes you feel better that way.  

I know when somebody is talking liberal and I know when somebody is talking conservative New World Order conspiracies aside.  You can believe anything you want to believe, but don't start dishing out this horse shit that other people have no individual thoughts or beliefs of their own.  Like I said, it's what they told you to think.


----------



## bripat9643

basquebromance said:


> $5 billion could give clean water to Flint, Michigan. $5 billion could provide universal pre-K to every child in America. $5 billion could house every homeless veteran on the street. There are a lot of useful ways to spend $5 billion. Building a wall isn’t one of them.


$5 billion would build several hundred miles of wall.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

MaryL said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with building the wall?  I voted for Trump. Trump is wrong, like the liberals. We need to tear down the border wall. What we really need make  a national identity card. Linked to fingerprints. You don't get a job if you can't prove your identity linked to  your real  immigration status . Why Replicratrats are so opposed to that, boggles my mind.
Click to expand...


Well, let me help you unboggle your mind.  Why not start by reading Orwell's book 1984.  It was a warning in the form of a novel.

The government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have... a quote by a famous Republican


----------



## Wyatt earp

basquebromance said:


> $5 billion could give clean water to Flint, Michigan. $5 billion could provide universal pre-K to every child in America. $5 billion could house every homeless veteran on the street. There are a lot of useful ways to spend $5 billion. Building a wall isn’t one of them.




Deflection, from the safety of me a death of her


----------



## beautress

Flopper said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that you are referencing data from Federation for American Immigration Reform, FAIR, an organization dedicated to not only stopping illegal immigration but also legal immigration, not exactly and independent source.
Click to expand...

Well, guess what, Flopper, Clinton government websites were often diametrically opposite from their predecessors as well as their successors. Particularly their Secretary of State's dot govs. lol 

As far as this particular source being against legal immigration, it could be because instead of the traditional 20,000 a year immigrants coming over when their turns came up in years past, there's a flood at the south borders of four states and has been for years due to surreptitious crossings not to mention subtrafuge as in the case of the 9/11 attackers who got stopped but also got placed at Guantanamo Bay for their criminal crossings with intent to kill Americans. 

We're full up. Nobody wants more landfills except politicians using immigrants to bus to elections to illegally vote on a purpose of their cause of not caring about the overtaxed taxpayer having his money expropriated to finance this fruitless cause. We stop them at the border, it makes Mexico be better problem solvers of employing the people they produce rather than dumping their unwanted on the American taxpayer's back. 

Landfills stink.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with building the wall?  I voted for Trump. Trump is wrong, like the liberals. We need to tear down the border wall. What we really need make  a national identity card. Linked to fingerprints. You don't get a job if you can't prove your identity linked to  your real  immigration status . Why Replicratrats are so opposed to that, boggles my mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let me help you unboggle your mind.  Why not start by reading Orwell's book 1984.  It was a warning in the form of a novel.
> 
> The government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have... a quote by a famous Republican
Click to expand...



A. Bunch of sheep fuckers had a. 18 year war with the us military...they are not taking our guns.


.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Flopper said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that you are referencing data from Federation for American Immigration Reform, FAIR, an organization dedicated to not only stopping illegal immigration but also legal immigration, not exactly and independent source.
Click to expand...


And they call you a liberal, I bet.  See, you cannot even make the argument I do:

Those organizations were founded and financed by John Tanton, a guy who believes in eugenics AND provided David Duke, the former neo nazi turned KKK leader with his talking points.  

The racism aside, those people advocate socialist solutions.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a very limited (if any) capacity to see how politics work.
> 
> The objective of the NEW WORLD ORDER is to seize all the power and make resistance to tyranny an impossibility.  Why stop at with just the wall when sheeple will screw themselves out of the Bill of Rights for the illusion of a win on the nutty wall idea?  They win two fights for the price of one - and useful idiots will assist them in converting our Republic into the world's shining example of a POLICE STATE?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's difficult to have a serious discussion with you Black Helicopter people.  If you want to discuss issues, do it in reality, not television movies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's impossible to have a discussion with those of you who think Rush Limbaugh is an informed political strategist.  He is an entertainer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep bringing him up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a parakeet, always rehashing what Hush Bimbo said.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall would work to expand the POLICE POWERS of the state at the expense of our God given Rights; it will NOT work because the United States of America is not a communist country; however, after you get your silly wall it will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only Communist countries secure their borders?  And how would a wall change an entire system of government?
> 
> Guess what?  I won't lose one right if we get that border wall.......not one.  Which rights do you think you'd be losing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody builds walls today, because they don't work, and they have never worked in all of history.  They give a false sense of security, though.
> 
> Only a idiot would spend $25 billion dollars on something that has never worked throughout history. Even in Biblical times, Joshua fought the battle of Jericho and the walls came tumbling down!  Look at all of the people who escaped from East Berlin, despite the Wall.  The Great Wall of China was abandoned after the Ming Dynasty, which built most of the Great Wall we see today, because the last army that overran the Great Wall and defeated them thought it was a waste of time and money.
> 
> Gated communities - only in America.  They tried them in Canada and they were a "no sale".  We're not afraid of our neighbours.  But I am reminded of the Trayvon Martin case.  It was a gated community and yet it had been plagued by break-ins. That's why Zimmerman was following Trayvon - because he suspected the kid was casing properties for break-ins.  If walls keep the bad guys out, why was Zimmerman patrolling the neighbourhood at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criminals like easy access to their targets.  They want to get in and then get out quickly.  Do gated communities work most times?  Yes.  All the time?  Perhaps not.  It really depends on the area.
> 
> Will a wall stop all illegals? No it won't.  Will it reduce illegals and drugs to a more tolerable level, yes it will.
> 
> While you relish in ancient history, we in modern times know walls and borders do work.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Where do Border Fences work? Everywhere
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/01/13/we-already-have-a-border-wall-and-it-works/
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What your sources are not revealing is that they took OTHER precautions - which you conveniently ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's that gibberish?
> 
> 
> I bet you go to a plumber to get an enema , instead of going to a doctor right?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.


----------



## beautress

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play to the humanitarian side.  I've already exposed WHO the organizations you cite really are.  A mind is like a parachute.  It only operates when it's open.
> 
> The build the wall advocates make an idiotic claim about how much so called illegal aliens "cost," but they NEVER examine the other side of the ledger in order to understand why they are here.  The reason I call their method idiotic is that it is BLATANTLY dishonest as if the rest of society is too stupid to examine the three most important facts:
> 
> 1)  As much as it makes Tea Party Republicans cringe, there are two sides of an accounting ledger and the supposed facts you cite do not figure in how much  foreign labor contributes and how much wealth they create
> 
> 2)  The people on this thread, advocating for the wall, fight tooth and nail against the effort to rehabilitate those who are disenfranchised and get them working so that there is less demand for foreign labor
> 
> 3)  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a segment of their own people locked out of society and then blame the people that take the jobs Americans CANNOT take due to double minded people that want to keep some Americans from getting a job AND denying employers their unalienable Right to hire the person they want to hire for the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you against minimum wage laws, since Illegal's work under the table
> .
Click to expand...

Keep putting words in my mouth, madam, and you could get answers you don't care to hear.
I think the minimum wage in this country should be $2.50. That way, they don't have to pay much in taxes.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's difficult to have a serious discussion with you Black Helicopter people.  If you want to discuss issues, do it in reality, not television movies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's impossible to have a discussion with those of you who think Rush Limbaugh is an informed political strategist.  He is an entertainer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep bringing him up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a parakeet, always rehashing what Hush Bimbo said.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only Communist countries secure their borders?  And how would a wall change an entire system of government?
> 
> Guess what?  I won't lose one right if we get that border wall.......not one.  Which rights do you think you'd be losing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody builds walls today, because they don't work, and they have never worked in all of history.  They give a false sense of security, though.
> 
> Only a idiot would spend $25 billion dollars on something that has never worked throughout history. Even in Biblical times, Joshua fought the battle of Jericho and the walls came tumbling down!  Look at all of the people who escaped from East Berlin, despite the Wall.  The Great Wall of China was abandoned after the Ming Dynasty, which built most of the Great Wall we see today, because the last army that overran the Great Wall and defeated them thought it was a waste of time and money.
> 
> Gated communities - only in America.  They tried them in Canada and they were a "no sale".  We're not afraid of our neighbours.  But I am reminded of the Trayvon Martin case.  It was a gated community and yet it had been plagued by break-ins. That's why Zimmerman was following Trayvon - because he suspected the kid was casing properties for break-ins.  If walls keep the bad guys out, why was Zimmerman patrolling the neighbourhood at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criminals like easy access to their targets.  They want to get in and then get out quickly.  Do gated communities work most times?  Yes.  All the time?  Perhaps not.  It really depends on the area.
> 
> Will a wall stop all illegals? No it won't.  Will it reduce illegals and drugs to a more tolerable level, yes it will.
> 
> While you relish in ancient history, we in modern times know walls and borders do work.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Where do Border Fences work? Everywhere
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/01/13/we-already-have-a-border-wall-and-it-works/
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What your sources are not revealing is that they took OTHER precautions - which you conveniently ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's that gibberish?
> 
> 
> I bet you go to a plumber to get an enema , instead of going to a doctor right?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
Click to expand...




You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..



Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?


----------



## Wyatt earp

beautress said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play to the humanitarian side.  I've already exposed WHO the organizations you cite really are.  A mind is like a parachute.  It only operates when it's open.
> 
> The build the wall advocates make an idiotic claim about how much so called illegal aliens "cost," but they NEVER examine the other side of the ledger in order to understand why they are here.  The reason I call their method idiotic is that it is BLATANTLY dishonest as if the rest of society is too stupid to examine the three most important facts:
> 
> 1)  As much as it makes Tea Party Republicans cringe, there are two sides of an accounting ledger and the supposed facts you cite do not figure in how much  foreign labor contributes and how much wealth they create
> 
> 2)  The people on this thread, advocating for the wall, fight tooth and nail against the effort to rehabilitate those who are disenfranchised and get them working so that there is less demand for foreign labor
> 
> 3)  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a segment of their own people locked out of society and then blame the people that take the jobs Americans CANNOT take due to double minded people that want to keep some Americans from getting a job AND denying employers their unalienable Right to hire the person they want to hire for the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you against minimum wage laws, since Illegal's work under the table
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep putting words in my mouth, madam, and you could get answers you don't care to hear.
> I think the minimum wage in this country should be $2.50. That way, they don't have to pay much in taxes.
Click to expand...



How do illegals pay federal taxes if they work under the table?


.


----------



## beautress

bear513 said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play to the humanitarian side.  I've already exposed WHO the organizations you cite really are.  A mind is like a parachute.  It only operates when it's open.
> 
> The build the wall advocates make an idiotic claim about how much so called illegal aliens "cost," but they NEVER examine the other side of the ledger in order to understand why they are here.  The reason I call their method idiotic is that it is BLATANTLY dishonest as if the rest of society is too stupid to examine the three most important facts:
> 
> 1)  As much as it makes Tea Party Republicans cringe, there are two sides of an accounting ledger and the supposed facts you cite do not figure in how much  foreign labor contributes and how much wealth they create
> 
> 2)  The people on this thread, advocating for the wall, fight tooth and nail against the effort to rehabilitate those who are disenfranchised and get them working so that there is less demand for foreign labor
> 
> 3)  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a segment of their own people locked out of society and then blame the people that take the jobs Americans CANNOT take due to double minded people that want to keep some Americans from getting a job AND denying employers their unalienable Right to hire the person they want to hire for the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you against minimum wage laws, since Illegal's work under the table
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep putting words in my mouth, madam, and you could get answers you don't care to hear.
> I think the minimum wage in this country should be $2.50. That way, they don't have to pay much in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do illegals pay federal taxes if they work under the table?
> .
Click to expand...

(1) You just put words in my mouth which is most inappropriate and (2) You only ask questions when you've got a hammer to beat someone with no matter what they say. You're done playing with me.


----------



## Flopper

Porter Rockwell said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play to the humanitarian side.  I've already exposed WHO the organizations you cite really are.  A mind is like a parachute.  It only operates when it's open.
> 
> The build the wall advocates make an idiotic claim about how much so called illegal aliens "cost," but they NEVER examine the other side of the ledger in order to understand why they are here.  The reason I call their method idiotic is that it is BLATANTLY dishonest as if the rest of society is too stupid to examine the three most important facts:
> 
> 1)  As much as it makes Tea Party Republicans cringe, there are two sides of an accounting ledger and the supposed facts you cite do not figure in how much  foreign labor contributes and how much wealth they create
> 
> 2)  The people on this thread, advocating for the wall, fight tooth and nail against the effort to rehabilitate those who are disenfranchised and get them working so that there is less demand for foreign labor
> 
> 3)  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a segment of their own people locked out of society and then blame the people that take the jobs Americans CANNOT take due to double minded people that want to keep some Americans from getting a job AND denying employers their unalienable Right to hire the person they want to hire for the job.
Click to expand...

There are about half dozen organizations out there that are dedicated to stopping immigration, legal or illegal.  On this Board, FAIR is the one that you see most often quoted.  What they call facts come from studies that are wildly inaccurate, cherry picking data to support their premises.

FAIR was founded by John Tanton, a white supremacist who has lead several anti-immigration groups.  The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies FAIR as a hate group with close ties to white supremacist groups.

Most people in the US disapprove of illegal immigration which they should.  A much smaller subgroup are those that disapprove of any immigration, legal or illegal. They are white supremacists and xenophobes.  You see their racist propaganda in posts all over this board.  Although the wording is different, the ideas are the same. "America is for Americans". "Protect the White Majority". "Keep the diseased, filthy, and uneducated out the country" ect.....
Federation for American Immigration Reform - Wikipedia


----------



## Markle

Tax Man said:


> What is so silly is the reich totally ignores the largest immigration problem is expired visa's. There are more of them than people crossing without permission or documentation.



We know who they are and where they are from which is a major difference.  Another difference, are they carrying tons of drugs and humans back and forth over the border?


----------



## Markle

bripat9643 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play to the humanitarian side.  I've already exposed WHO the organizations you cite really are.  A mind is like a parachute.  It only operates when it's open.
> 
> The build the wall advocates make an idiotic claim about how much so called illegal aliens "cost," but they NEVER examine the other side of the ledger in order to understand why they are here.  The reason I call their method idiotic is that it is BLATANTLY dishonest as if the rest of society is too stupid to examine the three most important facts:
> 
> 1)  As much as it makes Tea Party Republicans cringe, there are two sides of an accounting ledger and the supposed facts you cite do not figure in how much  foreign labor contributes and how much wealth they create
> 
> 2)  The people on this thread, advocating for the wall, fight tooth and nail against the effort to rehabilitate those who are disenfranchised and get them working so that there is less demand for foreign labor
> 
> 3)  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a segment of their own people locked out of society and then blame the people that take the jobs Americans CANNOT take due to double minded people that want to keep some Americans from getting a job AND denying employers their unalienable Right to hire the person they want to hire for the job.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if they are "rehabilitated," they are still going to take a job that would otherwise go to a native born American.  The are also going to create downward pressure on wages since they are will to work for a much lower wage than most Americans.
> 
> Employers have no "unalienable right" to hire people who are not in this country legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ones pics say it all.
> But I'll try to be patient.
> Italians, Germans, Asians and now Latinos all cost the first year.
> All subsequent years they contribute way more than our old white farts here sucking off their socialist benefits
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, asshole.  We didn't have welfare, public schools, and government healthcare when the Italians and Germans came here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we didn't have a Great Depression, either or world wars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's your point?
Click to expand...


Danielpalos never intends to have a point, he's merely an angry troll.


----------



## toobfreak

basquebromance said:


> $5 billion could give clean water to Flint, Michigan. $5 billion could provide universal pre-K to every child in America. $5 billion could house every homeless veteran on the street. There are a lot of useful ways to spend $5 billion. Building a wall isn’t one of them.




But if spending 5 billion on a wall saves you the 25 billion we presently lay out every year on the expense of arresting, healing, feeding, housing, educating and processing all the illegal aliens and the subsequent crime many of them bring, then it is a VERY useful way to spend it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's impossible to have a discussion with those of you who think Rush Limbaugh is an informed political strategist.  He is an entertainer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep bringing him up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a parakeet, always rehashing what Hush Bimbo said.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody builds walls today, because they don't work, and they have never worked in all of history.  They give a false sense of security, though.
> 
> Only a idiot would spend $25 billion dollars on something that has never worked throughout history. Even in Biblical times, Joshua fought the battle of Jericho and the walls came tumbling down!  Look at all of the people who escaped from East Berlin, despite the Wall.  The Great Wall of China was abandoned after the Ming Dynasty, which built most of the Great Wall we see today, because the last army that overran the Great Wall and defeated them thought it was a waste of time and money.
> 
> Gated communities - only in America.  They tried them in Canada and they were a "no sale".  We're not afraid of our neighbours.  But I am reminded of the Trayvon Martin case.  It was a gated community and yet it had been plagued by break-ins. That's why Zimmerman was following Trayvon - because he suspected the kid was casing properties for break-ins.  If walls keep the bad guys out, why was Zimmerman patrolling the neighbourhood at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criminals like easy access to their targets.  They want to get in and then get out quickly.  Do gated communities work most times?  Yes.  All the time?  Perhaps not.  It really depends on the area.
> 
> Will a wall stop all illegals? No it won't.  Will it reduce illegals and drugs to a more tolerable level, yes it will.
> 
> While you relish in ancient history, we in modern times know walls and borders do work.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Where do Border Fences work? Everywhere
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/01/13/we-already-have-a-border-wall-and-it-works/
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What your sources are not revealing is that they took OTHER precautions - which you conveniently ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's that gibberish?
> 
> 
> I bet you go to a plumber to get an enema , instead of going to a doctor right?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
Click to expand...


There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.

You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.


----------



## basquebromance

"The most important way to stop gangs, drugs, human trafficking and massive crime is at our Southern Border. We need Border Security, and as EVERYONE knows, you can’t have Border Security without a Wall. The Drones & Technology are just bells and whistles. Safety for America!" - President Trump


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with building the wall?  I voted for Trump. Trump is wrong, like the liberals. We need to tear down the border wall. What we really need make  a national identity card. Linked to fingerprints. You don't get a job if you can't prove your identity linked to  your real  immigration status . Why Replicratrats are so opposed to that, boggles my mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let me help you unboggle your mind.  Why not start by reading Orwell's book 1984.  It was a warning in the form of a novel.
> 
> The government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have... a quote by a famous Republican
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the wall, dumbass?  Do you use the same argument to argue against government run healthcare?  Of course you don't.


----------



## beautress

Flopper said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that reverse psychology guilt trip thing again?  You all tried that multiple times with gun discussions.  When are you on the left going to realize that doesn't work?  It's painfully transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play to the humanitarian side.  I've already exposed WHO the organizations you cite really are.  A mind is like a parachute.  It only operates when it's open.
> 
> The build the wall advocates make an idiotic claim about how much so called illegal aliens "cost," but they NEVER examine the other side of the ledger in order to understand why they are here.  The reason I call their method idiotic is that it is BLATANTLY dishonest as if the rest of society is too stupid to examine the three most important facts:
> 
> 1)  As much as it makes Tea Party Republicans cringe, there are two sides of an accounting ledger and the supposed facts you cite do not figure in how much  foreign labor contributes and how much wealth they create
> 
> 2)  The people on this thread, advocating for the wall, fight tooth and nail against the effort to rehabilitate those who are disenfranchised and get them working so that there is less demand for foreign labor
> 
> 3)  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a segment of their own people locked out of society and then blame the people that take the jobs Americans CANNOT take due to double minded people that want to keep some Americans from getting a job AND denying employers their unalienable Right to hire the person they want to hire for the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are about half dozen organizations out there that are dedicated to stopping immigration, legal or illegal.  On this Board, FAIR is the one that you see most often quoted.  What they call facts come from studies that are wildly inaccurate, cherry picking data to support their premises.
> 
> FAIR was founded by John Tanton, a white supremacist who has lead several anti-immigration groups.  The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies FAIR as a hate group with close ties to white supremacist groups.
> 
> Most people in the US disapprove of illegal immigration which they should.  A much smaller subgroup are those that disapprove of any immigration, legal or illegal. They are white supremacists and xenophobes.  You see their racist propaganda all over this board, "America is for Americans". "Protect the White Majority". "Keep the diseased, filthy, and uneducated out the country" ect.....
> 
> Federation for American Immigration Reform - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


I'm opposed to immigration because I think our water tables are already in trouble, I don't like the idea of having to put a million more acres of arable land every couple of years into landfilsl just because the governments south of the border do not take care of their own people with job opportunities or sharing in the wealth the kingpins make but don't share with their own people. Making kingpins in other countries even wealthier should not be borne on the backs of American taxpayers and forcing us to tear up nature to put in more parking lots, more landfills, more skyscrapers, and more gnarled up freeways, not to mention crimes.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep bringing him up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a parakeet, always rehashing what Hush Bimbo said.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals like easy access to their targets.  They want to get in and then get out quickly.  Do gated communities work most times?  Yes.  All the time?  Perhaps not.  It really depends on the area.
> 
> Will a wall stop all illegals? No it won't.  Will it reduce illegals and drugs to a more tolerable level, yes it will.
> 
> While you relish in ancient history, we in modern times know walls and borders do work.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Where do Border Fences work? Everywhere
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/01/13/we-already-have-a-border-wall-and-it-works/
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What your sources are not revealing is that they took OTHER precautions - which you conveniently ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's that gibberish?
> 
> 
> I bet you go to a plumber to get an enema , instead of going to a doctor right?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
Click to expand...

The wall isn't intended to be a "deterrent," moron.  It's intended to be a physical obstacle.

I might attack you as a lying douchebag, but everyone already knows that.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the pro-wall people are ALWAYS blaming the left for being against the nutty wall idea.  The facts are that I am a Republican as are the majority of the people in the U.S. Senate.  When push comes to shove, most Republicans are against the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Ray, you cannot come to grips with the fact that a wall is a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve.  When people show you instances when a wall does not work, you are complaining about how far back into history the other poster went to prove the point.  Even going back to BIBLICAL times, walls have not been long term solutions for much of anything.
> 
> Those, such as yourself, like wailing about the damn wall, but cannot tell us a single problem you're really addressing.  If those with a few IQ points show you what's wrong with the pretext you rely on, you want to move the goal posts.
> 
> I really wish you would quit blaming opposition to the wall on the Republicans.  The only reason most of them are supporting idea is in the best interests of party unity so that other legislation does not get bogged down AND the fix is in.  Once the wall is fully funded and Donnie gets his win, you can kiss that gun in your avatar good-bye.
> 
> For everything you gain there is something lost.  Trump isn't God.  He is playing the Art of the Deal.  You're simply too ignorant to ask what the real cost - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of legislation (legislation that will affect YOUR Liberties) does this nutty and INEFFECTIVE wall idea cost.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play to the humanitarian side.  I've already exposed WHO the organizations you cite really are.  A mind is like a parachute.  It only operates when it's open.
> 
> The build the wall advocates make an idiotic claim about how much so called illegal aliens "cost," but they NEVER examine the other side of the ledger in order to understand why they are here.  The reason I call their method idiotic is that it is BLATANTLY dishonest as if the rest of society is too stupid to examine the three most important facts:
> 
> 1)  As much as it makes Tea Party Republicans cringe, there are two sides of an accounting ledger and the supposed facts you cite do not figure in how much  foreign labor contributes and how much wealth they create
> 
> 2)  The people on this thread, advocating for the wall, fight tooth and nail against the effort to rehabilitate those who are disenfranchised and get them working so that there is less demand for foreign labor
> 
> 3)  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a segment of their own people locked out of society and then blame the people that take the jobs Americans CANNOT take due to double minded people that want to keep some Americans from getting a job AND denying employers their unalienable Right to hire the person they want to hire for the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you against minimum wage laws, since Illegal's work under the table
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep putting words in my mouth, madam, and you could get answers you don't care to hear.
> I think the minimum wage in this country should be $2.50. That way, they don't have to pay much in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do illegals pay federal taxes if they work under the table?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


OMG.  You force those who agree with you that problem exists to play the devil's advocate and not let you get away with that LIE.

The ONLY tax that so - called illegals can be accused of not paying is the federal income tax.  That is graduated tax - a plank from the Communist Manifesto.  You should help repeal that Amendment IF that is your beef.

But, wait... the CHIEF ACTUARY OF THE SSA says 75 percent of those without papers DO pay that tax.  EVERYBODY who works under the table, denying to the commies that tribute are doing all of us a public service.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep bringing him up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a parakeet, always rehashing what Hush Bimbo said.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals like easy access to their targets.  They want to get in and then get out quickly.  Do gated communities work most times?  Yes.  All the time?  Perhaps not.  It really depends on the area.
> 
> Will a wall stop all illegals? No it won't.  Will it reduce illegals and drugs to a more tolerable level, yes it will.
> 
> While you relish in ancient history, we in modern times know walls and borders do work.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Where do Border Fences work? Everywhere
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/01/13/we-already-have-a-border-wall-and-it-works/
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What your sources are not revealing is that they took OTHER precautions - which you conveniently ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's that gibberish?
> 
> 
> I bet you go to a plumber to get an enema , instead of going to a doctor right?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
Click to expand...



*You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway. The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power,*


What does this even mean? So in your world we don't have police with machine guns, and we already have gangs..

This is about securing our border.. not that complicated.



.


----------



## basquebromance

If Trump thinks Steel Slats are beautiful, he's gonna love Iron Bars!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a parakeet, always rehashing what Hush Bimbo said.
> 
> What your sources are not revealing is that they took OTHER precautions - which you conveniently ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's that gibberish?
> 
> 
> I bet you go to a plumber to get an enema , instead of going to a doctor right?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall isn't intended to be a "deterrent," moron.  It's intended to be a physical obstacle.
> 
> I might attack you as a lying douchebag, but everyone already knows that.
Click to expand...


Your side presents the wall as one thing.  When you answer that, you change the goalposts and say the issue is something else.  I'm not a rodent on a treadmill, so we've already had enough posts refuting the idiotic idea that a wall will present any substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Rockwell, I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your humanitarian side, but please read the rest of the watchdog's article of which I am quoting before you go too far down the road to letting sidewinders such easy access to the tax money we are presently paying if you have a few minutes:
> 
> *Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually *​
> With ongoing violent protests in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, immigration reformer advocates point to exponential costs taxpayers already pay for illegal immigrants, and how much more taxpayers would spend if they were given amnesty.
> 
> According to the most *recent analysis* by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one illegal immigrant living in America today costs U.S. citizen taxpayers about $8,075. In total, illegal aliens cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually.
> 
> FAIR researchers note the increasing costs of illegal immigration is a “disturbing and unsustainable trend.” Costs to taxpayers have risen by nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal aliens’ total cost to taxpayers was $113 billion, according to FAIR.
> 
> The rest of the story: Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually​$116,000,000,000/ 300,000,000 = $387.00 for every man, woman, and child living in this country right now, and half of them either have no income or are living on welfare, student loans, off their parents, or whatever, which doubles the ante to $773.00 for everyone earning wages. Why do people who work within the poverty status having to pay  a noncitizen to get free housing, free food, free education, free utilities, free telephones, and everything else?
> 
> And if the government fixes it and poverty status taxpayers don't see a rise in their taxes, that leaves working parents trying to raise a family that omission, which means, they're having to pay about $5,000 apiece for this anomaly rather than save that for a rainy day or give donations to libraries, churches, museums, and other charitable causes.
> 
> Maybe my math isn't 100% perfect, but it could be low ball if we're forgetting other things than watchdog.org has discovered. The math doesn't lie.
> 
> Edit: One hundred and sixteen billion a year is what we're paying
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play to the humanitarian side.  I've already exposed WHO the organizations you cite really are.  A mind is like a parachute.  It only operates when it's open.
> 
> The build the wall advocates make an idiotic claim about how much so called illegal aliens "cost," but they NEVER examine the other side of the ledger in order to understand why they are here.  The reason I call their method idiotic is that it is BLATANTLY dishonest as if the rest of society is too stupid to examine the three most important facts:
> 
> 1)  As much as it makes Tea Party Republicans cringe, there are two sides of an accounting ledger and the supposed facts you cite do not figure in how much  foreign labor contributes and how much wealth they create
> 
> 2)  The people on this thread, advocating for the wall, fight tooth and nail against the effort to rehabilitate those who are disenfranchised and get them working so that there is less demand for foreign labor
> 
> 3)  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a segment of their own people locked out of society and then blame the people that take the jobs Americans CANNOT take due to double minded people that want to keep some Americans from getting a job AND denying employers their unalienable Right to hire the person they want to hire for the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you against minimum wage laws, since Illegal's work under the table
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep putting words in my mouth, madam, and you could get answers you don't care to hear.
> I think the minimum wage in this country should be $2.50. That way, they don't have to pay much in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do illegals pay federal taxes if they work under the table?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG.  You force those who agree with you that problem exists to play the devil's advocate and not let you get away with that LIE.
> 
> The ONLY tax that so - called illegals can be accused of not paying is the federal income tax.  That is graduated tax - a plank from the Communist Manifesto.  You should help repeal that Amendment IF that is your beef.
> 
> But, wait... the CHIEF ACTUARY OF THE SSA says 75 percent of those without papers DO pay that tax.  EVERYBODY who works under the table, denying to the commies that tribute are doing all of us a public service.
Click to expand...



More propganda from you? 



.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's that gibberish?
> 
> 
> I bet you go to a plumber to get an enema , instead of going to a doctor right?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall isn't intended to be a "deterrent," moron.  It's intended to be a physical obstacle.
> 
> I might attack you as a lying douchebag, but everyone already knows that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your side presents the wall as one thing.  When you answer that, you change the goalposts and say the issue is something else.  I'm not a rodent on a treadmill, so we've already had enough posts refuting the idiotic idea that a wall will present any substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.
Click to expand...



You're nothing but a propganda tool we established walls and fences work but you continue to deny..



.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a parakeet, always rehashing what Hush Bimbo said.
> 
> What your sources are not revealing is that they took OTHER precautions - which you conveniently ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's that gibberish?
> 
> 
> I bet you go to a plumber to get an enema , instead of going to a doctor right?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway. The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power,*
> 
> 
> What does this even mean? So in your world we don't have police with machine guns, and we already have gangs..
> 
> This is about securing our border.. not that complicated.
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Homeboy, you just cancelled out your previous post.  You don't have a clue as to why you really want a wall.  You like to argue.  But no matter how many posts you make, you cannot change reality.

Screw with Liberty and it will be YOU that will end up with neither Liberty nor Safety.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep bringing him up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a parakeet, always rehashing what Hush Bimbo said.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals like easy access to their targets.  They want to get in and then get out quickly.  Do gated communities work most times?  Yes.  All the time?  Perhaps not.  It really depends on the area.
> 
> Will a wall stop all illegals? No it won't.  Will it reduce illegals and drugs to a more tolerable level, yes it will.
> 
> While you relish in ancient history, we in modern times know walls and borders do work.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Where do Border Fences work? Everywhere
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/01/13/we-already-have-a-border-wall-and-it-works/
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What your sources are not revealing is that they took OTHER precautions - which you conveniently ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's that gibberish?
> 
> 
> I bet you go to a plumber to get an enema , instead of going to a doctor right?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
Click to expand...

What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play to the humanitarian side.  I've already exposed WHO the organizations you cite really are.  A mind is like a parachute.  It only operates when it's open.
> 
> The build the wall advocates make an idiotic claim about how much so called illegal aliens "cost," but they NEVER examine the other side of the ledger in order to understand why they are here.  The reason I call their method idiotic is that it is BLATANTLY dishonest as if the rest of society is too stupid to examine the three most important facts:
> 
> 1)  As much as it makes Tea Party Republicans cringe, there are two sides of an accounting ledger and the supposed facts you cite do not figure in how much  foreign labor contributes and how much wealth they create
> 
> 2)  The people on this thread, advocating for the wall, fight tooth and nail against the effort to rehabilitate those who are disenfranchised and get them working so that there is less demand for foreign labor
> 
> 3)  Tea Party Republicans want to keep a segment of their own people locked out of society and then blame the people that take the jobs Americans CANNOT take due to double minded people that want to keep some Americans from getting a job AND denying employers their unalienable Right to hire the person they want to hire for the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you against minimum wage laws, since Illegal's work under the table
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep putting words in my mouth, madam, and you could get answers you don't care to hear.
> I think the minimum wage in this country should be $2.50. That way, they don't have to pay much in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do illegals pay federal taxes if they work under the table?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG.  You force those who agree with you that problem exists to play the devil's advocate and not let you get away with that LIE.
> 
> The ONLY tax that so - called illegals can be accused of not paying is the federal income tax.  That is graduated tax - a plank from the Communist Manifesto.  You should help repeal that Amendment IF that is your beef.
> 
> But, wait... the CHIEF ACTUARY OF THE SSA says 75 percent of those without papers DO pay that tax.  EVERYBODY who works under the table, denying to the commies that tribute are doing all of us a public service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More propganda from you?
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


And more easily refuted cow dung from you.  Now, you're trying to get personal and displaying a lot of FEAR.  You have no legitimate argument so you've sunk to personal attacks.  like I said, I accept your concession of defeat.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's that gibberish?
> 
> 
> I bet you go to a plumber to get an enema , instead of going to a doctor right?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway. The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power,*
> 
> 
> What does this even mean? So in your world we don't have police with machine guns, and we already have gangs..
> 
> This is about securing our border.. not that complicated.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homeboy, you just cancelled out your previous post.  You don't have a clue as to why you really want a wall.  You like to argue.  But no matter how many posts you make, you cannot change reality.
> 
> Screw with Liberty and it will be YOU that will end up with neither Liberty nor Safety.
Click to expand...



Safety is not open brorders which you want


.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall isn't intended to be a "deterrent," moron.  It's intended to be a physical obstacle.
> 
> I might attack you as a lying douchebag, but everyone already knows that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your side presents the wall as one thing.  When you answer that, you change the goalposts and say the issue is something else.  I'm not a rodent on a treadmill, so we've already had enough posts refuting the idiotic idea that a wall will present any substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're nothing but a propganda tool we established walls and fences work but you continue to deny..
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


All your crap has been refuted.  Now you are just seeking relevance.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a parakeet, always rehashing what Hush Bimbo said.
> 
> What your sources are not revealing is that they took OTHER precautions - which you conveniently ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's that gibberish?
> 
> 
> I bet you go to a plumber to get an enema , instead of going to a doctor right?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
Click to expand...


I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you against minimum wage laws, since Illegal's work under the table
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Keep putting words in my mouth, madam, and you could get answers you don't care to hear.
> I think the minimum wage in this country should be $2.50. That way, they don't have to pay much in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do illegals pay federal taxes if they work under the table?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG.  You force those who agree with you that problem exists to play the devil's advocate and not let you get away with that LIE.
> 
> The ONLY tax that so - called illegals can be accused of not paying is the federal income tax.  That is graduated tax - a plank from the Communist Manifesto.  You should help repeal that Amendment IF that is your beef.
> 
> But, wait... the CHIEF ACTUARY OF THE SSA says 75 percent of those without papers DO pay that tax.  EVERYBODY who works under the table, denying to the commies that tribute are doing all of us a public service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More propganda from you?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And more easily refuted cow dung from you.  Now, you're trying to get personal and displaying a lot of FEAR.  You have no legitimate argument so you've sunk to personal attacks.  like I said, I accept your concession of defeat.
Click to expand...



Get the fuck out of here all you are doing is posting nonsense and just admit the real reason why you don't the wall continued to be built . Because it will have Trump's name on it


.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway. The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power,*
> 
> 
> What does this even mean? So in your world we don't have police with machine guns, and we already have gangs..
> 
> This is about securing our border.. not that complicated.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homeboy, you just cancelled out your previous post.  You don't have a clue as to why you really want a wall.  You like to argue.  But no matter how many posts you make, you cannot change reality.
> 
> Screw with Liberty and it will be YOU that will end up with neither Liberty nor Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Safety is not open brorders which you want
> 
> 
> .
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I can provide for my own Safety.  The government is under no obligation to supply that to me.  It's is the attack on the Bill of Rights by ill informed people like you that scares the Hell out of me.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's that gibberish?
> 
> 
> I bet you go to a plumber to get an enema , instead of going to a doctor right?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall isn't intended to be a "deterrent," moron.  It's intended to be a physical obstacle.
> 
> I might attack you as a lying douchebag, but everyone already knows that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your side presents the wall as one thing.  When you answer that, you change the goalposts and say the issue is something else.  I'm not a rodent on a treadmill, so we've already had enough posts refuting the idiotic idea that a wall will present any substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.
Click to expand...

No one has refuted the fact that walls work.  

What does "when you answer that" mean? I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's that gibberish?
> 
> 
> I bet you go to a plumber to get an enema , instead of going to a doctor right?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
Click to expand...



You didn't answer squat, you do know Mexico and US are two separate country's right? You accidentally walk across the border with mexico carrying a gun you go to jail forever..


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep putting words in my mouth, madam, and you could get answers you don't care to hear.
> I think the minimum wage in this country should be $2.50. That way, they don't have to pay much in taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do illegals pay federal taxes if they work under the table?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG.  You force those who agree with you that problem exists to play the devil's advocate and not let you get away with that LIE.
> 
> The ONLY tax that so - called illegals can be accused of not paying is the federal income tax.  That is graduated tax - a plank from the Communist Manifesto.  You should help repeal that Amendment IF that is your beef.
> 
> But, wait... the CHIEF ACTUARY OF THE SSA says 75 percent of those without papers DO pay that tax.  EVERYBODY who works under the table, denying to the commies that tribute are doing all of us a public service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More propganda from you?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And more easily refuted cow dung from you.  Now, you're trying to get personal and displaying a lot of FEAR.  You have no legitimate argument so you've sunk to personal attacks.  like I said, I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Get the fuck out of here all you are doing is posting nonsense and just admit the real reason why you don't the wall continued to be built . Because it will have Trump's name on it
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The problem for you is, you cannot force me out with insults and offensive posts.  You are showing signs of desperation and weakness, not to mention old fashioned cowardice.

I would oppose the wall regardless of whether Clinton or Trump build it.  Honestly, I think it will be built and have said so.

I also think the fix is in and you haven't begun to figure out what the cost will be - and I'M NOT TALKING DOLLARS AND CENTS.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway. The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power,*
> 
> 
> What does this even mean? So in your world we don't have police with machine guns, and we already have gangs..
> 
> This is about securing our border.. not that complicated.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homeboy, you just cancelled out your previous post.  You don't have a clue as to why you really want a wall.  You like to argue.  But no matter how many posts you make, you cannot change reality.
> 
> Screw with Liberty and it will be YOU that will end up with neither Liberty nor Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Safety is not open brorders which you want
> 
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can provide for my own Safety.  The government is under no obligation to supply that to me.  It's is the attack on the Bill of Rights by ill informed people like you that scares the Hell out of me.
Click to expand...


What "attack on the Bill of Rights?"


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer squat, you do know Mexico and US are two separate country's right? You accidentally walk across the border with mexico carrying a gun you go to jail forever..
Click to expand...


If you like the way third world cesspools and communist countries operate, why don't you move to one and be happy?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway. The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power,*
> 
> 
> What does this even mean? So in your world we don't have police with machine guns, and we already have gangs..
> 
> This is about securing our border.. not that complicated.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homeboy, you just cancelled out your previous post.  You don't have a clue as to why you really want a wall.  You like to argue.  But no matter how many posts you make, you cannot change reality.
> 
> Screw with Liberty and it will be YOU that will end up with neither Liberty nor Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Safety is not open brorders which you want
> 
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can provide for my own Safety.  The government is under no obligation to supply that to me.  It's is the attack on the Bill of Rights by ill informed people like you that scares the Hell out of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "attack on the Bill of Rights?"
Click to expand...


Read the freaking thread. There is no sense in rehashing the same points every hundred posts.  READ THE THREAD ALREADY.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall isn't intended to be a "deterrent," moron.  It's intended to be a physical obstacle.
> 
> I might attack you as a lying douchebag, but everyone already knows that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your side presents the wall as one thing.  When you answer that, you change the goalposts and say the issue is something else.  I'm not a rodent on a treadmill, so we've already had enough posts refuting the idiotic idea that a wall will present any substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has refuted the fact that walls work.
> 
> What does "when you answer that" mean? I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
Click to expand...


Really you don't have a clue because you didn't read the thread.  Try that.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do illegals pay federal taxes if they work under the table?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.  You force those who agree with you that problem exists to play the devil's advocate and not let you get away with that LIE.
> 
> The ONLY tax that so - called illegals can be accused of not paying is the federal income tax.  That is graduated tax - a plank from the Communist Manifesto.  You should help repeal that Amendment IF that is your beef.
> 
> But, wait... the CHIEF ACTUARY OF THE SSA says 75 percent of those without papers DO pay that tax.  EVERYBODY who works under the table, denying to the commies that tribute are doing all of us a public service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More propganda from you?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And more easily refuted cow dung from you.  Now, you're trying to get personal and displaying a lot of FEAR.  You have no legitimate argument so you've sunk to personal attacks.  like I said, I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Get the fuck out of here all you are doing is posting nonsense and just admit the real reason why you don't the wall continued to be built . Because it will have Trump's name on it
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem for you is, you cannot force me out with insults and offensive posts.  You are showing signs of desperation and weakness, not to mention old fashioned cowardice.
> 
> I would oppose the wall regardless of whether Clinton or Trump build it.  Honestly, I think it will be built and have said so.
> 
> I also think the fix is in and you haven't begun to figure out what the cost will be - and I'M NOT TALKING DOLLARS AND CENTS.
Click to expand...



It's chump change...


.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway. The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power,*
> 
> 
> What does this even mean? So in your world we don't have police with machine guns, and we already have gangs..
> 
> This is about securing our border.. not that complicated.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homeboy, you just cancelled out your previous post.  You don't have a clue as to why you really want a wall.  You like to argue.  But no matter how many posts you make, you cannot change reality.
> 
> Screw with Liberty and it will be YOU that will end up with neither Liberty nor Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Safety is not open brorders which you want
> 
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can provide for my own Safety.  The government is under no obligation to supply that to me.  It's is the attack on the Bill of Rights by ill informed people like you that scares the Hell out of me.
Click to expand...



How do you.provide for your own safety a wall, doors, locks to.your house?

Now you talking like a retard, of course the government.job is to protect the American public from threats domestic and foreign and you are the enemy with in like the rest of the left.

.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's that gibberish?
> 
> 
> I bet you go to a plumber to get an enema , instead of going to a doctor right?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
Click to expand...

ROFL!  I knew you would try to weasel out of answering the question.  The correct answer is that the wall will have no adverse impact on my freedoms.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer squat, you do know Mexico and US are two separate country's right? You accidentally walk across the border with mexico carrying a gun you go to jail forever..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you like the way third world cesspools and communist countries operate, why don't you move to one and be happy?
Click to expand...



Mexico is a third world country that's why we want a wall to keep them out ..


----------



## Wyatt earp

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  I knew you would try to weasel out of answering the question.  The correct answer is that the wall will have no adverse impact on my freedoms.
Click to expand...



This guy is retarded. He wants anarchy , no walls, no.police and he thinks letting in third world illegal trash some how gives him freedom.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway. The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power,*
> 
> 
> What does this even mean? So in your world we don't have police with machine guns, and we already have gangs..
> 
> This is about securing our border.. not that complicated.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homeboy, you just cancelled out your previous post.  You don't have a clue as to why you really want a wall.  You like to argue.  But no matter how many posts you make, you cannot change reality.
> 
> Screw with Liberty and it will be YOU that will end up with neither Liberty nor Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Safety is not open brorders which you want
> 
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can provide for my own Safety.  The government is under no obligation to supply that to me.  It's is the attack on the Bill of Rights by ill informed people like you that scares the Hell out of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you.provide for your own safety a wall, doors, locks to.your house?
> 
> Now you talking like a retard, of course the government.job is to protect the American public from threats domestic and foreign and you are the enemy with in like the rest of the left.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Your personal safety on your property is not the equivalent to safety on public property.  You're mixing oranges with apples.  More name calling?

You won't get me to have a conversation with you when you are acting like a five year old.


----------



## Markle

beautress said:


> You said, *"Italians, Germans, Asians and now Latinos all cost the first year. All subsequent years they contribute way more than our old white farts here sucking off their socialist benefits"*
> 
> You obviously are unaware that social security was paid for with taking out 7.5% of wages with employer requirements matching to the government for a lifetime of work--12 times a year or 52 times a year depending on whether we received monthly or weekly wages. The cruel part is that we were promised interest payments would be returned into Social Security right up until the time politicians got greedy and decided to "borrow" the interest and sometimes the principals for their pet rock projects. Call us what you will, but we paid for our retirement benefits way ahead of time and with no choice and no say in the investments which were expropriated by very evil people who used it to get higher salaries for themselves and the people who pleasured them. One thing about taxes and promises. What it buys is not only never good enough, it also is not what was intended when we agreed to pay it. I paid my fair share always, regardless of what foul name you care to call other people than yourself who receive the benefits every one of us has to pay from our earnings..



Your post is 100% WRONG.  

At the turn of the century, immigrants cost us nothing.

Employees now pay 15.3%.  The smoke and mirrors want you to believe your employer pays.  Nonsense, otherwise that money would go to you.

We were never promised a return of the money we paid into Social Security plus interest.  That's just foolish.

There has never been a separate, Social Security Trust Account.  Any and all money paid into Social Security by workers has been used to pay current recipients.  Any surplus is invested in Treasury Bills which puts the money into the General Fund and is spent.

Next time you post, please do some basic research.  Your rant just looks foolish.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  I knew you would try to weasel out of answering the question.  The correct answer is that the wall will have no adverse impact on my freedoms.
Click to expand...


Telling you to read the thread is trying to weasel out?  What kind of jailhouse psychology is that?

If you're too lazy to read the thread, you should not be in this conversation.  You're unqualified.  If you want a civil conversation, grow the Hell up and act like an adult.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> 
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer squat, you do know Mexico and US are two separate country's right? You accidentally walk across the border with mexico carrying a gun you go to jail forever..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you like the way third world cesspools and communist countries operate, why don't you move to one and be happy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is a third world country that's why we want a wall to keep them out ..
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236496
Click to expand...



You don't have a clue as to why you want a wall.  AS for the rest of America, they WILLINGLY do business with the foreigners.  They aren't interested in keeping them out.  You will either give up YOUR Rights OR you will settle for regulation of foreign workers.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway. The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power,*
> 
> 
> What does this even mean? So in your world we don't have police with machine guns, and we already have gangs..
> 
> This is about securing our border.. not that complicated.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homeboy, you just cancelled out your previous post.  You don't have a clue as to why you really want a wall.  You like to argue.  But no matter how many posts you make, you cannot change reality.
> 
> Screw with Liberty and it will be YOU that will end up with neither Liberty nor Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Safety is not open brorders which you want
> 
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can provide for my own Safety.  The government is under no obligation to supply that to me.  It's is the attack on the Bill of Rights by ill informed people like you that scares the Hell out of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you.provide for your own safety a wall, doors, locks to.your house?
> 
> Now you talking like a retard, of course the government.job is to protect the American public from threats domestic and foreign and you are the enemy with in like the rest of the left.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal safety on your property is not the equivalent to safety on public property.  You're mixing oranges with apples.  More name calling?
> 
> You won't get me to have a conversation with you when you are acting like a five year old.
Click to expand...



So using the word assnine is not name calling by you?

And you are just deflecting and not answering questions like normal

..


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  I knew you would try to weasel out of answering the question.  The correct answer is that the wall will have no adverse impact on my freedoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This guy is retarded. He wants anarchy , no walls, no.police and he thinks letting in third world illegal trash some how gives him freedom.
Click to expand...


Your lies and your desperation are a testament to the FACT that those who want the wall to the point it is a 24 7 / 365 religion shows that you not only do not have any case to discuss, but shows that you are weak and dishonest.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer squat, you do know Mexico and US are two separate country's right? You accidentally walk across the border with mexico carrying a gun you go to jail forever..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you like the way third world cesspools and communist countries operate, why don't you move to one and be happy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is a third world country that's why we want a wall to keep them out ..
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236496
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have a clue as to why you want a wall.  AS for the rest of America, they WILLINGLY do business with the foreigners.  They aren't interested in keeping them out.  You will either give up YOUR Rights OR you will settle for regulation of foreign workers.
Click to expand...



This is my country and I don't want to turn it into a third world shit hole by you

I want secure borders you don't want a wall with Trump's name on it..


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homeboy, you just cancelled out your previous post.  You don't have a clue as to why you really want a wall.  You like to argue.  But no matter how many posts you make, you cannot change reality.
> 
> Screw with Liberty and it will be YOU that will end up with neither Liberty nor Safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Safety is not open brorders which you want
> 
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can provide for my own Safety.  The government is under no obligation to supply that to me.  It's is the attack on the Bill of Rights by ill informed people like you that scares the Hell out of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you.provide for your own safety a wall, doors, locks to.your house?
> 
> Now you talking like a retard, of course the government.job is to protect the American public from threats domestic and foreign and you are the enemy with in like the rest of the left.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal safety on your property is not the equivalent to safety on public property.  You're mixing oranges with apples.  More name calling?
> 
> You won't get me to have a conversation with you when you are acting like a five year old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So using the word assnine is not name calling by you?
> 
> And you are just deflecting and not answering questions like normal
> 
> ..
Click to expand...


The term asinine is an adjective
Calling people a retard is a verb

Do you even speak English?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> 
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  I knew you would try to weasel out of answering the question.  The correct answer is that the wall will have no adverse impact on my freedoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This guy is retarded. He wants anarchy , no walls, no.police and he thinks letting in third world illegal trash some how gives him freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lies and your desperation are a testament to the FACT that those who want the wall to the point it is a 24 7 / 365 religion shows that you not only do not have any case to discuss, but shows that you are weak and dishonest.
Click to expand...



In English



.


----------



## Thinker101

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Safety is not open brorders which you want
> 
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can provide for my own Safety.  The government is under no obligation to supply that to me.  It's is the attack on the Bill of Rights by ill informed people like you that scares the Hell out of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you.provide for your own safety a wall, doors, locks to.your house?
> 
> Now you talking like a retard, of course the government.job is to protect the American public from threats domestic and foreign and you are the enemy with in like the rest of the left.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal safety on your property is not the equivalent to safety on public property.  You're mixing oranges with apples.  More name calling?
> 
> You won't get me to have a conversation with you when you are acting like a five year old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So using the word assnine is not name calling by you?
> 
> And you are just deflecting and not answering questions like normal
> 
> ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term asinine is an adjective
> Calling people a retard is a verb
> 
> Do you even speak English?
Click to expand...


Great, so you would be an adjective and a verb...good job.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer squat, you do know Mexico and US are two separate country's right? You accidentally walk across the border with mexico carrying a gun you go to jail forever..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you like the way third world cesspools and communist countries operate, why don't you move to one and be happy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is a third world country that's why we want a wall to keep them out ..
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236496
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have a clue as to why you want a wall.  AS for the rest of America, they WILLINGLY do business with the foreigners.  They aren't interested in keeping them out.  You will either give up YOUR Rights OR you will settle for regulation of foreign workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is my country and I don't want to turn it into a third world shit hole by you
> 
> I want secure borders you don't want a wall with Trump's name on it..
Click to expand...


Nor will I allow you to turn this country into a third world shithole run by dictators due to your ignorance.  One day the talking will stop and we'll see how it plays out in real life.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Safety is not open brorders which you want
> 
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can provide for my own Safety.  The government is under no obligation to supply that to me.  It's is the attack on the Bill of Rights by ill informed people like you that scares the Hell out of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you.provide for your own safety a wall, doors, locks to.your house?
> 
> Now you talking like a retard, of course the government.job is to protect the American public from threats domestic and foreign and you are the enemy with in like the rest of the left.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal safety on your property is not the equivalent to safety on public property.  You're mixing oranges with apples.  More name calling?
> 
> You won't get me to have a conversation with you when you are acting like a five year old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So using the word assnine is not name calling by you?
> 
> And you are just deflecting and not answering questions like normal
> 
> ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term asinine is an adjective
> Calling people a retard is a verb
> 
> Do you even speak English?
Click to expand...



It's still the same thing retard and you just put some gibberish together and call it English




.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Thinker101 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can provide for my own Safety.  The government is under no obligation to supply that to me.  It's is the attack on the Bill of Rights by ill informed people like you that scares the Hell out of me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you.provide for your own safety a wall, doors, locks to.your house?
> 
> Now you talking like a retard, of course the government.job is to protect the American public from threats domestic and foreign and you are the enemy with in like the rest of the left.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal safety on your property is not the equivalent to safety on public property.  You're mixing oranges with apples.  More name calling?
> 
> You won't get me to have a conversation with you when you are acting like a five year old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So using the word assnine is not name calling by you?
> 
> And you are just deflecting and not answering questions like normal
> 
> ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term asinine is an adjective
> Calling people a retard is a verb
> 
> Do you even speak English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great, so you would be an adjective and a verb...good job.
Click to expand...



I would have a battle of wits with you, but that would be me taking advantage of an unarmed man.  Crawl back under the rock you've been hiding under.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer squat, you do know Mexico and US are two separate country's right? You accidentally walk across the border with mexico carrying a gun you go to jail forever..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you like the way third world cesspools and communist countries operate, why don't you move to one and be happy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is a third world country that's why we want a wall to keep them out ..
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236496
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have a clue as to why you want a wall.  AS for the rest of America, they WILLINGLY do business with the foreigners.  They aren't interested in keeping them out.  You will either give up YOUR Rights OR you will settle for regulation of foreign workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is my country and I don't want to turn it into a third world shit hole by you
> 
> I want secure borders you don't want a wall with Trump's name on it..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor will I allow you to turn this country into a third world shithole run by dictators due to your ignorance.  One day the talking will stop and we'll see how it plays out in real life.
Click to expand...



What dictators we go by the Constitution you go by anarchy and want rapist killer Mexicans to just cross the border freely.



.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you.provide for your own safety a wall, doors, locks to.your house?
> 
> Now you talking like a retard, of course the government.job is to protect the American public from threats domestic and foreign and you are the enemy with in like the rest of the left.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal safety on your property is not the equivalent to safety on public property.  You're mixing oranges with apples.  More name calling?
> 
> You won't get me to have a conversation with you when you are acting like a five year old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So using the word assnine is not name calling by you?
> 
> And you are just deflecting and not answering questions like normal
> 
> ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term asinine is an adjective
> Calling people a retard is a verb
> 
> Do you even speak English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great, so you would be an adjective and a verb...good job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I would have a battle of wits with you, but that would be me taking advantage of an unarmed man.  Crawl back under the rock you've been hiding under.
Click to expand...



You have no wits you talk in circles, deflect and post retarded propaganda that the 600 miles of walls we already have don't work.


.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can provide for my own Safety.  The government is under no obligation to supply that to me.  It's is the attack on the Bill of Rights by ill informed people like you that scares the Hell out of me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you.provide for your own safety a wall, doors, locks to.your house?
> 
> Now you talking like a retard, of course the government.job is to protect the American public from threats domestic and foreign and you are the enemy with in like the rest of the left.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal safety on your property is not the equivalent to safety on public property.  You're mixing oranges with apples.  More name calling?
> 
> You won't get me to have a conversation with you when you are acting like a five year old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So using the word assnine is not name calling by you?
> 
> And you are just deflecting and not answering questions like normal
> 
> ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term asinine is an adjective
> Calling people a retard is a verb
> 
> Do you even speak English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's still the same thing retard and you just put some gibberish together and call it English
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


That's better than you stringing words along, unable to make a point and then getting personal because you don't have a point.

Guys, I'm going to bed.  I will come back and relist SOME of the reasons I'm against the wall so that those who cannot keep up can reread what we've already discussed.

But, really, if they cannot keep up on this board, do you really think they understand the issues?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal safety on your property is not the equivalent to safety on public property.  You're mixing oranges with apples.  More name calling?
> 
> You won't get me to have a conversation with you when you are acting like a five year old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So using the word assnine is not name calling by you?
> 
> And you are just deflecting and not answering questions like normal
> 
> ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term asinine is an adjective
> Calling people a retard is a verb
> 
> Do you even speak English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great, so you would be an adjective and a verb...good job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I would have a battle of wits with you, but that would be me taking advantage of an unarmed man.  Crawl back under the rock you've been hiding under.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have no wits you talk in circles, deflect and post retarded propaganda that the 600 miles of walls we already have don't work.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Your lack of comprehension skills doth testify against you.  See you tomorrow.  Time for those of us who actually WORK to go to bed.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you.provide for your own safety a wall, doors, locks to.your house?
> 
> Now you talking like a retard, of course the government.job is to protect the American public from threats domestic and foreign and you are the enemy with in like the rest of the left.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal safety on your property is not the equivalent to safety on public property.  You're mixing oranges with apples.  More name calling?
> 
> You won't get me to have a conversation with you when you are acting like a five year old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So using the word assnine is not name calling by you?
> 
> And you are just deflecting and not answering questions like normal
> 
> ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term asinine is an adjective
> Calling people a retard is a verb
> 
> Do you even speak English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's still the same thing retard and you just put some gibberish together and call it English
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's better than you stringing words along, unable to make a point and then getting personal because you don't have a point.
> 
> Guys, I'm going to bed.  I will come back and relist SOME of the reasons I'm against the wall so that those who cannot keep up can reread what we've already discussed.
> 
> But, really, if they cannot keep up on this board, do you really think they understand the issues?
Click to expand...



Yea run away paid government troll boi.


----------



## Thinker101

Porter Rockwell said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you.provide for your own safety a wall, doors, locks to.your house?
> 
> Now you talking like a retard, of course the government.job is to protect the American public from threats domestic and foreign and you are the enemy with in like the rest of the left.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal safety on your property is not the equivalent to safety on public property.  You're mixing oranges with apples.  More name calling?
> 
> You won't get me to have a conversation with you when you are acting like a five year old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So using the word assnine is not name calling by you?
> 
> And you are just deflecting and not answering questions like normal
> 
> ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term asinine is an adjective
> Calling people a retard is a verb
> 
> Do you even speak English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great, so you would be an adjective and a verb...good job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I would have a battle of wits with you, but that would be me taking advantage of an unarmed man.  Crawl back under the rock you've been hiding under.
Click to expand...


Wow, that was witty....kinda sorta.


----------



## Issa

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes wonder also how some of those border agents make more than their salaries, and dozens got arrested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  When?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude I keep telling you the primary problem with you guys, anti immigrants, pro trump I'd being ignorant of facts and you live ina bunnle....we lose our shit trying to explain to you but your fear and ignorance is blinding uou.
> Here read the article, and don't tell me is fake news.
> 
> U.S. Border Agency Says Hundreds of Employees Have Been Arrested Over 2 Years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't get to the site because they want money which I'm not about the pay.  So I did a Google search to find a credible news source reporting on the story as well, and can't find one.  I did find a story from some internet site called Pogo.com, however I never heard of them before and it's likely they just parroted the NYT story.
> 
> But in that story their claim is that 200 agents (80 of them border patrol) were arrested since 2004.  No elaboration on how many were charged or actually convicted and for what offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow just wow....so you only beleive fox news and trump?
> I live in California and things like these are known, CBP officers get caught all the time.
> Widen your sources and open your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well according to what I read, it's about 200 in 14 years.   That boils down to about 14 per year, so I wouldn't say all the time.  And again, I couldn't find anything on conviction rate either.
> 
> In other words, we probably have more bad cops in the country than that.  So because we do, is that any reason to not have a police force in this country?
Click to expand...

Those are the ones that got caught, now imagine how many are taking bribes and are letting the drugs flow. 
Most of those who want the wall, they dont live with illegals or dealt with them they generally are afraid the unknown, they also dont live or lived with muslims so they feared them too. That's why mostly those in mostly white Republicans areas are racists and bigots.


----------



## Markle

Porter Rockwell said:


> OMG. You force those who agree with you that problem exists to play the devil's advocate and not let you get away with that LIE.
> 
> The ONLY tax that so - called illegals can be accused of not paying is the federal income tax. That is graduated tax - a plank from the Communist Manifesto. You should help repeal that Amendment IF that is your beef.
> 
> *But, wait... the CHIEF ACTUARY OF THE SSA says 75 percent of those without papers DO pay that tax. *EVERYBODY who works under the table, denying to the commies that tribute are doing all of us a public service.



My highlight above.

Liar.

*About 6.1 Million Illegals Filed Taxes in US – Many Didn't Pay, Received Refunds*




By James Agresti | November 7, 2016 | 2:57 PM EST
[...]
Nonetheless, the contrast between tax returns filed with and without ITINs in 2010 is enlightening. As documented above, 72 percent of ITIN filers paid no income tax and received cash payments through child tax credits. In comparison, only 14 percent of people who filed regular tax returns (with a Social Security number instead of an ITIN) paid no income tax and received these payments.
[...]
About 6.1 Million Illegals Filed Taxes in US – Many Didn't Pay, Received Refunds


----------



## oreo

deanrd said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Trump--we're no longer talking about a WALL it's down to steel slats.   Of course this is G.W. Bush's design that he installed on 700 miles of the border---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump now describes his border wall as "steel slats" - WDEF
> 
> Very easily compromised as this video shows.
> 
> And let's not forget about those tunnels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have found 240 of these in the San Diego region alone, and they know there's more that they haven't found.
> 
> So House Republicans put on their last Hoorah yesterday by passing a bill that included 5.1 billion for the WAAAAALLL.  Of course this is dead on arrival in the Senate.  Republicans had a full house over the last 2 years, and all of a sudden up pops this bill as they're making their exit out of the back door.  5.7 BILLION is the equivalent of teaspoon of water thrown on a bonfire, as the wall would cost 47 BILLION dollars.
> 
> So up comes the steel slats.  Democrats have stated they want more border security but want to use *HIGH TECH* to secure the border, stating that border patrol and border experts have told them it would work better than walls & fences.  It would be much more effective and efficient for the above reasons.  It's true.  Anything they can see, can and will ALWAYS be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> So we will see who is more interested in border security.  I imagine the Ass Clown--will turn down the HIGH TECH option and go with his POS wall (I mean slats now) and shut down the government over it.
Click to expand...



Don't ever let any FACTS come up and bite you in the Ass--



> This past week, Republican Rep. Will Hurd from Texas, a former CIA agent, slammed the "fallacy that a wall equals border security." He explained, *"I have more border (in my district) than any other member of Congress, 820 miles," *and added that we can use available technology to keep us far safer than a wall. Hurd closed with a key point: "Building a wall from sea to shining sea is the most expensive and least effective way to do border security."
> But Trump refuses to accept that technology suggested by people like Hurd and others will address the problem. Instead, Trump on Sunday took to Twitter to mock that very concept, writing, "Drones and all of the rest are wonderful and lots of fun," he wrote, but the "only way to stop drug, gangs, human trafficking, criminal elements" is by building a "good old fashioned Wall" -- or, perhaps, a "Steel Slat Barrier."
> 
> For me, the choice is clear -- not only given Trump's track record, but because statistics also undermine his claims. First, despite what Trump wants you to believe, studies make it clear that immigrants, both undocumented and those legally here, are "considerably less likely to commit crime than native-born citizens." One study, conducted by the Cato Institute, found that "as a percentage of their respective populations, there were 56% fewer criminal convictions of illegal immigrants than of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015." On top of that, illegal border crossings are currently at their lowest levels since 2000. And nearly two thirds of those now in the country illegally are here because they overstayed their visas after arriving via airports, while others even came over the northern border from Canada. A massive southern border wall obviously won't address this.


Why Trump can't let go of his border wall dream (Opinion) - CNN

We have a very long, expensive history of walls & fences *not *working along the southern border.  Democrats are following the advice of border security experts & agents who want to use high tech to secure the border.  Something that can be seen (can)--and will *always* be compromised, something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.


I really don't think the half brained Trump tards are interested in border security as much as they are in trying to save Trump.  _Their right wing talk show hosts are telling them if Trump doesn't get the Trump WALL, it will be the end of his presidency. In reality, meaning the end of THEM because they shoved Trump down their throats over the wall._
_November 28, 2018 - TRUMP'S GREAT WALL BECOMES TRUMP'S GREAT STALL_


----------



## Wyatt earp

Issa said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  When?
> 
> 
> 
> Dude I keep telling you the primary problem with you guys, anti immigrants, pro trump I'd being ignorant of facts and you live ina bunnle....we lose our shit trying to explain to you but your fear and ignorance is blinding uou.
> Here read the article, and don't tell me is fake news.
> 
> U.S. Border Agency Says Hundreds of Employees Have Been Arrested Over 2 Years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't get to the site because they want money which I'm not about the pay.  So I did a Google search to find a credible news source reporting on the story as well, and can't find one.  I did find a story from some internet site called Pogo.com, however I never heard of them before and it's likely they just parroted the NYT story.
> 
> But in that story their claim is that 200 agents (80 of them border patrol) were arrested since 2004.  No elaboration on how many were charged or actually convicted and for what offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow just wow....so you only beleive fox news and trump?
> I live in California and things like these are known, CBP officers get caught all the time.
> Widen your sources and open your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well according to what I read, it's about 200 in 14 years.   That boils down to about 14 per year, so I wouldn't say all the time.  And again, I couldn't find anything on conviction rate either.
> 
> In other words, we probably have more bad cops in the country than that.  So because we do, is that any reason to not have a police force in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are the ones that got caught, now imagine how many are taking bribes and are letting the drugs flow.
> Most of those who want the wall, they dont live with illegals or dealt with them they generally are afraid the unknown, they also dont live or lived with muslims so they feared them too. That's why mostly those in mostly white Republicans areas are racists and bigots.
Click to expand...



No, you can't jeopardize the rest of the country safety with your anarchy



.


----------



## Wyatt earp

oreo said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Trump--we're no longer talking about a WALL it's down to steel slats.   Of course this is G.W. Bush's design that he installed on 700 miles of the border---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump now describes his border wall as "steel slats" - WDEF
> 
> Very easily compromised as this video shows.
> 
> And let's not forget about those tunnels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have found 240 of these in the San Diego region alone, and they know there's more that they haven't found.
> 
> So House Republicans put on their last Hoorah yesterday by passing a bill that included 5.1 billion for the WAAAAALLL.  Of course this is dead on arrival in the Senate.  Republicans had a full house over the last 2 years, and all of a sudden up pops this bill as they're making their exit out of the back door.  5.7 BILLION is the equivalent of teaspoon of water thrown on a bonfire, as the wall would cost 47 BILLION dollars.
> 
> So up comes the steel slats.  Democrats have stated they want more border security but want to use *HIGH TECH* to secure the border, stating that border patrol and border experts have told them it would work better than walls & fences.  It would be much more effective and efficient for the above reasons.  It's true.  Anything they can see, can and will ALWAYS be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> So we will see who is more interested in border security.  I imagine the Ass Clown--will turn down the HIGH TECH option and go with his POS wall (I mean slats now) and shut down the government over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't ever let any FACTS come up and bite you in the Ass--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This past week, Republican Rep. Will Hurd from Texas, a former CIA agent, slammed the "fallacy that a wall equals border security." He explained, *"I have more border (in my district) than any other member of Congress, 820 miles," *and added that we can use available technology to keep us far safer than a wall. Hurd closed with a key point: "Building a wall from sea to shining sea is the most expensive and least effective way to do border security."
> But Trump refuses to accept that technology suggested by people like Hurd and others will address the problem. Instead, Trump on Sunday took to Twitter to mock that very concept, writing, "Drones and all of the rest are wonderful and lots of fun," he wrote, but the "only way to stop drug, gangs, human trafficking, criminal elements" is by building a "good old fashioned Wall" -- or, perhaps, a "Steel Slat Barrier."
> 
> For me, the choice is clear -- not only given Trump's track record, but because statistics also undermine his claims. First, despite what Trump wants you to believe, studies make it clear that immigrants, both undocumented and those legally here, are "considerably less likely to commit crime than native-born citizens." One study, conducted by the Cato Institute, found that "as a percentage of their respective populations, there were 56% fewer criminal convictions of illegal immigrants than of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015." On top of that, illegal border crossings are currently at their lowest levels since 2000. And nearly two thirds of those now in the country illegally are here because they overstayed their visas after arriving via airports, while others even came over the northern border from Canada. A massive southern border wall obviously won't address this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why Trump can't let go of his border wall dream (Opinion) - CNN
> 
> We have a very long, expensive history of walls & fences *not *working along the southern border.  Democrats are following the advice of border security experts & agents who want to use high tech to secure the border.  Something that can be seen (can)--and will *always* be compromised, something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> 
> 
> I really don't think the half brained Trump tards are interested in border security as much as they are in trying to save Trump.  _Their right wing talk show hosts are telling them if Trump doesn't get the Trump WALL, it will be the end of his presidency. In reality, meaning the end of THEM because they shoved Trump down their throats over the wall._
> _November 28, 2018 - TRUMP'S GREAT WALL BECOMES TRUMP'S GREAT STALL_
Click to expand...



Climb this wall


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's that gibberish?
> 
> 
> I bet you go to a plumber to get an enema , instead of going to a doctor right?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
Click to expand...


The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.

It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?  

It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me. 

It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?  

It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?  

It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.  

They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?


----------



## oreo

bear513 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Trump--we're no longer talking about a WALL it's down to steel slats.   Of course this is G.W. Bush's design that he installed on 700 miles of the border---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump now describes his border wall as "steel slats" - WDEF
> 
> Very easily compromised as this video shows.
> 
> And let's not forget about those tunnels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have found 240 of these in the San Diego region alone, and they know there's more that they haven't found.
> 
> So House Republicans put on their last Hoorah yesterday by passing a bill that included 5.1 billion for the WAAAAALLL.  Of course this is dead on arrival in the Senate.  Republicans had a full house over the last 2 years, and all of a sudden up pops this bill as they're making their exit out of the back door.  5.7 BILLION is the equivalent of teaspoon of water thrown on a bonfire, as the wall would cost 47 BILLION dollars.
> 
> So up comes the steel slats.  Democrats have stated they want more border security but want to use *HIGH TECH* to secure the border, stating that border patrol and border experts have told them it would work better than walls & fences.  It would be much more effective and efficient for the above reasons.  It's true.  Anything they can see, can and will ALWAYS be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> So we will see who is more interested in border security.  I imagine the Ass Clown--will turn down the HIGH TECH option and go with his POS wall (I mean slats now) and shut down the government over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't ever let any FACTS come up and bite you in the Ass--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This past week, Republican Rep. Will Hurd from Texas, a former CIA agent, slammed the "fallacy that a wall equals border security." He explained, *"I have more border (in my district) than any other member of Congress, 820 miles," *and added that we can use available technology to keep us far safer than a wall. Hurd closed with a key point: "Building a wall from sea to shining sea is the most expensive and least effective way to do border security."
> But Trump refuses to accept that technology suggested by people like Hurd and others will address the problem. Instead, Trump on Sunday took to Twitter to mock that very concept, writing, "Drones and all of the rest are wonderful and lots of fun," he wrote, but the "only way to stop drug, gangs, human trafficking, criminal elements" is by building a "good old fashioned Wall" -- or, perhaps, a "Steel Slat Barrier."
> 
> For me, the choice is clear -- not only given Trump's track record, but because statistics also undermine his claims. First, despite what Trump wants you to believe, studies make it clear that immigrants, both undocumented and those legally here, are "considerably less likely to commit crime than native-born citizens." One study, conducted by the Cato Institute, found that "as a percentage of their respective populations, there were 56% fewer criminal convictions of illegal immigrants than of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015." On top of that, illegal border crossings are currently at their lowest levels since 2000. And nearly two thirds of those now in the country illegally are here because they overstayed their visas after arriving via airports, while others even came over the northern border from Canada. A massive southern border wall obviously won't address this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why Trump can't let go of his border wall dream (Opinion) - CNN
> 
> We have a very long, expensive history of walls & fences *not *working along the southern border.  Democrats are following the advice of border security experts & agents who want to use high tech to secure the border.  Something that can be seen (can)--and will *always* be compromised, something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> 
> 
> I really don't think the half brained Trump tards are interested in border security as much as they are in trying to save Trump.  _Their right wing talk show hosts are telling them if Trump doesn't get the Trump WALL, it will be the end of his presidency. In reality, meaning the end of THEM because they shoved Trump down their throats over the wall._
> _November 28, 2018 - TRUMP'S GREAT WALL BECOMES TRUMP'S GREAT STALL_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Climb this wall
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236503
Click to expand...



Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?


Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
Click to expand...



You're not interested at all in actual border security, you're just trying to save Trump's legacy.

Redirect to a comment from a Republican House member whose district in Texas is 800 miles of the border.  Click here to redirect to the post on this thread
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?


----------



## Wyatt earp

oreo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Trump--we're no longer talking about a WALL it's down to steel slats.   Of course this is G.W. Bush's design that he installed on 700 miles of the border---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump now describes his border wall as "steel slats" - WDEF
> 
> Very easily compromised as this video shows.
> 
> And let's not forget about those tunnels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have found 240 of these in the San Diego region alone, and they know there's more that they haven't found.
> 
> So House Republicans put on their last Hoorah yesterday by passing a bill that included 5.1 billion for the WAAAAALLL.  Of course this is dead on arrival in the Senate.  Republicans had a full house over the last 2 years, and all of a sudden up pops this bill as they're making their exit out of the back door.  5.7 BILLION is the equivalent of teaspoon of water thrown on a bonfire, as the wall would cost 47 BILLION dollars.
> 
> So up comes the steel slats.  Democrats have stated they want more border security but want to use *HIGH TECH* to secure the border, stating that border patrol and border experts have told them it would work better than walls & fences.  It would be much more effective and efficient for the above reasons.  It's true.  Anything they can see, can and will ALWAYS be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> So we will see who is more interested in border security.  I imagine the Ass Clown--will turn down the HIGH TECH option and go with his POS wall (I mean slats now) and shut down the government over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't ever let any FACTS come up and bite you in the Ass--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This past week, Republican Rep. Will Hurd from Texas, a former CIA agent, slammed the "fallacy that a wall equals border security." He explained, *"I have more border (in my district) than any other member of Congress, 820 miles," *and added that we can use available technology to keep us far safer than a wall. Hurd closed with a key point: "Building a wall from sea to shining sea is the most expensive and least effective way to do border security."
> But Trump refuses to accept that technology suggested by people like Hurd and others will address the problem. Instead, Trump on Sunday took to Twitter to mock that very concept, writing, "Drones and all of the rest are wonderful and lots of fun," he wrote, but the "only way to stop drug, gangs, human trafficking, criminal elements" is by building a "good old fashioned Wall" -- or, perhaps, a "Steel Slat Barrier."
> 
> For me, the choice is clear -- not only given Trump's track record, but because statistics also undermine his claims. First, despite what Trump wants you to believe, studies make it clear that immigrants, both undocumented and those legally here, are "considerably less likely to commit crime than native-born citizens." One study, conducted by the Cato Institute, found that "as a percentage of their respective populations, there were 56% fewer criminal convictions of illegal immigrants than of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015." On top of that, illegal border crossings are currently at their lowest levels since 2000. And nearly two thirds of those now in the country illegally are here because they overstayed their visas after arriving via airports, while others even came over the northern border from Canada. A massive southern border wall obviously won't address this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why Trump can't let go of his border wall dream (Opinion) - CNN
> 
> We have a very long, expensive history of walls & fences *not *working along the southern border.  Democrats are following the advice of border security experts & agents who want to use high tech to secure the border.  Something that can be seen (can)--and will *always* be compromised, something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> 
> 
> I really don't think the half brained Trump tards are interested in border security as much as they are in trying to save Trump.  _Their right wing talk show hosts are telling them if Trump doesn't get the Trump WALL, it will be the end of his presidency. In reality, meaning the end of THEM because they shoved Trump down their throats over the wall._
> _November 28, 2018 - TRUMP'S GREAT WALL BECOMES TRUMP'S GREAT STALL_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Climb this wall
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236503
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're not interested at all in actual border security, you're just trying to save Trump's legacy.
> 
> Redirect to a comment from a Republican House member whose district in Texas is 800 miles of the border.  Click here to redirect to the post on this thread
> Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
Click to expand...



It's a deterrent to fat ass Mexicans


.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep bringing him up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a parakeet, always rehashing what Hush Bimbo said.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals like easy access to their targets.  They want to get in and then get out quickly.  Do gated communities work most times?  Yes.  All the time?  Perhaps not.  It really depends on the area.
> 
> Will a wall stop all illegals? No it won't.  Will it reduce illegals and drugs to a more tolerable level, yes it will.
> 
> While you relish in ancient history, we in modern times know walls and borders do work.
> 
> Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.
> 
> Where do Border Fences work? Everywhere
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/01/13/we-already-have-a-border-wall-and-it-works/
> 
> Hungary credits razor wire border fence for almost 100 percent drop in illegal migration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What your sources are not revealing is that they took OTHER precautions - which you conveniently ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's that gibberish?
> 
> 
> I bet you go to a plumber to get an enema , instead of going to a doctor right?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
Click to expand...


Government providing safety does not take away liberty.  I don't know how you can't see it can be one without the other. 

Will a wall take away freedoms?  Yes it will; freedoms illegals have coming over now.  It won't take any freedom away from Americans because the wall is not to keep us from leaving, it's to keep them from entering our country.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Markle said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if they are "rehabilitated," they are still going to take a job that would otherwise go to a native born American.  The are also going to create downward pressure on wages since they are will to work for a much lower wage than most Americans.
> 
> Employers have no "unalienable right" to hire people who are not in this country legally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ones pics say it all.
> But I'll try to be patient.
> Italians, Germans, Asians and now Latinos all cost the first year.
> All subsequent years they contribute way more than our old white farts here sucking off their socialist benefits
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, asshole.  We didn't have welfare, public schools, and government healthcare when the Italians and Germans came here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we didn't have a Great Depression, either or world wars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Danielpalos never intends to have a point, he's merely an angry troll.
Click to expand...


Which is why he's on my ignore list and should be on everybody's.


----------



## beautress

Markle said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said, *"Italians, Germans, Asians and now Latinos all cost the first year. All subsequent years they contribute way more than our old white farts here sucking off their socialist benefits"*
> 
> You obviously are unaware that social security was paid for with taking out 7.5% of wages with employer requirements matching to the government for a lifetime of work--12 times a year or 52 times a year depending on whether we received monthly or weekly wages. The cruel part is that we were promised interest payments would be returned into Social Security right up until the time politicians got greedy and decided to "borrow" the interest and sometimes the principals for their pet rock projects. Call us what you will, but we paid for our retirement benefits way ahead of time and with no choice and no say in the investments which were expropriated by very evil people who used it to get higher salaries for themselves and the people who pleasured them. One thing about taxes and promises. What it buys is not only never good enough, it also is not what was intended when we agreed to pay it. I paid my fair share always, regardless of what foul name you care to call other people than yourself who receive the benefits every one of us has to pay from our earnings..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is 100% WRONG.
> 
> At the turn of the century, immigrants cost us nothing.
> 
> Employees now pay 15.3%.  The smoke and mirrors want you to believe your employer pays.  Nonsense, otherwise that money would go to you.
> 
> We were never promised a return of the money we paid into Social Security plus interest.  That's just foolish.
> 
> There has never been a separate, Social Security Trust Account.  Any and all money paid into Social Security by workers has been used to pay current recipients.  Any surplus is invested in Treasury Bills which puts the money into the General Fund and is spent.
> 
> Next time you post, please do some basic research.  Your rant just looks foolish.
Click to expand...

Common knowledge of business practices before you were born never came to your attention, did they, grade school?

Your problem is your* severe failure to keep either current events you don't like on the back burner or you just never bothered to learn what was going on.* Thanks to my dear parents, I have been reading (and remembering) news stories since I was six years old, the first of which was an unusually good picture of Ike Eisenhower winning his first term presidency. And you either have a reading comprehension problem, or you were unaware that following the Great Depression of the 1930s, Social Security came with the understanding those paying into it would have a retirement income and that any interest earned on the money Americans paid into the system would be funneled back into the system for the benefit of the security of the people who paid into it.

Go stand in the corner, kiddo. And listen well to the tone. 

​


----------



## oreo

bear513 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Trump--we're no longer talking about a WALL it's down to steel slats.   Of course this is G.W. Bush's design that he installed on 700 miles of the border---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump now describes his border wall as "steel slats" - WDEF
> 
> Very easily compromised as this video shows.
> 
> And let's not forget about those tunnels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have found 240 of these in the San Diego region alone, and they know there's more that they haven't found.
> 
> So House Republicans put on their last Hoorah yesterday by passing a bill that included 5.1 billion for the WAAAAALLL.  Of course this is dead on arrival in the Senate.  Republicans had a full house over the last 2 years, and all of a sudden up pops this bill as they're making their exit out of the back door.  5.7 BILLION is the equivalent of teaspoon of water thrown on a bonfire, as the wall would cost 47 BILLION dollars.
> 
> So up comes the steel slats.  Democrats have stated they want more border security but want to use *HIGH TECH* to secure the border, stating that border patrol and border experts have told them it would work better than walls & fences.  It would be much more effective and efficient for the above reasons.  It's true.  Anything they can see, can and will ALWAYS be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> So we will see who is more interested in border security.  I imagine the Ass Clown--will turn down the HIGH TECH option and go with his POS wall (I mean slats now) and shut down the government over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't ever let any FACTS come up and bite you in the Ass--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This past week, Republican Rep. Will Hurd from Texas, a former CIA agent, slammed the "fallacy that a wall equals border security." He explained, *"I have more border (in my district) than any other member of Congress, 820 miles," *and added that we can use available technology to keep us far safer than a wall. Hurd closed with a key point: "Building a wall from sea to shining sea is the most expensive and least effective way to do border security."
> But Trump refuses to accept that technology suggested by people like Hurd and others will address the problem. Instead, Trump on Sunday took to Twitter to mock that very concept, writing, "Drones and all of the rest are wonderful and lots of fun," he wrote, but the "only way to stop drug, gangs, human trafficking, criminal elements" is by building a "good old fashioned Wall" -- or, perhaps, a "Steel Slat Barrier."
> 
> For me, the choice is clear -- not only given Trump's track record, but because statistics also undermine his claims. First, despite what Trump wants you to believe, studies make it clear that immigrants, both undocumented and those legally here, are "considerably less likely to commit crime than native-born citizens." One study, conducted by the Cato Institute, found that "as a percentage of their respective populations, there were 56% fewer criminal convictions of illegal immigrants than of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015." On top of that, illegal border crossings are currently at their lowest levels since 2000. And nearly two thirds of those now in the country illegally are here because they overstayed their visas after arriving via airports, while others even came over the northern border from Canada. A massive southern border wall obviously won't address this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why Trump can't let go of his border wall dream (Opinion) - CNN
> 
> We have a very long, expensive history of walls & fences *not *working along the southern border.  Democrats are following the advice of border security experts & agents who want to use high tech to secure the border.  Something that can be seen (can)--and will *always* be compromised, something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> 
> 
> I really don't think the half brained Trump tards are interested in border security as much as they are in trying to save Trump.  _Their right wing talk show hosts are telling them if Trump doesn't get the Trump WALL, it will be the end of his presidency. In reality, meaning the end of THEM because they shoved Trump down their throats over the wall._
> _November 28, 2018 - TRUMP'S GREAT WALL BECOMES TRUMP'S GREAT STALL_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Climb this wall
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236503
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're not interested at all in actual border security, you're just trying to save Trump's legacy.
> 
> Redirect to a comment from a Republican House member whose district in Texas is 800 miles of the border.  Click here to redirect to the post on this thread
> Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a deterrent to fat ass Mexicans
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I don't think there's too many fat Mexican's walking across deserts to climb walls and fences.
















Yep no fat people.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with building the wall?  I voted for Trump. Trump is wrong, like the liberals. We need to tear down the border wall. What we really need make  a national identity card. Linked to fingerprints. You don't get a job if you can't prove your identity linked to  your real  immigration status . Why Replicratrats are so opposed to that, boggles my mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let me help you unboggle your mind.  Why not start by reading Orwell's book 1984.  It was a warning in the form of a novel.
> 
> The government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have... a quote by a famous Republican
Click to expand...


Nobody on the right is asking the government to "give" us anything.  We are asking the government to stop something that we citizens cannot stop by ourselves.  Big difference.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

oreo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't ever let any FACTS come up and bite you in the Ass--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This past week, Republican Rep. Will Hurd from Texas, a former CIA agent, slammed the "fallacy that a wall equals border security." He explained, *"I have more border (in my district) than any other member of Congress, 820 miles," *and added that we can use available technology to keep us far safer than a wall. Hurd closed with a key point: "Building a wall from sea to shining sea is the most expensive and least effective way to do border security."
> But Trump refuses to accept that technology suggested by people like Hurd and others will address the problem. Instead, Trump on Sunday took to Twitter to mock that very concept, writing, "Drones and all of the rest are wonderful and lots of fun," he wrote, but the "only way to stop drug, gangs, human trafficking, criminal elements" is by building a "good old fashioned Wall" -- or, perhaps, a "Steel Slat Barrier."
> 
> For me, the choice is clear -- not only given Trump's track record, but because statistics also undermine his claims. First, despite what Trump wants you to believe, studies make it clear that immigrants, both undocumented and those legally here, are "considerably less likely to commit crime than native-born citizens." One study, conducted by the Cato Institute, found that "as a percentage of their respective populations, there were 56% fewer criminal convictions of illegal immigrants than of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015." On top of that, illegal border crossings are currently at their lowest levels since 2000. And nearly two thirds of those now in the country illegally are here because they overstayed their visas after arriving via airports, while others even came over the northern border from Canada. A massive southern border wall obviously won't address this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why Trump can't let go of his border wall dream (Opinion) - CNN
> 
> We have a very long, expensive history of walls & fences *not *working along the southern border.  Democrats are following the advice of border security experts & agents who want to use high tech to secure the border.  Something that can be seen (can)--and will *always* be compromised, something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> 
> 
> I really don't think the half brained Trump tards are interested in border security as much as they are in trying to save Trump.  _Their right wing talk show hosts are telling them if Trump doesn't get the Trump WALL, it will be the end of his presidency. In reality, meaning the end of THEM because they shoved Trump down their throats over the wall._
> _November 28, 2018 - TRUMP'S GREAT WALL BECOMES TRUMP'S GREAT STALL_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Climb this wall
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236503
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're not interested at all in actual border security, you're just trying to save Trump's legacy.
> 
> Redirect to a comment from a Republican House member whose district in Texas is 800 miles of the border.  Click here to redirect to the post on this thread
> Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a deterrent to fat ass Mexicans
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think there's too many fat Mexican's walking across deserts to climb walls and fences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep no fat people.
Click to expand...


The new wall should be built with no gripping points.  If it is steel slats, they should be heavily greased making it impossible to grip to climb over.


----------



## Wyatt earp

oreo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't ever let any FACTS come up and bite you in the Ass--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This past week, Republican Rep. Will Hurd from Texas, a former CIA agent, slammed the "fallacy that a wall equals border security." He explained, *"I have more border (in my district) than any other member of Congress, 820 miles," *and added that we can use available technology to keep us far safer than a wall. Hurd closed with a key point: "Building a wall from sea to shining sea is the most expensive and least effective way to do border security."
> But Trump refuses to accept that technology suggested by people like Hurd and others will address the problem. Instead, Trump on Sunday took to Twitter to mock that very concept, writing, "Drones and all of the rest are wonderful and lots of fun," he wrote, but the "only way to stop drug, gangs, human trafficking, criminal elements" is by building a "good old fashioned Wall" -- or, perhaps, a "Steel Slat Barrier."
> 
> For me, the choice is clear -- not only given Trump's track record, but because statistics also undermine his claims. First, despite what Trump wants you to believe, studies make it clear that immigrants, both undocumented and those legally here, are "considerably less likely to commit crime than native-born citizens." One study, conducted by the Cato Institute, found that "as a percentage of their respective populations, there were 56% fewer criminal convictions of illegal immigrants than of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015." On top of that, illegal border crossings are currently at their lowest levels since 2000. And nearly two thirds of those now in the country illegally are here because they overstayed their visas after arriving via airports, while others even came over the northern border from Canada. A massive southern border wall obviously won't address this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why Trump can't let go of his border wall dream (Opinion) - CNN
> 
> We have a very long, expensive history of walls & fences *not *working along the southern border.  Democrats are following the advice of border security experts & agents who want to use high tech to secure the border.  Something that can be seen (can)--and will *always* be compromised, something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> 
> 
> I really don't think the half brained Trump tards are interested in border security as much as they are in trying to save Trump.  _Their right wing talk show hosts are telling them if Trump doesn't get the Trump WALL, it will be the end of his presidency. In reality, meaning the end of THEM because they shoved Trump down their throats over the wall._
> _November 28, 2018 - TRUMP'S GREAT WALL BECOMES TRUMP'S GREAT STALL_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Climb this wall
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236503
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're not interested at all in actual border security, you're just trying to save Trump's legacy.
> 
> Redirect to a comment from a Republican House member whose district in Texas is 800 miles of the border.  Click here to redirect to the post on this thread
> Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a deterrent to fat ass Mexicans
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think there's too many fat Mexican's walking across deserts to climb walls and fences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep no fat people.
Click to expand...




Uhm because they can't climb it?.I see no old people or children either



Logic escapes you doesn't it ..


.


----------



## JustAnotherNut

This is taken from another thread......
*



If you really wanna know why a wall and border security is so important...….let me try to explain it to you...…..

Hypothetical Scenario...…..2 immigrant families come to America. Jose & his family went thru all the legal processes and are now citizens. Juan & his pregnant wife crossed the border at night and are here illegally. 

Juan gets a construction job for $12 an hour tax free, cash under the table, roughly $1900 per month. His wife is only eligible for medical care...….until the triples are born. Then she receives $400-$600 cash for the 3 kids and $600-$800 in food stamps for the whole family including Juan. Plus medical care...…..for a total income of around $3400. ALL at taxpayer expense. 

Jose and his wife both are working at McD's for $12 an hour each and take home roughly $1400 each, after taxes & SS. Now they have to pay childcare @ $1200 per month for their 3 kids...…...no welfare, no food stamps. Jose would love to get a construction job that pays $24 an hour so his wife could stay home with the kids...…...but he can't because Juan got it at a cheaper rate because he's illegal. 



Is any of this getting thru??? *


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

oreo said:


> Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?



Sure it could.  So can prison fences.  So can jails.  It happens now and then.  But the point is it makes it much more difficult for those that are hell bent on trying.  For the rest, they will realize the efforts and risks are too great, and they payoff (if any) not worthy.  Because even if they could draw the attention by getting past a wall, it likely won't be long until a border agent on the other side arrests them and sends them back to the other side.


----------



## oreo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with building the wall?  I voted for Trump. Trump is wrong, like the liberals. We need to tear down the border wall. What we really need make  a national identity card. Linked to fingerprints. You don't get a job if you can't prove your identity linked to  your real  immigration status . Why Replicratrats are so opposed to that, boggles my mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let me help you unboggle your mind.  Why not start by reading Orwell's book 1984.  It was a warning in the form of a novel.
> 
> The government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have... a quote by a famous Republican
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody on the right is asking the government to "give" us anything.  We are asking the government to stop something that we citizens cannot stop by ourselves.  Big difference.
Click to expand...



Well you have an  option. 

1.  Spend 47 BILLION dollars on a wall or steel slates that we know doesn't work
2.  Go with the recommendations of border security experts and use high technology to secure the border.  Something that would be more effective and  cost efficient.


Just to remind everyone they found 240 of these in the San Diego Region alone.





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

If you choose Option # 1 it's not because you're interested in border security, it's because you're trying to protect Trump's legacy.

Now click this link to redirect to that message from a Texas Republican who has 820 miles of border and what he wants to do.
Why is Building the Wall Wrong?


----------



## oreo

bear513 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't ever let any FACTS come up and bite you in the Ass--
> 
> Why Trump can't let go of his border wall dream (Opinion) - CNN
> 
> We have a very long, expensive history of walls & fences *not *working along the southern border.  Democrats are following the advice of border security experts & agents who want to use high tech to secure the border.  Something that can be seen (can)--and will *always* be compromised, something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> 
> 
> I really don't think the half brained Trump tards are interested in border security as much as they are in trying to save Trump.  _Their right wing talk show hosts are telling them if Trump doesn't get the Trump WALL, it will be the end of his presidency. In reality, meaning the end of THEM because they shoved Trump down their throats over the wall._
> _November 28, 2018 - TRUMP'S GREAT WALL BECOMES TRUMP'S GREAT STALL_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Climb this wall
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236503
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're not interested at all in actual border security, you're just trying to save Trump's legacy.
> 
> Redirect to a comment from a Republican House member whose district in Texas is 800 miles of the border.  Click here to redirect to the post on this thread
> Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a deterrent to fat ass Mexicans
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think there's too many fat Mexican's walking across deserts to climb walls and fences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep no fat people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm because they can't climb it?.I see no old people or children either
> 
> 
> 
> Logic escapes you doesn't it ..
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


If you would  have actually read the article 2/3's of the illegals in this  country flew in on visa's and overstayed their visas.  And as you can see from the pictures, I really don't see a problem with bringing ropes and $2.00 dollar caribeaners to lift elderly, women and children up and over those fences & walls safely.





A couple drug mules here packing marijuana over a steel fence.





I see a woman in this one, and what looks like to be a couple of kids.





Look they built a platform on their side of the fence.






Just to keep in mind that every one of these type structures were designed specifically to keep people from getting over them.  And we haven't even got to digging underneath them yet.

Which is explained at the end of this 2-1/2 minute video.

.


----------



## Flopper

Dragonlady said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of liberals have used the exact same arguments.  There are no new arguments in this debate.  Either your for the wall or you're against it.  In the latter case, you lie to support your position.  That's the bottom line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have not lied about thus far is that you're either for the wall or against it.
> 
> I'm against it and know there are better ways to secure the border.  Admit it, you don't care about anything but the wall.  You'd sell your soul for a wall.  You don't even know what's being traded off in order to get it built.
> 
> No liberal has ever quoted me; I've never quoted a liberal and they do NOT make the same arguments I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and the liberals are both against the wall because a wall would work.  What more do we need to know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall would work to expand the POLICE POWERS of the state at the expense of our God given Rights; it will NOT work because the United States of America is not a communist country; however, after you get your silly wall it will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only Communist countries secure their borders?  And how would a wall change an entire system of government?
> 
> Guess what?  I won't lose one right if we get that border wall.......not one.  Which rights do you think you'd be losing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody builds walls today, because they don't work, and they have never worked in all of history.  They give a false sense of security, though.
> 
> Only a idiot would spend $25 billion dollars on something that has never worked throughout history. Even in Biblical times, Joshua fought the battle of Jericho and the walls came tumbling down!  Look at all of the people who escaped from East Berlin, despite the Wall.  The Great Wall of China was abandoned after the Ming Dynasty, which built most of the Great Wall we see today, because the last army that overran the Great Wall and defeated them thought it was a waste of time and money.
> 
> Gated communities - only in America.  They tried them in Canada and they were a "no sale".  We're not afraid of our neighbours.  But I am reminded of the Trayvon Martin case.  It was a gated community and yet it had been plagued by break-ins. That's why Zimmerman was following Trayvon - because he suspected the kid was casing properties for break-ins.  If walls keep the bad guys out, why was Zimmerman patrolling the neighbourhood at all?
Click to expand...

Like a fence, a wall can not stop intruders it can only delay them.  A wall or reinforced fence will only delay intruders one to two minutes over standard fencing.  Now that might be meaningful in more densely populated areas such as El Paso or San Diego/Tijuana where border patrols might only be a few minutes apart.  However about 85% of the border is very remote and 1 or 2 additional minutes delay in crossing is not going to be significant since border patrols can be up to half hour or more apart in remote areas.

The most effective border security is a barrier wall or reinforced fence in more densely populated areas with simple reinforced border fencing with electronic monitoring and increased border patrols in more remote areas.  This will save many billions over a 1000 mile or more border wall, increase apprehensions and could be completed in a reasonable period time.  Plus it would likely get support from both parties.


----------



## Wyatt earp

oreo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Climb this wall
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236503
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're not interested at all in actual border security, you're just trying to save Trump's legacy.
> 
> Redirect to a comment from a Republican House member whose district in Texas is 800 miles of the border.  Click here to redirect to the post on this thread
> Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a deterrent to fat ass Mexicans
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think there's too many fat Mexican's walking across deserts to climb walls and fences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep no fat people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm because they can't climb it?.I see no old people or children either
> 
> 
> 
> Logic escapes you doesn't it ..
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would  have actually read the article 2/3's of the illegals in this  country flew in on visa's and overstayed their visas.  And as you can see from the pictures, I really don't see a problem with bringing ropes and $2.00 dollar caribeaners to lift elderly, women and children up and over those fences & walls safely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple drug mules here packing marijuana over a steel fence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see a woman in this one, and what looks like to be a couple of kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look they built a platform on their side of the fence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to keep in mind that every one of these type structures were designed specifically to keep people from getting over them.  And we haven't even got to digging underneath them yet.
> 
> Which is explained at the end of this 2-1/2 minute video.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Once again they are a deterrent, what do you want people to just walk across the border?.

And it's not expensive we just gave 10 billion dollars to Mexico and south American countries.




It's all about Trump's name and you all don't want to lose votes


----------



## Wyatt earp

oreo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Climb this wall
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236503
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're not interested at all in actual border security, you're just trying to save Trump's legacy.
> 
> Redirect to a comment from a Republican House member whose district in Texas is 800 miles of the border.  Click here to redirect to the post on this thread
> Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a deterrent to fat ass Mexicans
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think there's too many fat Mexican's walking across deserts to climb walls and fences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep no fat people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm because they can't climb it?.I see no old people or children either
> 
> 
> 
> Logic escapes you doesn't it ..
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would  have actually read the article 2/3's of the illegals in this  country flew in on visa's and overstayed their visas.  And as you can see from the pictures, I really don't see a problem with bringing ropes and $2.00 dollar caribeaners to lift elderly, women and children up and over those fences & walls safely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple drug mules here packing marijuana over a steel fence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see a woman in this one, and what looks like to be a couple of kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look they built a platform on their side of the fence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to keep in mind that every one of these type structures were designed specifically to keep people from getting over them.  And we haven't even got to digging underneath them yet.
> 
> Which is explained at the end of this 2-1/2 minute video.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



So say we don't have a wall and 60 illegals rush the border at one time, what's going to slow them down on border agent car? A drone .



.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

oreo said:


> Well you have an option.
> 
> 1. Spend 47 BILLION dollars on a wall or steel slates that we know doesn't work
> 2. Go with the recommendations of border security experts and use high technology to secure the border. Something that would be more effective and cost efficient.



So WTF are you getting this 47 billion dollar figure from?  Trump is asking for 5.8.  

We know a wall will work because of the many other places around the world (and in the US) where they do work.  

We need a wall because it's a permanent object; something the Democrats can't remove like they can with , laws and technology.  We all know Democrats want as many illegals in this country as possible, and a wall will stop their attempts should they regain total control over the federal government.  It's why they fill your heads with this crap that a wall won't work.  Democrats are scared to death of a wall not because it won't work, but because it will.  If they really believed what they told you, they wouldn't give the slightest fight over it. They would be able to use it's failure for the next couple of generations.  

The wall is life or death to Democrats.  That's why they are willing to shutdown the government over it.  No matter what it costs, they are not going to allow it to be built because it's success would ruin their entire plot.


----------



## Dragonlady

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with building the wall?  I voted for Trump. Trump is wrong, like the liberals. We need to tear down the border wall. What we really need make  a national identity card. Linked to fingerprints. You don't get a job if you can't prove your identity linked to  your real  immigration status . Why Replicratrats are so opposed to that, boggles my mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let me help you unboggle your mind.  Why not start by reading Orwell's book 1984.  It was a warning in the form of a novel.
> 
> The government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have... a quote by a famous Republican
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody on the right is asking the government to "give" us anything.  We are asking the government to stop something that we citizens cannot stop by ourselves.  Big difference.
Click to expand...


You are asking taxpayers to pay more than $25 billion for something that doesn’t work and that Trump promised Mexico would pay for.  Furthermore, Trump is putting tens of thousands of people into custody in tent cities at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. 

Trump is spending millions and millions and just making the situation worse.


----------



## Dragonlady

Ray From Cleveland said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you have an option.
> 
> 1. Spend 47 BILLION dollars on a wall or steel slates that we know doesn't work
> 2. Go with the recommendations of border security experts and use high technology to secure the border. Something that would be more effective and cost efficient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So WTF are you getting this 47 billion dollar figure from?  Trump is asking for 5.8.
> 
> We know a wall will work because of the many other places around the world (and in the US) where they do work.
> 
> We need a wall because it's a permanent object; something the Democrats can't remove like they can with , laws and technology.  We all know Democrats want as many illegals in this country as possible, and a wall will stop their attempts should they regain total control over the federal government.  It's why they fill your heads with this crap that a wall won't work.  Democrats are scared to death of a wall not because it won't work, but because it will.  If they really believed what they told you, they wouldn't give the slightest fight over it. They would be able to use it's failure for the next couple of generations.
> 
> The wall is life or death to Democrats.  That's why they are willing to shutdown the government over it.  No matter what it costs, they are not going to allow it to be built because it's success would ruin their entire plot.
Click to expand...


The $5 billion isn’t to pay for the wall. It’s to start construction. The wall will cost at least $25 billion and probably closer to $40 billion.  And then there’s another $200 million contract for the fir profit prison people to run the tent cities.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it could.  So can prison fences.  So can jails.  It happens now and then.  But the point is it makes it much more difficult for those that are hell bent on trying.  For the rest, they will realize the efforts and risks are too great, and they payoff (if any) not worthy.  Because even if they could draw the attention by getting past a wall, it likely won't be long until a border agent on the other side arrests them and sends them back to the other side.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind the wall is really an unknown factor.  It may be solid or slats. It may have barbed wire, electric wire, or nothing on top.  Once it's built it becomes a known factor and can not easily be changed.  That means coyotes will figure out the fastest method of crossing which maybe ladders,  climbing carabiners, or some type power lift.  However, you can be sure once the fence is built people are going to cross it.  You can't stop them  No wall can keep people out if they have access to the right equipment.  It can only delay crossing. People who have crossed existing border walls estimated that the delay would only be 1 to 2 minutes over current reinforced fencing.  That might be useful in densely populated area but in remote ares which are 85% of the border a couple of minutes delay would be meaningless.


----------



## Markle

beautress said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said, *"Italians, Germans, Asians and now Latinos all cost the first year. All subsequent years they contribute way more than our old white farts here sucking off their socialist benefits"*
> 
> You obviously are unaware that social security was paid for with taking out 7.5% of wages with employer requirements matching to the government for a lifetime of work--12 times a year or 52 times a year depending on whether we received monthly or weekly wages. The cruel part is that we were promised interest payments would be returned into Social Security right up until the time politicians got greedy and decided to "borrow" the interest and sometimes the principals for their pet rock projects. Call us what you will, but we paid for our retirement benefits way ahead of time and with no choice and no say in the investments which were expropriated by very evil people who used it to get higher salaries for themselves and the people who pleasured them. One thing about taxes and promises. What it buys is not only never good enough, it also is not what was intended when we agreed to pay it. I paid my fair share always, regardless of what foul name you care to call other people than yourself who receive the benefits every one of us has to pay from our earnings..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is 100% WRONG.
> 
> At the turn of the century, immigrants cost us nothing.
> 
> Employees now pay 15.3%.  The smoke and mirrors want you to believe your employer pays.  Nonsense, otherwise that money would go to you.
> 
> We were never promised a return of the money we paid into Social Security plus interest.  That's just foolish.
> 
> There has never been a separate, Social Security Trust Account.  Any and all money paid into Social Security by workers has been used to pay current recipients.  Any surplus is invested in Treasury Bills which puts the money into the General Fund and is spent.
> 
> Next time you post, please do some basic research.  Your rant just looks foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Common knowledge of business practices before you were born never came to your attention, did they, grade school?
> 
> Your problem is your* severe failure to keep either current events you don't like on the back burner or you just never bothered to learn what was going on.* Thanks to my dear parents, I have been reading (and remembering) news stories since I was six years old, the first of which was an unusually good picture of Ike Eisenhower winning his first term presidency. And you either have a reading comprehension problem, or you were unaware that following the Great Depression of the 1930s, Social Security came with the understanding those paying into it would have a retirement income and that any interest earned on the money Americans paid into the system would be funneled back into the system for the benefit of the security of the people who paid into it.
> 
> Go stand in the corner, kiddo. And listen well to the tone.
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


So, once again, you have nothing.  Good to see that at least you deny nothing I posted.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Dragonlady said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with building the wall?  I voted for Trump. Trump is wrong, like the liberals. We need to tear down the border wall. What we really need make  a national identity card. Linked to fingerprints. You don't get a job if you can't prove your identity linked to  your real  immigration status . Why Replicratrats are so opposed to that, boggles my mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let me help you unboggle your mind.  Why not start by reading Orwell's book 1984.  It was a warning in the form of a novel.
> 
> The government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have... a quote by a famous Republican
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody on the right is asking the government to "give" us anything.  We are asking the government to stop something that we citizens cannot stop by ourselves.  Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are asking taxpayers to pay more than $25 billion for something that doesn’t work and that Trump promised Mexico would pay for.  Furthermore, Trump is putting tens of thousands of people into custody in tent cities at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.
> 
> Trump is spending millions and millions and just making the situation worse.
Click to expand...



If we had a wall we wouldn't have all those people in tent cities, they just walked over .


----------



## Markle

Dragonlady said:


> ou are asking taxpayers to pay more than $25 billion for something that doesn’t work and that Trump promised Mexico would pay for. Furthermore, Trump is putting tens of thousands of people into custody in tent cities at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.
> 
> Trump is spending millions and millions and just making the situation worse.



You know the wall will not work because?

Concerning the wall Israel built between themselves and the Palestinians.

*Where ever it is deployed, apprehension stands at 100%.*

Yes - 100% success rate at apprehending infiltrators.

If you want further data, it is available through another case study, the more veteran array around Gaza. Same numbers.

In fact, it is the ultimate success of this defensive array which led the Hamas and others, to move to a focus on artillery attacks against Israeli civilians. 

Now - these are awful as well, but I'll take this threat over suicide bomber blowing up in shopping malls any day of the week.

https://www.quora.com/Has-the-Israeli-barrier-in-the-West-Bank-been-effective-in-protecting-Israel


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
Click to expand...

The wall in Israel like the Berlin Wall worked because the guards could be at any attempted crossing in minutes.  That is not the case with our 2000 mile border.  Unless we have thousands of miles of monitoring and border guards, migrants will stream across the remote areas of the border.  However, if we had that degree of monitoring and border guards there would be no reason for the wall.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall in Israel like the Berlin Wall worked because the guards could be at any attempted crossing in minutes.  That is not the case with our 2000 mile border.  Unless we have thousands of miles of monitoring and border guards, migrants will stream across the remote areas of the border.  However, if we had that degree of monitoring and border guards there would be no reason for the wall.
Click to expand...



So they going to walk 500 miles out of there way to scale a wall ? Wouldn't the gaurds spot them and just drive over there?


.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Dragonlady said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with building the wall?  I voted for Trump. Trump is wrong, like the liberals. We need to tear down the border wall. What we really need make  a national identity card. Linked to fingerprints. You don't get a job if you can't prove your identity linked to  your real  immigration status . Why Replicratrats are so opposed to that, boggles my mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let me help you unboggle your mind.  Why not start by reading Orwell's book 1984.  It was a warning in the form of a novel.
> 
> The government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have... a quote by a famous Republican
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody on the right is asking the government to "give" us anything.  We are asking the government to stop something that we citizens cannot stop by ourselves.  Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are asking taxpayers to pay more than $25 billion for something that doesn’t work and that Trump promised Mexico would pay for.  Furthermore, Trump is putting tens of thousands of people into custody in tent cities at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.
> 
> Trump is spending millions and millions and just making the situation worse.
Click to expand...




If walls don't work, why have there been so many walls throughout history; why are there so many gated communities and resorts all over the rest of the world with walls; why do gated communities in the US have walls; why do the Vatican and Israel have walls; why do so many wealthy and/or famous US residents have walls around their homes; why do prisons have walls, why do military installations have walls; why are there walls or high fences around electrical installations, missile silos and panoply of other places?



.

As far as ladders go, how is a would-be illegal immigrant going to trek all the way to our border carrying a 30-foot ladder? (Oh, I forgot, you wackos are going to aid and abet.) Do you opponents of the wall know how clumsy and heavy a 30-foot ladder is or how much one costs? Have any of you ever tried to pull one up to the top of a tall wall with razorwire or barbed wire on its top, get the ladder and yourself over the top of such a barrier, then lower the ladder down the other side and climb down? Then, how does one get that ladder back over thesaid wall and down the other side for someone else to use? Haveany of you ever carried one, erected one, and used one? Even with climbing gear, if would-be illegal immigrants could get it to the border, it would still be a feat to get over and down the other side of such a wall. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that some incredibly fit, determined, equipped, and experiencedperson could get over such a wall with his belongings, how manymight that be out of say 5,000 people?





Are wall opponents so blinded by their ulterior motives that they refuse to or can't see that walls always have and still do deter the movement of people? Have they lost all sense of historical perspective, common sense,powers of observation, and reality? If they are delusional or in a state of deep denial, I hope they get help for Heaven’s sake.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Markle said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG. You force those who agree with you that problem exists to play the devil's advocate and not let you get away with that LIE.
> 
> The ONLY tax that so - called illegals can be accused of not paying is the federal income tax. That is graduated tax - a plank from the Communist Manifesto. You should help repeal that Amendment IF that is your beef.
> 
> *But, wait... the CHIEF ACTUARY OF THE SSA says 75 percent of those without papers DO pay that tax. *EVERYBODY who works under the table, denying to the commies that tribute are doing all of us a public service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My highlight above.
> 
> Liar.
> 
> *About 6.1 Million Illegals Filed Taxes in US – Many Didn't Pay, Received Refunds*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By James Agresti | November 7, 2016 | 2:57 PM EST
> [...]
> Nonetheless, the contrast between tax returns filed with and without ITINs in 2010 is enlightening. As documented above, 72 percent of ITIN filers paid no income tax and received cash payments through child tax credits. In comparison, only 14 percent of people who filed regular tax returns (with a Social Security number instead of an ITIN) paid no income tax and received these payments.
> [...]
> About 6.1 Million Illegals Filed Taxes in US – Many Didn't Pay, Received Refunds
Click to expand...


"There is also a myth that undocumented immigrants don’t pay any taxes. It is estimated that at least 70 percent of undocumented immigrants work “on the table” *through IRS assigned numbers or fake documents. Moreover, Stephen Goss, Social Security’s chief actuary, says that “our assumption is that about three-quarters of other-than- legal pay payroll taxes.”* Immigrants do pay taxes, lots of taxes! A 2012 study Massachusetts Immigrants by the Numbers: Demographic characteristics and Economic Footprint found that: • Immigrants comprised 16.7 percent of the state income tax filers in 2009, higher than their 14.0 percent share of population and showed a significant propensity to pay income taxes. • They paid $1.4 billion in Massachusetts state income taxes in 2009. • Immigrant-headed households in Massachusetts paid $1.3 billion in local property taxes in 2009. • Immigrants paid $338 million in sales and excise taxes in 2009 or 14.3 percent of the total. • Low rates of incarceration and institutionalization among immigrants balance costs associated with educating immigrant children. • Immigrants’ reliance on public assistance income is about the same as for natives. 442 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148 Tel (781) 322-9777 Fax (781) 321-1963 www.ilctr.org Diane Portnoy President and CEO 2 • Adult immigrants must wait five years to be eligible for public assistance, while undocumented immigrants cannot receive any transfer payments. • Undocumented immigrants do not receive credit toward future Social Security payments even though they may pay into the system. The IRS estimates that 70 to 75 percent of the undocumented population pays Social Security taxes and those payments are anet benefit to the system estimated at $7 billion annually.(1)"

http://www.ilctr.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/immigrants_taxes_use_of_welfare2012.pdf


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
Click to expand...


The FACT that you are making the idiotic and erroneous claim that you have debunked the facts disproving your claims adds to that body of evidence that you don't understand how the nutty wall idea is going to destroy YOUR Liberty.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The FACT that you are making the idiotic and erroneous claim that you have debunked the facts disproving your claims adds to that body of evidence that you don't understand how the nutty wall idea is going to destroy YOUR Liberty.
Click to expand...



How the heck does protecting our borders so we can have liberty from 3 Rd world shit holes like Mexico, destroy our libertys?

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a parakeet, always rehashing what Hush Bimbo said.
> 
> What your sources are not revealing is that they took OTHER precautions - which you conveniently ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's that gibberish?
> 
> 
> I bet you go to a plumber to get an enema , instead of going to a doctor right?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks are indicative of the FEAR you have that your arguments aren't working.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government providing safety does not take away liberty.  I don't know how you can't see it can be one without the other.
> 
> Will a wall take away freedoms?  Yes it will; freedoms illegals have coming over now.  It won't take any freedom away from Americans because the wall is not to keep us from leaving, it's to keep them from entering our country.
Click to expand...


What kind of mental midgetry is that?  You genuinely need to think about getting back on your meds.  Under the right government, the wall can and will be used to keep you in.  Trump is not God.  He's going to leave office at some point and the infringements you are making possible are treasonous.  They WILL bite you in the arse.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with building the wall?  I voted for Trump. Trump is wrong, like the liberals. We need to tear down the border wall. What we really need make  a national identity card. Linked to fingerprints. You don't get a job if you can't prove your identity linked to  your real  immigration status . Why Replicratrats are so opposed to that, boggles my mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let me help you unboggle your mind.  Why not start by reading Orwell's book 1984.  It was a warning in the form of a novel.
> 
> The government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have... a quote by a famous Republican
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody on the right is asking the government to "give" us anything.  We are asking the government to stop something that we citizens cannot stop by ourselves.  Big difference.
Click to expand...


You want the government to give you a wall for whatever reason you can conjure up as the discussion proceeds.  You don't really know why you want it, other than you think Trump is God and you have to move the goalposts accordingly.  But, you want him to give you a wall.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it could.  So can prison fences.  So can jails.  It happens now and then.  But the point is it makes it much more difficult for those that are hell bent on trying.  For the rest, they will realize the efforts and risks are too great, and they payoff (if any) not worthy.  Because even if they could draw the attention by getting past a wall, it likely won't be long until a border agent on the other side arrests them and sends them back to the other side.
Click to expand...


And now the truth comes out.  You fantasize about living in a prison.  Keep pointing that gun in your avatar.  When the wall debate is over and you have, the left is going to take that gun and stick it up your arse under the pretext of making you safe.


----------



## basquebromance

Mulvaney: DHS 'can’t actually' make Mexico pay for border wall

I'm not a math whiz like Mick Mulvaney. How come I know that tax remittances would "make" Mexicans pay for the wall 

 IN ONE SHORT YEAR? 2017 Mexicans sent $26,167,00,000 to Mexico.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> 
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The FACT that you are making the idiotic and erroneous claim that you have debunked the facts disproving your claims adds to that body of evidence that you don't understand how the nutty wall idea is going to destroy YOUR Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How the heck does protecting our borders so we can have liberty from 3 Rd world shit holes like Mexico, destroy our libertys?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Let's see if we can put this in language that even you can understand.

With the wall will come the enforcement.  There will be things both seen and UNSEEN.  For example, the Constitution Free Zone will be vigorously enforced.  There go your constitutional Liberties within 100 miles of the border.  And there will be more.

If you would go off the attack, STFU and quit posting every five minutes, I would explain it to you.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The FACT that you are making the idiotic and erroneous claim that you have debunked the facts disproving your claims adds to that body of evidence that you don't understand how the nutty wall idea is going to destroy YOUR Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How the heck does protecting our borders so we can have liberty from 3 Rd world shit holes like Mexico, destroy our libertys?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see if we can put this in language that even you can understand.
> 
> With the wall will come the enforcement.  There will be things both seen and UNSEEN.  For example, the Constitution Free Zone will be vigorously enforced.  There go your constitutional Liberties within 100 miles of the border.  And there will be more.
> 
> If you would go off the attack, STFU and quit posting every five minutes, I would explain it to you.
Click to expand...



Who cares I don't live 100 miles of the border...and it should be that way.


You do know the USA is almost 4 million square miles right?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with building the wall?  I voted for Trump. Trump is wrong, like the liberals. We need to tear down the border wall. What we really need make  a national identity card. Linked to fingerprints. You don't get a job if you can't prove your identity linked to  your real  immigration status . Why Replicratrats are so opposed to that, boggles my mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let me help you unboggle your mind.  Why not start by reading Orwell's book 1984.  It was a warning in the form of a novel.
> 
> The government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have... a quote by a famous Republican
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody on the right is asking the government to "give" us anything.  We are asking the government to stop something that we citizens cannot stop by ourselves.  Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are asking taxpayers to pay more than $25 billion for something that doesn’t work and that Trump promised Mexico would pay for.  Furthermore, Trump is putting tens of thousands of people into custody in tent cities at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.
> 
> Trump is spending millions and millions and just making the situation worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If walls don't work, why have there been so many walls throughout history; why are there so many gated communities and resorts all over the rest of the world with walls; why do gated communities in the US have walls; why do the Vatican and Israel have walls; why do so many wealthy and/or famous US residents have walls around their homes; why do prisons have walls, why do military installations have walls; why are there walls or high fences around electrical installations, missile silos and panoply of other places?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> As far as ladders go, how is a would-be illegal immigrant going to trek all the way to our border carrying a 30-foot ladder? (Oh, I forgot, you wackos are going to aid and abet.) Do you opponents of the wall know how clumsy and heavy a 30-foot ladder is or how much one costs? Have any of you ever tried to pull one up to the top of a tall wall with razorwire or barbed wire on its top, get the ladder and yourself over the top of such a barrier, then lower the ladder down the other side and climb down? Then, how does one get that ladder back over thesaid wall and down the other side for someone else to use? Haveany of you ever carried one, erected one, and used one? Even with climbing gear, if would-be illegal immigrants could get it to the border, it would still be a feat to get over and down the other side of such a wall. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that some incredibly fit, determined, equipped, and experiencedperson could get over such a wall with his belongings, how manymight that be out of say 5,000 people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are wall opponents so blinded by their ulterior motives that they refuse to or can't see that walls always have and still do deter the movement of people? Have they lost all sense of historical perspective, common sense,powers of observation, and reality? If they are delusional or in a state of deep denial, I hope they get help for Heaven’s sake.
Click to expand...


LMFAO.  By that kind of logic, how come that every empire in history ceased to exist?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The FACT that you are making the idiotic and erroneous claim that you have debunked the facts disproving your claims adds to that body of evidence that you don't understand how the nutty wall idea is going to destroy YOUR Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How the heck does protecting our borders so we can have liberty from 3 Rd world shit holes like Mexico, destroy our libertys?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see if we can put this in language that even you can understand.
> 
> With the wall will come the enforcement.  There will be things both seen and UNSEEN.  For example, the Constitution Free Zone will be vigorously enforced.  There go your constitutional Liberties within 100 miles of the border.  And there will be more.
> 
> If you would go off the attack, STFU and quit posting every five minutes, I would explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares I don't live 100 miles of the border...and it should be that way.
> 
> 
> You do know the USA is almost 4 million square miles right?
Click to expand...


I know that over half the U.S. population lives within 100 miles of the border.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Here is the first disconnect with those who want to build a border wall.

The REASON THE WALL WON'T WORK HERE IS DUE TO THE SIMPLE FACT THAT IT IS INTENDED SOLELY TO PREVENT HUMAN BEINGS FROM ENGAGING IN OTHERWISE LEGAL ACTIVITIES.

Unlike the Israelis, we are not in a state of war with our neighbors.  The American people are WILLINGLY participating in free trade.

The build the wall advocates here keep asking the same questions and keep getting the same answers.  It is not in the interests of the American people to start a process that infringes upon the Rights of those who WILLINGLY engage in business with foreign neighbors.

You could regulate the trade, but you are not ever going to keep the foreigners out unless and until you change your own behavior.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> Here is the first disconnect with those who want to build a border wall.
> 
> The REASON THE WALL WON'T WORK HERE IS DUE TO THE SIMPLE FACT THAT IT IS INTENDED SOLELY TO PREVENT HUMAN BEINGS FROM ENGAGING IN OTHERWISE LEGAL ACTIVITIES.
> 
> Unlike the Israelis, we are not in a state of war with our neighbors.  The American people are WILLINGLY participating in free trade.
> 
> The build the wall advocates here keep asking the same questions and keep getting the same answers.  It is not in the interests of the American people to start a process that infringes upon the Rights of those who WILLINGLY engage in business with foreign neighbors.
> 
> You could regulate the trade, but you are not ever going to keep the foreigners out unless and until you change your own behavior.




You do know we have border check points right?

And we are in a drug war with Mexico we just gave the like 5 billion dollars over the next few years


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FACT that you are making the idiotic and erroneous claim that you have debunked the facts disproving your claims adds to that body of evidence that you don't understand how the nutty wall idea is going to destroy YOUR Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How the heck does protecting our borders so we can have liberty from 3 Rd world shit holes like Mexico, destroy our libertys?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see if we can put this in language that even you can understand.
> 
> With the wall will come the enforcement.  There will be things both seen and UNSEEN.  For example, the Constitution Free Zone will be vigorously enforced.  There go your constitutional Liberties within 100 miles of the border.  And there will be more.
> 
> If you would go off the attack, STFU and quit posting every five minutes, I would explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares I don't live 100 miles of the border...and it should be that way.
> 
> 
> You do know the USA is almost 4 million square miles right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that over half the U.S. population lives within 100 miles of the border.
Click to expand...



Border or do you mean water?


.


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236224
> It's a waste of skin.
> 
> Only a colossal dolt would argue against protection of one's own border.  The Pentagon has misplaced more money MANY TIMES OVER over the years than what the wall would cost to build.
> 
> AND THAT IS WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING THE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS (AND BILLIONS) WE WOULD SAVE IN NOT-WASTED RESOURCES ONCE IT IS FINISHED.
> 
> *PROVE ME WRONG.* Once the wall is built, if it turns out to be a colossal mistake like you predict that backfires in our faces, we can always TEAR IT BACK DOWN, melt the steel, and use the metal to make free housing for illegal Latinos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is HIGHLY disingenuous for anyone to suggest that those opposed to the wall don't care about border security.  Not having a case, the build the wall proponents are slinging the scare word liberal around and making a baseless and false accusation.
> 
> The people once known as patriots and constitutionalists had the issue under control and were successfully working toward permanent solutions to this issue.  History has already proven you wrong.
> 
> The thing of it is, the really ignorant people are those who are for the wall, but against using their common sense.  Rather than call people names; rather than question the motives of others, you should sit down and ask yourself what happens if you get the wall - and be OBJECTIVE.  How will the law affect YOUR Liberty?
> 
> Having ninja clad, machine gun toting federal mercenaries patrolling a wall that cannot stop free enterprise nor cure people of their drug habit only brings cries for a bigger and bigger - and more intrusive government.  With that more and more of your Liberties go south until you cannot reclaim them.  I'd rather fight that inevitability because, once the wall is built, and proves ineffective we will not be able to stop it any more than we stopped the once TEMPORARY tax known as the income tax.  And what has the 16th Amendment brought you besides a private corporation of murderers that makes the average American quake in their shoes?  Most people would rather face an armed robber than the IRS.  Yet you don't learn from history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The border security says the 600 miles of walls we have now are highly effective.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

it just means our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; are worthless.


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a parakeet, always rehashing what Hush Bimbo said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what he said?  I don't bring up Rush, you do.  You have this problem of thinking people are saying something they never said.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What your sources are not revealing is that they took OTHER precautions - which you conveniently ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF difference would that make even if it were true.  The fact of the matter is border walls work.  They work around the world, they work here, and they will work even more when more wall is erected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I'm traveling about in town, I get a few minutes of Rush here and there several times a week.  So, when you babble on about your precious wall, it's pretty evident that you are getting your info from Rush and / or the same sources he gets his drivel from.
> 
> A border wall will not work in a free society.  They work in totalitarian regimes for a reason.  I can explain that simple concept to you, but I cannot understand it for you.  You want to live in the ultimate POLICE STATE; I don't.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We already have 600 miles of walls, we do live in a free society , that protects us from rapist killers in mexico
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

it doesn't protect foreign nationals from our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, or creating more refugees.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

I want the people whose religion is that silly wall to know something before I begin this rant.  I prayed about it and thought about it a LOT this past week.  The reasons that patriots and constitutionalists do not want the wall is predicated upon decades of working with the legal and political systems.  If I were not convinced that the fix is in, I would not post this as only a dullard has not thought about this IF they have actually studied the issue.

Many people on the right realize that the government in charge in Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption is NOT the same government envisioned by the founding fathers.  Much of the Constitution today means 180 degrees opposite of what the framers intended.  This could not be more true and blatant than with gun control.  Today, the United States Supreme Court honestly believes that they dole out your Rights.  And every year, gun rights have taken a hit until the Right no longer exists.  It is now a mere privilege.

The objective of constitutionalists and patriots is to retain our Rights.  Unless you are deaf, dumb, blind, and completely stupid you should realize that, in many cases, the process does not work for those who are strict constructionists and patriots.  Again, to go back to gun control, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns... and so many gun owners have pledged not to comply with unconstitutional gun laws.

Now, once the wall goes up and doesn't work, the build the wall advocates will want more enforcement tools - THEY ALREADY DEMAND THEM!  These people want the government to enforce the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify.  More and more surveillance with more and more control.  At some point it should dawn on them that if you do the danielpalos thing, issuing "National ID" to foreigners, it don't work without citizens carrying National ID.

I've had at least fifty or more exchanges with one of the most vociferous advocates for the wall and he believes that government ought to retain and give out all kinds of personal information on people.  Oh, he's got a ready made answer for everything.  He cannot grasp the simple fact that once a person has served their time for something, they should return to society with their Rights intact.  Otherwise, if you can't trust them, keep them in jail / prison ' a mental ward.

The over-all objective is to be able to retain your public Liberties as per the founders so that resistance to tyranny is always possible.  Under the womb to the tomb surveillance AND the suspension of constitutional Rights to enforce the border wall (AS IS BEING ADVOCATED BY THE BUILD THE WALL ADVOCATES ON THIS THREAD) they are taking away the ability of the resistance to operate and oppose tyranny in government.

We can secure the border AND leave those options open that will aid us in resisting tyranny in government.  NEITHER the build the wall advocates NOR those who are in the resistance have a fool proof plan, but the build the wall advocates think like Democrats:  You will never be able to build a wall big enough or take away Rights to the point that they are satisfied because they cannot accept the simple fact:

FOREIGNERS ARE HERE BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE WILLINGLY DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM.  We're not in a war; we're not trying to go back to the Constitution as originally written and intended, so the resistance is merely trying to retain the ability to resist unconstitutional powers... and that objective flies over the heads of the build the wall advocates who end up defending and promoting communism in the name of their stupid wall.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Here is the first disconnect with those who want to build a border wall.
> 
> The REASON THE WALL WON'T WORK HERE IS DUE TO THE SIMPLE FACT THAT IT IS INTENDED SOLELY TO PREVENT HUMAN BEINGS FROM ENGAGING IN OTHERWISE LEGAL ACTIVITIES.
> 
> Unlike the Israelis, we are not in a state of war with our neighbors.  The American people are WILLINGLY participating in free trade.
> 
> The build the wall advocates here keep asking the same questions and keep getting the same answers.  It is not in the interests of the American people to start a process that infringes upon the Rights of those who WILLINGLY engage in business with foreign neighbors.
> 
> You could regulate the trade, but you are not ever going to keep the foreigners out unless and until you change your own behavior.



So how would a wall interfere in free trade?  People come here to work, make money, and ship that money back home.  Working is part of our behavior in America.  Producing is part of our behavior in America.


----------



## dblack

Porter Rockwell said:


> Now, once the wall goes up and doesn't work, the build the wall advocates will want more enforcement tools - THEY ALREADY DEMAND THEM!  These people want the government to enforce the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify.  More and more surveillance with more and more control.  At some point it should dawn on them that if you do the danielpalos thing, issuing "National ID" to foreigners, it don't work without citizens carrying National ID.



Exactly. The wall cowards are demanding *authoritarian government. *That's why I think its wrong, and why I oppose them.



> We can secure the border AND leave those options open that will aid us in resisting tyranny in government.  NEITHER the build the wall advocates NOR those who are in the resistance have a fool proof plan, but the build the wall advocates think like Democrats:  You will never be able to build a wall big enough or take away Rights to the point that they are satisfied because they cannot accept the simple fact:
> 
> *FOREIGNERS ARE HERE BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE WILLINGLY DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM.  *We're not in a war; we're not trying to go back to the Constitution as originally written and intended, so the resistance is merely trying to retain the ability to resist unconstitutional powers... and that objective flies over the heads of the build the wall advocates who end up defending and promoting communism in the name of their stupid wall.



Yep. The wall cowards want to prevent their neighbors from doing business with Mexicans because they are afraid of the competition.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the first disconnect with those who want to build a border wall.
> 
> The REASON THE WALL WON'T WORK HERE IS DUE TO THE SIMPLE FACT THAT IT IS INTENDED SOLELY TO PREVENT HUMAN BEINGS FROM ENGAGING IN OTHERWISE LEGAL ACTIVITIES.
> 
> Unlike the Israelis, we are not in a state of war with our neighbors.  The American people are WILLINGLY participating in free trade.
> 
> The build the wall advocates here keep asking the same questions and keep getting the same answers.  It is not in the interests of the American people to start a process that infringes upon the Rights of those who WILLINGLY engage in business with foreign neighbors.
> 
> You could regulate the trade, but you are not ever going to keep the foreigners out unless and until you change your own behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how would a wall interfere in free trade?  People come here to work, make money, and ship that money back home.  Working is part of our behavior in America.  Producing is part of our behavior in America.
Click to expand...

this is an actual and Express power delegated to Congress:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
_
There is no Express wall building power.

Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective and humane.


----------



## danielpalos

dblack said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, once the wall goes up and doesn't work, the build the wall advocates will want more enforcement tools - THEY ALREADY DEMAND THEM!  These people want the government to enforce the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify.  More and more surveillance with more and more control.  At some point it should dawn on them that if you do the danielpalos thing, issuing "National ID" to foreigners, it don't work without citizens carrying National ID.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. The wall cowards are demanding *authoritarian government. *That's why I think its wrong, and why I oppose them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can secure the border AND leave those options open that will aid us in resisting tyranny in government.  NEITHER the build the wall advocates NOR those who are in the resistance have a fool proof plan, but the build the wall advocates think like Democrats:  You will never be able to build a wall big enough or take away Rights to the point that they are satisfied because they cannot accept the simple fact:
> 
> *FOREIGNERS ARE HERE BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE WILLINGLY DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM.  *We're not in a war; we're not trying to go back to the Constitution as originally written and intended, so the resistance is merely trying to retain the ability to resist unconstitutional powers... and that objective flies over the heads of the build the wall advocates who end up defending and promoting communism in the name of their stupid wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. The wall cowards want to prevent their neighbors from doing business with Mexicans because they are afraid of the competition.
Click to expand...

free trade and less regulation!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it could.  So can prison fences.  So can jails.  It happens now and then.  But the point is it makes it much more difficult for those that are hell bent on trying.  For the rest, they will realize the efforts and risks are too great, and they payoff (if any) not worthy.  Because even if they could draw the attention by getting past a wall, it likely won't be long until a border agent on the other side arrests them and sends them back to the other side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now the truth comes out.  You fantasize about living in a prison.  Keep pointing that gun in your avatar.  When the wall debate is over and you have, the left is going to take that gun and stick it up your arse under the pretext of making you safe.
Click to expand...


You are really out there.  Boy did they see you coming. 

A wall does one thing and one thing only: keep invaders out of our country.  It won't change our politics, it won't change our laws, it won't affect any part of the Constitution, it won't decide which party leads our country  It's just a wall which will be built for one goal to solve one problem.  Nothing else changes.


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So how would a wall interfere in free trade?



It will be used to enforce laws that interfere with free trade. I mean, that's the point right? We pass laws that severely limit Mexicans coming there to work. But like all overly restrictive laws, people just ignore them. That's why you want a wall, to force obedience to laws that are being ignored. Ignored *by Americans *who are otherwise happy to have Mexicans helping us get things done here in the US.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with building the wall?  I voted for Trump. Trump is wrong, like the liberals. We need to tear down the border wall. What we really need make  a national identity card. Linked to fingerprints. You don't get a job if you can't prove your identity linked to  your real  immigration status . Why Replicratrats are so opposed to that, boggles my mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let me help you unboggle your mind.  Why not start by reading Orwell's book 1984.  It was a warning in the form of a novel.
> 
> The government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have... a quote by a famous Republican
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody on the right is asking the government to "give" us anything.  We are asking the government to stop something that we citizens cannot stop by ourselves.  Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want the government to give you a wall for whatever reason you can conjure up as the discussion proceeds.  You don't really know why you want it, other than you think Trump is God and you have to move the goalposts accordingly.  But, you want him to give you a wall.
Click to expand...


Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.  

They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat. 

It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.


----------



## Paulie

candycorn said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A&B mostly.  Most illegal immigration does not come over the border by foot.  And if we’re 21T in debt, a quarter T on building a wall is not a good investment.
> 
> So as an immigration barrier, it’s a bad idea; also in the stark light of the reality that illegal immigration has been largely beneficial to the economy despite the horror stories and cherry picked anecdotes.
> 
> That being said, it seems to me that a fantastic idea would be to create an alternative to the Panama canal from San Diego to Brownsville TX or so that allows goods to bypass the trip through Central America and can possibly bring irrigation to the desert Southwest.  Not right along the border but something like that would serve multiple purposes;
> 
> Jobs during the construction
> Immigration barrier to those that do cross illegally
> Irrigation
> Commerce
> National Security.
> 
> 
> All a pipe dream.
> It would be a multi decade project of course and We don’t do big things any longer.
> 
> Space Force!
> 
> 
> 
> A quarter T? Who said the wall was going to cost 250 billion?  I've seen estimates of somewhere around 20 billion on the high end
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what in the hell I was thinking.  A quarter B once you factor in buying the land, doing environmental studies, maintenance, etc seems high as well.
> 
> The fact that the wall will not do what it is being sold stands though.
Click to expand...

It won't stop every single person but if you think it won't at least significantly slow down the influx I don't know what to tell you


----------



## danielpalos

the right wing doesn't care about law, just their bigotry.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall in Israel like the Berlin Wall worked because the guards could be at any attempted crossing in minutes.  That is not the case with our 2000 mile border.  Unless we have thousands of miles of monitoring and border guards, migrants will stream across the remote areas of the border.  However, if we had that degree of monitoring and border guards there would be no reason for the wall.
Click to expand...


So what's wrong with having both?


----------



## danielpalos

...the Mexicans may ask for British Dominion so they can come in through Canada!

Free trade and less regulation!


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.



See - occasionally the are honest. The Wall is just protectionism for lazy Americans.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it could.  So can prison fences.  So can jails.  It happens now and then.  But the point is it makes it much more difficult for those that are hell bent on trying.  For the rest, they will realize the efforts and risks are too great, and they payoff (if any) not worthy.  Because even if they could draw the attention by getting past a wall, it likely won't be long until a border agent on the other side arrests them and sends them back to the other side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep in mind the wall is really an unknown factor.  It may be solid or slats. It may have barbed wire, electric wire, or nothing on top.  Once it's built it becomes a known factor and can not easily be changed.  That means coyotes will figure out the fastest method of crossing which maybe ladders,  climbing carabiners, or some type power lift.  However, you can be sure once the fence is built people are going to cross it.  You can't stop them  No wall can keep people out if they have access to the right equipment.  It can only delay crossing. People who have crossed existing border walls estimated that the delay would only be 1 to 2 minutes over current reinforced fencing.  That might be useful in densely populated area but in remote ares which are 85% of the border a couple of minutes delay would be meaningless.
Click to expand...


Then why are other countries with similar problems to the US reporting great success with their wall?  Will it stop each and every one?  Probably not.  But if the reduction is 75% or better, it's money well spent.


----------



## candycorn

Paulie said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A&B mostly.  Most illegal immigration does not come over the border by foot.  And if we’re 21T in debt, a quarter T on building a wall is not a good investment.
> 
> So as an immigration barrier, it’s a bad idea; also in the stark light of the reality that illegal immigration has been largely beneficial to the economy despite the horror stories and cherry picked anecdotes.
> 
> That being said, it seems to me that a fantastic idea would be to create an alternative to the Panama canal from San Diego to Brownsville TX or so that allows goods to bypass the trip through Central America and can possibly bring irrigation to the desert Southwest.  Not right along the border but something like that would serve multiple purposes;
> 
> Jobs during the construction
> Immigration barrier to those that do cross illegally
> Irrigation
> Commerce
> National Security.
> 
> 
> All a pipe dream.
> It would be a multi decade project of course and We don’t do big things any longer.
> 
> Space Force!
> 
> 
> 
> A quarter T? Who said the wall was going to cost 250 billion?  I've seen estimates of somewhere around 20 billion on the high end
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what in the hell I was thinking.  A quarter B once you factor in buying the land, doing environmental studies, maintenance, etc seems high as well.
> 
> The fact that the wall will not do what it is being sold stands though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't stop every single person but if you think it won't at least significantly slow down the influx I don't know what to tell you
Click to expand...


Slow the influx is true.  Significantly...doubtful 
You put up a wall and those that wade across the Rio Grande will just stuff themselves into trucks or onto ships. Those who do this sort of smuggling are pelrisoners to market forces too.  They will charge less if they have more customers.  


 Or save up, fly to Canada and take a leisurely stroll into Montana.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dragonlady said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you have an option.
> 
> 1. Spend 47 BILLION dollars on a wall or steel slates that we know doesn't work
> 2. Go with the recommendations of border security experts and use high technology to secure the border. Something that would be more effective and cost efficient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So WTF are you getting this 47 billion dollar figure from?  Trump is asking for 5.8.
> 
> We know a wall will work because of the many other places around the world (and in the US) where they do work.
> 
> We need a wall because it's a permanent object; something the Democrats can't remove like they can with , laws and technology.  We all know Democrats want as many illegals in this country as possible, and a wall will stop their attempts should they regain total control over the federal government.  It's why they fill your heads with this crap that a wall won't work.  Democrats are scared to death of a wall not because it won't work, but because it will.  If they really believed what they told you, they wouldn't give the slightest fight over it. They would be able to use it's failure for the next couple of generations.
> 
> The wall is life or death to Democrats.  That's why they are willing to shutdown the government over it.  No matter what it costs, they are not going to allow it to be built because it's success would ruin their entire plot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The $5 billion isn’t to pay for the wall. It’s to start construction. The wall will cost at least $25 billion and probably closer to $40 billion.  And then there’s another $200 million contract for the fir profit prison people to run the tent cities.
Click to expand...


5.8 billion builds quite a bit of wall.  The most porous areas will be targeted first; the areas our border patrol has the most problems with.  Yes, we could always use more money for the wall.  The more money--the more effective.  However anything that can be built will be a help to our border agents and perhaps save a life or two.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dragonlady said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with building the wall?  I voted for Trump. Trump is wrong, like the liberals. We need to tear down the border wall. What we really need make  a national identity card. Linked to fingerprints. You don't get a job if you can't prove your identity linked to  your real  immigration status . Why Replicratrats are so opposed to that, boggles my mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let me help you unboggle your mind.  Why not start by reading Orwell's book 1984.  It was a warning in the form of a novel.
> 
> The government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have... a quote by a famous Republican
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody on the right is asking the government to "give" us anything.  We are asking the government to stop something that we citizens cannot stop by ourselves.  Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are asking taxpayers to pay more than $25 billion for something that doesn’t work and that Trump promised Mexico would pay for.  Furthermore, Trump is putting tens of thousands of people into custody in tent cities at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.
> 
> Trump is spending millions and millions and just making the situation worse.
Click to expand...


If we had a wall we wouldn't need tent cities. 

Yes, a wall will work.  How do we know?  They work so well in other places and I provided you the links for my claim.  If you missed them, just ask, I'll post them again. 

How do YOU know a wall won't work?  CNN and Democrats told you so and you just simply believe them. So I'll side with evidence while you side with brainwashing.  I think the odds are in my favor here.


----------



## sparky

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it could.  So can prison fences.  So can jails.  It happens now and then.  But the point is it makes it much more difficult for those that are hell bent on trying.  For the rest, they will realize the efforts and risks are too great, and they payoff (if any) not worthy.  Because even if they could draw the attention by getting past a wall, it likely won't be long until a border agent on the other side arrests them and sends them back to the other side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep in mind the wall is really an unknown factor.  It may be solid or slats. It may have barbed wire, electric wire, or nothing on top.  Once it's built it becomes a known factor and can not easily be changed.  That means coyotes will figure out the fastest method of crossing which maybe ladders,  climbing carabiners, or some type power lift.  However, you can be sure once the fence is built people are going to cross it.  You can't stop them  No wall can keep people out if they have access to the right equipment.  It can only delay crossing. People who have crossed existing border walls estimated that the delay would only be 1 to 2 minutes over current reinforced fencing.  That might be useful in densely populated area but in remote ares which are 85% of the border a couple of minutes delay would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why are other countries with similar problems to the US reporting great success with their wall?  Will it stop each and every one?  Probably not.  But if the reduction is 75% or better, it's money well spent.
Click to expand...



Good point Ray

i looked that up a while ago

the results are less than stellar i'm afraid.....

~S~


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the first disconnect with those who want to build a border wall.
> 
> The REASON THE WALL WON'T WORK HERE IS DUE TO THE SIMPLE FACT THAT IT IS INTENDED SOLELY TO PREVENT HUMAN BEINGS FROM ENGAGING IN OTHERWISE LEGAL ACTIVITIES.
> 
> Unlike the Israelis, we are not in a state of war with our neighbors.  The American people are WILLINGLY participating in free trade.
> 
> The build the wall advocates here keep asking the same questions and keep getting the same answers.  It is not in the interests of the American people to start a process that infringes upon the Rights of those who WILLINGLY engage in business with foreign neighbors.
> 
> You could regulate the trade, but you are not ever going to keep the foreigners out unless and until you change your own behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know we have border check points right?
> 
> And we are in a drug war with Mexico we just gave the like 5 billion dollars over the next few years
Click to expand...


If we're in a war with drugs, how come we're trying to have a fight with humans?  Saudis attack the World Trade Center and we attack Iraq.  That morphs into a nearly two decade old war; nothing is settled and Trump declares victory.  A war on drugs?  You lose.


----------



## Wyatt earp

danielpalos said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the first disconnect with those who want to build a border wall.
> 
> The REASON THE WALL WON'T WORK HERE IS DUE TO THE SIMPLE FACT THAT IT IS INTENDED SOLELY TO PREVENT HUMAN BEINGS FROM ENGAGING IN OTHERWISE LEGAL ACTIVITIES.
> 
> Unlike the Israelis, we are not in a state of war with our neighbors.  The American people are WILLINGLY participating in free trade.
> 
> The build the wall advocates here keep asking the same questions and keep getting the same answers.  It is not in the interests of the American people to start a process that infringes upon the Rights of those who WILLINGLY engage in business with foreign neighbors.
> 
> You could regulate the trade, but you are not ever going to keep the foreigners out unless and until you change your own behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how would a wall interfere in free trade?  People come here to work, make money, and ship that money back home.  Working is part of our behavior in America.  Producing is part of our behavior in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is an actual and Express power delegated to Congress:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> There is no Express wall building power.
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective and humane.
Click to expand...





dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See - occasionally the are honest. The Wall is just protectionism for lazy Americans.
Click to expand...



What kind of assnine post is that?

You still can't comprehend the difference between legal and illegal?

We do have legal immagration


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The FACT that you are making the idiotic and erroneous claim that you have debunked the facts disproving your claims adds to that body of evidence that you don't understand how the nutty wall idea is going to destroy YOUR Liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the heck does protecting our borders so we can have liberty from 3 Rd world shit holes like Mexico, destroy our libertys?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see if we can put this in language that even you can understand.
> 
> With the wall will come the enforcement.  There will be things both seen and UNSEEN.  For example, the Constitution Free Zone will be vigorously enforced.  There go your constitutional Liberties within 100 miles of the border.  And there will be more.
> 
> If you would go off the attack, STFU and quit posting every five minutes, I would explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares I don't live 100 miles of the border...and it should be that way.
> 
> 
> You do know the USA is almost 4 million square miles right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that over half the U.S. population lives within 100 miles of the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Border or do you mean water?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


BORDER


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it could.  So can prison fences.  So can jails.  It happens now and then.  But the point is it makes it much more difficult for those that are hell bent on trying.  For the rest, they will realize the efforts and risks are too great, and they payoff (if any) not worthy.  Because even if they could draw the attention by getting past a wall, it likely won't be long until a border agent on the other side arrests them and sends them back to the other side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now the truth comes out.  You fantasize about living in a prison.  Keep pointing that gun in your avatar.  When the wall debate is over and you have, the left is going to take that gun and stick it up your arse under the pretext of making you safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are really out there.  Boy did they see you coming.
> 
> A wall does one thing and one thing only: keep invaders out of our country.  It won't change our politics, it won't change our laws, it won't affect any part of the Constitution, it won't decide which party leads our country  It's just a wall which will be built for one goal to solve one problem.  Nothing else changes.
Click to expand...


Your problem is, NOBODY is invading.  It's a quid pro quo willing relationship.  See what not taking those controlled substances is doing to your ability to understand?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A&B mostly.  Most illegal immigration does not come over the border by foot.  And if we’re 21T in debt, a quarter T on building a wall is not a good investment.
> 
> So as an immigration barrier, it’s a bad idea; also in the stark light of the reality that illegal immigration has been largely beneficial to the economy despite the horror stories and cherry picked anecdotes.
> 
> That being said, it seems to me that a fantastic idea would be to create an alternative to the Panama canal from San Diego to Brownsville TX or so that allows goods to bypass the trip through Central America and can possibly bring irrigation to the desert Southwest.  Not right along the border but something like that would serve multiple purposes;
> 
> Jobs during the construction
> Immigration barrier to those that do cross illegally
> Irrigation
> Commerce
> National Security.
> 
> 
> All a pipe dream.
> It would be a multi decade project of course and We don’t do big things any longer.
> 
> Space Force!
> 
> 
> 
> A quarter T? Who said the wall was going to cost 250 billion?  I've seen estimates of somewhere around 20 billion on the high end
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what in the hell I was thinking.  A quarter B once you factor in buying the land, doing environmental studies, maintenance, etc seems high as well.
> 
> The fact that the wall will not do what it is being sold stands though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't stop every single person but if you think it won't at least significantly slow down the influx I don't know what to tell you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slow the influx is true.  Significantly...doubtful
> You put up a wall and those that wade across the Rio Grande will just stuff themselves into trucks or onto ships. Those who do this sort of smuggling are pelrisoners to market forces too.  They will charge less if they have more customers.
> 
> 
> Or save up, fly to Canada and take a leisurely stroll into Montana.
Click to expand...


People die in those ships and trucks.  Others get busted in them.  It's a risk many others won't take.  That's how deterrents work.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the first disconnect with those who want to build a border wall.
> 
> The REASON THE WALL WON'T WORK HERE IS DUE TO THE SIMPLE FACT THAT IT IS INTENDED SOLELY TO PREVENT HUMAN BEINGS FROM ENGAGING IN OTHERWISE LEGAL ACTIVITIES.
> 
> Unlike the Israelis, we are not in a state of war with our neighbors.  The American people are WILLINGLY participating in free trade.
> 
> The build the wall advocates here keep asking the same questions and keep getting the same answers.  It is not in the interests of the American people to start a process that infringes upon the Rights of those who WILLINGLY engage in business with foreign neighbors.
> 
> You could regulate the trade, but you are not ever going to keep the foreigners out unless and until you change your own behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know we have border check points right?
> 
> And we are in a drug war with Mexico we just gave the like 5 billion dollars over the next few years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we're in a war with drugs, how come we're trying to have a fight with humans?  Saudis attack the World Trade Center and we attack Iraq.  That morphs into a nearly two decade old war; nothing is settled and Trump declares victory.  A war on drugs?  You lose.
Click to expand...



So you have no problem with drug cartels killing people over your drugs?

Like I said you want anarchy and turn America into a 3rd world shit hole


.


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A&B mostly.  Most illegal immigration does not come over the border by foot.  And if we’re 21T in debt, a quarter T on building a wall is not a good investment.
> 
> So as an immigration barrier, it’s a bad idea; also in the stark light of the reality that illegal immigration has been largely beneficial to the economy despite the horror stories and cherry picked anecdotes.
> 
> That being said, it seems to me that a fantastic idea would be to create an alternative to the Panama canal from San Diego to Brownsville TX or so that allows goods to bypass the trip through Central America and can possibly bring irrigation to the desert Southwest.  Not right along the border but something like that would serve multiple purposes;
> 
> Jobs during the construction
> Immigration barrier to those that do cross illegally
> Irrigation
> Commerce
> National Security.
> 
> 
> All a pipe dream.
> It would be a multi decade project of course and We don’t do big things any longer.
> 
> Space Force!
> 
> 
> 
> A quarter T? Who said the wall was going to cost 250 billion?  I've seen estimates of somewhere around 20 billion on the high end
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what in the hell I was thinking.  A quarter B once you factor in buying the land, doing environmental studies, maintenance, etc seems high as well.
> 
> The fact that the wall will not do what it is being sold stands though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't stop every single person but if you think it won't at least significantly slow down the influx I don't know what to tell you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slow the influx is true.  Significantly...doubtful
> You put up a wall and those that wade across the Rio Grande will just stuff themselves into trucks or onto ships. Those who do this sort of smuggling are pelrisoners to market forces too.  They will charge less if they have more customers.
> 
> 
> Or save up, fly to Canada and take a leisurely stroll into Montana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People die in those ships and trucks.  Others get busted in them.  It's a risk many others won't take.  That's how deterrents work.
Click to expand...

Ok


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with building the wall?  I voted for Trump. Trump is wrong, like the liberals. We need to tear down the border wall. What we really need make  a national identity card. Linked to fingerprints. You don't get a job if you can't prove your identity linked to  your real  immigration status . Why Replicratrats are so opposed to that, boggles my mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let me help you unboggle your mind.  Why not start by reading Orwell's book 1984.  It was a warning in the form of a novel.
> 
> The government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have... a quote by a famous Republican
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody on the right is asking the government to "give" us anything.  We are asking the government to stop something that we citizens cannot stop by ourselves.  Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want the government to give you a wall for whatever reason you can conjure up as the discussion proceeds.  You don't really know why you want it, other than you think Trump is God and you have to move the goalposts accordingly.  But, you want him to give you a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
Click to expand...


Industry is flooded with foreigners because people like you got hooked on drugs and can't think.  So you sit on your ass all day, every day whining about a wall around America.

You and more than 11 MILLION Americans could work a job, but choose not to.  The jobs are out there - and at good wages.  But, it is easier for some of you to sit around, living off the welfare, and not even wanting to create ways to get Americans back on the job.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it could.  So can prison fences.  So can jails.  It happens now and then.  But the point is it makes it much more difficult for those that are hell bent on trying.  For the rest, they will realize the efforts and risks are too great, and they payoff (if any) not worthy.  Because even if they could draw the attention by getting past a wall, it likely won't be long until a border agent on the other side arrests them and sends them back to the other side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now the truth comes out.  You fantasize about living in a prison.  Keep pointing that gun in your avatar.  When the wall debate is over and you have, the left is going to take that gun and stick it up your arse under the pretext of making you safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are really out there.  Boy did they see you coming.
> 
> A wall does one thing and one thing only: keep invaders out of our country.  It won't change our politics, it won't change our laws, it won't affect any part of the Constitution, it won't decide which party leads our country  It's just a wall which will be built for one goal to solve one problem.  Nothing else changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your problem is, NOBODY is invading.  It's a quid pro quo willing relationship.  See what not taking those controlled substances is doing to your ability to understand?
Click to expand...


By the way you talk, maybe it's time you start taking them. 

If you are in your kitchen and a stranger walks into your home and sits down on your couch, are they invading your home?  If they break a locked window to get in, are they invading your home?  When a person sneaks into the country, are they not invading our country?  They are breaking our laws, they are uninvited, they have no permission to be here, but you don't consider that an invasion?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the heck does protecting our borders so we can have liberty from 3 Rd world shit holes like Mexico, destroy our libertys?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see if we can put this in language that even you can understand.
> 
> With the wall will come the enforcement.  There will be things both seen and UNSEEN.  For example, the Constitution Free Zone will be vigorously enforced.  There go your constitutional Liberties within 100 miles of the border.  And there will be more.
> 
> If you would go off the attack, STFU and quit posting every five minutes, I would explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares I don't live 100 miles of the border...and it should be that way.
> 
> 
> You do know the USA is almost 4 million square miles right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that over half the U.S. population lives within 100 miles of the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Border or do you mean water?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BORDER
Click to expand...



So you don't know geography now?


.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with building the wall?  I voted for Trump. Trump is wrong, like the liberals. We need to tear down the border wall. What we really need make  a national identity card. Linked to fingerprints. You don't get a job if you can't prove your identity linked to  your real  immigration status . Why Replicratrats are so opposed to that, boggles my mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let me help you unboggle your mind.  Why not start by reading Orwell's book 1984.  It was a warning in the form of a novel.
> 
> The government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have... a quote by a famous Republican
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody on the right is asking the government to "give" us anything.  We are asking the government to stop something that we citizens cannot stop by ourselves.  Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want the government to give you a wall for whatever reason you can conjure up as the discussion proceeds.  You don't really know why you want it, other than you think Trump is God and you have to move the goalposts accordingly.  But, you want him to give you a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Industry is flooded with foreigners because people like you got hooked on drugs and can't think.  So you sit on your ass all day, every day whining about a wall around America.
> 
> You and more than 11 MILLION Americans could work a job, but choose not to.  The jobs are out there - and at good wages.  But, it is easier for some of you to sit around, living off the welfare, and not even wanting to create ways to get Americans back on the job.
Click to expand...



And who built the welfare state the left, you.


.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the first disconnect with those who want to build a border wall.
> 
> The REASON THE WALL WON'T WORK HERE IS DUE TO THE SIMPLE FACT THAT IT IS INTENDED SOLELY TO PREVENT HUMAN BEINGS FROM ENGAGING IN OTHERWISE LEGAL ACTIVITIES.
> 
> Unlike the Israelis, we are not in a state of war with our neighbors.  The American people are WILLINGLY participating in free trade.
> 
> The build the wall advocates here keep asking the same questions and keep getting the same answers.  It is not in the interests of the American people to start a process that infringes upon the Rights of those who WILLINGLY engage in business with foreign neighbors.
> 
> You could regulate the trade, but you are not ever going to keep the foreigners out unless and until you change your own behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know we have border check points right?
> 
> And we are in a drug war with Mexico we just gave the like 5 billion dollars over the next few years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we're in a war with drugs, how come we're trying to have a fight with humans?  Saudis attack the World Trade Center and we attack Iraq.  That morphs into a nearly two decade old war; nothing is settled and Trump declares victory.  A war on drugs?  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no problem with drug cartels killing people over your drugs?
> 
> Like I said you want anarchy and turn America into a 3rd world shit hole
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Do you have the capability of being deliberately honest?  A few times you have an honest moment, but this kind of idiocy makes everyone - even your supporters (though they dare not utter it publicly) question your ethical standards as well as your understanding.

PART of my number one solution is to get people off drugs and back into the workforce. YOU OPPOSED THAT.  

Building a wall just ups the ante where people will use violence to get drugs and the cartels will use more violence to get them here.  That will bring in cries for more government control, more surveillance, gun control, etc.

Stop generational drug use.


----------



## dblack

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let me help you unboggle your mind.  Why not start by reading Orwell's book 1984.  It was a warning in the form of a novel.
> 
> The government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have... a quote by a famous Republican
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody on the right is asking the government to "give" us anything.  We are asking the government to stop something that we citizens cannot stop by ourselves.  Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want the government to give you a wall for whatever reason you can conjure up as the discussion proceeds.  You don't really know why you want it, other than you think Trump is God and you have to move the goalposts accordingly.  But, you want him to give you a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Industry is flooded with foreigners because people like you got hooked on drugs and can't think.  So you sit on your ass all day, every day whining about a wall around America.
> 
> You and more than 11 MILLION Americans could work a job, but choose not to.  The jobs are out there - and at good wages.  But, it is easier for some of you to sit around, living off the welfare, and not even wanting to create ways to get Americans back on the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And who built the welfare state the left, you.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Porter isn't "left". Neither am I. I know it gnaws at you, but the best arguments against your cowardly wall are coming from real conservatives and libertarians - not "the left".


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with building the wall?  I voted for Trump. Trump is wrong, like the liberals. We need to tear down the border wall. What we really need make  a national identity card. Linked to fingerprints. You don't get a job if you can't prove your identity linked to  your real  immigration status . Why Replicratrats are so opposed to that, boggles my mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let me help you unboggle your mind.  Why not start by reading Orwell's book 1984.  It was a warning in the form of a novel.
> 
> The government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have... a quote by a famous Republican
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody on the right is asking the government to "give" us anything.  We are asking the government to stop something that we citizens cannot stop by ourselves.  Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want the government to give you a wall for whatever reason you can conjure up as the discussion proceeds.  You don't really know why you want it, other than you think Trump is God and you have to move the goalposts accordingly.  But, you want him to give you a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Industry is flooded with foreigners because people like you got hooked on drugs and can't think.  So you sit on your ass all day, every day whining about a wall around America.
> 
> You and more than 11 MILLION Americans could work a job, but choose not to.  The jobs are out there - and at good wages.  But, it is easier for some of you to sit around, living off the welfare, and not even wanting to create ways to get Americans back on the job.
Click to expand...


I think you really need a professional to advise you about those voices in your head.  I've told you repeatedly I do work.  But those voices tell you something different. You really need to have that checked out.  And tell the shrink how I told you repeatedly I don't take drugs, but those voices in your head keep insisting I do.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see if we can put this in language that even you can understand.
> 
> With the wall will come the enforcement.  There will be things both seen and UNSEEN.  For example, the Constitution Free Zone will be vigorously enforced.  There go your constitutional Liberties within 100 miles of the border.  And there will be more.
> 
> If you would go off the attack, STFU and quit posting every five minutes, I would explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares I don't live 100 miles of the border...and it should be that way.
> 
> 
> You do know the USA is almost 4 million square miles right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that over half the U.S. population lives within 100 miles of the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Border or do you mean water?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BORDER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know geography now?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


WTH?  How many people do you think live between Miami and 100 miles north of there?  Do you understand or are you pretending to be that silly?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it could.  So can prison fences.  So can jails.  It happens now and then.  But the point is it makes it much more difficult for those that are hell bent on trying.  For the rest, they will realize the efforts and risks are too great, and they payoff (if any) not worthy.  Because even if they could draw the attention by getting past a wall, it likely won't be long until a border agent on the other side arrests them and sends them back to the other side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep in mind the wall is really an unknown factor.  It may be solid or slats. It may have barbed wire, electric wire, or nothing on top.  Once it's built it becomes a known factor and can not easily be changed.  That means coyotes will figure out the fastest method of crossing which maybe ladders,  climbing carabiners, or some type power lift.  However, you can be sure once the fence is built people are going to cross it.  You can't stop them  No wall can keep people out if they have access to the right equipment.  It can only delay crossing. People who have crossed existing border walls estimated that the delay would only be 1 to 2 minutes over current reinforced fencing.  That might be useful in densely populated area but in remote ares which are 85% of the border a couple of minutes delay would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why are other countries with similar problems to the US reporting great success with their wall?  Will it stop each and every one?  Probably not.  But if the reduction is 75% or better, it's money well spent.
Click to expand...


Other countries are not fighting the same demons we are.  Walls work for communists, socialists, dictatorships and countries that are at war... then, they work temporarily.


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> the idiotic idea that a wall will present any substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.



*The idiotic idea that a wall will prevent a substantial barrier*.  Funny, walls, high walls, are substantial barriers everywhere else they are used.  Just ask the Israelis.  In fact, I hope Trump invites Israel to inspect his wall design and critique it for quality of construction.  Here we have mostly poor vagabonds trying to enter the country on foot and a tall barrier is an "idiotic idea."  What, will they just walk right through it?  Jump over it with tall ladders?  Or dig tunnels under it?  The idea is to stop all but the most determined who will be greatly slowed down, while technological surveillance has time to pick them up and detect them.

*A substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.*  I see.  So now you think there are masses of people trying to escape the USA to go south who cannot go through legal portals who will be interfered with because they cannot walk across the border into impoverished Mexico out in the middle of the desert.  Because, Shit-For-Brains, these are the only "citizens" we can be talking about who have any freedoms or liberties that matter.  Mexicans are NOT citizens of the USA and have have NO freedom or liberty even in their own country much less here.

Do us all a yuge favor and take a long walk off a short pier.


----------



## Wyatt earp

dblack said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody on the right is asking the government to "give" us anything.  We are asking the government to stop something that we citizens cannot stop by ourselves.  Big difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want the government to give you a wall for whatever reason you can conjure up as the discussion proceeds.  You don't really know why you want it, other than you think Trump is God and you have to move the goalposts accordingly.  But, you want him to give you a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Industry is flooded with foreigners because people like you got hooked on drugs and can't think.  So you sit on your ass all day, every day whining about a wall around America.
> 
> You and more than 11 MILLION Americans could work a job, but choose not to.  The jobs are out there - and at good wages.  But, it is easier for some of you to sit around, living off the welfare, and not even wanting to create ways to get Americans back on the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And who built the welfare state the left, you.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Porter isn't "left". Neither am I. I know it gnaws at you, but the best arguments against your cowardly wall are coming from real conservatives and libertarians - not "the left".
Click to expand...



How the heck is a wall cowardly? You just want people who vote for Democrat to bypass our laws...

Let me guess you want to get rid of cops also like him.


.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the first disconnect with those who want to build a border wall.
> 
> The REASON THE WALL WON'T WORK HERE IS DUE TO THE SIMPLE FACT THAT IT IS INTENDED SOLELY TO PREVENT HUMAN BEINGS FROM ENGAGING IN OTHERWISE LEGAL ACTIVITIES.
> 
> Unlike the Israelis, we are not in a state of war with our neighbors.  The American people are WILLINGLY participating in free trade.
> 
> The build the wall advocates here keep asking the same questions and keep getting the same answers.  It is not in the interests of the American people to start a process that infringes upon the Rights of those who WILLINGLY engage in business with foreign neighbors.
> 
> You could regulate the trade, but you are not ever going to keep the foreigners out unless and until you change your own behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know we have border check points right?
> 
> And we are in a drug war with Mexico we just gave the like 5 billion dollars over the next few years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we're in a war with drugs, how come we're trying to have a fight with humans?  Saudis attack the World Trade Center and we attack Iraq.  That morphs into a nearly two decade old war; nothing is settled and Trump declares victory.  A war on drugs?  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no problem with drug cartels killing people over your drugs?
> 
> Like I said you want anarchy and turn America into a 3rd world shit hole
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I have a problem with people like you who want the world to be at war over drugs in a manner where the government claims more of our Rights and YOU would turn us into a third world shithole because you have developed a religion around a wall.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let me help you unboggle your mind.  Why not start by reading Orwell's book 1984.  It was a warning in the form of a novel.
> 
> The government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have... a quote by a famous Republican
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody on the right is asking the government to "give" us anything.  We are asking the government to stop something that we citizens cannot stop by ourselves.  Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want the government to give you a wall for whatever reason you can conjure up as the discussion proceeds.  You don't really know why you want it, other than you think Trump is God and you have to move the goalposts accordingly.  But, you want him to give you a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Industry is flooded with foreigners because people like you got hooked on drugs and can't think.  So you sit on your ass all day, every day whining about a wall around America.
> 
> You and more than 11 MILLION Americans could work a job, but choose not to.  The jobs are out there - and at good wages.  But, it is easier for some of you to sit around, living off the welfare, and not even wanting to create ways to get Americans back on the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you really need a professional to advise you about those voices in your head.  I've told you repeatedly I do work.  But those voices tell you something different. You really need to have that checked out.  And tell the shrink how I told you repeatedly I don't take drugs, but those voices in your head keep insisting I do.
Click to expand...


Your post numbers testify against that claim that you work.  Does your boss know you spend all day arguing about a wall?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it could.  So can prison fences.  So can jails.  It happens now and then.  But the point is it makes it much more difficult for those that are hell bent on trying.  For the rest, they will realize the efforts and risks are too great, and they payoff (if any) not worthy.  Because even if they could draw the attention by getting past a wall, it likely won't be long until a border agent on the other side arrests them and sends them back to the other side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep in mind the wall is really an unknown factor.  It may be solid or slats. It may have barbed wire, electric wire, or nothing on top.  Once it's built it becomes a known factor and can not easily be changed.  That means coyotes will figure out the fastest method of crossing which maybe ladders,  climbing carabiners, or some type power lift.  However, you can be sure once the fence is built people are going to cross it.  You can't stop them  No wall can keep people out if they have access to the right equipment.  It can only delay crossing. People who have crossed existing border walls estimated that the delay would only be 1 to 2 minutes over current reinforced fencing.  That might be useful in densely populated area but in remote ares which are 85% of the border a couple of minutes delay would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why are other countries with similar problems to the US reporting great success with their wall?  Will it stop each and every one?  Probably not.  But if the reduction is 75% or better, it's money well spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other countries are not fighting the same demons we are.  Walls work for communists, socialists, dictatorships and countries that are at war... then, they work temporarily.
Click to expand...



What demons? 


.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how would a wall interfere in free trade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be used to enforce laws that interfere with free trade. I mean, that's the point right? We pass laws that severely limit Mexicans coming there to work. But like all overly restrictive laws, people just ignore them. That's why you want a wall, to force obedience to laws that are being ignored. Ignored *by Americans *who are otherwise happy to have Mexicans helping us get things done here in the US.
Click to expand...


You failed to answer the question: how does it interfere in free trade?  Free trade doesn't take place crossing private property, transporting over the desert, or climbing a wall. Trade takes place through legal points of entry which will not change whether a wall is there or not.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

toobfreak said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> the idiotic idea that a wall will present any substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The idiotic idea that a wall will prevent a substantial barrier*.  Funny, walls, high walls, are substantial barriers everywhere else they are used.  Just ask the Israelis.  In fact, I hope Trump invites Israel to inspect his wall design and critique it for quality of construction.  Here we have mostly poor vagabonds trying to enter the country on foot and a tall barrier is an "idiotic idea."  What, will they just walk right through it?  Jump over it with tall ladders?  Or dig tunnels under it?  The idea is to stop all but the most determined who will be greatly slowed down, while technological surveillance has time to pick them up and detect them.
> 
> *A substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.*  I see.  So now you think there are masses of people trying to escape the USA to go south who cannot go through legal portals who will be interfered with because they cannot walk across the border into impoverished Mexico out in the middle of the desert.  Because, Shit-For-Brains, these are the only "citizens" we can be talking about who have any freedoms or liberties that matter.  Mexicans are NOT citizens of the USA and have have NO freedom or liberty even in their own country much less here.
> 
> Do us all a yuge favor and take a long walk off a short pier.
Click to expand...



You don't get it.  We are not Mexico and the Israelis are at war.  Can't fix stupid.


----------



## toobfreak

danielpalos said:


> [
> it just means our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; are worthless.



So you think that because LE doesn't stop ALL crime, we should just invite a bunch more criminals into the country?

You think that just because LE doesn't stop ALL illegal drug activity, we should just open thousands of miles wide open for more drugs to move in freely?

Last I checked, it has been a LONG TIME since we had a real terror attack.  Coincidence?  Simple loss of interest?  No, fighting crime, drugs and terror are NOT worthless.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the first disconnect with those who want to build a border wall.
> 
> The REASON THE WALL WON'T WORK HERE IS DUE TO THE SIMPLE FACT THAT IT IS INTENDED SOLELY TO PREVENT HUMAN BEINGS FROM ENGAGING IN OTHERWISE LEGAL ACTIVITIES.
> 
> Unlike the Israelis, we are not in a state of war with our neighbors.  The American people are WILLINGLY participating in free trade.
> 
> The build the wall advocates here keep asking the same questions and keep getting the same answers.  It is not in the interests of the American people to start a process that infringes upon the Rights of those who WILLINGLY engage in business with foreign neighbors.
> 
> You could regulate the trade, but you are not ever going to keep the foreigners out unless and until you change your own behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know we have border check points right?
> 
> And we are in a drug war with Mexico we just gave the like 5 billion dollars over the next few years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we're in a war with drugs, how come we're trying to have a fight with humans?  Saudis attack the World Trade Center and we attack Iraq.  That morphs into a nearly two decade old war; nothing is settled and Trump declares victory.  A war on drugs?  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no problem with drug cartels killing people over your drugs?
> 
> Like I said you want anarchy and turn America into a 3rd world shit hole
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a problem with people like you who want the world to be at war over drugs in a manner where the government claims more of our Rights and YOU would turn us into a third world shithole because you have developed a religion around a wall.
Click to expand...



What you want will turn us into a thrid world shit hole, what do you think inviting everyone from Venezuela into the US won't turn us into Venezuela?

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it could.  So can prison fences.  So can jails.  It happens now and then.  But the point is it makes it much more difficult for those that are hell bent on trying.  For the rest, they will realize the efforts and risks are too great, and they payoff (if any) not worthy.  Because even if they could draw the attention by getting past a wall, it likely won't be long until a border agent on the other side arrests them and sends them back to the other side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep in mind the wall is really an unknown factor.  It may be solid or slats. It may have barbed wire, electric wire, or nothing on top.  Once it's built it becomes a known factor and can not easily be changed.  That means coyotes will figure out the fastest method of crossing which maybe ladders,  climbing carabiners, or some type power lift.  However, you can be sure once the fence is built people are going to cross it.  You can't stop them  No wall can keep people out if they have access to the right equipment.  It can only delay crossing. People who have crossed existing border walls estimated that the delay would only be 1 to 2 minutes over current reinforced fencing.  That might be useful in densely populated area but in remote ares which are 85% of the border a couple of minutes delay would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why are other countries with similar problems to the US reporting great success with their wall?  Will it stop each and every one?  Probably not.  But if the reduction is 75% or better, it's money well spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other countries are not fighting the same demons we are.  Walls work for communists, socialists, dictatorships and countries that are at war... then, they work temporarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What demons?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Unlike all the nations that you use as examples, America leads the world in drug use.  70,000 plus Americans die each year on drug overdoses.  And where did the majority of the drug use start?

It starts with the government and doctors prescribing drugs as as first option instead of the last option.

Then, we're plagued by mental midgets that don't understand we are a nation that operates a free marked economy.


----------



## Lesh

The question is...should we waste money on measures that will have no effect.

Trumpers think we should


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> the idiotic idea that a wall will present any substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The idiotic idea that a wall will prevent a substantial barrier*.  Funny, walls, high walls, are substantial barriers everywhere else they are used.  Just ask the Israelis.  In fact, I hope Trump invites Israel to inspect his wall design and critique it for quality of construction.  Here we have mostly poor vagabonds trying to enter the country on foot and a tall barrier is an "idiotic idea."  What, will they just walk right through it?  Jump over it with tall ladders?  Or dig tunnels under it?  The idea is to stop all but the most determined who will be greatly slowed down, while technological surveillance has time to pick them up and detect them.
> 
> *A substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.*  I see.  So now you think there are masses of people trying to escape the USA to go south who cannot go through legal portals who will be interfered with because they cannot walk across the border into impoverished Mexico out in the middle of the desert.  Because, Shit-For-Brains, these are the only "citizens" we can be talking about who have any freedoms or liberties that matter.  Mexicans are NOT citizens of the USA and have have NO freedom or liberty even in their own country much less here.
> 
> Do us all a yuge favor and take a long walk off a short pier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get it.  We are not Mexico and the Israelis are at war.  Can't fix stupid.
Click to expand...



You want to turn us into Mexico 

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the first disconnect with those who want to build a border wall.
> 
> The REASON THE WALL WON'T WORK HERE IS DUE TO THE SIMPLE FACT THAT IT IS INTENDED SOLELY TO PREVENT HUMAN BEINGS FROM ENGAGING IN OTHERWISE LEGAL ACTIVITIES.
> 
> Unlike the Israelis, we are not in a state of war with our neighbors.  The American people are WILLINGLY participating in free trade.
> 
> The build the wall advocates here keep asking the same questions and keep getting the same answers.  It is not in the interests of the American people to start a process that infringes upon the Rights of those who WILLINGLY engage in business with foreign neighbors.
> 
> You could regulate the trade, but you are not ever going to keep the foreigners out unless and until you change your own behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know we have border check points right?
> 
> And we are in a drug war with Mexico we just gave the like 5 billion dollars over the next few years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we're in a war with drugs, how come we're trying to have a fight with humans?  Saudis attack the World Trade Center and we attack Iraq.  That morphs into a nearly two decade old war; nothing is settled and Trump declares victory.  A war on drugs?  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no problem with drug cartels killing people over your drugs?
> 
> Like I said you want anarchy and turn America into a 3rd world shit hole
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a problem with people like you who want the world to be at war over drugs in a manner where the government claims more of our Rights and YOU would turn us into a third world shithole because you have developed a religion around a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you want will turn us into a thrid world shit hole, what do you think inviting everyone from Venezuela into the US won't turn us into Venezuela?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Congratulations.  You have learned how to deflect and project.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> the idiotic idea that a wall will present any substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The idiotic idea that a wall will prevent a substantial barrier*.  Funny, walls, high walls, are substantial barriers everywhere else they are used.  Just ask the Israelis.  In fact, I hope Trump invites Israel to inspect his wall design and critique it for quality of construction.  Here we have mostly poor vagabonds trying to enter the country on foot and a tall barrier is an "idiotic idea."  What, will they just walk right through it?  Jump over it with tall ladders?  Or dig tunnels under it?  The idea is to stop all but the most determined who will be greatly slowed down, while technological surveillance has time to pick them up and detect them.
> 
> *A substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.*  I see.  So now you think there are masses of people trying to escape the USA to go south who cannot go through legal portals who will be interfered with because they cannot walk across the border into impoverished Mexico out in the middle of the desert.  Because, Shit-For-Brains, these are the only "citizens" we can be talking about who have any freedoms or liberties that matter.  Mexicans are NOT citizens of the USA and have have NO freedom or liberty even in their own country much less here.
> 
> Do us all a yuge favor and take a long walk off a short pier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get it.  We are not Mexico and the Israelis are at war.  Can't fix stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want to turn us into Mexico.
Click to expand...


YOU are the one hanging with that crowd touting Mexico's laws.  Projection - it's a good try but no cigar.


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> the idiotic idea that a wall will present any substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The idiotic idea that a wall will prevent a substantial barrier*.  Funny, walls, high walls, are substantial barriers everywhere else they are used.  Just ask the Israelis.  In fact, I hope Trump invites Israel to inspect his wall design and critique it for quality of construction.  Here we have mostly poor vagabonds trying to enter the country on foot and a tall barrier is an "idiotic idea."  What, will they just walk right through it?  Jump over it with tall ladders?  Or dig tunnels under it?  The idea is to stop all but the most determined who will be greatly slowed down, while technological surveillance has time to pick them up and detect them.
> 
> *A substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.*  I see.  So now you think there are masses of people trying to escape the USA to go south who cannot go through legal portals who will be interfered with because they cannot walk across the border into impoverished Mexico out in the middle of the desert.  Because, Shit-For-Brains, these are the only "citizens" we can be talking about who have any freedoms or liberties that matter.  Mexicans are NOT citizens of the USA and have have NO freedom or liberty even in their own country much less here.
> 
> Do us all a yuge favor and take a long walk off a short pier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get it.  We are not Mexico and the Israelis are at war.  Can't fix stupid.
Click to expand...



Listen, Boob, we're not Canada either.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the first disconnect with those who want to build a border wall.
> 
> The REASON THE WALL WON'T WORK HERE IS DUE TO THE SIMPLE FACT THAT IT IS INTENDED SOLELY TO PREVENT HUMAN BEINGS FROM ENGAGING IN OTHERWISE LEGAL ACTIVITIES.
> 
> Unlike the Israelis, we are not in a state of war with our neighbors.  The American people are WILLINGLY participating in free trade.
> 
> The build the wall advocates here keep asking the same questions and keep getting the same answers.  It is not in the interests of the American people to start a process that infringes upon the Rights of those who WILLINGLY engage in business with foreign neighbors.
> 
> You could regulate the trade, but you are not ever going to keep the foreigners out unless and until you change your own behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know we have border check points right?
> 
> And we are in a drug war with Mexico we just gave the like 5 billion dollars over the next few years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we're in a war with drugs, how come we're trying to have a fight with humans?  Saudis attack the World Trade Center and we attack Iraq.  That morphs into a nearly two decade old war; nothing is settled and Trump declares victory.  A war on drugs?  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no problem with drug cartels killing people over your drugs?
> 
> Like I said you want anarchy and turn America into a 3rd world shit hole
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have the capability of being deliberately honest?  A few times you have an honest moment, but this kind of idiocy makes everyone - even your supporters (though they dare not utter it publicly) question your ethical standards as well as your understanding.
> 
> PART of my number one solution is to get people off drugs and back into the workforce. YOU OPPOSED THAT.
> 
> Building a wall just ups the ante where people will use violence to get drugs and the cartels will use more violence to get them here.  That will bring in cries for more government control, more surveillance, gun control, etc.
> 
> Stop generational drug use.
Click to expand...



So how you propose getting people off drugs, have a huge needle park?



So in your world the more easier access to drugs means less people would want them 


.


----------



## toobfreak

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> the idiotic idea that a wall will present any substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The idiotic idea that a wall will prevent a substantial barrier*.  Funny, walls, high walls, are substantial barriers everywhere else they are used.  Just ask the Israelis.  In fact, I hope Trump invites Israel to inspect his wall design and critique it for quality of construction.  Here we have mostly poor vagabonds trying to enter the country on foot and a tall barrier is an "idiotic idea."  What, will they just walk right through it?  Jump over it with tall ladders?  Or dig tunnels under it?  The idea is to stop all but the most determined who will be greatly slowed down, while technological surveillance has time to pick them up and detect them.
> 
> *A substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.*  I see.  So now you think there are masses of people trying to escape the USA to go south who cannot go through legal portals who will be interfered with because they cannot walk across the border into impoverished Mexico out in the middle of the desert.  Because, Shit-For-Brains, these are the only "citizens" we can be talking about who have any freedoms or liberties that matter.  Mexicans are NOT citizens of the USA and have have NO freedom or liberty even in their own country much less here.
> 
> Do us all a yuge favor and take a long walk off a short pier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get it.  We are not Mexico and the Israelis are at war.  Can't fix stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want to turn us into Mexico
> 
> .
Click to expand...



"Porter Rockwell,"  Lemme guess, he's an immigrant carpenter.  Porter Cable and Rockwell tools.   Another Latino arguing for La Raza.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody on the right is asking the government to "give" us anything.  We are asking the government to stop something that we citizens cannot stop by ourselves.  Big difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want the government to give you a wall for whatever reason you can conjure up as the discussion proceeds.  You don't really know why you want it, other than you think Trump is God and you have to move the goalposts accordingly.  But, you want him to give you a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Industry is flooded with foreigners because people like you got hooked on drugs and can't think.  So you sit on your ass all day, every day whining about a wall around America.
> 
> You and more than 11 MILLION Americans could work a job, but choose not to.  The jobs are out there - and at good wages.  But, it is easier for some of you to sit around, living off the welfare, and not even wanting to create ways to get Americans back on the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you really need a professional to advise you about those voices in your head.  I've told you repeatedly I do work.  But those voices tell you something different. You really need to have that checked out.  And tell the shrink how I told you repeatedly I don't take drugs, but those voices in your head keep insisting I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post numbers testify against that claim that you work.  Does your boss know you spend all day arguing about a wall?
Click to expand...


I'm on vacation.  But even if I weren't, yes, my employer has no problem with what I do on dead time or waiting to get loaded or unloaded which at times, takes an hour and a half.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the first disconnect with those who want to build a border wall.
> 
> The REASON THE WALL WON'T WORK HERE IS DUE TO THE SIMPLE FACT THAT IT IS INTENDED SOLELY TO PREVENT HUMAN BEINGS FROM ENGAGING IN OTHERWISE LEGAL ACTIVITIES.
> 
> Unlike the Israelis, we are not in a state of war with our neighbors.  The American people are WILLINGLY participating in free trade.
> 
> The build the wall advocates here keep asking the same questions and keep getting the same answers.  It is not in the interests of the American people to start a process that infringes upon the Rights of those who WILLINGLY engage in business with foreign neighbors.
> 
> You could regulate the trade, but you are not ever going to keep the foreigners out unless and until you change your own behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know we have border check points right?
> 
> And we are in a drug war with Mexico we just gave the like 5 billion dollars over the next few years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we're in a war with drugs, how come we're trying to have a fight with humans?  Saudis attack the World Trade Center and we attack Iraq.  That morphs into a nearly two decade old war; nothing is settled and Trump declares victory.  A war on drugs?  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no problem with drug cartels killing people over your drugs?
> 
> Like I said you want anarchy and turn America into a 3rd world shit hole
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a problem with people like you who want the world to be at war over drugs in a manner where the government claims more of our Rights and YOU would turn us into a third world shithole because you have developed a religion around a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you want will turn us into a thrid world shit hole, what do you think inviting everyone from Venezuela into the US won't turn us into Venezuela?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I didn't invite anyone.  I don't do drugs; the gigs I offer are available to any white American who applies for the job (and they are simple jobs at $20 to $40 per hr.)  

The people I end up using for jobs around here do it because people like you are on the Internet all day; many are on drugs and are judged by their past (as per Ray from Cleveland) so they don't apply.

Not my fault.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Lesh said:


> The question is...should we waste money on measures that will have no effect.
> 
> Trumpers think we should




So once again the border security experts says it has a dramatic effect, but you uneducated opinion says it doesnt?

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want the government to give you a wall for whatever reason you can conjure up as the discussion proceeds.  You don't really know why you want it, other than you think Trump is God and you have to move the goalposts accordingly.  But, you want him to give you a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Industry is flooded with foreigners because people like you got hooked on drugs and can't think.  So you sit on your ass all day, every day whining about a wall around America.
> 
> You and more than 11 MILLION Americans could work a job, but choose not to.  The jobs are out there - and at good wages.  But, it is easier for some of you to sit around, living off the welfare, and not even wanting to create ways to get Americans back on the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you really need a professional to advise you about those voices in your head.  I've told you repeatedly I do work.  But those voices tell you something different. You really need to have that checked out.  And tell the shrink how I told you repeatedly I don't take drugs, but those voices in your head keep insisting I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post numbers testify against that claim that you work.  Does your boss know you spend all day arguing about a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm on vacation.  But even if I weren't, yes, my employer has no problem with what I do on dead time or waiting to get loaded or unloaded which at times, takes an hour and a half.
Click to expand...


Good one.  BTW, I do have someone waiting on me to do some real work.  Maybe I can check back in later.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See - occasionally the are honest. The Wall is just protectionism for lazy Americans.
Click to expand...


At this point I think we need to test your knowledge here, so answer this one simple question: 

In the theory of supply and demand, what happens to prices when there is too much supply?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know we have border check points right?
> 
> And we are in a drug war with Mexico we just gave the like 5 billion dollars over the next few years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we're in a war with drugs, how come we're trying to have a fight with humans?  Saudis attack the World Trade Center and we attack Iraq.  That morphs into a nearly two decade old war; nothing is settled and Trump declares victory.  A war on drugs?  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no problem with drug cartels killing people over your drugs?
> 
> Like I said you want anarchy and turn America into a 3rd world shit hole
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a problem with people like you who want the world to be at war over drugs in a manner where the government claims more of our Rights and YOU would turn us into a third world shithole because you have developed a religion around a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you want will turn us into a thrid world shit hole, what do you think inviting everyone from Venezuela into the US won't turn us into Venezuela?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't invite anyone.  I don't do drugs; the gigs I offer are available to any white American who applies for the job (and they are simple jobs at $20 to $40 per hr.)
> 
> The people I end up using for jobs around here do it because people like you are on the Internet all day; many are on drugs and are judged by their past (as per Ray from Cleveland) so they don't apply.
> 
> Not my fault.
Click to expand...



Tell me your town and state and I will go on the job boards and prove your a liar



20hr ~ 40 hr simple jobs ?

.lol



.


----------



## Thinker101

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Industry is flooded with foreigners because people like you got hooked on drugs and can't think.  So you sit on your ass all day, every day whining about a wall around America.
> 
> You and more than 11 MILLION Americans could work a job, but choose not to.  The jobs are out there - and at good wages.  But, it is easier for some of you to sit around, living off the welfare, and not even wanting to create ways to get Americans back on the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you really need a professional to advise you about those voices in your head.  I've told you repeatedly I do work.  But those voices tell you something different. You really need to have that checked out.  And tell the shrink how I told you repeatedly I don't take drugs, but those voices in your head keep insisting I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post numbers testify against that claim that you work.  Does your boss know you spend all day arguing about a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm on vacation.  But even if I weren't, yes, my employer has no problem with what I do on dead time or waiting to get loaded or unloaded which at times, takes an hour and a half.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good one.  BTW, I do have someone waiting on me to do some real work.  Maybe I can check back in later.
Click to expand...


Well, you be sure to wish the nurse a Merry Christmas.


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See - occasionally the are honest. The Wall is just protectionism for lazy Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At this point I think we need to test your knowledge here, so answer this one simple question:
> 
> In the theory of supply and demand, what happens to prices when there is too much supply?
Click to expand...


Sorry, the thought of you testing my knowledge made milk squirt out my nose. Too funny, too early!

Anyway, what is "too much" supply, in your view? Is that the same thing as unwanted competition?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> The question is...should we waste money on measures that will have no effect.
> 
> Trumpers think we should


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See - occasionally the are honest. The Wall is just protectionism for lazy Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At this point I think we need to test your knowledge here, so answer this one simple question:
> 
> In the theory of supply and demand, what happens to prices when there is too much supply?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, the thought of you testing my knowledge made milk squirt out my nose. Too funny, too early!
> 
> Anyway, what is "too much" supply, in your view? Is that the same thing as unwanted competition?
Click to expand...


When you flood the job market with cheap labor, the supply of that labor keeps wages down.  It's very plain and simple.  Without them, industries are not going to do without.  They will need to up their offers to potential employees to draw interest in their job.


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> When you flood the job market with cheap labor, the supply of that labor keeps wages down.  It's very plain and simple.  Without them, industries are not going to do without.  They will need to up their offers to potential employees to draw interest in their job.



Right. You're opposed to free trade. That's what we've been saying.


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let me help you unboggle your mind.  Why not start by reading Orwell's book 1984.  It was a warning in the form of a novel.
> 
> The government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have... a quote by a famous Republican
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody on the right is asking the government to "give" us anything.  We are asking the government to stop something that we citizens cannot stop by ourselves.  Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want the government to give you a wall for whatever reason you can conjure up as the discussion proceeds.  You don't really know why you want it, other than you think Trump is God and you have to move the goalposts accordingly.  But, you want him to give you a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Industry is flooded with foreigners because people like you got hooked on drugs and can't think.  So you sit on your ass all day, every day whining about a wall around America.
> 
> You and more than 11 MILLION Americans could work a job, but choose not to.  The jobs are out there - and at good wages.  But, it is easier for some of you to sit around, living off the welfare, and not even wanting to create ways to get Americans back on the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And who built the welfare state the left, you.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

the right wing built the warfare State.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it could.  So can prison fences.  So can jails.  It happens now and then.  But the point is it makes it much more difficult for those that are hell bent on trying.  For the rest, they will realize the efforts and risks are too great, and they payoff (if any) not worthy.  Because even if they could draw the attention by getting past a wall, it likely won't be long until a border agent on the other side arrests them and sends them back to the other side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep in mind the wall is really an unknown factor.  It may be solid or slats. It may have barbed wire, electric wire, or nothing on top.  Once it's built it becomes a known factor and can not easily be changed.  That means coyotes will figure out the fastest method of crossing which maybe ladders,  climbing carabiners, or some type power lift.  However, you can be sure once the fence is built people are going to cross it.  You can't stop them  No wall can keep people out if they have access to the right equipment.  It can only delay crossing. People who have crossed existing border walls estimated that the delay would only be 1 to 2 minutes over current reinforced fencing.  That might be useful in densely populated area but in remote ares which are 85% of the border a couple of minutes delay would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why are other countries with similar problems to the US reporting great success with their wall?  Will it stop each and every one?  Probably not.  But if the reduction is 75% or better, it's money well spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other countries are not fighting the same demons we are.  Walls work for communists, socialists, dictatorships and countries that are at war... then, they work temporarily.
Click to expand...


A wall works to keep people out no matter if there is a conflict or not.  You can't say a wall will work on people who are at war but not for people who are not.  A wall either works or it doesn't.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you flood the job market with cheap labor, the supply of that labor keeps wages down.  It's very plain and simple.  Without them, industries are not going to do without.  They will need to up their offers to potential employees to draw interest in their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. You're opposed to free trade. That's what we've been saying.
Click to expand...


Bringing in cheap labor is not free trade.  It's throwing a monkey wrench in the system.  It's cheating Americans out of jobs.  It's illegal.


----------



## Wyatt earp

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody on the right is asking the government to "give" us anything.  We are asking the government to stop something that we citizens cannot stop by ourselves.  Big difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want the government to give you a wall for whatever reason you can conjure up as the discussion proceeds.  You don't really know why you want it, other than you think Trump is God and you have to move the goalposts accordingly.  But, you want him to give you a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Industry is flooded with foreigners because people like you got hooked on drugs and can't think.  So you sit on your ass all day, every day whining about a wall around America.
> 
> You and more than 11 MILLION Americans could work a job, but choose not to.  The jobs are out there - and at good wages.  But, it is easier for some of you to sit around, living off the welfare, and not even wanting to create ways to get Americans back on the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And who built the welfare state the left, you.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing built the warfare State.
Click to expand...



It would be $2 bucks an hour then, not your $14


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you flood the job market with cheap labor, the supply of that labor keeps wages down.  It's very plain and simple.  Without them, industries are not going to do without.  They will need to up their offers to potential employees to draw interest in their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. You're opposed to free trade. That's what we've been saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bringing in cheap labor is not free trade.  It's throwing a monkey wrench in the system.  It's cheating Americans out of jobs.  It's illegal.
Click to expand...


Unwanted competition. I hear ya. You want the government to guarantee your income. No different than the "living wage" goons.


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is...should we waste money on measures that will have no effect.
> 
> Trumpers think we should
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So once again the border security experts says it has a dramatic effect, but you uneducated opinion says it doesnt?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

there is no express wall building power.


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want the government to give you a wall for whatever reason you can conjure up as the discussion proceeds.  You don't really know why you want it, other than you think Trump is God and you have to move the goalposts accordingly.  But, you want him to give you a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Industry is flooded with foreigners because people like you got hooked on drugs and can't think.  So you sit on your ass all day, every day whining about a wall around America.
> 
> You and more than 11 MILLION Americans could work a job, but choose not to.  The jobs are out there - and at good wages.  But, it is easier for some of you to sit around, living off the welfare, and not even wanting to create ways to get Americans back on the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And who built the welfare state the left, you.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing built the warfare State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It would be $2 bucks an hour then, not your $14
Click to expand...

the right wing knows nothing about capitalism.  Talk is what they do best.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you flood the job market with cheap labor, the supply of that labor keeps wages down.  It's very plain and simple.  Without them, industries are not going to do without.  They will need to up their offers to potential employees to draw interest in their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. You're opposed to free trade. That's what we've been saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bringing in cheap labor is not free trade.  It's throwing a monkey wrench in the system.  It's cheating Americans out of jobs.  It's illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unwanted competition. I hear ya. You want the government to guarantee your income. No different than the "living wage" goons.
Click to expand...


No.  Wage competition takes place within our borders by our own people.  Supply and demand when it comes to wages is the most perfect system known.  It works fine until somebody tries to cheat the system such as unions, minimum wage and yes, foreigners.  And you could even throw social programs in the mix if you so desire. 

Keep those problems out of our supply and demand system, the system will work almost flawlessly.  Bringing in third world cheap labor for competition of our wages is like when those cross dressers compete in female sports activities.  You are simply cheating the system.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you flood the job market with cheap labor, the supply of that labor keeps wages down.  It's very plain and simple.  Without them, industries are not going to do without.  They will need to up their offers to potential employees to draw interest in their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. You're opposed to free trade. That's what we've been saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bringing in cheap labor is not free trade.  It's throwing a monkey wrench in the system.  It's cheating Americans out of jobs.  It's illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unwanted competition. I hear ya. You want the government to guarantee your income. No different than the "living wage" goons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Wage competition takes place within our borders by our own people.  Supply and demand when it comes to wages is the most perfect system known.  It works fine until somebody tries to cheat the system such as unions, minimum wage and yes, foreigners.  And you could even throw social programs in the mix if you so desire.
> 
> Keep those problems out of our supply and demand system, the system will work almost flawlessly.  Bringing in third world cheap labor for competition of our wages is like when those cross dressers compete in female sports activities.  You are simply cheating the system.
Click to expand...

capitalism doesn't recognize isolationism or vacuums of special pleading.


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unwanted competition. I hear ya. You want the government to guarantee your income. No different than the "living wage" goons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Wage competition takes place within our borders by our own people.  Supply and demand when it comes to wages is the most perfect system known.
Click to expand...


Heh.. as long as you can use government to control it to your liking. Trumpsters aren't conservatives. They're fascists. Period.


----------



## Wyatt earp

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you flood the job market with cheap labor, the supply of that labor keeps wages down.  It's very plain and simple.  Without them, industries are not going to do without.  They will need to up their offers to potential employees to draw interest in their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. You're opposed to free trade. That's what we've been saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bringing in cheap labor is not free trade.  It's throwing a monkey wrench in the system.  It's cheating Americans out of jobs.  It's illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unwanted competition. I hear ya. You want the government to guarantee your income. No different than the "living wage" goons.
Click to expand...



Well what the hell do you think lowers wages? If youre AGW cult member you know the USA only has a finite amount of natural resources, you can't have an unlimited number of immigrants.

.


----------



## Wyatt earp

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unwanted competition. I hear ya. You want the government to guarantee your income. No different than the "living wage" goons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Wage competition takes place within our borders by our own people.  Supply and demand when it comes to wages is the most perfect system known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.. as long as you can use government to control it to your liking. Trumpsters aren't conservatives. They're fascists. Period.
Click to expand...



So you want 10 billion living here you fuck?

.


----------



## Wyatt earp

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you flood the job market with cheap labor, the supply of that labor keeps wages down.  It's very plain and simple.  Without them, industries are not going to do without.  They will need to up their offers to potential employees to draw interest in their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. You're opposed to free trade. That's what we've been saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bringing in cheap labor is not free trade.  It's throwing a monkey wrench in the system.  It's cheating Americans out of jobs.  It's illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unwanted competition. I hear ya. You want the government to guarantee your income. No different than the "living wage" goons.
Click to expand...



You really want to make America a third world shit hole country don't you troll?


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you flood the job market with cheap labor, the supply of that labor keeps wages down.  It's very plain and simple.  Without them, industries are not going to do without.  They will need to up their offers to potential employees to draw interest in their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. You're opposed to free trade. That's what we've been saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bringing in cheap labor is not free trade.  It's throwing a monkey wrench in the system.  It's cheating Americans out of jobs.  It's illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unwanted competition. I hear ya. You want the government to guarantee your income. No different than the "living wage" goons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well what the hell do you think lowers wages? If youre AGW cult member you know the USA only has a finite amount of natural resources, you can't have an unlimited number of immigrants.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

then stop spending on our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror since they create asylum seekers.


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you flood the job market with cheap labor, the supply of that labor keeps wages down.  It's very plain and simple.  Without them, industries are not going to do without.  They will need to up their offers to potential employees to draw interest in their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. You're opposed to free trade. That's what we've been saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bringing in cheap labor is not free trade.  It's throwing a monkey wrench in the system.  It's cheating Americans out of jobs.  It's illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unwanted competition. I hear ya. You want the government to guarantee your income. No different than the "living wage" goons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really want to make America a third world shit hole country don't you troll?
Click to expand...

with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?


----------



## dblack

bear513 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you flood the job market with cheap labor, the supply of that labor keeps wages down.  It's very plain and simple.  Without them, industries are not going to do without.  They will need to up their offers to potential employees to draw interest in their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. You're opposed to free trade. That's what we've been saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bringing in cheap labor is not free trade.  It's throwing a monkey wrench in the system.  It's cheating Americans out of jobs.  It's illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unwanted competition. I hear ya. You want the government to guarantee your income. No different than the "living wage" goons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really want to make America a third world shit hole country don't you troll?
Click to expand...

Free markets actually make countries stronger and more prosperous.


----------



## Wyatt earp

dblack said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you flood the job market with cheap labor, the supply of that labor keeps wages down.  It's very plain and simple.  Without them, industries are not going to do without.  They will need to up their offers to potential employees to draw interest in their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. You're opposed to free trade. That's what we've been saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bringing in cheap labor is not free trade.  It's throwing a monkey wrench in the system.  It's cheating Americans out of jobs.  It's illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unwanted competition. I hear ya. You want the government to guarantee your income. No different than the "living wage" goons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really want to make America a third world shit hole country don't you troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free markets actually and countries stronger and more prosperous.
Click to expand...



Lowers wages, rasises up health care, uses up resources...


.


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. You're opposed to free trade. That's what we've been saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bringing in cheap labor is not free trade.  It's throwing a monkey wrench in the system.  It's cheating Americans out of jobs.  It's illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unwanted competition. I hear ya. You want the government to guarantee your income. No different than the "living wage" goons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really want to make America a third world shit hole country don't you troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free markets actually and countries stronger and more prosperous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lowers wages, rasises up health care, uses up resources...
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unwanted competition. I hear ya. You want the government to guarantee your income. No different than the "living wage" goons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Wage competition takes place within our borders by our own people.  Supply and demand when it comes to wages is the most perfect system known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.. as long as you can use government to control it to your liking. Trumpsters aren't conservatives. They're fascists. Period.
Click to expand...


So who's using the government?  All we expect from our government is to do it's job.  We let plenty of people in legally.  We allow a million foreigners to become citizens in this country every single year.  We issue 11 million temporary and permanent VISA's every year.  Work permits?? 

If being a fascist means you want to secure your borders, protect your economy, protect your countrymen from harm or death, then yes, I'm a fascist by that definition.  What are you?????????


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Free markets actually and countries stronger and more prosperous.



Correct, just look at how strong China became the last 20 years.


----------



## Wyatt earp

dblack said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you flood the job market with cheap labor, the supply of that labor keeps wages down.  It's very plain and simple.  Without them, industries are not going to do without.  They will need to up their offers to potential employees to draw interest in their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. You're opposed to free trade. That's what we've been saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bringing in cheap labor is not free trade.  It's throwing a monkey wrench in the system.  It's cheating Americans out of jobs.  It's illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unwanted competition. I hear ya. You want the government to guarantee your income. No different than the "living wage" goons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really want to make America a third world shit hole country don't you troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free markets actually and countries stronger and more prosperous.
Click to expand...



Translation,~ you want to exploit the brown people for cheap vegetables..


.


----------



## ph3iron

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ones pics say it all.
> But I'll try to be patient.
> Italians, Germans, Asians and now Latinos all cost the first year.
> All subsequent years they contribute way more than our old white farts here sucking off their socialist benefits
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, asshole.  We didn't have welfare, public schools, and government healthcare when the Italians and Germans came here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we didn't have a Great Depression, either or world wars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Danielpalos never intends to have a point, he's merely an angry troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why he's on my ignore list and should be on everybody's.
Click to expand...


Nice foul mouth.
Dead giveaway for zero college.
Irrespective of schools etc, every generation past the first contributes.
Do I really have to look it up for you?


----------



## ph3iron

bear513 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Trump--we're no longer talking about a WALL it's down to steel slats.   Of course this is G.W. Bush's design that he installed on 700 miles of the border---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump now describes his border wall as "steel slats" - WDEF
> 
> Very easily compromised as this video shows.
> 
> And let's not forget about those tunnels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have found 240 of these in the San Diego region alone, and they know there's more that they haven't found.
> 
> So House Republicans put on their last Hoorah yesterday by passing a bill that included 5.1 billion for the WAAAAALLL.  Of course this is dead on arrival in the Senate.  Republicans had a full house over the last 2 years, and all of a sudden up pops this bill as they're making their exit out of the back door.  5.7 BILLION is the equivalent of teaspoon of water thrown on a bonfire, as the wall would cost 47 BILLION dollars.
> 
> So up comes the steel slats.  Democrats have stated they want more border security but want to use *HIGH TECH* to secure the border, stating that border patrol and border experts have told them it would work better than walls & fences.  It would be much more effective and efficient for the above reasons.  It's true.  Anything they can see, can and will ALWAYS be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> So we will see who is more interested in border security.  I imagine the Ass Clown--will turn down the HIGH TECH option and go with his POS wall (I mean slats now) and shut down the government over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't ever let any FACTS come up and bite you in the Ass--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This past week, Republican Rep. Will Hurd from Texas, a former CIA agent, slammed the "fallacy that a wall equals border security." He explained, *"I have more border (in my district) than any other member of Congress, 820 miles," *and added that we can use available technology to keep us far safer than a wall. Hurd closed with a key point: "Building a wall from sea to shining sea is the most expensive and least effective way to do border security."
> But Trump refuses to accept that technology suggested by people like Hurd and others will address the problem. Instead, Trump on Sunday took to Twitter to mock that very concept, writing, "Drones and all of the rest are wonderful and lots of fun," he wrote, but the "only way to stop drug, gangs, human trafficking, criminal elements" is by building a "good old fashioned Wall" -- or, perhaps, a "Steel Slat Barrier."
> 
> For me, the choice is clear -- not only given Trump's track record, but because statistics also undermine his claims. First, despite what Trump wants you to believe, studies make it clear that immigrants, both undocumented and those legally here, are "considerably less likely to commit crime than native-born citizens." One study, conducted by the Cato Institute, found that "as a percentage of their respective populations, there were 56% fewer criminal convictions of illegal immigrants than of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015." On top of that, illegal border crossings are currently at their lowest levels since 2000. And nearly two thirds of those now in the country illegally are here because they overstayed their visas after arriving via airports, while others even came over the northern border from Canada. A massive southern border wall obviously won't address this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why Trump can't let go of his border wall dream (Opinion) - CNN
> 
> We have a very long, expensive history of walls & fences *not *working along the southern border.  Democrats are following the advice of border security experts & agents who want to use high tech to secure the border.  Something that can be seen (can)--and will *always* be compromised, something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> 
> 
> I really don't think the half brained Trump tards are interested in border security as much as they are in trying to save Trump.  _Their right wing talk show hosts are telling them if Trump doesn't get the Trump WALL, it will be the end of his presidency. In reality, meaning the end of THEM because they shoved Trump down their throats over the wall._
> _November 28, 2018 - TRUMP'S GREAT WALL BECOMES TRUMP'S GREAT STALL_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Climb this wall
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236503
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're not interested at all in actual border security, you're just trying to save Trump's legacy.
> 
> Redirect to a comment from a Republican House member whose district in Texas is 800 miles of the border.  Click here to redirect to the post on this thread
> Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a deterrent to fat ass Mexicans
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I thought our white boy rubes were the overweight ones?


----------



## ph3iron

bear513 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Trump--we're no longer talking about a WALL it's down to steel slats.   Of course this is G.W. Bush's design that he installed on 700 miles of the border---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump now describes his border wall as "steel slats" - WDEF
> 
> Very easily compromised as this video shows.
> 
> And let's not forget about those tunnels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have found 240 of these in the San Diego region alone, and they know there's more that they haven't found.
> 
> So House Republicans put on their last Hoorah yesterday by passing a bill that included 5.1 billion for the WAAAAALLL.  Of course this is dead on arrival in the Senate.  Republicans had a full house over the last 2 years, and all of a sudden up pops this bill as they're making their exit out of the back door.  5.7 BILLION is the equivalent of teaspoon of water thrown on a bonfire, as the wall would cost 47 BILLION dollars.
> 
> So up comes the steel slats.  Democrats have stated they want more border security but want to use *HIGH TECH* to secure the border, stating that border patrol and border experts have told them it would work better than walls & fences.  It would be much more effective and efficient for the above reasons.  It's true.  Anything they can see, can and will ALWAYS be compromised, something they can't see won't even be attempted.
> 
> So we will see who is more interested in border security.  I imagine the Ass Clown--will turn down the HIGH TECH option and go with his POS wall (I mean slats now) and shut down the government over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't ever let any FACTS come up and bite you in the Ass--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This past week, Republican Rep. Will Hurd from Texas, a former CIA agent, slammed the "fallacy that a wall equals border security." He explained, *"I have more border (in my district) than any other member of Congress, 820 miles," *and added that we can use available technology to keep us far safer than a wall. Hurd closed with a key point: "Building a wall from sea to shining sea is the most expensive and least effective way to do border security."
> But Trump refuses to accept that technology suggested by people like Hurd and others will address the problem. Instead, Trump on Sunday took to Twitter to mock that very concept, writing, "Drones and all of the rest are wonderful and lots of fun," he wrote, but the "only way to stop drug, gangs, human trafficking, criminal elements" is by building a "good old fashioned Wall" -- or, perhaps, a "Steel Slat Barrier."
> 
> For me, the choice is clear -- not only given Trump's track record, but because statistics also undermine his claims. First, despite what Trump wants you to believe, studies make it clear that immigrants, both undocumented and those legally here, are "considerably less likely to commit crime than native-born citizens." One study, conducted by the Cato Institute, found that "as a percentage of their respective populations, there were 56% fewer criminal convictions of illegal immigrants than of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015." On top of that, illegal border crossings are currently at their lowest levels since 2000. And nearly two thirds of those now in the country illegally are here because they overstayed their visas after arriving via airports, while others even came over the northern border from Canada. A massive southern border wall obviously won't address this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why Trump can't let go of his border wall dream (Opinion) - CNN
> 
> We have a very long, expensive history of walls & fences *not *working along the southern border.  Democrats are following the advice of border security experts & agents who want to use high tech to secure the border.  Something that can be seen (can)--and will *always* be compromised, something that can't be seen won't even be attempted.
> 
> 
> I really don't think the half brained Trump tards are interested in border security as much as they are in trying to save Trump.  _Their right wing talk show hosts are telling them if Trump doesn't get the Trump WALL, it will be the end of his presidency. In reality, meaning the end of THEM because they shoved Trump down their throats over the wall._
> _November 28, 2018 - TRUMP'S GREAT WALL BECOMES TRUMP'S GREAT STALL_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Climb this wall
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236503
Click to expand...

It's called tunnels and airports


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

ph3iron said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, asshole.  We didn't have welfare, public schools, and government healthcare when the Italians and Germans came here.
> 
> 
> 
> we didn't have a Great Depression, either or world wars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Danielpalos never intends to have a point, he's merely an angry troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why he's on my ignore list and should be on everybody's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice foul mouth.
> Dead giveaway for zero college.
> Irrespective of schools etc, every generation past the first contributes.
> Do I really have to look it up for you?
Click to expand...


Who are you talking to?  What does this have to do with my post?


----------



## ph3iron

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall would work to expand the POLICE POWERS of the state at the expense of our God given Rights; it will NOT work because the United States of America is not a communist country; however, after you get your silly wall it will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only Communist countries secure their borders?  And how would a wall change an entire system of government?
> 
> Guess what?  I won't lose one right if we get that border wall.......not one.  Which rights do you think you'd be losing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What absolute dishonesty stupidity.  Communists, dictators and PEOPLE AT WAR use walls.  All others use other forms of solutions to resolve the problem and secure their borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another leftwing argument.  People have used walls to defend themselves for thousands of years.  The Berlin wall is the only time a wall has been used to keep people in.  Is Israel a communist dictatorship?  Hungary?
> 
> You're just plain full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're full of shit because you're LYING.  Got it? I did not say that the Israelis are communists.  Neither did I imply that "only" communist countries employed walls.  Quit lying about what I said.  Give the FULL quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why do you keep talking about the Berlin wall?  You're obviously implying that only Stalinists would support the building of a wall.  You whine about "foul language," but you're accusing everyone who supports the wall of supporting the police state.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag. You're probably also not a Republican.  So far I've seen no evidence of it.
Click to expand...

Nice foul mouth.
Dead giveaway for zero college


----------



## ph3iron

Ray From Cleveland said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we didn't have a Great Depression, either or world wars.
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Danielpalos never intends to have a point, he's merely an angry troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why he's on my ignore list and should be on everybody's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice foul mouth.
> Dead giveaway for zero college.
> Irrespective of schools etc, every generation past the first contributes.
> Do I really have to look it up for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to?  What does this have to do with my post?
Click to expand...

I thought You Were trying to say in the good old Italian and German days we didn't have welfare, schools etc.
I'm saying so what, ? Immigrants past the first generation have always contributed to the economy.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

ph3iron said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Danielpalos never intends to have a point, he's merely an angry troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why he's on my ignore list and should be on everybody's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice foul mouth.
> Dead giveaway for zero college.
> Irrespective of schools etc, every generation past the first contributes.
> Do I really have to look it up for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to?  What does this have to do with my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought You Were trying to say in the good old Italian and German days we didn't have welfare, schools etc.
> I'm saying so what, ? Immigrants past the first generation have always contributed to the economy.
Click to expand...


I don't know what you're talking about, but we are 20 trillion in debt today.  We don't have a generation to wait.  We can do just fine without them and the associated costs.  We can do without the murders, we can do without the drugs, we can do without the DUI's that kill Americans.  We can do without all those things because we have enough of those problems with our own people.  We don't need to be importing more problems.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See - occasionally the are honest. The Wall is just protectionism for lazy Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At this point I think we need to test your knowledge here, so answer this one simple question:
> 
> In the theory of supply and demand, what happens to prices when there is too much supply?
Click to expand...


You're a truck driver, not someone that deals with the laws of economics.  Wouldn't your test questions be like Chuck Schumer asking a Marine to explain how his M16 works?


----------



## dblack

bear513 said:


> Translation,~ you want to exploit the brown people for cheap vegetables.



Yes. Exploiting is how things work in a free market. Whining about "exploitation" is what socialists do.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we're in a war with drugs, how come we're trying to have a fight with humans?  Saudis attack the World Trade Center and we attack Iraq.  That morphs into a nearly two decade old war; nothing is settled and Trump declares victory.  A war on drugs?  You lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no problem with drug cartels killing people over your drugs?
> 
> Like I said you want anarchy and turn America into a 3rd world shit hole
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a problem with people like you who want the world to be at war over drugs in a manner where the government claims more of our Rights and YOU would turn us into a third world shithole because you have developed a religion around a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you want will turn us into a thrid world shit hole, what do you think inviting everyone from Venezuela into the US won't turn us into Venezuela?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't invite anyone.  I don't do drugs; the gigs I offer are available to any white American who applies for the job (and they are simple jobs at $20 to $40 per hr.)
> 
> The people I end up using for jobs around here do it because people like you are on the Internet all day; many are on drugs and are judged by their past (as per Ray from Cleveland) so they don't apply.
> 
> Not my fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me your town and state and I will go on the job boards and prove your a liar
> 
> 
> 
> 20hr ~ 40 hr simple jobs ?
> 
> .lol
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Son, I don't need a board.  I advertise on Craigslist all the time.  I have a gig available right now.  It's putting up part of a wooden fence.  You use a post hole digger (the manual model since you need maybe three holes in the ground.  Cement 4x4s  into the holes and then nail the fence together.  The fence flats come precut.  So, you use the cordless and attach two cross boards to the flats, creating a four foot section.   You might have to use a power saw to cut the cross section boards that the flats are screwed into.  Set it in place and screw the fence sections to the 4 x 4s.  

The Mexicans can do it and average $30 an hour, but I realize that Americans are slow so they average $22 an hour WHEN THEY SHOW UP TO DO THE JOBS.

There is no way in HELL you can prove me a liar.  Rather than sit there and tell lies yourself, show up tomorrow morning.  It pays better than sitting on your computer.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Danielpalos never intends to have a point, he's merely an angry troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why he's on my ignore list and should be on everybody's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice foul mouth.
> Dead giveaway for zero college.
> Irrespective of schools etc, every generation past the first contributes.
> Do I really have to look it up for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to?  What does this have to do with my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought You Were trying to say in the good old Italian and German days we didn't have welfare, schools etc.
> I'm saying so what, ? Immigrants past the first generation have always contributed to the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about, but we are 20 trillion in debt today.  We don't have a generation to wait.  We can do just fine without them and the associated costs.  We can do without the murders, we can do without the drugs, we can do without the DUI's that kill Americans.  We can do without all those things because we have enough of those problems with our own people.  We don't need to be importing more problems.
Click to expand...


Employers need laborers that will produce at a competitive wage just as you need your firearm for protection.  I support YOUR Rights AND the EMPLOYER'S Rights.  See how that works?


----------



## Wyatt earp

dblack said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation,~ you want to exploit the brown people for cheap vegetables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Exploiting is how things work in a free market. Whining about "exploitation" is what socialists do.
Click to expand...



Letting illegals In to exploit them and by pass laws is not a free market it's slavery..

Bet  you like the slave market of little children also don't you?


.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why he's on my ignore list and should be on everybody's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice foul mouth.
> Dead giveaway for zero college.
> Irrespective of schools etc, every generation past the first contributes.
> Do I really have to look it up for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to?  What does this have to do with my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought You Were trying to say in the good old Italian and German days we didn't have welfare, schools etc.
> I'm saying so what, ? Immigrants past the first generation have always contributed to the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about, but we are 20 trillion in debt today.  We don't have a generation to wait.  We can do just fine without them and the associated costs.  We can do without the murders, we can do without the drugs, we can do without the DUI's that kill Americans.  We can do without all those things because we have enough of those problems with our own people.  We don't need to be importing more problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employers need laborers that will produce at a competitive wage just as you need your firearm for protection.  I support YOUR Rights AND the EMPLOYER'S Rights.  See how that works?
Click to expand...



So you going to lock the factory doors and force them to work 18 hour days now?

Get rid of the child labor laws too?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Thinker101 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Industry is flooded with foreigners because people like you got hooked on drugs and can't think.  So you sit on your ass all day, every day whining about a wall around America.
> 
> You and more than 11 MILLION Americans could work a job, but choose not to.  The jobs are out there - and at good wages.  But, it is easier for some of you to sit around, living off the welfare, and not even wanting to create ways to get Americans back on the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you really need a professional to advise you about those voices in your head.  I've told you repeatedly I do work.  But those voices tell you something different. You really need to have that checked out.  And tell the shrink how I told you repeatedly I don't take drugs, but those voices in your head keep insisting I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post numbers testify against that claim that you work.  Does your boss know you spend all day arguing about a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm on vacation.  But even if I weren't, yes, my employer has no problem with what I do on dead time or waiting to get loaded or unloaded which at times, takes an hour and a half.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good one.  BTW, I do have someone waiting on me to do some real work.  Maybe I can check back in later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you be sure to wish the nurse a Merry Christmas.
Click to expand...


That was a compliment.  Compared to you I would be a brain surgeon, but that's not my line of work.  I do argue with a lot assholes over this wall idea so that does make me a proctologist of sorts.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no problem with drug cartels killing people over your drugs?
> 
> Like I said you want anarchy and turn America into a 3rd world shit hole
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a problem with people like you who want the world to be at war over drugs in a manner where the government claims more of our Rights and YOU would turn us into a third world shithole because you have developed a religion around a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you want will turn us into a thrid world shit hole, what do you think inviting everyone from Venezuela into the US won't turn us into Venezuela?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't invite anyone.  I don't do drugs; the gigs I offer are available to any white American who applies for the job (and they are simple jobs at $20 to $40 per hr.)
> 
> The people I end up using for jobs around here do it because people like you are on the Internet all day; many are on drugs and are judged by their past (as per Ray from Cleveland) so they don't apply.
> 
> Not my fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me your town and state and I will go on the job boards and prove your a liar
> 
> 
> 
> 20hr ~ 40 hr simple jobs ?
> 
> .lol
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son, I don't need a board.  I advertise on Craigslist all the time.  I have a gig available right now.  It's putting up part of a wooden fence.  You use a post hole digger (the manual model since you need maybe three holes in the ground.  Cement 4x4s  into the holes and then nail the fence together.  The fence flats come precut.  So, you use the cordless and attach two cross boards to the flats, creating a four foot section.   You might have to use a power saw to cut the cross section boards that the flats are screwed into.  Set it in place and screw the fence sections to the 4 x 4s.
> 
> The Mexicans can do it and average $30 an hour, but I realize that Americans are slow so they average $22 an hour WHEN THEY SHOW UP TO DO THE JOBS.
> 
> There is no way in HELL you can prove me a liar.  Rather than sit there and tell lies yourself, show up tomorrow morning.  It pays better than sitting on your computer.
Click to expand...



Son, so you think one gig at 40hr for one hour is worth anything?


That's feast and famine,. No benefits...


No tell me what state you live in because I will copy and paste and prove you are a liar.


----------



## Thinker101

Porter Rockwell said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you really need a professional to advise you about those voices in your head.  I've told you repeatedly I do work.  But those voices tell you something different. You really need to have that checked out.  And tell the shrink how I told you repeatedly I don't take drugs, but those voices in your head keep insisting I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post numbers testify against that claim that you work.  Does your boss know you spend all day arguing about a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm on vacation.  But even if I weren't, yes, my employer has no problem with what I do on dead time or waiting to get loaded or unloaded which at times, takes an hour and a half.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good one.  BTW, I do have someone waiting on me to do some real work.  Maybe I can check back in later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you be sure to wish the nurse a Merry Christmas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was a compliment.  Compared to you I would be a brain surgeon, but that's not my line of work.  I do argue with a lot assholes over this wall idea so that does make me a proctologist of sorts.
Click to expand...


Sure...I meant the nurse taking care of you...dumbass.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no problem with drug cartels killing people over your drugs?
> 
> Like I said you want anarchy and turn America into a 3rd world shit hole
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a problem with people like you who want the world to be at war over drugs in a manner where the government claims more of our Rights and YOU would turn us into a third world shithole because you have developed a religion around a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you want will turn us into a thrid world shit hole, what do you think inviting everyone from Venezuela into the US won't turn us into Venezuela?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't invite anyone.  I don't do drugs; the gigs I offer are available to any white American who applies for the job (and they are simple jobs at $20 to $40 per hr.)
> 
> The people I end up using for jobs around here do it because people like you are on the Internet all day; many are on drugs and are judged by their past (as per Ray from Cleveland) so they don't apply.
> 
> Not my fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me your town and state and I will go on the job boards and prove your a liar
> 
> 
> 
> 20hr ~ 40 hr simple jobs ?
> 
> .lol
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son, I don't need a board.  I advertise on Craigslist all the time.  I have a gig available right now.  It's putting up part of a wooden fence.  You use a post hole digger (the manual model since you need maybe three holes in the ground.  Cement 4x4s  into the holes and then nail the fence together.  The fence flats come precut.  So, you use the cordless and attach two cross boards to the flats, creating a four foot section.   You might have to use a power saw to cut the cross section boards that the flats are screwed into.  Set it in place and screw the fence sections to the 4 x 4s.
> 
> The Mexicans can do it and average $30 an hour, but I realize that Americans are slow so they average $22 an hour WHEN THEY SHOW UP TO DO THE JOBS.
> 
> There is no way in HELL you can prove me a liar.  Rather than sit there and tell lies yourself, show up tomorrow morning.  It pays better than sitting on your computer.
Click to expand...



Btw I retired this year at 53 years old, was an injection molding maintenance guy  for 30 years making between 50 to 75 grand a year...moved to no tax state Wyoming, from south Carolina and before that born and raised in  Chicago 


.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why he's on my ignore list and should be on everybody's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice foul mouth.
> Dead giveaway for zero college.
> Irrespective of schools etc, every generation past the first contributes.
> Do I really have to look it up for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to?  What does this have to do with my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought You Were trying to say in the good old Italian and German days we didn't have welfare, schools etc.
> I'm saying so what, ? Immigrants past the first generation have always contributed to the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about, but we are 20 trillion in debt today.  We don't have a generation to wait.  We can do just fine without them and the associated costs.  We can do without the murders, we can do without the drugs, we can do without the DUI's that kill Americans.  We can do without all those things because we have enough of those problems with our own people.  We don't need to be importing more problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employers need laborers that will produce at a competitive wage just as you need your firearm for protection.  I support YOUR Rights AND the EMPLOYER'S Rights.  See how that works?
Click to expand...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why he's on my ignore list and should be on everybody's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice foul mouth.
> Dead giveaway for zero college.
> Irrespective of schools etc, every generation past the first contributes.
> Do I really have to look it up for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to?  What does this have to do with my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought You Were trying to say in the good old Italian and German days we didn't have welfare, schools etc.
> I'm saying so what, ? Immigrants past the first generation have always contributed to the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about, but we are 20 trillion in debt today.  We don't have a generation to wait.  We can do just fine without them and the associated costs.  We can do without the murders, we can do without the drugs, we can do without the DUI's that kill Americans.  We can do without all those things because we have enough of those problems with our own people.  We don't need to be importing more problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employers need laborers that will produce at a competitive wage just as you need your firearm for protection.  I support YOUR Rights AND the EMPLOYER'S Rights.  See how that works?
Click to expand...


It's my right to own firearms.  It's my right to self-defense.  No employer has the right to hire illegals.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See - occasionally the are honest. The Wall is just protectionism for lazy Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At this point I think we need to test your knowledge here, so answer this one simple question:
> 
> In the theory of supply and demand, what happens to prices when there is too much supply?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a truck driver, not someone that deals with the laws of economics.  Wouldn't your test questions be like Chuck Schumer asking a Marine to explain how his M16 works?
Click to expand...


You don't need to be an economist to understand the supply and demand theory.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See - occasionally the are honest. The Wall is just protectionism for lazy Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At this point I think we need to test your knowledge here, so answer this one simple question:
> 
> In the theory of supply and demand, what happens to prices when there is too much supply?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, the thought of you testing my knowledge made milk squirt out my nose. Too funny, too early!
> 
> Anyway, what is "too much" supply, in your view? Is that the same thing as unwanted competition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you flood the job market with cheap labor, the supply of that labor keeps wages down.  It's very plain and simple.  Without them, industries are not going to do without.  They will need to up their offers to potential employees to draw interest in their job.
Click to expand...


Do we have to educate you yet AGAIN?

The market is not being flooded with cheap labor per se.  It is being filled with people whose American counterparts you have no use for.

Go back to post # 971.  You were informed, with accurate figures, that about 11 million people have been diagnosed with ADD / ADHD  YOUR claim is that you have it, but don't take your meds. YOU claim it is a real and legitimate condition. You have made much ado about the public having a right to know the private business of individuals, so you just knocked 11 million people out of the job market.  Who wants an employee with a mental health condition?

According to one article:

"In 2016, the total number of persons in U.S. adult correctional systems was an estimated 6,613,500. From 2007 to 2016, the correctional population decreased by an average of 1.2% annually. By the end of 2016   ...Total correctional population (prison, jail, probation, parole) peaked in 2007.[2] If all prisoners are counted (including juvenile, territorial, ICE, Indian country, and military), then in 2008 the US had around 24.7% of the world's 9.8 million prisoners"

Incarceration in the United States - Wikipedia 

Between drug addicts and people with a criminal history, you have more than 17 million people that, for all intents and purposes, are UNEMPLOYABLE.  And you don't want them to get a second chance and go back to work!

You are all over the board.  Before you think about keeping people out and putting up a wall, you should be thinking about who is going to fill the empty positions when your agenda would prohibit Americans from getting those jobs as they are at this very moment, due to a criminal history and / or mental problems that do not affect an individual's ability, BUT are used against them.  AND they can NEVER rise above their past given your idea of utopia.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice foul mouth.
> Dead giveaway for zero college.
> Irrespective of schools etc, every generation past the first contributes.
> Do I really have to look it up for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to?  What does this have to do with my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought You Were trying to say in the good old Italian and German days we didn't have welfare, schools etc.
> I'm saying so what, ? Immigrants past the first generation have always contributed to the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about, but we are 20 trillion in debt today.  We don't have a generation to wait.  We can do just fine without them and the associated costs.  We can do without the murders, we can do without the drugs, we can do without the DUI's that kill Americans.  We can do without all those things because we have enough of those problems with our own people.  We don't need to be importing more problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employers need laborers that will produce at a competitive wage just as you need your firearm for protection.  I support YOUR Rights AND the EMPLOYER'S Rights.  See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's my right to own firearms.  It's my right to self-defense.  No employer has the right to hire illegals.
Click to expand...


Employers, in our de jure / lawful / legal / CONSTITUTIONAL form of government have the Right to hire whomever they want.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it could.  So can prison fences.  So can jails.  It happens now and then.  But the point is it makes it much more difficult for those that are hell bent on trying.  For the rest, they will realize the efforts and risks are too great, and they payoff (if any) not worthy.  Because even if they could draw the attention by getting past a wall, it likely won't be long until a border agent on the other side arrests them and sends them back to the other side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep in mind the wall is really an unknown factor.  It may be solid or slats. It may have barbed wire, electric wire, or nothing on top.  Once it's built it becomes a known factor and can not easily be changed.  That means coyotes will figure out the fastest method of crossing which maybe ladders,  climbing carabiners, or some type power lift.  However, you can be sure once the fence is built people are going to cross it.  You can't stop them  No wall can keep people out if they have access to the right equipment.  It can only delay crossing. People who have crossed existing border walls estimated that the delay would only be 1 to 2 minutes over current reinforced fencing.  That might be useful in densely populated area but in remote ares which are 85% of the border a couple of minutes delay would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why are other countries with similar problems to the US reporting great success with their wall?  Will it stop each and every one?  Probably not.  But if the reduction is 75% or better, it's money well spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other countries are not fighting the same demons we are.  Walls work for communists, socialists, dictatorships and countries that are at war... then, they work temporarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall works to keep people out no matter if there is a conflict or not.  You can't say a wall will work on people who are at war but not for people who are not.  A wall either works or it doesn't.
Click to expand...



Korean Ginseng may help you if you have a sexual problem; it will do NOTHING for diarrhea.  The solution has to fit the problem.


----------



## bripat9643

Dragonlady said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with building the wall?  I voted for Trump. Trump is wrong, like the liberals. We need to tear down the border wall. What we really need make  a national identity card. Linked to fingerprints. You don't get a job if you can't prove your identity linked to  your real  immigration status . Why Replicratrats are so opposed to that, boggles my mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let me help you unboggle your mind.  Why not start by reading Orwell's book 1984.  It was a warning in the form of a novel.
> 
> The government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have... a quote by a famous Republican
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody on the right is asking the government to "give" us anything.  We are asking the government to stop something that we citizens cannot stop by ourselves.  Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are asking taxpayers to pay more than $25 billion for something that doesn’t work and that Trump promised Mexico would pay for.  Furthermore, Trump is putting tens of thousands of people into custody in tent cities at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.
> 
> Trump is spending millions and millions and just making the situation worse.
Click to expand...

It does work, douchebag.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to?  What does this have to do with my post?
> 
> 
> 
> I thought You Were trying to say in the good old Italian and German days we didn't have welfare, schools etc.
> I'm saying so what, ? Immigrants past the first generation have always contributed to the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about, but we are 20 trillion in debt today.  We don't have a generation to wait.  We can do just fine without them and the associated costs.  We can do without the murders, we can do without the drugs, we can do without the DUI's that kill Americans.  We can do without all those things because we have enough of those problems with our own people.  We don't need to be importing more problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employers need laborers that will produce at a competitive wage just as you need your firearm for protection.  I support YOUR Rights AND the EMPLOYER'S Rights.  See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's my right to own firearms.  It's my right to self-defense.  No employer has the right to hire illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employers, in our de jure / lawful / legal / CONSTITUTIONAL form of government have the Right to hire whomever they want.
Click to expand...

No they don't.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me first , now answer my questions propaganda boi..
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us are fences and walls on people's property , in effective and should be outlawed In your free society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall in Israel like the Berlin Wall worked because the guards could be at any attempted crossing in minutes.  That is not the case with our 2000 mile border.  Unless we have thousands of miles of monitoring and border guards, migrants will stream across the remote areas of the border.  However, if we had that degree of monitoring and border guards there would be no reason for the wall.
Click to expand...

Why can't we put just as many guards per mile of wall as Israel?

Do you idiots ever think about the dumb shit you post?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice foul mouth.
> Dead giveaway for zero college.
> Irrespective of schools etc, every generation past the first contributes.
> Do I really have to look it up for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to?  What does this have to do with my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought You Were trying to say in the good old Italian and German days we didn't have welfare, schools etc.
> I'm saying so what, ? Immigrants past the first generation have always contributed to the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about, but we are 20 trillion in debt today.  We don't have a generation to wait.  We can do just fine without them and the associated costs.  We can do without the murders, we can do without the drugs, we can do without the DUI's that kill Americans.  We can do without all those things because we have enough of those problems with our own people.  We don't need to be importing more problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employers need laborers that will produce at a competitive wage just as you need your firearm for protection.  I support YOUR Rights AND the EMPLOYER'S Rights.  See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you going to lock the factory doors and force them to work 18 hour days now?
> 
> Get rid of the child labor laws too?
Click to expand...


What???  Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything except those like you and those who buy into your misrepresentations.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a problem with people like you who want the world to be at war over drugs in a manner where the government claims more of our Rights and YOU would turn us into a third world shithole because you have developed a religion around a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you want will turn us into a thrid world shit hole, what do you think inviting everyone from Venezuela into the US won't turn us into Venezuela?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't invite anyone.  I don't do drugs; the gigs I offer are available to any white American who applies for the job (and they are simple jobs at $20 to $40 per hr.)
> 
> The people I end up using for jobs around here do it because people like you are on the Internet all day; many are on drugs and are judged by their past (as per Ray from Cleveland) so they don't apply.
> 
> Not my fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me your town and state and I will go on the job boards and prove your a liar
> 
> 
> 
> 20hr ~ 40 hr simple jobs ?
> 
> .lol
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son, I don't need a board.  I advertise on Craigslist all the time.  I have a gig available right now.  It's putting up part of a wooden fence.  You use a post hole digger (the manual model since you need maybe three holes in the ground.  Cement 4x4s  into the holes and then nail the fence together.  The fence flats come precut.  So, you use the cordless and attach two cross boards to the flats, creating a four foot section.   You might have to use a power saw to cut the cross section boards that the flats are screwed into.  Set it in place and screw the fence sections to the 4 x 4s.
> 
> The Mexicans can do it and average $30 an hour, but I realize that Americans are slow so they average $22 an hour WHEN THEY SHOW UP TO DO THE JOBS.
> 
> There is no way in HELL you can prove me a liar.  Rather than sit there and tell lies yourself, show up tomorrow morning.  It pays better than sitting on your computer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Son, so you think one gig at 40hr for one hour is worth anything?
> 
> 
> That's feast and famine,. No benefits...
> 
> 
> No tell me what state you live in because I will copy and paste and prove you are a liar.
Click to expand...


Neighbors call me on a regular basis needing windows put in, decks built, sinks replaced, etc.  They cannot afford the big box guys and would gladly pay wages of $20 to $40 an hour.  You just don't want to work.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> 
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall in Israel like the Berlin Wall worked because the guards could be at any attempted crossing in minutes.  That is not the case with our 2000 mile border.  Unless we have thousands of miles of monitoring and border guards, migrants will stream across the remote areas of the border.  However, if we had that degree of monitoring and border guards there would be no reason for the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't we put just as many guards per mile of wall as Israel?
> 
> Do you idiots ever think about the dumb shit you post?
Click to expand...


I see you have NEVER thought about what you're posting.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought You Were trying to say in the good old Italian and German days we didn't have welfare, schools etc.
> I'm saying so what, ? Immigrants past the first generation have always contributed to the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about, but we are 20 trillion in debt today.  We don't have a generation to wait.  We can do just fine without them and the associated costs.  We can do without the murders, we can do without the drugs, we can do without the DUI's that kill Americans.  We can do without all those things because we have enough of those problems with our own people.  We don't need to be importing more problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employers need laborers that will produce at a competitive wage just as you need your firearm for protection.  I support YOUR Rights AND the EMPLOYER'S Rights.  See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's my right to own firearms.  It's my right to self-defense.  No employer has the right to hire illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employers, in our de jure / lawful / legal / CONSTITUTIONAL form of government have the Right to hire whomever they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they don't.
Click to expand...



If you were right, the Transcontinental Railroad would never have been built.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The FACT that you are making the idiotic and erroneous claim that you have debunked the facts disproving your claims adds to that body of evidence that you don't understand how the nutty wall idea is going to destroy YOUR Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How the heck does protecting our borders so we can have liberty from 3 Rd world shit holes like Mexico, destroy our libertys?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see if we can put this in language that even you can understand.
> 
> With the wall will come the enforcement.  There will be things both seen and UNSEEN.  For example, the Constitution Free Zone will be vigorously enforced.  There go your constitutional Liberties within 100 miles of the border.  And there will be more.
> 
> If you would go off the attack, STFU and quit posting every five minutes, I would explain it to you.
Click to expand...

We already have the "constitution free zone," moron, and it's far bigger without a wall than it will be with the wall.  In the latter case, border patrol can stay close to the border.  That isn't possible when the aliens get a running head start of several miles.

You have consistently failed to explain how the wall will have any negative impact on my constitutional liberties.  If anything, it will have a positive effect.  If we don't allow illegals to enter in the first place, then we don't have to send immigration agents roaming all over the entire country in their search for illegals.

Anyone who claims the wall won't work is simply a sleazy lying douchebag.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See - occasionally the are honest. The Wall is just protectionism for lazy Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At this point I think we need to test your knowledge here, so answer this one simple question:
> 
> In the theory of supply and demand, what happens to prices when there is too much supply?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a truck driver, not someone that deals with the laws of economics.  Wouldn't your test questions be like Chuck Schumer asking a Marine to explain how his M16 works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need to be an economist to understand the supply and demand theory.
Click to expand...


You have to have reasoning skills - which you have shown a lack of experience with.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall in Israel like the Berlin Wall worked because the guards could be at any attempted crossing in minutes.  That is not the case with our 2000 mile border.  Unless we have thousands of miles of monitoring and border guards, migrants will stream across the remote areas of the border.  However, if we had that degree of monitoring and border guards there would be no reason for the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't we put just as many guards per mile of wall as Israel?
> 
> Do you idiots ever think about the dumb shit you post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you have NEVER thought about what you're posting.
Click to expand...

I see that you are a moron because you post ideas that have already been debunked 1000 times.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The FACT that you are making the idiotic and erroneous claim that you have debunked the facts disproving your claims adds to that body of evidence that you don't understand how the nutty wall idea is going to destroy YOUR Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How the heck does protecting our borders so we can have liberty from 3 Rd world shit holes like Mexico, destroy our libertys?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see if we can put this in language that even you can understand.
> 
> With the wall will come the enforcement.  There will be things both seen and UNSEEN.  For example, the Constitution Free Zone will be vigorously enforced.  There go your constitutional Liberties within 100 miles of the border.  And there will be more.
> 
> If you would go off the attack, STFU and quit posting every five minutes, I would explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already have the "constitution free zone," moron, and it's far bigger without a wall than it will be with the wall.  In the latter case, border patrol can stay close to the border.  That isn't possible when the aliens get a running head start of several miles.
> 
> You have consistently failed to explain how the wall will have any negative impact on my constitutional liberties.  If anything, it will have a positive effect.  If we don't allow illegals to enter in the first place, then we don't have to send immigration agents roaming all over the entire country in their search for illegals.
> 
> Anyone who claims the wall won't work is simply a sleazy lying douchebag.
Click to expand...



No shit Sherlock. They've had the Constitution Free Zone, but like the laws on income tax evasion, they won't use them until they find the right guy they can demonize in order to justify the enforcement of it.

When they arrested Al Capone, income tax evasion laws had not been used in 25 years.  

Your desperation has led to you screaming insults and name calling.  You have effectively conceded defeat and all we're doing from here on out is repeating the same points over and over.

You need a wall.  Fact is, you need four of them around you so that you cannot harm yourself or others when you have these melt downs.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall in Israel like the Berlin Wall worked because the guards could be at any attempted crossing in minutes.  That is not the case with our 2000 mile border.  Unless we have thousands of miles of monitoring and border guards, migrants will stream across the remote areas of the border.  However, if we had that degree of monitoring and border guards there would be no reason for the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't we put just as many guards per mile of wall as Israel?
> 
> Do you idiots ever think about the dumb shit you post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you have NEVER thought about what you're posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see that you are a moron because you post ideas that have already been debunked 1000 times.
Click to expand...


NOTHING I've said has been debunked.  It's the reason you've sunk to the low of throwing hissy fits and calling people names when they prove you wrong.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The FACT that you are making the idiotic and erroneous claim that you have debunked the facts disproving your claims adds to that body of evidence that you don't understand how the nutty wall idea is going to destroy YOUR Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How the heck does protecting our borders so we can have liberty from 3 Rd world shit holes like Mexico, destroy our libertys?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see if we can put this in language that even you can understand.
> 
> With the wall will come the enforcement.  There will be things both seen and UNSEEN.  For example, the Constitution Free Zone will be vigorously enforced.  There go your constitutional Liberties within 100 miles of the border.  And there will be more.
> 
> If you would go off the attack, STFU and quit posting every five minutes, I would explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already have the "constitution free zone," moron, and it's far bigger without a wall than it will be with the wall.  In the latter case, border patrol can stay close to the border.  That isn't possible when the aliens get a running head start of several miles.
> 
> You have consistently failed to explain how the wall will have any negative impact on my constitutional liberties.  If anything, it will have a positive effect.  If we don't allow illegals to enter in the first place, then we don't have to send immigration agents roaming all over the entire country in their search for illegals.
> 
> Anyone who claims the wall won't work is simply a sleazy lying douchebag.
Click to expand...



I wanted to come back to this and then remind you of post #1428  That proves that you post lies.  I'd like to expand on the theme.

*YOUR LIBERTIES AND IMMIGRATION LAW
*
I have maintained that the wall brings with it enforcement laws that affect your Liberty and deprive you of your Rights.  Let us take the case of Printz v. U.S.:

On June 27, 1997, the last day of the term, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.[7] Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist alongside Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas found that the Brady Act's attempted commandeering of the sheriffs to perform background checks violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[7] In his opinion of the Court, Justice Scalia stated that, although there is no constitutional text precisely responding to the challenge, an answer can be found “in historical understanding and practice, the structure of the Constitution, and in the jurisprudence of this Court.

...The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments “a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same that each will be controlled by itself.”[11] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

So, what's gun control got to do with immigration?  IT'S LEGAL PRINCIPLE

"Under the 10th Amendment, the federal government cannot force states or localities to participate in a federal program. The Supreme Court announced that principle in 1997, in _Printz v. United States_,where it ruled that the federal government could not command states to conduct background checks on gun purchasers. The same principle applies here: The federal government cannot require states to participate in its deportation program. Indeed, no federal law mandates that states or localities use their own resources to aid federal immigration agents in locating and arresting people."

The Government’s Case Against California’s ‘Sanctuary’ Policies Is on Weak Legal Ground

Here is why this is important:

In the Printz case, I knew Sheriff Richard Mack, one of the original Plaintiffs.    He was refusing to do background checks and it was important enough to go to the United States Supreme Court.  When the government LOST in the courts over requiring state and local governments to enforce federal laws and shut down Sanctuary Cities, Mack was really pissed off.  He told me that if he had known how the court was going to use the legal principle he helped set limiting the power of the feds, he would have never got in the lawsuit.

Put another way:  The wall was / is so important to Richard Mack (as it is with all build the wall advocates) that they will forfeit any and all their Liberties for the silly wall.  I'll have to do Part 3 to list a few of those Liberties you will be losing... but, Richard Mack would have participated in an unconstitutional gun registration scheme had he known it would have affected that damn wall.  The wall was more important than the unconstitutional POWER (not AUTHORITY) of the government.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with building the wall?  I voted for Trump. Trump is wrong, like the liberals. We need to tear down the border wall. What we really need make  a national identity card. Linked to fingerprints. You don't get a job if you can't prove your identity linked to  your real  immigration status . Why Replicratrats are so opposed to that, boggles my mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let me help you unboggle your mind.  Why not start by reading Orwell's book 1984.  It was a warning in the form of a novel.
> 
> The government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have... a quote by a famous Republican
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody on the right is asking the government to "give" us anything.  We are asking the government to stop something that we citizens cannot stop by ourselves.  Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are asking taxpayers to pay more than $25 billion for something that doesn’t work and that Trump promised Mexico would pay for.  Furthermore, Trump is putting tens of thousands of people into custody in tent cities at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.
> 
> Trump is spending millions and millions and just making the situation worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If walls don't work, why have there been so many walls throughout history; why are there so many gated communities and resorts all over the rest of the world with walls; why do gated communities in the US have walls; why do the Vatican and Israel have walls; why do so many wealthy and/or famous US residents have walls around their homes; why do prisons have walls, why do military installations have walls; why are there walls or high fences around electrical installations, missile silos and panoply of other places?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> As far as ladders go, how is a would-be illegal immigrant going to trek all the way to our border carrying a 30-foot ladder? (Oh, I forgot, you wackos are going to aid and abet.) Do you opponents of the wall know how clumsy and heavy a 30-foot ladder is or how much one costs? Have any of you ever tried to pull one up to the top of a tall wall with razorwire or barbed wire on its top, get the ladder and yourself over the top of such a barrier, then lower the ladder down the other side and climb down? Then, how does one get that ladder back over thesaid wall and down the other side for someone else to use? Haveany of you ever carried one, erected one, and used one? Even with climbing gear, if would-be illegal immigrants could get it to the border, it would still be a feat to get over and down the other side of such a wall. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that some incredibly fit, determined, equipped, and experiencedperson could get over such a wall with his belongings, how manymight that be out of say 5,000 people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are wall opponents so blinded by their ulterior motives that they refuse to or can't see that walls always have and still do deter the movement of people? Have they lost all sense of historical perspective, common sense,powers of observation, and reality? If they are delusional or in a state of deep denial, I hope they get help for Heaven’s sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO.  By that kind of logic, how come that every empire in history ceased to exist?
Click to expand...

China still exists, moron.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FACT that you are making the idiotic and erroneous claim that you have debunked the facts disproving your claims adds to that body of evidence that you don't understand how the nutty wall idea is going to destroy YOUR Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How the heck does protecting our borders so we can have liberty from 3 Rd world shit holes like Mexico, destroy our libertys?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see if we can put this in language that even you can understand.
> 
> With the wall will come the enforcement.  There will be things both seen and UNSEEN.  For example, the Constitution Free Zone will be vigorously enforced.  There go your constitutional Liberties within 100 miles of the border.  And there will be more.
> 
> If you would go off the attack, STFU and quit posting every five minutes, I would explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already have the "constitution free zone," moron, and it's far bigger without a wall than it will be with the wall.  In the latter case, border patrol can stay close to the border.  That isn't possible when the aliens get a running head start of several miles.
> 
> You have consistently failed to explain how the wall will have any negative impact on my constitutional liberties.  If anything, it will have a positive effect.  If we don't allow illegals to enter in the first place, then we don't have to send immigration agents roaming all over the entire country in their search for illegals.
> 
> Anyone who claims the wall won't work is simply a sleazy lying douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to come back to this and then remind you of post #1428  That proves that you post lies.  I'd like to expand on the theme.
> 
> *YOUR LIBERTIES AND IMMIGRATION LAW
> *
> I have maintained that the wall brings with it enforcement laws that affect your Liberty and deprive you of your Rights.  Let us take the case of Printz v. U.S.:
> 
> On June 27, 1997, the last day of the term, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.[7] Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist alongside Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas found that the Brady Act's attempted commandeering of the sheriffs to perform background checks violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[7] In his opinion of the Court, Justice Scalia stated that, although there is no constitutional text precisely responding to the challenge, an answer can be found “in historical understanding and practice, the structure of the Constitution, and in the jurisprudence of this Court.
> 
> ...The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments “a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same that each will be controlled by itself.”[11] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends."
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> So, what's gun control got to do with immigration?  IT'S LEGAL PRINCIPLE
> 
> "Under the 10th Amendment, the federal government cannot force states or localities to participate in a federal program. The Supreme Court announced that principle in 1997, in _Printz v. United States_,where it ruled that the federal government could not command states to conduct background checks on gun purchasers. The same principle applies here: The federal government cannot require states to participate in its deportation program. Indeed, no federal law mandates that states or localities use their own resources to aid federal immigration agents in locating and arresting people."
> 
> The Government’s Case Against California’s ‘Sanctuary’ Policies Is on Weak Legal Ground
> 
> Here is why this is important:
> 
> In the Printz case, I knew Sheriff Richard Mack, one of the original Plaintiffs.    He was refusing to do background checks and it was important enough to go to the United States Supreme Court.  When the government LOST in the courts over requiring state and local governments to enforce federal laws and shut down Sanctuary Cities, Mack was really pissed off.  He told me that if he had known how the court was going to use the legal principle he helped set limiting the power of the feds, he would have never got in the lawsuit.
> 
> Put another way:  The wall was / is so important to Richard Mack (as it is with all build the wall advocates) that they will forfeit any and all their Liberties for the silly wall.  I'll have to do Part 3 to list a few of those Liberties you will be losing... but, Richard Mack would have participated in an unconstitutional gun registration scheme had he known it would have affected that damn wall.  The wall was more important than the unconstitutional POWER (not AUTHORITY) of the government.
Click to expand...

Building the wall wouldn't change a single word in the court decision.

You proved nothing.  No American would forfeit any liberties if the wall is built.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, once the wall goes up and doesn't work, the build the wall advocates will want more enforcement tools - THEY ALREADY DEMAND THEM!  These people want the government to enforce the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify.  More and more surveillance with more and more control.  At some point it should dawn on them that if you do the danielpalos thing, issuing "National ID" to foreigners, it don't work without citizens carrying National ID.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. The wall cowards are demanding *authoritarian government. *That's why I think its wrong, and why I oppose them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can secure the border AND leave those options open that will aid us in resisting tyranny in government.  NEITHER the build the wall advocates NOR those who are in the resistance have a fool proof plan, but the build the wall advocates think like Democrats:  You will never be able to build a wall big enough or take away Rights to the point that they are satisfied because they cannot accept the simple fact:
> 
> *FOREIGNERS ARE HERE BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE WILLINGLY DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM.  *We're not in a war; we're not trying to go back to the Constitution as originally written and intended, so the resistance is merely trying to retain the ability to resist unconstitutional powers... and that objective flies over the heads of the build the wall advocates who end up defending and promoting communism in the name of their stupid wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. The wall cowards want to prevent their neighbors from doing business with Mexicans because they are afraid of the competition.
Click to expand...

Why don't you move to Mexico since you're so fond of those people?  What are you afraid of?  Are you a racist?


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how would a wall interfere in free trade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be used to enforce laws that interfere with free trade. I mean, that's the point right? We pass laws that severely limit Mexicans coming there to work. But like all overly restrictive laws, people just ignore them. That's why you want a wall, to force obedience to laws that are being ignored. Ignored *by Americans *who are otherwise happy to have Mexicans helping us get things done here in the US.
Click to expand...

If Mexicans want to trade with us, they can just dig a tunnel under the wall.  You turds keep saying how it's no obstacle.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you have an option.
> 
> 1. Spend 47 BILLION dollars on a wall or steel slates that we know doesn't work
> 2. Go with the recommendations of border security experts and use high technology to secure the border. Something that would be more effective and cost efficient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So WTF are you getting this 47 billion dollar figure from?  Trump is asking for 5.8.
> 
> We know a wall will work because of the many other places around the world (and in the US) where they do work.
> 
> We need a wall because it's a permanent object; something the Democrats can't remove like they can with , laws and technology.  We all know Democrats want as many illegals in this country as possible, and a wall will stop their attempts should they regain total control over the federal government.  It's why they fill your heads with this crap that a wall won't work.  Democrats are scared to death of a wall not because it won't work, but because it will.  If they really believed what they told you, they wouldn't give the slightest fight over it. They would be able to use it's failure for the next couple of generations.
> 
> The wall is life or death to Democrats.  That's why they are willing to shutdown the government over it.  No matter what it costs, they are not going to allow it to be built because it's success would ruin their entire plot.
Click to expand...

If the wall were life or death to Democrats as you say, they would not have offered Trump his wall in exchange for a deal on DACA last January.

There are a whole bunch of conspiracy theories concerning democrat support for illegal immigration.  Probably one of the easiest to refute is democrats must have illegal immigrants in order to win national elections in the future.

The fact is minorities strongly support democrats and they will become the majority in the US in less than 50 years.  That will happen even if we stop all illegal immigration.  This is because minority birth rates are much higher than native white american birth rates.  Secondly, we are adding a minimum of 700,000 legal immigrants each year which are members of a minority group while the number of illegal immigrants are declining.  Lastly, do you really thing that Obama would have deported 2.5 million illegal immigrants earning him the title of the deported-in-chief for breaking all records for deportation if the future of the party depended on illegal immigrants?


----------



## bripat9643

candycorn said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A&B mostly.  Most illegal immigration does not come over the border by foot.  And if we’re 21T in debt, a quarter T on building a wall is not a good investment.
> 
> So as an immigration barrier, it’s a bad idea; also in the stark light of the reality that illegal immigration has been largely beneficial to the economy despite the horror stories and cherry picked anecdotes.
> 
> That being said, it seems to me that a fantastic idea would be to create an alternative to the Panama canal from San Diego to Brownsville TX or so that allows goods to bypass the trip through Central America and can possibly bring irrigation to the desert Southwest.  Not right along the border but something like that would serve multiple purposes;
> 
> Jobs during the construction
> Immigration barrier to those that do cross illegally
> Irrigation
> Commerce
> National Security.
> 
> 
> All a pipe dream.
> It would be a multi decade project of course and We don’t do big things any longer.
> 
> Space Force!
> 
> 
> 
> A quarter T? Who said the wall was going to cost 250 billion?  I've seen estimates of somewhere around 20 billion on the high end
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what in the hell I was thinking.  A quarter B once you factor in buying the land, doing environmental studies, maintenance, etc seems high as well.
> 
> The fact that the wall will not do what it is being sold stands though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't stop every single person but if you think it won't at least significantly slow down the influx I don't know what to tell you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slow the influx is true.  Significantly...doubtful
> You put up a wall and those that wade across the Rio Grande will just stuff themselves into trucks or onto ships. Those who do this sort of smuggling are pelrisoners to market forces too.  They will charge less if they have more customers.
> 
> 
> Or save up, fly to Canada and take a leisurely stroll into Montana.
Click to expand...

Horseshit:


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you have an option.
> 
> 1. Spend 47 BILLION dollars on a wall or steel slates that we know doesn't work
> 2. Go with the recommendations of border security experts and use high technology to secure the border. Something that would be more effective and cost efficient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So WTF are you getting this 47 billion dollar figure from?  Trump is asking for 5.8.
> 
> We know a wall will work because of the many other places around the world (and in the US) where they do work.
> 
> We need a wall because it's a permanent object; something the Democrats can't remove like they can with , laws and technology.  We all know Democrats want as many illegals in this country as possible, and a wall will stop their attempts should they regain total control over the federal government.  It's why they fill your heads with this crap that a wall won't work.  Democrats are scared to death of a wall not because it won't work, but because it will.  If they really believed what they told you, they wouldn't give the slightest fight over it. They would be able to use it's failure for the next couple of generations.
> 
> The wall is life or death to Democrats.  That's why they are willing to shutdown the government over it.  No matter what it costs, they are not going to allow it to be built because it's success would ruin their entire plot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the wall were life or death to Democrats as you say, they would not have offered Trump his wall in exchange for a deal on DACA last January.
> 
> There are a whole bunch of conspiracy theories concerning democrat support for illegal immigration.  Probably one of the easiest to refute is democrats must have illegal immigrants in order to win national elections in the future.
> 
> The fact is minorities strongly support democrats and they will become the majority in the US in less than 50 years.  That will happen even if we stop all illegal immigration.  This is because minority birth rates are much higher than native white american birth rates.  Secondly, we are adding a minimum of 700,000 legal immigrants each year which are members of a minority group while the number of illegal immigrants are declining.  Lastly, do you really thing that Obama would have deported 2.5 million illegal immigrants earning him the title of the deported-in-chief for breaking all records for deportation if the future of the party depended on illegal immigrants?
Click to expand...

They offered a con.  If Dims were serious, they would agree to the entire $25 billion in this budget.

Most of Obama's "deportations" are people who were caught at the border and turned back.  These people never used to be counted as border crossers.  Obama simply paid games with the definition of "deportation."


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody on the right is asking the government to "give" us anything.  We are asking the government to stop something that we citizens cannot stop by ourselves.  Big difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want the government to give you a wall for whatever reason you can conjure up as the discussion proceeds.  You don't really know why you want it, other than you think Trump is God and you have to move the goalposts accordingly.  But, you want him to give you a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Industry is flooded with foreigners because people like you got hooked on drugs and can't think.  So you sit on your ass all day, every day whining about a wall around America.
> 
> You and more than 11 MILLION Americans could work a job, but choose not to.  The jobs are out there - and at good wages.  But, it is easier for some of you to sit around, living off the welfare, and not even wanting to create ways to get Americans back on the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And who built the welfare state the left, you.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Porter isn't "left". Neither am I. I know it gnaws at you, but the best arguments against your cowardly wall are coming from real conservatives and libertarians - not "the left".
Click to expand...

You're obviously both a couple of commies.

You aren't fooling anyone.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it could.  So can prison fences.  So can jails.  It happens now and then.  But the point is it makes it much more difficult for those that are hell bent on trying.  For the rest, they will realize the efforts and risks are too great, and they payoff (if any) not worthy.  Because even if they could draw the attention by getting past a wall, it likely won't be long until a border agent on the other side arrests them and sends them back to the other side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep in mind the wall is really an unknown factor.  It may be solid or slats. It may have barbed wire, electric wire, or nothing on top.  Once it's built it becomes a known factor and can not easily be changed.  That means coyotes will figure out the fastest method of crossing which maybe ladders,  climbing carabiners, or some type power lift.  However, you can be sure once the fence is built people are going to cross it.  You can't stop them  No wall can keep people out if they have access to the right equipment.  It can only delay crossing. People who have crossed existing border walls estimated that the delay would only be 1 to 2 minutes over current reinforced fencing.  That might be useful in densely populated area but in remote ares which are 85% of the border a couple of minutes delay would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why are other countries with similar problems to the US reporting great success with their wall?  Will it stop each and every one?  Probably not.  But if the reduction is 75% or better, it's money well spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other countries are not fighting the same demons we are.  Walls work for communists, socialists, dictatorships and countries that are at war... then, they work temporarily.
Click to expand...

How do you explain Austria?


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> the idiotic idea that a wall will present any substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The idiotic idea that a wall will prevent a substantial barrier*.  Funny, walls, high walls, are substantial barriers everywhere else they are used.  Just ask the Israelis.  In fact, I hope Trump invites Israel to inspect his wall design and critique it for quality of construction.  Here we have mostly poor vagabonds trying to enter the country on foot and a tall barrier is an "idiotic idea."  What, will they just walk right through it?  Jump over it with tall ladders?  Or dig tunnels under it?  The idea is to stop all but the most determined who will be greatly slowed down, while technological surveillance has time to pick them up and detect them.
> 
> *A substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.*  I see.  So now you think there are masses of people trying to escape the USA to go south who cannot go through legal portals who will be interfered with because they cannot walk across the border into impoverished Mexico out in the middle of the desert.  Because, Shit-For-Brains, these are the only "citizens" we can be talking about who have any freedoms or liberties that matter.  Mexicans are NOT citizens of the USA and have have NO freedom or liberty even in their own country much less here.
> 
> Do us all a yuge favor and take a long walk off a short pier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get it.  We are not Mexico and the Israelis are at war.  Can't fix stupid.
Click to expand...

You have a million excuses why walls work everywhere they are tried, but they won't won't work here.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the first disconnect with those who want to build a border wall.
> 
> The REASON THE WALL WON'T WORK HERE IS DUE TO THE SIMPLE FACT THAT IT IS INTENDED SOLELY TO PREVENT HUMAN BEINGS FROM ENGAGING IN OTHERWISE LEGAL ACTIVITIES.
> 
> Unlike the Israelis, we are not in a state of war with our neighbors.  The American people are WILLINGLY participating in free trade.
> 
> The build the wall advocates here keep asking the same questions and keep getting the same answers.  It is not in the interests of the American people to start a process that infringes upon the Rights of those who WILLINGLY engage in business with foreign neighbors.
> 
> You could regulate the trade, but you are not ever going to keep the foreigners out unless and until you change your own behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know we have border check points right?
> 
> And we are in a drug war with Mexico we just gave the like 5 billion dollars over the next few years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we're in a war with drugs, how come we're trying to have a fight with humans?  Saudis attack the World Trade Center and we attack Iraq.  That morphs into a nearly two decade old war; nothing is settled and Trump declares victory.  A war on drugs?  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no problem with drug cartels killing people over your drugs?
> 
> Like I said you want anarchy and turn America into a 3rd world shit hole
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a problem with people like you who want the world to be at war over drugs in a manner where the government claims more of our Rights and YOU would turn us into a third world shithole because you have developed a religion around a wall.
Click to expand...


The wall won't negatively affect our rights one iota. In fact, it will probably have a positive affect because we won't need immigration agents roaming all over the entire country checking eveyrone's immigration status.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are fences in my neighborhood.  A "crew" recently went through the place and got six of my neighbors, stealing all their valuables.  My fence is down.  I did not get hit.  My methods provided a greater deterrent with less imposition and not having this mistaken notion than walls or fences prevented those guys from attempting to take what I own.
> 
> You have an asinine analogy that does not apply anyway.  The wall will require ninja clad, machine gun toting mercenaries wanting more and more power, taking ALL your Liberties under the pretext of maintaining this wall.  You seem to be one talking skeet and promoting propaganda.  And, no sir, I have NOT started any name calling with you or anyone else.  I might attack your ideas and poke fun at the low IQ people you hang with, but like it or not, you may have to rely on me to defend your Rights one day - IF you have a change of heart and decide that you NEVER give up essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety.
> 
> 
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall in Israel like the Berlin Wall worked because the guards could be at any attempted crossing in minutes.  That is not the case with our 2000 mile border.  Unless we have thousands of miles of monitoring and border guards, migrants will stream across the remote areas of the border.  However, if we had that degree of monitoring and border guards there would be no reason for the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with having both?
Click to expand...

Why spend 25 or 30 billion dollars building a wall if electronic monitoring and more border guards will solve the problem.  Since a wall only slows down intruders, we will need monitors and more border guards in either case.  The only place a barrier wall will be effective is in densely populated areas and 85% of the border is in remote areas.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about, but we are 20 trillion in debt today.  We don't have a generation to wait.  We can do just fine without them and the associated costs.  We can do without the murders, we can do without the drugs, we can do without the DUI's that kill Americans.  We can do without all those things because we have enough of those problems with our own people.  We don't need to be importing more problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Employers need laborers that will produce at a competitive wage just as you need your firearm for protection.  I support YOUR Rights AND the EMPLOYER'S Rights.  See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's my right to own firearms.  It's my right to self-defense.  No employer has the right to hire illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employers, in our de jure / lawful / legal / CONSTITUTIONAL form of government have the Right to hire whomever they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you were right, the Transcontinental Railroad would never have been built.
Click to expand...

There was no law preventing the railroads from hiring Chinamen and Irishmen at the time, so your claim is obvious bullshit.

In 1860 the population of the US was 30 million.  It's now 11 times that figure.  Your belief that the two situations are comparable is laughable.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall in Israel like the Berlin Wall worked because the guards could be at any attempted crossing in minutes.  That is not the case with our 2000 mile border.  Unless we have thousands of miles of monitoring and border guards, migrants will stream across the remote areas of the border.  However, if we had that degree of monitoring and border guards there would be no reason for the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with having both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why spend 25 or 30 billion dollars building a wall if electronic monitoring and more border guards will solve the problem.  Since a wall only slows down intruders, we will need monitors and more border guards in either case.  The only place a barrier wall will be effective is in densely populated areas and 85% of the border is in remote areas.
Click to expand...

It has already been explained to you that it won't solve the problem.

Your claims are all horseshit.  I've debunked each one of the at least a doezen times.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> 
> 
> The wall in Israel like the Berlin Wall worked because the guards could be at any attempted crossing in minutes.  That is not the case with our 2000 mile border.  Unless we have thousands of miles of monitoring and border guards, migrants will stream across the remote areas of the border.  However, if we had that degree of monitoring and border guards there would be no reason for the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't we put just as many guards per mile of wall as Israel?
> 
> Do you idiots ever think about the dumb shit you post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you have NEVER thought about what you're posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see that you are a moron because you post ideas that have already been debunked 1000 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOTHING I've said has been debunked.  It's the reason you've sunk to the low of throwing hissy fits and calling people names when they prove you wrong.
Click to expand...

I use ridicule and insults because turds like you are immune to facts and logic.  Only a certain about of pain will dissuade you from trying to propagate your idiocies.  I attempt to make your behavior as painful as possible.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it could.  So can prison fences.  So can jails.  It happens now and then.  But the point is it makes it much more difficult for those that are hell bent on trying.  For the rest, they will realize the efforts and risks are too great, and they payoff (if any) not worthy.  Because even if they could draw the attention by getting past a wall, it likely won't be long until a border agent on the other side arrests them and sends them back to the other side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep in mind the wall is really an unknown factor.  It may be solid or slats. It may have barbed wire, electric wire, or nothing on top.  Once it's built it becomes a known factor and can not easily be changed.  That means coyotes will figure out the fastest method of crossing which maybe ladders,  climbing carabiners, or some type power lift.  However, you can be sure once the fence is built people are going to cross it.  You can't stop them  No wall can keep people out if they have access to the right equipment.  It can only delay crossing. People who have crossed existing border walls estimated that the delay would only be 1 to 2 minutes over current reinforced fencing.  That might be useful in densely populated area but in remote ares which are 85% of the border a couple of minutes delay would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why are other countries with similar problems to the US reporting great success with their wall?  Will it stop each and every one?  Probably not.  But if the reduction is 75% or better, it's money well spent.
Click to expand...

What wall are you speaking of that is so successful, the Israeli West Bank barrier Wall? The border is about 400 miles, not 2,000 miles.  Unlike the US, they have Israeli military working on both sides of the wall running missions. Israel has  passed a law requiring a mandatory 3 years in prison for an intruder where the US has almost nothing.   Israelis shoot intruders which the US does not.  They have monitoring of the wall and sufficient guards that they can be at any point of intrusion in less than 5 mins.   On 1600 miles of our remote southern border, it's unlikely that a border guard would arrive at a point of intrusion in less than 30 mins and that's providing there is adequate monitoring system built into the wall.   

In a more densely populated areas the wall would be much more appropriate than remove areas.


----------



## Flopper

bear513 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want the government to give you a wall for whatever reason you can conjure up as the discussion proceeds.  You don't really know why you want it, other than you think Trump is God and you have to move the goalposts accordingly.  But, you want him to give you a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Industry is flooded with foreigners because people like you got hooked on drugs and can't think.  So you sit on your ass all day, every day whining about a wall around America.
> 
> You and more than 11 MILLION Americans could work a job, but choose not to.  The jobs are out there - and at good wages.  But, it is easier for some of you to sit around, living off the welfare, and not even wanting to create ways to get Americans back on the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And who built the welfare state the left, you.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Porter isn't "left". Neither am I. I know it gnaws at you, but the best arguments against your cowardly wall are coming from real conservatives and libertarians - not "the left".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How the heck is a wall cowardly? You just want people who vote for Democrat to bypass our laws...
> 
> Let me guess you want to get rid of cops also like him.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

It doesn't take much ingenuity or planning to put a 20 or 25 foot ladder on a wall and drop a rope ladder down the other side.  Most of the prototypes walls could be crossed in 2 mins.  It could be done with a truck with an aerial lift in even less time.


----------



## Markle

Porter Rockwell said:


> Let's see if we can put this in language that even you can understand.
> 
> *With the wall will come the enforcement.* There will be things both seen and UNSEEN. For example, the Constitution Free Zone will be vigorously enforced. There go your constitutional Liberties within 100 miles of the border. And there will be more.
> 
> If you would go off the attack, STFU and quit posting every five minutes, I would explain it to you.



My highlight above.

"With the wall will come the enforcement"?  Care to explain?  Are you saying that because we have no wall/fence, there is no enforcement?  Why then do we have all those crossings and checkpoints?

Are you saying that IF we construct a wall/fence, suddenly that area will be subject to the supposed 100-mile border zone?  It already exists so what is your point?


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that wall couldn't be compromised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it could.  So can prison fences.  So can jails.  It happens now and then.  But the point is it makes it much more difficult for those that are hell bent on trying.  For the rest, they will realize the efforts and risks are too great, and they payoff (if any) not worthy.  Because even if they could draw the attention by getting past a wall, it likely won't be long until a border agent on the other side arrests them and sends them back to the other side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep in mind the wall is really an unknown factor.  It may be solid or slats. It may have barbed wire, electric wire, or nothing on top.  Once it's built it becomes a known factor and can not easily be changed.  That means coyotes will figure out the fastest method of crossing which maybe ladders,  climbing carabiners, or some type power lift.  However, you can be sure once the fence is built people are going to cross it.  You can't stop them  No wall can keep people out if they have access to the right equipment.  It can only delay crossing. People who have crossed existing border walls estimated that the delay would only be 1 to 2 minutes over current reinforced fencing.  That might be useful in densely populated area but in remote ares which are 85% of the border a couple of minutes delay would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why are other countries with similar problems to the US reporting great success with their wall?  Will it stop each and every one?  Probably not.  But if the reduction is 75% or better, it's money well spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other countries are not fighting the same demons we are.  Walls work for communists, socialists, dictatorships and countries that are at war... then, they work temporarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall works to keep people out no matter if there is a conflict or not.  You can't say a wall will work on people who are at war but not for people who are not.  A wall either works or it doesn't.
Click to expand...

How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let me help you unboggle your mind.  Why not start by reading Orwell's book 1984.  It was a warning in the form of a novel.
> 
> The government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have... a quote by a famous Republican
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody on the right is asking the government to "give" us anything.  We are asking the government to stop something that we citizens cannot stop by ourselves.  Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are asking taxpayers to pay more than $25 billion for something that doesn’t work and that Trump promised Mexico would pay for.  Furthermore, Trump is putting tens of thousands of people into custody in tent cities at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.
> 
> Trump is spending millions and millions and just making the situation worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If walls don't work, why have there been so many walls throughout history; why are there so many gated communities and resorts all over the rest of the world with walls; why do gated communities in the US have walls; why do the Vatican and Israel have walls; why do so many wealthy and/or famous US residents have walls around their homes; why do prisons have walls, why do military installations have walls; why are there walls or high fences around electrical installations, missile silos and panoply of other places?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> As far as ladders go, how is a would-be illegal immigrant going to trek all the way to our border carrying a 30-foot ladder? (Oh, I forgot, you wackos are going to aid and abet.) Do you opponents of the wall know how clumsy and heavy a 30-foot ladder is or how much one costs? Have any of you ever tried to pull one up to the top of a tall wall with razorwire or barbed wire on its top, get the ladder and yourself over the top of such a barrier, then lower the ladder down the other side and climb down? Then, how does one get that ladder back over thesaid wall and down the other side for someone else to use? Haveany of you ever carried one, erected one, and used one? Even with climbing gear, if would-be illegal immigrants could get it to the border, it would still be a feat to get over and down the other side of such a wall. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that some incredibly fit, determined, equipped, and experiencedperson could get over such a wall with his belongings, how manymight that be out of say 5,000 people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are wall opponents so blinded by their ulterior motives that they refuse to or can't see that walls always have and still do deter the movement of people? Have they lost all sense of historical perspective, common sense,powers of observation, and reality? If they are delusional or in a state of deep denial, I hope they get help for Heaven’s sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO.  By that kind of logic, how come that every empire in history ceased to exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> China still exists, moron.
Click to expand...



For now, but China is also 98.5 percent Han Chinese.  Tell me the truth, since you want to argue about this, will you advocate shipping blacks to Africa once you get rid of the little brown people you hate so much?


----------



## basquebromance

Alexander The Great never stayed in one place long enough to build a wall.

one time, a Chinese general drowned in the river because he couldn't cross Hadrian's Wall in Britain.

lessons from history!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The FACT that you are making the idiotic and erroneous claim that you have debunked the facts disproving your claims adds to that body of evidence that you don't understand how the nutty wall idea is going to destroy YOUR Liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the heck does protecting our borders so we can have liberty from 3 Rd world shit holes like Mexico, destroy our libertys?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see if we can put this in language that even you can understand.
> 
> With the wall will come the enforcement.  There will be things both seen and UNSEEN.  For example, the Constitution Free Zone will be vigorously enforced.  There go your constitutional Liberties within 100 miles of the border.  And there will be more.
> 
> If you would go off the attack, STFU and quit posting every five minutes, I would explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already have the "constitution free zone," moron, and it's far bigger without a wall than it will be with the wall.  In the latter case, border patrol can stay close to the border.  That isn't possible when the aliens get a running head start of several miles.
> 
> You have consistently failed to explain how the wall will have any negative impact on my constitutional liberties.  If anything, it will have a positive effect.  If we don't allow illegals to enter in the first place, then we don't have to send immigration agents roaming all over the entire country in their search for illegals.
> 
> Anyone who claims the wall won't work is simply a sleazy lying douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to come back to this and then remind you of post #1428  That proves that you post lies.  I'd like to expand on the theme.
> 
> *YOUR LIBERTIES AND IMMIGRATION LAW
> *
> I have maintained that the wall brings with it enforcement laws that affect your Liberty and deprive you of your Rights.  Let us take the case of Printz v. U.S.:
> 
> On June 27, 1997, the last day of the term, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.[7] Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist alongside Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas found that the Brady Act's attempted commandeering of the sheriffs to perform background checks violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[7] In his opinion of the Court, Justice Scalia stated that, although there is no constitutional text precisely responding to the challenge, an answer can be found “in historical understanding and practice, the structure of the Constitution, and in the jurisprudence of this Court.
> 
> ...The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments “a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same that each will be controlled by itself.”[11] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends."
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> So, what's gun control got to do with immigration?  IT'S LEGAL PRINCIPLE
> 
> "Under the 10th Amendment, the federal government cannot force states or localities to participate in a federal program. The Supreme Court announced that principle in 1997, in _Printz v. United States_,where it ruled that the federal government could not command states to conduct background checks on gun purchasers. The same principle applies here: The federal government cannot require states to participate in its deportation program. Indeed, no federal law mandates that states or localities use their own resources to aid federal immigration agents in locating and arresting people."
> 
> The Government’s Case Against California’s ‘Sanctuary’ Policies Is on Weak Legal Ground
> 
> Here is why this is important:
> 
> In the Printz case, I knew Sheriff Richard Mack, one of the original Plaintiffs.    He was refusing to do background checks and it was important enough to go to the United States Supreme Court.  When the government LOST in the courts over requiring state and local governments to enforce federal laws and shut down Sanctuary Cities, Mack was really pissed off.  He told me that if he had known how the court was going to use the legal principle he helped set limiting the power of the feds, he would have never got in the lawsuit.
> 
> Put another way:  The wall was / is so important to Richard Mack (as it is with all build the wall advocates) that they will forfeit any and all their Liberties for the silly wall.  I'll have to do Part 3 to list a few of those Liberties you will be losing... but, Richard Mack would have participated in an unconstitutional gun registration scheme had he known it would have affected that damn wall.  The wall was more important than the unconstitutional POWER (not AUTHORITY) of the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Building the wall wouldn't change a single word in the court decision.
> 
> You proved nothing.  No American would forfeit any liberties if the wall is built.
Click to expand...


Yes, your Liberties WILL be stake.  You don't just build a wall and that's it.  There is funding it, maintaining it and, above all passing more laws to help enforce it.

Do you eat a big bowl of stupid or what?  I try to reason with you and you want to sling shit at me.  I'm getting a bit tired of being nice to you so I will point this out:

If any of you think you slap up a wall and that's it, you are stupid.  Plain and simple.  One must bear in mind that after the wall is built, how do you handle those who make it in?  Because of dipwads that pretend that's all there is to it, THEY made sure that undocumented foreigners have Rights the moment their feet hit American soil.  And they want to call me names in order to hide their incompetence and stupidity.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, once the wall goes up and doesn't work, the build the wall advocates will want more enforcement tools - THEY ALREADY DEMAND THEM!  These people want the government to enforce the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify.  More and more surveillance with more and more control.  At some point it should dawn on them that if you do the danielpalos thing, issuing "National ID" to foreigners, it don't work without citizens carrying National ID.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. The wall cowards are demanding *authoritarian government. *That's why I think its wrong, and why I oppose them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can secure the border AND leave those options open that will aid us in resisting tyranny in government.  NEITHER the build the wall advocates NOR those who are in the resistance have a fool proof plan, but the build the wall advocates think like Democrats:  You will never be able to build a wall big enough or take away Rights to the point that they are satisfied because they cannot accept the simple fact:
> 
> *FOREIGNERS ARE HERE BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE WILLINGLY DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM.  *We're not in a war; we're not trying to go back to the Constitution as originally written and intended, so the resistance is merely trying to retain the ability to resist unconstitutional powers... and that objective flies over the heads of the build the wall advocates who end up defending and promoting communism in the name of their stupid wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. The wall cowards want to prevent their neighbors from doing business with Mexicans because they are afraid of the competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you move to Mexico since you're so fond of those people?  What are you afraid of?  Are you a racist?
Click to expand...


You're the one always so envious of their laws.  Why don't you pack your rags and move your ass there?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> the idiotic idea that a wall will present any substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The idiotic idea that a wall will prevent a substantial barrier*.  Funny, walls, high walls, are substantial barriers everywhere else they are used.  Just ask the Israelis.  In fact, I hope Trump invites Israel to inspect his wall design and critique it for quality of construction.  Here we have mostly poor vagabonds trying to enter the country on foot and a tall barrier is an "idiotic idea."  What, will they just walk right through it?  Jump over it with tall ladders?  Or dig tunnels under it?  The idea is to stop all but the most determined who will be greatly slowed down, while technological surveillance has time to pick them up and detect them.
> 
> *A substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.*  I see.  So now you think there are masses of people trying to escape the USA to go south who cannot go through legal portals who will be interfered with because they cannot walk across the border into impoverished Mexico out in the middle of the desert.  Because, Shit-For-Brains, these are the only "citizens" we can be talking about who have any freedoms or liberties that matter.  Mexicans are NOT citizens of the USA and have have NO freedom or liberty even in their own country much less here.
> 
> Do us all a yuge favor and take a long walk off a short pier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get it.  We are not Mexico and the Israelis are at war.  Can't fix stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a million excuses why walls work everywhere they are tried, but they won't won't work here.
Click to expand...


They don't work everywhere they are tried.  They are temporary fixes, at best.


----------



## Markle

bear513 said:


> Border or do you mean water?



When did the oceans and the Gulf cease to be a border?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall in Israel like the Berlin Wall worked because the guards could be at any attempted crossing in minutes.  That is not the case with our 2000 mile border.  Unless we have thousands of miles of monitoring and border guards, migrants will stream across the remote areas of the border.  However, if we had that degree of monitoring and border guards there would be no reason for the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't we put just as many guards per mile of wall as Israel?
> 
> Do you idiots ever think about the dumb shit you post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you have NEVER thought about what you're posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see that you are a moron because you post ideas that have already been debunked 1000 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOTHING I've said has been debunked.  It's the reason you've sunk to the low of throwing hissy fits and calling people names when they prove you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I use ridicule and insults because turds like you are immune to facts and logic.  Only a certain about of pain will dissuade you from trying to propagate your idiocies.  I attempt to make your behavior as painful as possible.
Click to expand...



You use name calling and insults because the facts don't favor you and you are too stupid to have an intelligent conversation. 

It must be Hell being you when people from both of the aisle are exposing you for what you are... and you're so delusional that you believe you have what it takes to be in the conversation.  Little man, you don't pack the gear.  You are the one always citing communist countries, communist solutions and telling people how great Mexico's laws are.  Yet you stay in the United States.

BTW, since both the Israelis and Chinese use the border to protect a specific people, do you advocate shipping blacks back to Africa and getting rid of all the Muslims?  China is 98.5 percent Han Chinese.  Maybe if America were 98.5 percent white, your ideas might work.

Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Markle said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see if we can put this in language that even you can understand.
> 
> *With the wall will come the enforcement.* There will be things both seen and UNSEEN. For example, the Constitution Free Zone will be vigorously enforced. There go your constitutional Liberties within 100 miles of the border. And there will be more.
> 
> If you would go off the attack, STFU and quit posting every five minutes, I would explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My highlight above.
> 
> "With the wall will come the enforcement"?  Care to explain?  Are you saying that because we have no wall/fence, there is no enforcement?  Why then do we have all those crossings and checkpoints?
> 
> Are you saying that IF we construct a wall/fence, suddenly that area will be subject to the supposed 100-mile border zone?  It already exists so what is your point?
Click to expand...



Did you bother to read my posts?  I won't bother responding to a straw man argument in this case.  You have to say something relevant and honest in order to even be qualified to be in the discussion.


----------



## candycorn

bripat9643 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A&B mostly.  Most illegal immigration does not come over the border by foot.  And if we’re 21T in debt, a quarter T on building a wall is not a good investment.
> 
> So as an immigration barrier, it’s a bad idea; also in the stark light of the reality that illegal immigration has been largely beneficial to the economy despite the horror stories and cherry picked anecdotes.
> 
> That being said, it seems to me that a fantastic idea would be to create an alternative to the Panama canal from San Diego to Brownsville TX or so that allows goods to bypass the trip through Central America and can possibly bring irrigation to the desert Southwest.  Not right along the border but something like that would serve multiple purposes;
> 
> Jobs during the construction
> Immigration barrier to those that do cross illegally
> Irrigation
> Commerce
> National Security.
> 
> 
> All a pipe dream.
> It would be a multi decade project of course and We don’t do big things any longer.
> 
> Space Force!
> 
> 
> 
> A quarter T? Who said the wall was going to cost 250 billion?  I've seen estimates of somewhere around 20 billion on the high end
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what in the hell I was thinking.  A quarter B once you factor in buying the land, doing environmental studies, maintenance, etc seems high as well.
> 
> The fact that the wall will not do what it is being sold stands though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't stop every single person but if you think it won't at least significantly slow down the influx I don't know what to tell you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slow the influx is true.  Significantly...doubtful
> You put up a wall and those that wade across the Rio Grande will just stuff themselves into trucks or onto ships. Those who do this sort of smuggling are pelrisoners to market forces too.  They will charge less if they have more customers.
> 
> 
> Or save up, fly to Canada and take a leisurely stroll into Montana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Horseshit:
Click to expand...


Making America more like Israel is not making America great again.


----------



## Markle

bear513 said:


> Letting illegals In to exploit them and by pass laws is not a free market it's slavery..
> 
> Bet you like the slave market of little children also don't you?





bear513 said:


> So you going to lock the factory doors and force them to work 18 hour days now?
> 
> Get rid of the child labor laws too?



You just post foolish things.  Why?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it could.  So can prison fences.  So can jails.  It happens now and then.  But the point is it makes it much more difficult for those that are hell bent on trying.  For the rest, they will realize the efforts and risks are too great, and they payoff (if any) not worthy.  Because even if they could draw the attention by getting past a wall, it likely won't be long until a border agent on the other side arrests them and sends them back to the other side.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind the wall is really an unknown factor.  It may be solid or slats. It may have barbed wire, electric wire, or nothing on top.  Once it's built it becomes a known factor and can not easily be changed.  That means coyotes will figure out the fastest method of crossing which maybe ladders,  climbing carabiners, or some type power lift.  However, you can be sure once the fence is built people are going to cross it.  You can't stop them  No wall can keep people out if they have access to the right equipment.  It can only delay crossing. People who have crossed existing border walls estimated that the delay would only be 1 to 2 minutes over current reinforced fencing.  That might be useful in densely populated area but in remote ares which are 85% of the border a couple of minutes delay would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why are other countries with similar problems to the US reporting great success with their wall?  Will it stop each and every one?  Probably not.  But if the reduction is 75% or better, it's money well spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other countries are not fighting the same demons we are.  Walls work for communists, socialists, dictatorships and countries that are at war... then, they work temporarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall works to keep people out no matter if there is a conflict or not.  You can't say a wall will work on people who are at war but not for people who are not.  A wall either works or it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
Click to expand...


First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.  

The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What liberties am I giving up if the wall is built?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered that twice in this thread.  READ IT.  This repetitive stuff is for people that are too stupid to read OR cannot understand that the excuses for the wall have been refuted hundreds of times on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The excuses for not having a wall has been debunked a hundred times on this thread and the dozen or so just like it.
> 
> It won't work.  How do you know until it's built?
> 
> It will take away our freedoms.  How?  Name me one freedom I would lose by a wall a thousand miles away from me.
> 
> It will be too authoritative and promote dictatorship.  HTF can a wall change a country and politics?
> 
> It's racist.  Why, because the people who are constantly sneaking into our country have different color skin, and it it were white people, we would be okay with invaders?
> 
> It won't stop drugs.  Most of the heroin coming into the US is from Mexico.
> 
> They will dig tunnels.  They dig tunnels now!  Do you know how many months it takes to dig tunnels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall in Israel like the Berlin Wall worked because the guards could be at any attempted crossing in minutes.  That is not the case with our 2000 mile border.  Unless we have thousands of miles of monitoring and border guards, migrants will stream across the remote areas of the border.  However, if we had that degree of monitoring and border guards there would be no reason for the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with having both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why spend 25 or 30 billion dollars building a wall if electronic monitoring and more border guards will solve the problem.  Since a wall only slows down intruders, we will need monitors and more border guards in either case.  The only place a barrier wall will be effective is in densely populated areas and 85% of the border is in remote areas.
Click to expand...


What do you think we are doing now?  Yet our agencies stopped over 300,000 intruders last year alone.  

The wall is an addition to security--not a replacement.  The biggest reason to have a wall is because it's something that the Democrats will likely never be able to remove like border security, cameras and drones.  Of course the left doesn't mind those things because they can easily remove them if they ever gain total power over the federal government in the future. 

Remember that conservatives want these people stopped and the anti-white party wants as many here as possible.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you have an option.
> 
> 1. Spend 47 BILLION dollars on a wall or steel slates that we know doesn't work
> 2. Go with the recommendations of border security experts and use high technology to secure the border. Something that would be more effective and cost efficient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So WTF are you getting this 47 billion dollar figure from?  Trump is asking for 5.8.
> 
> We know a wall will work because of the many other places around the world (and in the US) where they do work.
> 
> We need a wall because it's a permanent object; something the Democrats can't remove like they can with , laws and technology.  We all know Democrats want as many illegals in this country as possible, and a wall will stop their attempts should they regain total control over the federal government.  It's why they fill your heads with this crap that a wall won't work.  Democrats are scared to death of a wall not because it won't work, but because it will.  If they really believed what they told you, they wouldn't give the slightest fight over it. They would be able to use it's failure for the next couple of generations.
> 
> The wall is life or death to Democrats.  That's why they are willing to shutdown the government over it.  No matter what it costs, they are not going to allow it to be built because it's success would ruin their entire plot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the wall were life or death to Democrats as you say, they would not have offered Trump his wall in exchange for a deal on DACA last January.
> 
> There are a whole bunch of conspiracy theories concerning democrat support for illegal immigration.  Probably one of the easiest to refute is democrats must have illegal immigrants in order to win national elections in the future.
> 
> The fact is minorities strongly support democrats and they will become the majority in the US in less than 50 years.  That will happen even if we stop all illegal immigration.  This is because minority birth rates are much higher than native white american birth rates.  Secondly, we are adding a minimum of 700,000 legal immigrants each year which are members of a minority group while the number of illegal immigrants are declining.  Lastly, do you really thing that Obama would have deported 2.5 million illegal immigrants earning him the title of the deported-in-chief for breaking all records for deportation if the future of the party depended on illegal immigrants?
Click to expand...


I think you are remembering things in a very different way. 

Trump offered Democrats more than what they wanted, but the wall was still out of the question.  

DumBama sued Arizona because they instituted their own immigration policies.  Even though it was working great for their state, he had the courts stop them in their tracks. 

And remember it was Obama appointed activist judges who tried to stop Trump's travel ban.  

LA Times

Court Deportations Drop 43 Percent in Past Five Years


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See - occasionally the are honest. The Wall is just protectionism for lazy Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At this point I think we need to test your knowledge here, so answer this one simple question:
> 
> In the theory of supply and demand, what happens to prices when there is too much supply?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a truck driver, not someone that deals with the laws of economics.  Wouldn't your test questions be like Chuck Schumer asking a Marine to explain how his M16 works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need to be an economist to understand the supply and demand theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to have reasoning skills - which you have shown a lack of experience with.
Click to expand...


You have your own little rating system for folks here, don't cha?  You must be a leftist because you think the only person right is you.  Forget evidence of what people post, forget about "logic" which you clearly don't have.  Instead, replace that with unfounded wild conspiracy theories.  

Now, would you like me to post some articles on Americans who either lost their job because of cheap foreign labor or had to work for less money because of them?  I'm sure they're not that hard to find.  In fact look up Disney and how they did exactly that.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it could.  So can prison fences.  So can jails.  It happens now and then.  But the point is it makes it much more difficult for those that are hell bent on trying.  For the rest, they will realize the efforts and risks are too great, and they payoff (if any) not worthy.  Because even if they could draw the attention by getting past a wall, it likely won't be long until a border agent on the other side arrests them and sends them back to the other side.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind the wall is really an unknown factor.  It may be solid or slats. It may have barbed wire, electric wire, or nothing on top.  Once it's built it becomes a known factor and can not easily be changed.  That means coyotes will figure out the fastest method of crossing which maybe ladders,  climbing carabiners, or some type power lift.  However, you can be sure once the fence is built people are going to cross it.  You can't stop them  No wall can keep people out if they have access to the right equipment.  It can only delay crossing. People who have crossed existing border walls estimated that the delay would only be 1 to 2 minutes over current reinforced fencing.  That might be useful in densely populated area but in remote ares which are 85% of the border a couple of minutes delay would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why are other countries with similar problems to the US reporting great success with their wall?  Will it stop each and every one?  Probably not.  But if the reduction is 75% or better, it's money well spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other countries are not fighting the same demons we are.  Walls work for communists, socialists, dictatorships and countries that are at war... then, they work temporarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall works to keep people out no matter if there is a conflict or not.  You can't say a wall will work on people who are at war but not for people who are not.  A wall either works or it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Korean Ginseng may help you if you have a sexual problem; it will do NOTHING for diarrhea.  The solution has to fit the problem.
Click to expand...


And one solution to our problem is a wall.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to?  What does this have to do with my post?
> 
> 
> 
> I thought You Were trying to say in the good old Italian and German days we didn't have welfare, schools etc.
> I'm saying so what, ? Immigrants past the first generation have always contributed to the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about, but we are 20 trillion in debt today.  We don't have a generation to wait.  We can do just fine without them and the associated costs.  We can do without the murders, we can do without the drugs, we can do without the DUI's that kill Americans.  We can do without all those things because we have enough of those problems with our own people.  We don't need to be importing more problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employers need laborers that will produce at a competitive wage just as you need your firearm for protection.  I support YOUR Rights AND the EMPLOYER'S Rights.  See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's my right to own firearms.  It's my right to self-defense.  No employer has the right to hire illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employers, in our de jure / lawful / legal / CONSTITUTIONAL form of government have the Right to hire whomever they want.
Click to expand...


Then how is it ICE are busting companies who are hiring illegals?  Maybe the owners of these companies can say their rights were violated?  If so, why has none even tried?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Do we have to educate you yet AGAIN?



You're a real self-convinced pretentious narcissist, aren't ya?  You need to educate people?   Oh Lord, look fellow USMB members, we have a teacher now that knows more than any of us and willing to bless us with his presence.  



Porter Rockwell said:


> The market is not being flooded with cheap labor per se. It is being filled with people whose American counterparts you have no use for.



I have no idea WTF that's even supposed to mean.



Porter Rockwell said:


> Go back to post # 971. You were informed, with accurate figures, that about 11 million people have been diagnosed with ADD / ADHD YOUR claim is that you have it, but don't take your meds. YOU claim it is a real and legitimate condition. You have made much ado about the public having a right to know the private business of individuals, so you just knocked 11 million people out of the job market. Who wants an employee with a mental health condition?



You're the one who keeps dwelling on this mental health thing.  I never said a word about it.  You keep inserting things I've never even brought up yet alone discussed.



Porter Rockwell said:


> Between drug addicts and people with a criminal history, you have more than 17 million people that, for all intents and purposes, are UNEMPLOYABLE. And you don't want them to get a second chance and go back to work!
> 
> You are all over the board. Before you think about keeping people out and putting up a wall, you should be thinking about who is going to fill the empty positions when your agenda would prohibit Americans from getting those jobs as they are at this very moment, due to a criminal history and / or mental problems that do not affect an individual's ability, BUT are used against them. AND they can NEVER rise above their past given your idea of utopia.



First off I never said nobody should have a second chance.  I said it's up to employers to make that decision.  And since it's a concern of yours, don't you think that perhaps, if employers get so desperate for workers because we rid our country of foreigners, that maybe those employers WILL take a chance at hiring some of these Americans?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> See - occasionally the are honest. The Wall is just protectionism for lazy Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point I think we need to test your knowledge here, so answer this one simple question:
> 
> In the theory of supply and demand, what happens to prices when there is too much supply?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a truck driver, not someone that deals with the laws of economics.  Wouldn't your test questions be like Chuck Schumer asking a Marine to explain how his M16 works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need to be an economist to understand the supply and demand theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to have reasoning skills - which you have shown a lack of experience with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have your own little rating system for folks here, don't cha?  You must be a leftist because you think the only person right is you.  Forget evidence of what people post, forget about "logic" which you clearly don't have.  Instead, replace that with unfounded wild conspiracy theories.
> 
> Now, would you like me to post some articles on Americans who either lost their job because of cheap foreign labor or had to work for less money because of them?  I'm sure they're not that hard to find.  In fact look up Disney and how they did exactly that.
Click to expand...



I love the way you project, deflect, and misrepresent the facts when you are being owned by more than one poster.  I don't have any "rating" system.  Either you can hold a civil conversation or you can't.

Furthermore, no conspiracy theory has been offered up except that I feel the fix is in and you'll get your silly wall at the expense of gun owner's Rights.

NOBODY is losing their jobs here due to cheap foreign labor.  Employers pay what they think a job is worth.  If Disney goers think the help isn't paid enough, they can boycott the place and tell the corporate bigwigs they are outta there until they hire Americans at decent wages.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind the wall is really an unknown factor.  It may be solid or slats. It may have barbed wire, electric wire, or nothing on top.  Once it's built it becomes a known factor and can not easily be changed.  That means coyotes will figure out the fastest method of crossing which maybe ladders,  climbing carabiners, or some type power lift.  However, you can be sure once the fence is built people are going to cross it.  You can't stop them  No wall can keep people out if they have access to the right equipment.  It can only delay crossing. People who have crossed existing border walls estimated that the delay would only be 1 to 2 minutes over current reinforced fencing.  That might be useful in densely populated area but in remote ares which are 85% of the border a couple of minutes delay would be meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are other countries with similar problems to the US reporting great success with their wall?  Will it stop each and every one?  Probably not.  But if the reduction is 75% or better, it's money well spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other countries are not fighting the same demons we are.  Walls work for communists, socialists, dictatorships and countries that are at war... then, they work temporarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall works to keep people out no matter if there is a conflict or not.  You can't say a wall will work on people who are at war but not for people who are not.  A wall either works or it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Korean Ginseng may help you if you have a sexual problem; it will do NOTHING for diarrhea.  The solution has to fit the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And one solution to our problem is a wall.
Click to expand...


The wall is a solution looking for a problem to solve.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we have to educate you yet AGAIN?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a real self-convinced pretentious narcissist, aren't ya?  You need to educate people?   Oh Lord, look fellow USMB members, we have a teacher now that knows more than any of us and willing to bless us with his presence.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The market is not being flooded with cheap labor per se. It is being filled with people whose American counterparts you have no use for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea WTF that's even supposed to mean.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back to post # 971. You were informed, with accurate figures, that about 11 million people have been diagnosed with ADD / ADHD YOUR claim is that you have it, but don't take your meds. YOU claim it is a real and legitimate condition. You have made much ado about the public having a right to know the private business of individuals, so you just knocked 11 million people out of the job market. Who wants an employee with a mental health condition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who keeps dwelling on this mental health thing.  I never said a word about it.  You keep inserting things I've never even brought up yet alone discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Between drug addicts and people with a criminal history, you have more than 17 million people that, for all intents and purposes, are UNEMPLOYABLE. And you don't want them to get a second chance and go back to work!
> 
> When I brought up the mental health issue as a relevant factor, you wanted a debate on it.  You lost that side argument - but that is where it came from.  I explained how it comes down to Americans getting locked out of the system through no initial fault of their own.  So, refresh your memory.  Reread posts # 946 through # 979.  You posting a hundred and fifty posts a day to hide what has already been established won't hide the truth.
> 
> You are all over the board. Before you think about keeping people out and putting up a wall, you should be thinking about who is going to fill the empty positions when your agenda would prohibit Americans from getting those jobs as they are at this very moment, due to a criminal history and / or mental problems that do not affect an individual's ability, BUT are used against them. AND they can NEVER rise above their past given your idea of utopia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off I never said nobody should have a second chance.  I said it's up to employers to make that decision.  And since it's a concern of yours, don't you think that perhaps, if employers get so desperate for workers because we rid our country of foreigners, that maybe those employers WILL take a chance at hiring some of these Americans?
Click to expand...


Getting defensive aren't you?  You shouldn't ask questions if you don't want answers.  Since you are getting the beat down by multiple posters, you are slinging skeet, hoping the shotgun approach will work.  It isn't.

Of course, you said people should not have a second chance.  You said that when you wanted to open peoples personal lives up to the rest of the world.  Americans don't forget and they do not forgive.  Employers HAVE made that decision.  Millions of Americans are permanently locked out of the job market over petty beefs that are years old.

There is a thing in the world to keep employers from hiring Americans who have been disenfranchised.  Your job is driving a truck.  My job is helping those who are locked out to get back on their feet and get a second chance.

There is a world of difference between listening to a truck driver try to convince us he has ALL the answers versus someone who spends their days trying to help people get back into the workforce, get a place to live, and become productive citizens.  Hell, I got one guy in the mix that was convicted of a felony, but served only three months of his sentence.  And, although he's been clean for a couple of years he can't even get a job at McDonalds.  NOBODY will give him a second chance. 

You keep parroting a lie, so the only thing we can do is keep showing you that you are full of crap.  Your wall does not address at least 60 percent of the people who come here and don't have human registration papers.  You worry about laborers.

I see colleges full of foreign students, foreigners taking BIG DOLLAR jobs like scientists, doctors, technology engineers, lawyers, and government employees.  Now, that should concern you.  A pissant fruit picker from Mexico is not near the threat you have as you do from the Muslims now in the U.S. Congress.  But, don't let the facts get in your way.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought You Were trying to say in the good old Italian and German days we didn't have welfare, schools etc.
> I'm saying so what, ? Immigrants past the first generation have always contributed to the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about, but we are 20 trillion in debt today.  We don't have a generation to wait.  We can do just fine without them and the associated costs.  We can do without the murders, we can do without the drugs, we can do without the DUI's that kill Americans.  We can do without all those things because we have enough of those problems with our own people.  We don't need to be importing more problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employers need laborers that will produce at a competitive wage just as you need your firearm for protection.  I support YOUR Rights AND the EMPLOYER'S Rights.  See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's my right to own firearms.  It's my right to self-defense.  No employer has the right to hire illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employers, in our de jure / lawful / legal / CONSTITUTIONAL form of government have the Right to hire whomever they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how is it ICE are busting companies who are hiring illegals?  Maybe the owners of these companies can say their rights were violated?  If so, why has none even tried?
Click to expand...


We have in America at least two separate and distinct governments operating here.  One is the de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  The other government is a de facto / illegal / Federal - Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.

In EVERY area of the law, the powers that be enforce some form of injustice that causes victims of it to ask, quite incredulously, how can they do that?  The government gets away with it because people like you use all your time to pressure and lobby them, but don't have a clue as to what in the Hell you're doing.  Politicians react to what will get them elected, NOT what is constitutional.  The United States Supreme Court once opined that:

_"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_

_The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._

_An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby..


No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
_
ICE, the IRS and even the local county governments all violate the Constitution and it's because we have a land of dummies that cannot be taught the difference between POWER and AUTHORITY. 

Your question is one I ask myself all the time.  Just this week-end I asked some NRA reps at a gun show why they always play defense and NEVER go on the offensive and challenge unconstitutional gun laws.  They could not answer me.  I can tell you this:

 I am responsible for me.  If the government ever tries to bust my chops over who I hire, associate with, etc.  I do have defenses that have not been used in courts, but rest assured I will use them.  It's up to all of us to exhaust all of our nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary measures.  And when the government fails to stand by the guarantees of the Constitution, it is the duty of the militia to serve as the last line of defense in a free nation.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

And then it was Christmas so we stopped for a moment to honor the birth of Christ and then resumed arguing.

MERRY CHRISTMAS


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody on the right is asking the government to "give" us anything.  We are asking the government to stop something that we citizens cannot stop by ourselves.  Big difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are asking taxpayers to pay more than $25 billion for something that doesn’t work and that Trump promised Mexico would pay for.  Furthermore, Trump is putting tens of thousands of people into custody in tent cities at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.
> 
> Trump is spending millions and millions and just making the situation worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If walls don't work, why have there been so many walls throughout history; why are there so many gated communities and resorts all over the rest of the world with walls; why do gated communities in the US have walls; why do the Vatican and Israel have walls; why do so many wealthy and/or famous US residents have walls around their homes; why do prisons have walls, why do military installations have walls; why are there walls or high fences around electrical installations, missile silos and panoply of other places?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> As far as ladders go, how is a would-be illegal immigrant going to trek all the way to our border carrying a 30-foot ladder? (Oh, I forgot, you wackos are going to aid and abet.) Do you opponents of the wall know how clumsy and heavy a 30-foot ladder is or how much one costs? Have any of you ever tried to pull one up to the top of a tall wall with razorwire or barbed wire on its top, get the ladder and yourself over the top of such a barrier, then lower the ladder down the other side and climb down? Then, how does one get that ladder back over thesaid wall and down the other side for someone else to use? Haveany of you ever carried one, erected one, and used one? Even with climbing gear, if would-be illegal immigrants could get it to the border, it would still be a feat to get over and down the other side of such a wall. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that some incredibly fit, determined, equipped, and experiencedperson could get over such a wall with his belongings, how manymight that be out of say 5,000 people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are wall opponents so blinded by their ulterior motives that they refuse to or can't see that walls always have and still do deter the movement of people? Have they lost all sense of historical perspective, common sense,powers of observation, and reality? If they are delusional or in a state of deep denial, I hope they get help for Heaven’s sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO.  By that kind of logic, how come that every empire in history ceased to exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> China still exists, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For now, but China is also 98.5 percent Han Chinese.  Tell me the truth, since you want to argue about this, will you advocate shipping blacks to Africa once you get rid of the little brown people you hate so much?
Click to expand...

Right on queue, out comes the accusations of racism.  I thought you didn't insult people?  Nah, you just call them Stalinists and racists if they want to defend their border.  You are a disgusting piece of shit


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> the idiotic idea that a wall will present any substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The idiotic idea that a wall will prevent a substantial barrier*.  Funny, walls, high walls, are substantial barriers everywhere else they are used.  Just ask the Israelis.  In fact, I hope Trump invites Israel to inspect his wall design and critique it for quality of construction.  Here we have mostly poor vagabonds trying to enter the country on foot and a tall barrier is an "idiotic idea."  What, will they just walk right through it?  Jump over it with tall ladders?  Or dig tunnels under it?  The idea is to stop all but the most determined who will be greatly slowed down, while technological surveillance has time to pick them up and detect them.
> 
> *A substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.*  I see.  So now you think there are masses of people trying to escape the USA to go south who cannot go through legal portals who will be interfered with because they cannot walk across the border into impoverished Mexico out in the middle of the desert.  Because, Shit-For-Brains, these are the only "citizens" we can be talking about who have any freedoms or liberties that matter.  Mexicans are NOT citizens of the USA and have have NO freedom or liberty even in their own country much less here.
> 
> Do us all a yuge favor and take a long walk off a short pier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get it.  We are not Mexico and the Israelis are at war.  Can't fix stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a million excuses why walls work everywhere they are tried, but they won't won't work here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't work everywhere they are tried.  They are temporary fixes, at best.
Click to expand...

Name one place they didn't work.   They are far more permanent than anything you are proposing.  That's why you oppose them.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about, but we are 20 trillion in debt today.  We don't have a generation to wait.  We can do just fine without them and the associated costs.  We can do without the murders, we can do without the drugs, we can do without the DUI's that kill Americans.  We can do without all those things because we have enough of those problems with our own people.  We don't need to be importing more problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Employers need laborers that will produce at a competitive wage just as you need your firearm for protection.  I support YOUR Rights AND the EMPLOYER'S Rights.  See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's my right to own firearms.  It's my right to self-defense.  No employer has the right to hire illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employers, in our de jure / lawful / legal / CONSTITUTIONAL form of government have the Right to hire whomever they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how is it ICE are busting companies who are hiring illegals?  Maybe the owners of these companies can say their rights were violated?  If so, why has none even tried?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have in America at least two separate and distinct governments operating here.  One is the de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  The other government is a de facto / illegal / Federal - Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.
> 
> In EVERY area of the law, the powers that be enforce some form of injustice that causes victims of it to ask, quite incredulously, how can they do that?  The government gets away with it because people like you use all your time to pressure and lobby them, but don't have a clue as to what in the Hell you're doing.  Politicians react to what will get them elected, NOT what is constitutional.  The United States Supreme Court once opined that:
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
> 
> Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
> 
> A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
> 
> An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
> 
> Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby..
> 
> 
> No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
> 
> — Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
> _
> ICE, the IRS and even the local county governments all violate the Constitution and it's because we have a land of dummies that cannot be taught the difference between POWER and AUTHORITY.
> 
> Your question is one I ask myself all the time.  Just this week-end I asked some NRA reps at a gun show why they always play defense and NEVER go on the offensive and challenge unconstitutional gun laws.  They could not answer me.  I can tell you this:
> 
> I am responsible for me.  If the government ever tries to bust my chops over who I hire, associate with, etc.  I do have defenses that have not been used in courts, but rest assured I will use them.  It's up to all of us to exhaust all of our nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary measures.  And when the government fails to stand by the guarantees of the Constitution, it is the duty of the militia to serve as the last line of defense in a free nation.
Click to expand...

What does any of that have to do with building the wall?  It's not a law.  It's a physical structure.  It has no more constitutional implications than the building of a highway.  In fact it has less because the building of fortifications is actually authorized by the Constitution.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't we put just as many guards per mile of wall as Israel?
> 
> Do you idiots ever think about the dumb shit you post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you have NEVER thought about what you're posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see that you are a moron because you post ideas that have already been debunked 1000 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOTHING I've said has been debunked.  It's the reason you've sunk to the low of throwing hissy fits and calling people names when they prove you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I use ridicule and insults because turds like you are immune to facts and logic.  Only a certain about of pain will dissuade you from trying to propagate your idiocies.  I attempt to make your behavior as painful as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You use name calling and insults because the facts don't favor you and you are too stupid to have an intelligent conversation.
> 
> It must be Hell being you when people from both of the aisle are exposing you for what you are... and you're so delusional that you believe you have what it takes to be in the conversation.  Little man, you don't pack the gear.  You are the one always citing communist countries, communist solutions and telling people how great Mexico's laws are.  Yet you stay in the United States.
> 
> BTW, since both the Israelis and Chinese use the border to protect a specific people, do you advocate shipping blacks back to Africa and getting rid of all the Muslims?  China is 98.5 percent Han Chinese.  Maybe if America were 98.5 percent white, your ideas might work.
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know.
Click to expand...

Says the asshole who calls me a Stalinist and a racist.  I use insults because turds like you are immune to facts and logic.  Now you're claiming that walls are racist, and by extension, anyone who supports them is racist.   You're a dumbass, of course.  None of your theories have any visible means of support.  All you're doing is making excuses for the success of all the actual examples of walls.


----------



## bripat9643

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind the wall is really an unknown factor.  It may be solid or slats. It may have barbed wire, electric wire, or nothing on top.  Once it's built it becomes a known factor and can not easily be changed.  That means coyotes will figure out the fastest method of crossing which maybe ladders,  climbing carabiners, or some type power lift.  However, you can be sure once the fence is built people are going to cross it.  You can't stop them  No wall can keep people out if they have access to the right equipment.  It can only delay crossing. People who have crossed existing border walls estimated that the delay would only be 1 to 2 minutes over current reinforced fencing.  That might be useful in densely populated area but in remote ares which are 85% of the border a couple of minutes delay would be meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are other countries with similar problems to the US reporting great success with their wall?  Will it stop each and every one?  Probably not.  But if the reduction is 75% or better, it's money well spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other countries are not fighting the same demons we are.  Walls work for communists, socialists, dictatorships and countries that are at war... then, they work temporarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall works to keep people out no matter if there is a conflict or not.  You can't say a wall will work on people who are at war but not for people who are not.  A wall either works or it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
Click to expand...

Flopper stupidly assumes that we will have border patrol stationed only every 60 miles since he says it would take them 30 minutes to get to any spot on the wall.  How many people would it take to have border patrol stationed every 5 miles?  Then it would take 2 1/2 minutes to get to any point on the wall.  The agents could simply wait in their building monitoring the wall with cameras on the wall and/or with drones.  Long before any potential border crossers got to the wall, the border patrol could be there waiting for them.

Idiots like Flopper claim the wall won't work only by claiming the border patrol is stupid.  Yet these people are supposedly savvy enough to prevent border crossings without a wall.  Nothing these idiots say makes sense on even basic level.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want the government to give you a wall for whatever reason you can conjure up as the discussion proceeds.  You don't really know why you want it, other than you think Trump is God and you have to move the goalposts accordingly.  But, you want him to give you a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Industry is flooded with foreigners because people like you got hooked on drugs and can't think.  So you sit on your ass all day, every day whining about a wall around America.
> 
> You and more than 11 MILLION Americans could work a job, but choose not to.  The jobs are out there - and at good wages.  But, it is easier for some of you to sit around, living off the welfare, and not even wanting to create ways to get Americans back on the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And who built the welfare state the left, you.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Porter isn't "left". Neither am I. I know it gnaws at you, but the best arguments against your cowardly wall are coming from real conservatives and libertarians - not "the left".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're obviously both a couple of commies.
> 
> You aren't fooling anyone.
Click to expand...


Obviously.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bripat9643 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are other countries with similar problems to the US reporting great success with their wall?  Will it stop each and every one?  Probably not.  But if the reduction is 75% or better, it's money well spent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other countries are not fighting the same demons we are.  Walls work for communists, socialists, dictatorships and countries that are at war... then, they work temporarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall works to keep people out no matter if there is a conflict or not.  You can't say a wall will work on people who are at war but not for people who are not.  A wall either works or it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flopper stupidly assumes that we will have border patrol stationed only every 60 miles since he says it would take them 30 minutes to get to any spot on the wall.  How many people would it take to have border patrol stationed every 5 miles?  Then it would take 2 1/2 minutes to get to any point on the wall.  The agents could simply wait in their building monitoring the wall with cameras on the wall and/or with drones.  Long before any potential border crossers got to the wall, the border patrol could be there waiting for them.
> 
> Idiots like Flopper claim the wall won't work only by claiming the border patrol is stupid.  Yet these people are supposedly savvy enough to prevent border crossings without a wall.  Nothing these idiots say makes sense on even basic level.
Click to expand...


You are absolutely correct. 

Our agencies that fight this problem have decades of experience.  We have the best engineers in the world not to mention security forces.  And while these forces support the Presidents idea of a wall.......they will simply take a ladder and jump over it according to those that are against a wall. 

Like gee...........didn't it ever occur to these people that our security forces considered that already???? 

Yes.....we have posted links, stories, success of walls built in other places, yet they continue to try and convince us that those links are fake; walls are temporary; they will not stand the test of time..... 

And it's my suspicion that none of these people ever carried a ladder large enough to accomplish this feat.   I'm from a construction family.  I worked as a laborer for my bricklayer father since the age of 11.  I know what it's like to be three stories high with little around you to stop you from falling.  

Deep down inside (regardless what they say here) they too know a wall would reduce drugs and illegals invading our country.  Because if they really believed it would be a waste of time and money, they would welcome the idea of a wall to rub our noses in it for generations to come.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about, but we are 20 trillion in debt today.  We don't have a generation to wait.  We can do just fine without them and the associated costs.  We can do without the murders, we can do without the drugs, we can do without the DUI's that kill Americans.  We can do without all those things because we have enough of those problems with our own people.  We don't need to be importing more problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Employers need laborers that will produce at a competitive wage just as you need your firearm for protection.  I support YOUR Rights AND the EMPLOYER'S Rights.  See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's my right to own firearms.  It's my right to self-defense.  No employer has the right to hire illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employers, in our de jure / lawful / legal / CONSTITUTIONAL form of government have the Right to hire whomever they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how is it ICE are busting companies who are hiring illegals?  Maybe the owners of these companies can say their rights were violated?  If so, why has none even tried?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have in America at least two separate and distinct governments operating here.  One is the de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  The other government is a de facto / illegal / Federal - Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.
> 
> In EVERY area of the law, the powers that be enforce some form of injustice that causes victims of it to ask, quite incredulously, how can they do that?  The government gets away with it because people like you use all your time to pressure and lobby them, but don't have a clue as to what in the Hell you're doing.  Politicians react to what will get them elected, NOT what is constitutional.  The United States Supreme Court once opined that:
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
> 
> Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
> 
> A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
> 
> An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
> 
> Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby..
> 
> 
> No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
> 
> — Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
> _
> ICE, the IRS and even the local county governments all violate the Constitution and it's because we have a land of dummies that cannot be taught the difference between POWER and AUTHORITY.
> 
> Your question is one I ask myself all the time.  Just this week-end I asked some NRA reps at a gun show why they always play defense and NEVER go on the offensive and challenge unconstitutional gun laws.  They could not answer me.  I can tell you this:
> 
> I am responsible for me.  If the government ever tries to bust my chops over who I hire, associate with, etc.  I do have defenses that have not been used in courts, but rest assured I will use them.  It's up to all of us to exhaust all of our nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary measures.  And when the government fails to stand by the guarantees of the Constitution, it is the duty of the militia to serve as the last line of defense in a free nation.
Click to expand...


Right......because you are the arbitrator of what is constitutional and what is not. 

Sorry, but your opinion is no more relevant than mine.  Tell your representatives to pass the budge including the wall, and then take it to court yourself claiming unconstitutionality.  We will all enjoy the laugh.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we have to educate you yet AGAIN?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a real self-convinced pretentious narcissist, aren't ya?  You need to educate people?   Oh Lord, look fellow USMB members, we have a teacher now that knows more than any of us and willing to bless us with his presence.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The market is not being flooded with cheap labor per se. It is being filled with people whose American counterparts you have no use for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea WTF that's even supposed to mean.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back to post # 971. You were informed, with accurate figures, that about 11 million people have been diagnosed with ADD / ADHD YOUR claim is that you have it, but don't take your meds. YOU claim it is a real and legitimate condition. You have made much ado about the public having a right to know the private business of individuals, so you just knocked 11 million people out of the job market. Who wants an employee with a mental health condition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who keeps dwelling on this mental health thing.  I never said a word about it.  You keep inserting things I've never even brought up yet alone discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Between drug addicts and people with a criminal history, you have more than 17 million people that, for all intents and purposes, are UNEMPLOYABLE. And you don't want them to get a second chance and go back to work!
> 
> When I brought up the mental health issue as a relevant factor, you wanted a debate on it.  You lost that side argument - but that is where it came from.  I explained how it comes down to Americans getting locked out of the system through no initial fault of their own.  So, refresh your memory.  Reread posts # 946 through # 979.  You posting a hundred and fifty posts a day to hide what has already been established won't hide the truth.
> 
> You are all over the board. Before you think about keeping people out and putting up a wall, you should be thinking about who is going to fill the empty positions when your agenda would prohibit Americans from getting those jobs as they are at this very moment, due to a criminal history and / or mental problems that do not affect an individual's ability, BUT are used against them. AND they can NEVER rise above their past given your idea of utopia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off I never said nobody should have a second chance.  I said it's up to employers to make that decision.  And since it's a concern of yours, don't you think that perhaps, if employers get so desperate for workers because we rid our country of foreigners, that maybe those employers WILL take a chance at hiring some of these Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting defensive aren't you?  You shouldn't ask questions if you don't want answers.  Since you are getting the beat down by multiple posters, you are slinging skeet, hoping the shotgun approach will work.  It isn't.
> 
> Of course, you said people should not have a second chance.  You said that when you wanted to open peoples personal lives up to the rest of the world.  Americans don't forget and they do not forgive.  Employers HAVE made that decision.  Millions of Americans are permanently locked out of the job market over petty beefs that are years old.
> 
> There is a thing in the world to keep employers from hiring Americans who have been disenfranchised.  Your job is driving a truck.  My job is helping those who are locked out to get back on their feet and get a second chance.
> 
> There is a world of difference between listening to a truck driver try to convince us he has ALL the answers versus someone who spends their days trying to help people get back into the workforce, get a place to live, and become productive citizens.  Hell, I got one guy in the mix that was convicted of a felony, but served only three months of his sentence.  And, although he's been clean for a couple of years he can't even get a job at McDonalds.  NOBODY will give him a second chance.
> 
> You keep parroting a lie, so the only thing we can do is keep showing you that you are full of crap.  Your wall does not address at least 60 percent of the people who come here and don't have human registration papers.  You worry about laborers.
> 
> I see colleges full of foreign students, foreigners taking BIG DOLLAR jobs like scientists, doctors, technology engineers, lawyers, and government employees.  Now, that should concern you.  A pissant fruit picker from Mexico is not near the threat you have as you do from the Muslims now in the U.S. Congress.  But, don't let the facts get in your way.
Click to expand...


As I stated repeatedly, I don't care if somebody gets a second chance, I care about government mandating  it from the private market.

I also care about the government (which is we the people) hiding information from those who interact with convicts. 

The reason employers look down on hiring convicts is because they seldom change their ways.  Oh.....they may for a while; to get a job, get an apartment, but somewhere along the line, they usually end up being problem.

I explained this in a personal story of when I rented to an ex-con.  Because of him, my house was nearly burned to the ground.  It cost me a lot of money and I couldn't' get insurance for three years after the event.  In any case, what I do know about him is he's been imprisoned twice since that time, and is in prison today.  If left to people up to you, these factors would be hidden from the next landlord he applies to in the future.  And if he does another bad drug deal causing that landlord harm.  Too bad.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are other countries with similar problems to the US reporting great success with their wall?  Will it stop each and every one?  Probably not.  But if the reduction is 75% or better, it's money well spent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other countries are not fighting the same demons we are.  Walls work for communists, socialists, dictatorships and countries that are at war... then, they work temporarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall works to keep people out no matter if there is a conflict or not.  You can't say a wall will work on people who are at war but not for people who are not.  A wall either works or it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Korean Ginseng may help you if you have a sexual problem; it will do NOTHING for diarrhea.  The solution has to fit the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And one solution to our problem is a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall is a solution looking for a problem to solve.
Click to expand...


Nope.  The problem is there and has been for many years.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> At this point I think we need to test your knowledge here, so answer this one simple question:
> 
> In the theory of supply and demand, what happens to prices when there is too much supply?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a truck driver, not someone that deals with the laws of economics.  Wouldn't your test questions be like Chuck Schumer asking a Marine to explain how his M16 works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need to be an economist to understand the supply and demand theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to have reasoning skills - which you have shown a lack of experience with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have your own little rating system for folks here, don't cha?  You must be a leftist because you think the only person right is you.  Forget evidence of what people post, forget about "logic" which you clearly don't have.  Instead, replace that with unfounded wild conspiracy theories.
> 
> Now, would you like me to post some articles on Americans who either lost their job because of cheap foreign labor or had to work for less money because of them?  I'm sure they're not that hard to find.  In fact look up Disney and how they did exactly that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I love the way you project, deflect, and misrepresent the facts when you are being owned by more than one poster.  I don't have any "rating" system.  Either you can hold a civil conversation or you can't.
> 
> Furthermore, no conspiracy theory has been offered up except that I feel the fix is in and you'll get your silly wall at the expense of gun owner's Rights.
> 
> NOBODY is losing their jobs here due to cheap foreign labor.  Employers pay what they think a job is worth.  If Disney goers think the help isn't paid enough, they can boycott the place and tell the corporate bigwigs they are outta there until they hire Americans at decent wages.
Click to expand...


Which of course will never happen and you know it.  And yes, people have lost jobs due to foreign labor.  Again, I'm on vacation this week, and I'll be happy to Google it and post links if you'd like; starting with Disney.


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> the idiotic idea that a wall will present any substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The idiotic idea that a wall will prevent a substantial barrier*.  Funny, walls, high walls, are substantial barriers everywhere else they are used.  Just ask the Israelis.  In fact, I hope Trump invites Israel to inspect his wall design and critique it for quality of construction.  Here we have mostly poor vagabonds trying to enter the country on foot and a tall barrier is an "idiotic idea."  What, will they just walk right through it?  Jump over it with tall ladders?  Or dig tunnels under it?  The idea is to stop all but the most determined who will be greatly slowed down, while technological surveillance has time to pick them up and detect them.
> 
> *A substantial obstacle to anything except the Freedom and Liberties of the citizenry.*  I see.  So now you think there are masses of people trying to escape the USA to go south who cannot go through legal portals who will be interfered with because they cannot walk across the border into impoverished Mexico out in the middle of the desert.  Because, Shit-For-Brains, these are the only "citizens" we can be talking about who have any freedoms or liberties that matter.  Mexicans are NOT citizens of the USA and have have NO freedom or liberty even in their own country much less here.
> 
> Do us all a yuge favor and take a long walk off a short pier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get it.  We are not Mexico and the Israelis are at war.  Can't fix stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a million excuses why walls work everywhere they are tried, but they won't won't work here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't work everywhere they are tried.  They are temporary fixes, at best.
Click to expand...



Tell us where walls and barriers are used that don't work.  And a temporary fix is better than no fix at all, and the Democrats represent a ZERO fix.  But why Trump's wall is a "temporary" fix is beyond me--- --- --- what will happen, will it rust away in 150 years?


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind the wall is really an unknown factor.  It may be solid or slats. It may have barbed wire, electric wire, or nothing on top.  Once it's built it becomes a known factor and can not easily be changed.  That means coyotes will figure out the fastest method of crossing which maybe ladders,  climbing carabiners, or some type power lift.  However, you can be sure once the fence is built people are going to cross it.  You can't stop them  No wall can keep people out if they have access to the right equipment.  It can only delay crossing. People who have crossed existing border walls estimated that the delay would only be 1 to 2 minutes over current reinforced fencing.  That might be useful in densely populated area but in remote ares which are 85% of the border a couple of minutes delay would be meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are other countries with similar problems to the US reporting great success with their wall?  Will it stop each and every one?  Probably not.  But if the reduction is 75% or better, it's money well spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other countries are not fighting the same demons we are.  Walls work for communists, socialists, dictatorships and countries that are at war... then, they work temporarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall works to keep people out no matter if there is a conflict or not.  You can't say a wall will work on people who are at war but not for people who are not.  A wall either works or it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
Click to expand...

Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.

Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other countries are not fighting the same demons we are.  Walls work for communists, socialists, dictatorships and countries that are at war... then, they work temporarily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A wall works to keep people out no matter if there is a conflict or not.  You can't say a wall will work on people who are at war but not for people who are not.  A wall either works or it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flopper stupidly assumes that we will have border patrol stationed only every 60 miles since he says it would take them 30 minutes to get to any spot on the wall.  How many people would it take to have border patrol stationed every 5 miles?  Then it would take 2 1/2 minutes to get to any point on the wall.  The agents could simply wait in their building monitoring the wall with cameras on the wall and/or with drones.  Long before any potential border crossers got to the wall, the border patrol could be there waiting for them.
> 
> Idiots like Flopper claim the wall won't work only by claiming the border patrol is stupid.  Yet these people are supposedly savvy enough to prevent border crossings without a wall.  Nothing these idiots say makes sense on even basic level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are absolutely correct.
> 
> Our agencies that fight this problem have decades of experience.  We have the best engineers in the world not to mention security forces.  And while these forces support the Presidents idea of a wall.......they will simply take a ladder and jump over it according to those that are against a wall.
> 
> Like gee...........didn't it ever occur to these people that our security forces considered that already????
> 
> Yes.....we have posted links, stories, success of walls built in other places, yet they continue to try and convince us that those links are fake; walls are temporary; they will not stand the test of time.....
> 
> And it's my suspicion that none of these people ever carried a ladder large enough to accomplish this feat.   I'm from a construction family.  I worked as a laborer for my bricklayer father since the age of 11.  I know what it's like to be three stories high with little around you to stop you from falling.
> 
> Deep down inside (regardless what they say here) they too know a wall would reduce drugs and illegals invading our country.  Because if they really believed it would be a waste of time and money, they would welcome the idea of a wall to rub our noses in it for generations to come.
Click to expand...

The goal of building border barriers is to delay intruders till the guards get there.  In densely populated areas where border crossing are very common barriers are monitored and guards arrive in a few minutes of an intrusions.


----------



## toobfreak

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are other countries with similar problems to the US reporting great success with their wall?  Will it stop each and every one?  Probably not.  But if the reduction is 75% or better, it's money well spent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other countries are not fighting the same demons we are.  Walls work for communists, socialists, dictatorships and countries that are at war... then, they work temporarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall works to keep people out no matter if there is a conflict or not.  You can't say a wall will work on people who are at war but not for people who are not.  A wall either works or it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
Click to expand...



If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are other countries with similar problems to the US reporting great success with their wall?  Will it stop each and every one?  Probably not.  But if the reduction is 75% or better, it's money well spent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other countries are not fighting the same demons we are.  Walls work for communists, socialists, dictatorships and countries that are at war... then, they work temporarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall works to keep people out no matter if there is a conflict or not.  You can't say a wall will work on people who are at war but not for people who are not.  A wall either works or it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
Click to expand...

Who said there won't be guards nearby other then dumbasses like you?


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wall works to keep people out no matter if there is a conflict or not.  You can't say a wall will work on people who are at war but not for people who are not.  A wall either works or it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flopper stupidly assumes that we will have border patrol stationed only every 60 miles since he says it would take them 30 minutes to get to any spot on the wall.  How many people would it take to have border patrol stationed every 5 miles?  Then it would take 2 1/2 minutes to get to any point on the wall.  The agents could simply wait in their building monitoring the wall with cameras on the wall and/or with drones.  Long before any potential border crossers got to the wall, the border patrol could be there waiting for them.
> 
> Idiots like Flopper claim the wall won't work only by claiming the border patrol is stupid.  Yet these people are supposedly savvy enough to prevent border crossings without a wall.  Nothing these idiots say makes sense on even basic level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are absolutely correct.
> 
> Our agencies that fight this problem have decades of experience.  We have the best engineers in the world not to mention security forces.  And while these forces support the Presidents idea of a wall.......they will simply take a ladder and jump over it according to those that are against a wall.
> 
> Like gee...........didn't it ever occur to these people that our security forces considered that already????
> 
> Yes.....we have posted links, stories, success of walls built in other places, yet they continue to try and convince us that those links are fake; walls are temporary; they will not stand the test of time.....
> 
> And it's my suspicion that none of these people ever carried a ladder large enough to accomplish this feat.   I'm from a construction family.  I worked as a laborer for my bricklayer father since the age of 11.  I know what it's like to be three stories high with little around you to stop you from falling.
> 
> Deep down inside (regardless what they say here) they too know a wall would reduce drugs and illegals invading our country.  Because if they really believed it would be a waste of time and money, they would welcome the idea of a wall to rub our noses in it for generations to come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The goal of building border barriers is to delay intruders till the guards get there.  In densely populated areas where border crossing are very common barriers are monitored and guards arrive in a few minutes of an intrusions.
Click to expand...

So what makes you think that can't be done alone the entire length of the wall?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are asking taxpayers to pay more than $25 billion for something that doesn’t work and that Trump promised Mexico would pay for.  Furthermore, Trump is putting tens of thousands of people into custody in tent cities at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.
> 
> Trump is spending millions and millions and just making the situation worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If walls don't work, why have there been so many walls throughout history; why are there so many gated communities and resorts all over the rest of the world with walls; why do gated communities in the US have walls; why do the Vatican and Israel have walls; why do so many wealthy and/or famous US residents have walls around their homes; why do prisons have walls, why do military installations have walls; why are there walls or high fences around electrical installations, missile silos and panoply of other places?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> As far as ladders go, how is a would-be illegal immigrant going to trek all the way to our border carrying a 30-foot ladder? (Oh, I forgot, you wackos are going to aid and abet.) Do you opponents of the wall know how clumsy and heavy a 30-foot ladder is or how much one costs? Have any of you ever tried to pull one up to the top of a tall wall with razorwire or barbed wire on its top, get the ladder and yourself over the top of such a barrier, then lower the ladder down the other side and climb down? Then, how does one get that ladder back over thesaid wall and down the other side for someone else to use? Haveany of you ever carried one, erected one, and used one? Even with climbing gear, if would-be illegal immigrants could get it to the border, it would still be a feat to get over and down the other side of such a wall. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that some incredibly fit, determined, equipped, and experiencedperson could get over such a wall with his belongings, how manymight that be out of say 5,000 people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are wall opponents so blinded by their ulterior motives that they refuse to or can't see that walls always have and still do deter the movement of people? Have they lost all sense of historical perspective, common sense,powers of observation, and reality? If they are delusional or in a state of deep denial, I hope they get help for Heaven’s sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO.  By that kind of logic, how come that every empire in history ceased to exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> China still exists, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For now, but China is also 98.5 percent Han Chinese.  Tell me the truth, since you want to argue about this, will you advocate shipping blacks to Africa once you get rid of the little brown people you hate so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right on queue, out comes the accusations of racism.  I thought you didn't insult people?  Nah, you just call them Stalinists and racists if they want to defend their border.  You are a disgusting piece of shit
Click to expand...


You should be a politician with the amount of lies you tell.  I said your solution won't work unless you are working to accomplish the same things those with walls are trying to accomplish.

That still does not mean you shouldn't answer my question.  Your advocacy of this silly wall, when it will NOT work to fix the pretexts listed in the course of this thread has an ulterior motive the rest of us cannot see.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you have NEVER thought about what you're posting.
> 
> 
> 
> I see that you are a moron because you post ideas that have already been debunked 1000 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOTHING I've said has been debunked.  It's the reason you've sunk to the low of throwing hissy fits and calling people names when they prove you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I use ridicule and insults because turds like you are immune to facts and logic.  Only a certain about of pain will dissuade you from trying to propagate your idiocies.  I attempt to make your behavior as painful as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You use name calling and insults because the facts don't favor you and you are too stupid to have an intelligent conversation.
> 
> It must be Hell being you when people from both of the aisle are exposing you for what you are... and you're so delusional that you believe you have what it takes to be in the conversation.  Little man, you don't pack the gear.  You are the one always citing communist countries, communist solutions and telling people how great Mexico's laws are.  Yet you stay in the United States.
> 
> BTW, since both the Israelis and Chinese use the border to protect a specific people, do you advocate shipping blacks back to Africa and getting rid of all the Muslims?  China is 98.5 percent Han Chinese.  Maybe if America were 98.5 percent white, your ideas might work.
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the asshole who calls me a Stalinist and a racist.  I use insults because turds like you are immune to facts and logic.  Now you're claiming that walls are racist, and by extension, anyone who supports them is racist.   You're a dumbass, of course.  None of your theories have any visible means of support.  All you're doing is making excuses for the success of all the actual examples of walls.
Click to expand...


I did not claim the wall idea is racist.  But, the wall idea has been used in other countries for the deliberate purpose to separate people based upon race, religion, etc.  NOBODY called you a Stalinist or a racist.  Get over yourself and answer the questions.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see that you are a moron because you post ideas that have already been debunked 1000 times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOTHING I've said has been debunked.  It's the reason you've sunk to the low of throwing hissy fits and calling people names when they prove you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I use ridicule and insults because turds like you are immune to facts and logic.  Only a certain about of pain will dissuade you from trying to propagate your idiocies.  I attempt to make your behavior as painful as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You use name calling and insults because the facts don't favor you and you are too stupid to have an intelligent conversation.
> 
> It must be Hell being you when people from both of the aisle are exposing you for what you are... and you're so delusional that you believe you have what it takes to be in the conversation.  Little man, you don't pack the gear.  You are the one always citing communist countries, communist solutions and telling people how great Mexico's laws are.  Yet you stay in the United States.
> 
> BTW, since both the Israelis and Chinese use the border to protect a specific people, do you advocate shipping blacks back to Africa and getting rid of all the Muslims?  China is 98.5 percent Han Chinese.  Maybe if America were 98.5 percent white, your ideas might work.
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the asshole who calls me a Stalinist and a racist.  I use insults because turds like you are immune to facts and logic.  Now you're claiming that walls are racist, and by extension, anyone who supports them is racist.   You're a dumbass, of course.  None of your theories have any visible means of support.  All you're doing is making excuses for the success of all the actual examples of walls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not claim the wall idea is racist.  But, the wall idea has been used in other countries for the deliberate purpose to separate people based upon race, religion, etc.  NOBODY called you a Stalinist or a racist.  Get over yourself and answer the questions.
Click to expand...



Wait so a wall doesn't work, but segregation by zip codes work?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

toobfreak said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other countries are not fighting the same demons we are.  Walls work for communists, socialists, dictatorships and countries that are at war... then, they work temporarily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A wall works to keep people out no matter if there is a conflict or not.  You can't say a wall will work on people who are at war but not for people who are not.  A wall either works or it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.
Click to expand...


A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see that you are a moron because you post ideas that have already been debunked 1000 times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOTHING I've said has been debunked.  It's the reason you've sunk to the low of throwing hissy fits and calling people names when they prove you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I use ridicule and insults because turds like you are immune to facts and logic.  Only a certain about of pain will dissuade you from trying to propagate your idiocies.  I attempt to make your behavior as painful as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You use name calling and insults because the facts don't favor you and you are too stupid to have an intelligent conversation.
> 
> It must be Hell being you when people from both of the aisle are exposing you for what you are... and you're so delusional that you believe you have what it takes to be in the conversation.  Little man, you don't pack the gear.  You are the one always citing communist countries, communist solutions and telling people how great Mexico's laws are.  Yet you stay in the United States.
> 
> BTW, since both the Israelis and Chinese use the border to protect a specific people, do you advocate shipping blacks back to Africa and getting rid of all the Muslims?  China is 98.5 percent Han Chinese.  Maybe if America were 98.5 percent white, your ideas might work.
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the asshole who calls me a Stalinist and a racist.  I use insults because turds like you are immune to facts and logic.  Now you're claiming that walls are racist, and by extension, anyone who supports them is racist.   You're a dumbass, of course.  None of your theories have any visible means of support.  All you're doing is making excuses for the success of all the actual examples of walls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not claim the wall idea is racist.  But, the wall idea has been used in other countries for the deliberate purpose to separate people based upon race, religion, etc.  NOBODY called you a Stalinist or a racist.  Get over yourself and answer the questions.
Click to expand...



Blue cities are racist as fuck..so your answer is Cabrini green, Robert Taylor home
Segergated the black people?

.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wall works to keep people out no matter if there is a conflict or not.  You can't say a wall will work on people who are at war but not for people who are not.  A wall either works or it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
Click to expand...



So you never dug dirt?

You stupid fuck, go pick up a shovel and start digging.. let's see how far you get.


----------



## Billo_Really

Tax Man said:


> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS


I don't want no Iron Curtain built along our southern border.  This is not Berlin.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you, our industry is flooded with foreigners.  Cheap companies don't want to pay good money and lazy Americans don't want to take the jobs.  So more and more companies are turning to foreigners.
> 
> They come here and are operating 75,000 lbs vehicles on the road with no ability to read road signs.  These are terrible drivers to boot.  Yes, they are driving right next to your vehicle on the highway.  Besides the danger to Americans, they are keeping our wages lower because companies can pay them squat.
> 
> It's not just my industry, it's happening in nearly every industry.  The ones that don't work or work low wage jobs are  costing us taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  That's money I work for that could go to better things like taking care of our homeless vets or reduce the deficit.  And I don't want to hear about all these phony advantages because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See - occasionally the are honest. The Wall is just protectionism for lazy Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At this point I think we need to test your knowledge here, so answer this one simple question:
> 
> In the theory of supply and demand, what happens to prices when there is too much supply?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a truck driver, not someone that deals with the laws of economics.  Wouldn't your test questions be like Chuck Schumer asking a Marine to explain how his M16 works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need to be an economist to understand the supply and demand theory.
Click to expand...

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage solves the "cheap labor" problem.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employers need laborers that will produce at a competitive wage just as you need your firearm for protection.  I support YOUR Rights AND the EMPLOYER'S Rights.  See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's my right to own firearms.  It's my right to self-defense.  No employer has the right to hire illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employers, in our de jure / lawful / legal / CONSTITUTIONAL form of government have the Right to hire whomever they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how is it ICE are busting companies who are hiring illegals?  Maybe the owners of these companies can say their rights were violated?  If so, why has none even tried?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have in America at least two separate and distinct governments operating here.  One is the de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  The other government is a de facto / illegal / Federal - Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.
> 
> In EVERY area of the law, the powers that be enforce some form of injustice that causes victims of it to ask, quite incredulously, how can they do that?  The government gets away with it because people like you use all your time to pressure and lobby them, but don't have a clue as to what in the Hell you're doing.  Politicians react to what will get them elected, NOT what is constitutional.  The United States Supreme Court once opined that:
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
> 
> Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
> 
> A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
> 
> An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
> 
> Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby..
> 
> 
> No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
> 
> — Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
> _
> ICE, the IRS and even the local county governments all violate the Constitution and it's because we have a land of dummies that cannot be taught the difference between POWER and AUTHORITY.
> 
> Your question is one I ask myself all the time.  Just this week-end I asked some NRA reps at a gun show why they always play defense and NEVER go on the offensive and challenge unconstitutional gun laws.  They could not answer me.  I can tell you this:
> 
> I am responsible for me.  If the government ever tries to bust my chops over who I hire, associate with, etc.  I do have defenses that have not been used in courts, but rest assured I will use them.  It's up to all of us to exhaust all of our nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary measures.  And when the government fails to stand by the guarantees of the Constitution, it is the duty of the militia to serve as the last line of defense in a free nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right......because you are the arbitrator of what is constitutional and what is not.
> 
> Sorry, but your opinion is no more relevant than mine.  Tell your representatives to pass the budge including the wall, and then take it to court yourself claiming unconstitutionality.  We will all enjoy the laugh.
Click to expand...

there is no Express wall building power.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a truck driver, not someone that deals with the laws of economics.  Wouldn't your test questions be like Chuck Schumer asking a Marine to explain how his M16 works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need to be an economist to understand the supply and demand theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to have reasoning skills - which you have shown a lack of experience with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have your own little rating system for folks here, don't cha?  You must be a leftist because you think the only person right is you.  Forget evidence of what people post, forget about "logic" which you clearly don't have.  Instead, replace that with unfounded wild conspiracy theories.
> 
> Now, would you like me to post some articles on Americans who either lost their job because of cheap foreign labor or had to work for less money because of them?  I'm sure they're not that hard to find.  In fact look up Disney and how they did exactly that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I love the way you project, deflect, and misrepresent the facts when you are being owned by more than one poster.  I don't have any "rating" system.  Either you can hold a civil conversation or you can't.
> 
> Furthermore, no conspiracy theory has been offered up except that I feel the fix is in and you'll get your silly wall at the expense of gun owner's Rights.
> 
> NOBODY is losing their jobs here due to cheap foreign labor.  Employers pay what they think a job is worth.  If Disney goers think the help isn't paid enough, they can boycott the place and tell the corporate bigwigs they are outta there until they hire Americans at decent wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which of course will never happen and you know it.  And yes, people have lost jobs due to foreign labor.  Again, I'm on vacation this week, and I'll be happy to Google it and post links if you'd like; starting with Disney.
Click to expand...

lousy management with our Command Economy.  Congress should be directing new Cites to be built in more optimal locations to command manufacturing jobs to be created.


----------



## Wyatt earp

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you never dug dirt?
> 
> You stupid fuck, go pick up a shovel and start digging.. let's see how far you get.
Click to expand...



Start digging, you idiot..you need huge man power and money..

It's obvious you never dug a hole in your life 


.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Billo_Really said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want no Iron Curtain built along our southern border.  This is not Berlin.
Click to expand...



So you think the wall is to keep you in?


You dumb fuck..


.


----------



## Wyatt earp

bear513 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want no Iron Curtain built along our southern border.  This is not Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you think the wall is to keep you in?
> 
> 
> You dumb fuck..
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...



So asshole you think with this wall you won't be able to travel and cut off your pass port you dumb mother fucker troll


You still mad you can't go to Canada because of your D.U.I?


.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOTHING I've said has been debunked.  It's the reason you've sunk to the low of throwing hissy fits and calling people names when they prove you wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> I use ridicule and insults because turds like you are immune to facts and logic.  Only a certain about of pain will dissuade you from trying to propagate your idiocies.  I attempt to make your behavior as painful as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You use name calling and insults because the facts don't favor you and you are too stupid to have an intelligent conversation.
> 
> It must be Hell being you when people from both of the aisle are exposing you for what you are... and you're so delusional that you believe you have what it takes to be in the conversation.  Little man, you don't pack the gear.  You are the one always citing communist countries, communist solutions and telling people how great Mexico's laws are.  Yet you stay in the United States.
> 
> BTW, since both the Israelis and Chinese use the border to protect a specific people, do you advocate shipping blacks back to Africa and getting rid of all the Muslims?  China is 98.5 percent Han Chinese.  Maybe if America were 98.5 percent white, your ideas might work.
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the asshole who calls me a Stalinist and a racist.  I use insults because turds like you are immune to facts and logic.  Now you're claiming that walls are racist, and by extension, anyone who supports them is racist.   You're a dumbass, of course.  None of your theories have any visible means of support.  All you're doing is making excuses for the success of all the actual examples of walls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not claim the wall idea is racist.  But, the wall idea has been used in other countries for the deliberate purpose to separate people based upon race, religion, etc.  NOBODY called you a Stalinist or a racist.  Get over yourself and answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wait so a wall doesn't work, but segregation by zip codes work?
Click to expand...


Did you proofread that before you submitted it?  What does China's wall or the Israelis wall have to do with segregation by zip code?  WTH are you talking about?

It's time for another installment of my rant:

People like you posting every day, all day about this nutty wall idea have given us many different pretexts as to WHY you think you need a wall in the first place.

One of the pretexts was sovereignty.  That pretext doesn't work out unless you admit that the REAL objective is a One World Government since the sovereignty pretext means that the feds can tell states who they can and cannot do business with

Another pretext was safety.  That pretext doesn't work out either considering that Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up Essential Liberty of the promise of Temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty nor Safety

There were the accusations that the foreigners were taking jobs from Americans.  When it was pointed out that those non-working Americans, for the most part are addicted to welfare and government handouts and / or locked out of the system by a criminal record and / or drug use.  The majority of build the wall advocates don't think it's important to get Americans back into the workforce.

Excuses, excuses, excuses.  That is ALL you have to offer and the countries you cite as having employed a wall usually did so to protect ONE PEOPLE.  The bottom line is, our Constitution was initially designed to secure the blessings of Liberty for the white race.  

You want China's wall, but don't want to answer the question as to whether you will one day advocate sending blacks back to Africa and getting rid of the Muslims, whose religion teaches that they will either convert or kill you.  You are not smart enough to understand that a question is NOT an allegation NOR is it calling you anything.  

You are siding with those who want to employ the laws of China, Mexico, and third world cesspools.  You are on the side that invokes the names of countries that are totalitarian dictatorships, communist regimes,  and countries at war.  You're the one inferring you want to be like them.  Trying to get the truth out of you on this issue is a chore.  It would be easier to stuff hot butter up a wild cat's butt with a red hot poker than to get an honest answer from you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOTHING I've said has been debunked.  It's the reason you've sunk to the low of throwing hissy fits and calling people names when they prove you wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> I use ridicule and insults because turds like you are immune to facts and logic.  Only a certain about of pain will dissuade you from trying to propagate your idiocies.  I attempt to make your behavior as painful as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You use name calling and insults because the facts don't favor you and you are too stupid to have an intelligent conversation.
> 
> It must be Hell being you when people from both of the aisle are exposing you for what you are... and you're so delusional that you believe you have what it takes to be in the conversation.  Little man, you don't pack the gear.  You are the one always citing communist countries, communist solutions and telling people how great Mexico's laws are.  Yet you stay in the United States.
> 
> BTW, since both the Israelis and Chinese use the border to protect a specific people, do you advocate shipping blacks back to Africa and getting rid of all the Muslims?  China is 98.5 percent Han Chinese.  Maybe if America were 98.5 percent white, your ideas might work.
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the asshole who calls me a Stalinist and a racist.  I use insults because turds like you are immune to facts and logic.  Now you're claiming that walls are racist, and by extension, anyone who supports them is racist.   You're a dumbass, of course.  None of your theories have any visible means of support.  All you're doing is making excuses for the success of all the actual examples of walls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not claim the wall idea is racist.  But, the wall idea has been used in other countries for the deliberate purpose to separate people based upon race, religion, etc.  NOBODY called you a Stalinist or a racist.  Get over yourself and answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Blue cities are racist as fuck..so your answer is Cabrini green, Robert Taylor home
> Segergated the black people?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


If you're trying to make a point, you failed.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you never dug dirt?
> 
> You stupid fuck, go pick up a shovel and start digging.. let's see how far you get.
Click to expand...


I grew up in the construction business.  I've spent as much time with shovels as you have with keyboards.  You just aren't making any sense with your cryptic posts.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I use ridicule and insults because turds like you are immune to facts and logic.  Only a certain about of pain will dissuade you from trying to propagate your idiocies.  I attempt to make your behavior as painful as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You use name calling and insults because the facts don't favor you and you are too stupid to have an intelligent conversation.
> 
> It must be Hell being you when people from both of the aisle are exposing you for what you are... and you're so delusional that you believe you have what it takes to be in the conversation.  Little man, you don't pack the gear.  You are the one always citing communist countries, communist solutions and telling people how great Mexico's laws are.  Yet you stay in the United States.
> 
> BTW, since both the Israelis and Chinese use the border to protect a specific people, do you advocate shipping blacks back to Africa and getting rid of all the Muslims?  China is 98.5 percent Han Chinese.  Maybe if America were 98.5 percent white, your ideas might work.
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the asshole who calls me a Stalinist and a racist.  I use insults because turds like you are immune to facts and logic.  Now you're claiming that walls are racist, and by extension, anyone who supports them is racist.   You're a dumbass, of course.  None of your theories have any visible means of support.  All you're doing is making excuses for the success of all the actual examples of walls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not claim the wall idea is racist.  But, the wall idea has been used in other countries for the deliberate purpose to separate people based upon race, religion, etc.  NOBODY called you a Stalinist or a racist.  Get over yourself and answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wait so a wall doesn't work, but segregation by zip codes work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you proofread that before you submitted it?  What does China's wall or the Israelis wall have to do with segregation by zip code?  WTH are you talking about?
> 
> It's time for another installment of my rant:
> 
> People like you posting every day, all day about this nutty wall idea have given us many different pretexts as to WHY you think you need a wall in the first place.
> 
> One of the pretexts was sovereignty.  That pretext doesn't work out unless you admit that the REAL objective is a One World Government since the sovereignty pretext means that the feds can tell states who they can and cannot do business with
> 
> Another pretext was safety.  That pretext doesn't work out either considering that Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up Essential Liberty of the promise of Temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty nor Safety
> 
> There were the accusations that the foreigners were taking jobs from Americans.  When it was pointed out that those non-working Americans, for the most part are addicted to welfare and government handouts and / or locked out of the system by a criminal record and / or drug use.  The majority of build the wall advocates don't think it's important to get Americans back into the workforce.
> 
> Excuses, excuses, excuses.  That is ALL you have to offer and the countries you cite as having employed a wall usually did so to protect ONE PEOPLE.  The bottom line is, our Constitution was initially designed to secure the blessings of Liberty for the white race.
> 
> You want China's wall, but don't want to answer the question as to whether you will one day advocate sending blacks back to Africa and getting rid of the Muslims, whose religion teaches that they will either convert or kill you.  You are not smart enough to understand that a question is NOT an allegation NOR is it calling you anything.
> 
> You are siding with those who want to employ the laws of China, Mexico, and third world cesspools.  You are on the side that invokes the names of countries that are totalitarian dictatorships, communist regimes,  and countries at war.  You're the one inferring you want to be like them.  Trying to get the truth out of you on this issue is a chore.  It would be easier to stuff hot butter up a wild cat's butt with a red hot poker than to get an honest answer from you.
Click to expand...



No let's go about digging a simple hole with a shovel..

Start digging..

You really think it's easy to dig a hole 40 feet down and start digging under shit?

It's huge man power .

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you never dug dirt?
> 
> You stupid fuck, go pick up a shovel and start digging.. let's see how far you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Start digging, you idiot..you need huge man power and money..
> 
> It's obvious you never dug a hole in your life
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


My father and I once dug an 80 foot deep well by hand.  Your ignorance is now beginning to show.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want no Iron Curtain built along our southern border.  This is not Berlin.
Click to expand...


So how often are you at our southern border where a wall will bother you?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you never dug dirt?
> 
> You stupid fuck, go pick up a shovel and start digging.. let's see how far you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I grew up in the construction business.  I've spent as much time with shovels as you have with keyboards.  You just aren't making any sense with your cryptic posts.
Click to expand...



You don't have no dirt under your nails..

Pretty boy..


It's a huge job .


You need air ventilation shafts


it cost money only the cartels of Mexico can deliver..





.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wall works to keep people out no matter if there is a conflict or not.  You can't say a wall will work on people who are at war but not for people who are not.  A wall either works or it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
Click to expand...


And how much time do they need to do the same without a wall?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you never dug dirt?
> 
> You stupid fuck, go pick up a shovel and start digging.. let's see how far you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Start digging, you idiot..you need huge man power and money..
> 
> It's obvious you never dug a hole in your life
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My father and I once dug an 80 foot deep well by hand.  Your ignorance is now beginning to show.
Click to expand...



80 feet down now dig vertical ..


You lying prick , like you wouldn't post what state you live in..


God damn you lie


.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You use name calling and insults because the facts don't favor you and you are too stupid to have an intelligent conversation.
> 
> It must be Hell being you when people from both of the aisle are exposing you for what you are... and you're so delusional that you believe you have what it takes to be in the conversation.  Little man, you don't pack the gear.  You are the one always citing communist countries, communist solutions and telling people how great Mexico's laws are.  Yet you stay in the United States.
> 
> BTW, since both the Israelis and Chinese use the border to protect a specific people, do you advocate shipping blacks back to Africa and getting rid of all the Muslims?  China is 98.5 percent Han Chinese.  Maybe if America were 98.5 percent white, your ideas might work.
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the asshole who calls me a Stalinist and a racist.  I use insults because turds like you are immune to facts and logic.  Now you're claiming that walls are racist, and by extension, anyone who supports them is racist.   You're a dumbass, of course.  None of your theories have any visible means of support.  All you're doing is making excuses for the success of all the actual examples of walls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not claim the wall idea is racist.  But, the wall idea has been used in other countries for the deliberate purpose to separate people based upon race, religion, etc.  NOBODY called you a Stalinist or a racist.  Get over yourself and answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wait so a wall doesn't work, but segregation by zip codes work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you proofread that before you submitted it?  What does China's wall or the Israelis wall have to do with segregation by zip code?  WTH are you talking about?
> 
> It's time for another installment of my rant:
> 
> People like you posting every day, all day about this nutty wall idea have given us many different pretexts as to WHY you think you need a wall in the first place.
> 
> One of the pretexts was sovereignty.  That pretext doesn't work out unless you admit that the REAL objective is a One World Government since the sovereignty pretext means that the feds can tell states who they can and cannot do business with
> 
> Another pretext was safety.  That pretext doesn't work out either considering that Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up Essential Liberty of the promise of Temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty nor Safety
> 
> There were the accusations that the foreigners were taking jobs from Americans.  When it was pointed out that those non-working Americans, for the most part are addicted to welfare and government handouts and / or locked out of the system by a criminal record and / or drug use.  The majority of build the wall advocates don't think it's important to get Americans back into the workforce.
> 
> Excuses, excuses, excuses.  That is ALL you have to offer and the countries you cite as having employed a wall usually did so to protect ONE PEOPLE.  The bottom line is, our Constitution was initially designed to secure the blessings of Liberty for the white race.
> 
> You want China's wall, but don't want to answer the question as to whether you will one day advocate sending blacks back to Africa and getting rid of the Muslims, whose religion teaches that they will either convert or kill you.  You are not smart enough to understand that a question is NOT an allegation NOR is it calling you anything.
> 
> You are siding with those who want to employ the laws of China, Mexico, and third world cesspools.  You are on the side that invokes the names of countries that are totalitarian dictatorships, communist regimes,  and countries at war.  You're the one inferring you want to be like them.  Trying to get the truth out of you on this issue is a chore.  It would be easier to stuff hot butter up a wild cat's butt with a red hot poker than to get an honest answer from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No let's go about digging a simple hole with a shovel..
> 
> Start digging..
> 
> You really think it's easy to dig a hole 40 feet down and start digging under shit?
> 
> It's huge man power .
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Mexicans have tunnels right now that start at homes in Mexico and come out in homes in the U.S.  I don't understand the relevance of that to anything I've said.

Trump said he was going to go with slats.  I thought up a device that would work much like the old bumper jacks of the cars of the 50s through the 70s with two foot legs at each end.  It would take three guys to hold it up and jack or break a couple of  slats in minutes, leaving a two foot wide gap to come in here by.

You should go with that.  The slat idea will be the easiest to breach.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Fucking digging a post hole for a fence is a bitch .


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how much time do they need to do the same without a wall?
Click to expand...



Is there a point to these deflections?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the asshole who calls me a Stalinist and a racist.  I use insults because turds like you are immune to facts and logic.  Now you're claiming that walls are racist, and by extension, anyone who supports them is racist.   You're a dumbass, of course.  None of your theories have any visible means of support.  All you're doing is making excuses for the success of all the actual examples of walls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not claim the wall idea is racist.  But, the wall idea has been used in other countries for the deliberate purpose to separate people based upon race, religion, etc.  NOBODY called you a Stalinist or a racist.  Get over yourself and answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wait so a wall doesn't work, but segregation by zip codes work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you proofread that before you submitted it?  What does China's wall or the Israelis wall have to do with segregation by zip code?  WTH are you talking about?
> 
> It's time for another installment of my rant:
> 
> People like you posting every day, all day about this nutty wall idea have given us many different pretexts as to WHY you think you need a wall in the first place.
> 
> One of the pretexts was sovereignty.  That pretext doesn't work out unless you admit that the REAL objective is a One World Government since the sovereignty pretext means that the feds can tell states who they can and cannot do business with
> 
> Another pretext was safety.  That pretext doesn't work out either considering that Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up Essential Liberty of the promise of Temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty nor Safety
> 
> There were the accusations that the foreigners were taking jobs from Americans.  When it was pointed out that those non-working Americans, for the most part are addicted to welfare and government handouts and / or locked out of the system by a criminal record and / or drug use.  The majority of build the wall advocates don't think it's important to get Americans back into the workforce.
> 
> Excuses, excuses, excuses.  That is ALL you have to offer and the countries you cite as having employed a wall usually did so to protect ONE PEOPLE.  The bottom line is, our Constitution was initially designed to secure the blessings of Liberty for the white race.
> 
> You want China's wall, but don't want to answer the question as to whether you will one day advocate sending blacks back to Africa and getting rid of the Muslims, whose religion teaches that they will either convert or kill you.  You are not smart enough to understand that a question is NOT an allegation NOR is it calling you anything.
> 
> You are siding with those who want to employ the laws of China, Mexico, and third world cesspools.  You are on the side that invokes the names of countries that are totalitarian dictatorships, communist regimes,  and countries at war.  You're the one inferring you want to be like them.  Trying to get the truth out of you on this issue is a chore.  It would be easier to stuff hot butter up a wild cat's butt with a red hot poker than to get an honest answer from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No let's go about digging a simple hole with a shovel..
> 
> Start digging..
> 
> You really think it's easy to dig a hole 40 feet down and start digging under shit?
> 
> It's huge man power .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexicans have tunnels right now that start at homes in Mexico and come out in homes in the U.S.  I don't understand the relevance of that to anything I've said.
> 
> Trump said he was going to go with slats.  I thought up a device that would work much like the old bumper jacks of the cars of the 50s through the 70s with two foot legs at each end.  It would take three guys to hold it up and jack or break a couple of  slats in minutes, leaving a two foot wide gap to come in here by.
> 
> You should go with that.  The slat idea will be the easiest to breach.
Click to expand...



Once again you idiot, it's huge man power..only the drug cartels can pull it off..


Like I said you never dug a hole in your life..


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Fucking digging a post hole for a fence is a bitch .



Damn son.  After all these exchanges, you finally give a clue as to what you're talking about.  I have several sets of post hole diggers and do this stuff on a regular basis.  Yes, it is hard work.

Obviously you don't like hard work.  Since white boys with drug habits and thinking the world owes them a living WON'T do it, somebody has to.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how much time do they need to do the same without a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a point to these deflections?
Click to expand...



Dig a fucking hole .I have and it's a bitch with a shovel.


You need a back hole, mechanical then it's easy .


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not claim the wall idea is racist.  But, the wall idea has been used in other countries for the deliberate purpose to separate people based upon race, religion, etc.  NOBODY called you a Stalinist or a racist.  Get over yourself and answer the questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait so a wall doesn't work, but segregation by zip codes work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you proofread that before you submitted it?  What does China's wall or the Israelis wall have to do with segregation by zip code?  WTH are you talking about?
> 
> It's time for another installment of my rant:
> 
> People like you posting every day, all day about this nutty wall idea have given us many different pretexts as to WHY you think you need a wall in the first place.
> 
> One of the pretexts was sovereignty.  That pretext doesn't work out unless you admit that the REAL objective is a One World Government since the sovereignty pretext means that the feds can tell states who they can and cannot do business with
> 
> Another pretext was safety.  That pretext doesn't work out either considering that Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up Essential Liberty of the promise of Temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty nor Safety
> 
> There were the accusations that the foreigners were taking jobs from Americans.  When it was pointed out that those non-working Americans, for the most part are addicted to welfare and government handouts and / or locked out of the system by a criminal record and / or drug use.  The majority of build the wall advocates don't think it's important to get Americans back into the workforce.
> 
> Excuses, excuses, excuses.  That is ALL you have to offer and the countries you cite as having employed a wall usually did so to protect ONE PEOPLE.  The bottom line is, our Constitution was initially designed to secure the blessings of Liberty for the white race.
> 
> You want China's wall, but don't want to answer the question as to whether you will one day advocate sending blacks back to Africa and getting rid of the Muslims, whose religion teaches that they will either convert or kill you.  You are not smart enough to understand that a question is NOT an allegation NOR is it calling you anything.
> 
> You are siding with those who want to employ the laws of China, Mexico, and third world cesspools.  You are on the side that invokes the names of countries that are totalitarian dictatorships, communist regimes,  and countries at war.  You're the one inferring you want to be like them.  Trying to get the truth out of you on this issue is a chore.  It would be easier to stuff hot butter up a wild cat's butt with a red hot poker than to get an honest answer from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No let's go about digging a simple hole with a shovel..
> 
> Start digging..
> 
> You really think it's easy to dig a hole 40 feet down and start digging under shit?
> 
> It's huge man power .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexicans have tunnels right now that start at homes in Mexico and come out in homes in the U.S.  I don't understand the relevance of that to anything I've said.
> 
> Trump said he was going to go with slats.  I thought up a device that would work much like the old bumper jacks of the cars of the 50s through the 70s with two foot legs at each end.  It would take three guys to hold it up and jack or break a couple of  slats in minutes, leaving a two foot wide gap to come in here by.
> 
> You should go with that.  The slat idea will be the easiest to breach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you idiot, it's huge man power..only the drug cartels can pull it off..
> 
> 
> Like I said you never dug a hole in your life..
Click to expand...


Come work with me for ONE DAY and I'll show you that you are the liar around here.  BTW, do you know what a Seabee is?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking digging a post hole for a fence is a bitch .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn son.  After all these exchanges, you finally give a clue as to what you're talking about.  I have several sets of post hole diggers and do this stuff on a regular basis.  Yes, it is hard work.
> 
> Obviously you don't like hard work.  Since white boys with drug habits and thinking the world owes them a living WON'T do it, somebody has to.
Click to expand...



So digging a 2 foot hole is a bitch, but  you think a 80 foot hole is easy then digging horizontal for 200 feet or so?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are other countries with similar problems to the US reporting great success with their wall?  Will it stop each and every one?  Probably not.  But if the reduction is 75% or better, it's money well spent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other countries are not fighting the same demons we are.  Walls work for communists, socialists, dictatorships and countries that are at war... then, they work temporarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall works to keep people out no matter if there is a conflict or not.  You can't say a wall will work on people who are at war but not for people who are not.  A wall either works or it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
Click to expand...


You people are all over this topic telling us how a wall won't work.  Well if that's the case, then why does it bother you if we build it? After all, this is what you want.......isn't it?  The ability for these people to easily cross over?

So we can say we are at an agreement.  The wall won't work, so put it up to make us happy and the illegals will still  be flowing through like water, and that will make you people happy.

Everybody's happy.  What a great way to start the new year.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how much time do they need to do the same without a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a point to these deflections?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dig a fucking hole .I have and it's a bitch with a shovel.
> 
> 
> You need a back hole, mechanical then it's easy .
Click to expand...



You call me an idiot and then make a faux pas that proves to all of us, beyond any question, that you are lying and full of crap.  Had you ever worked at digging holes with a shovel and knew of a better tool, you'd know it is a backhoe.  You heard it wrong in one of those paranoid meetings you attend.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So how often are you at our southern border where a wall will bother you?


This is a barrier free country.  I don't want to be bothered by a wall.  And I certainly don't want my tax dollars spent on a non-issue.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait so a wall doesn't work, but segregation by zip codes work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you proofread that before you submitted it?  What does China's wall or the Israelis wall have to do with segregation by zip code?  WTH are you talking about?
> 
> It's time for another installment of my rant:
> 
> People like you posting every day, all day about this nutty wall idea have given us many different pretexts as to WHY you think you need a wall in the first place.
> 
> One of the pretexts was sovereignty.  That pretext doesn't work out unless you admit that the REAL objective is a One World Government since the sovereignty pretext means that the feds can tell states who they can and cannot do business with
> 
> Another pretext was safety.  That pretext doesn't work out either considering that Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up Essential Liberty of the promise of Temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty nor Safety
> 
> There were the accusations that the foreigners were taking jobs from Americans.  When it was pointed out that those non-working Americans, for the most part are addicted to welfare and government handouts and / or locked out of the system by a criminal record and / or drug use.  The majority of build the wall advocates don't think it's important to get Americans back into the workforce.
> 
> Excuses, excuses, excuses.  That is ALL you have to offer and the countries you cite as having employed a wall usually did so to protect ONE PEOPLE.  The bottom line is, our Constitution was initially designed to secure the blessings of Liberty for the white race.
> 
> You want China's wall, but don't want to answer the question as to whether you will one day advocate sending blacks back to Africa and getting rid of the Muslims, whose religion teaches that they will either convert or kill you.  You are not smart enough to understand that a question is NOT an allegation NOR is it calling you anything.
> 
> You are siding with those who want to employ the laws of China, Mexico, and third world cesspools.  You are on the side that invokes the names of countries that are totalitarian dictatorships, communist regimes,  and countries at war.  You're the one inferring you want to be like them.  Trying to get the truth out of you on this issue is a chore.  It would be easier to stuff hot butter up a wild cat's butt with a red hot poker than to get an honest answer from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No let's go about digging a simple hole with a shovel..
> 
> Start digging..
> 
> You really think it's easy to dig a hole 40 feet down and start digging under shit?
> 
> It's huge man power .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexicans have tunnels right now that start at homes in Mexico and come out in homes in the U.S.  I don't understand the relevance of that to anything I've said.
> 
> Trump said he was going to go with slats.  I thought up a device that would work much like the old bumper jacks of the cars of the 50s through the 70s with two foot legs at each end.  It would take three guys to hold it up and jack or break a couple of  slats in minutes, leaving a two foot wide gap to come in here by.
> 
> You should go with that.  The slat idea will be the easiest to breach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you idiot, it's huge man power..only the drug cartels can pull it off..
> 
> 
> Like I said you never dug a hole in your life..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come work with me for ONE DAY and I'll show you that you are the liar around here.  BTW, do you know what a Seabee is?
Click to expand...



Ok I will and laugh at you,.. what the fuck i have dug holes before and it's a bitch  just going down a few inches. With a shovel.


----------



## Taz

Timmy said:


> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .


So you don't want to stop illegal immigration, just treat the problem more. Why?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how often are you at our southern border where a wall will bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> This is a barrier free country.  I don't want to be bothered by a wall.  And I certainly don't want my tax dollars spent on a non-issue.
Click to expand...



That's not what are laws say you stupid fucker


----------



## Wyatt earp

[


Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how much time do they need to do the same without a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a point to these deflections?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dig a fucking hole .I have and it's a bitch with a shovel.
> 
> 
> You need a back hole, mechanical then it's easy .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You call me an idiot and then make a faux pas that proves to all of us, beyond any question, that you are lying and full of crap.  Had you ever worked at digging holes with a shovel and knew of a better tool, you'd know it is a backhoe.  You heard it wrong in one of those paranoid meetings you attend.
Click to expand...



I have in Illinois and South Carolina it's a god damn bitch.. Even using back holes and track holes..you can get down to four feet..

You need a tremendous amount of man power..to then dig horizontal...


----------



## Billo_Really

bear513 said:


> That's not what are laws say you stupid fucker


Then you haven't read the American Disabilities Act.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other countries are not fighting the same demons we are.  Walls work for communists, socialists, dictatorships and countries that are at war... then, they work temporarily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A wall works to keep people out no matter if there is a conflict or not.  You can't say a wall will work on people who are at war but not for people who are not.  A wall either works or it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people are all over this topic telling us how a wall won't work.  Well if that's the case, then why does it bother you if we built it? After all, this is what you want.......don't you?  The ability for these people to easily cross over?
> 
> So we can say we are at an agreement.  The wall won't work, so put it up to make us happy and the illegals will still  be flowing through like water, and that will make you people happy.
> 
> Everybody's happy.  What a great way to start the new year.
Click to expand...



YOU are the one who is all over the place.  For example when I talked about the Americans who were on drugs as a reason that we have to fix that, you wanted a debate as whether or not ADD / ADHD were real conditions.

If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that I enjoy the Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled and died for.  

If you eliminate the incentives for foreigners to come here, they won't enter the U.S.  That is NOT what you're after.  You are on the side that had a problem with the Americans Right to own private property.  You and your ilk have been attacking it ever since this little immigration battle began.  You are on the side invoking the great successes of communist countries, dictatorships and countries at war with these nutty walls.  You hate private property Rights, Liberty, and you have no use for the free market.  I'm against the socialist utopia you are working toward.

Insofar as the immigrants, if you went back to the way America was designed to work, you would not have a problem with them.  And, son, you've spent so much time calling people names, I realize that you will be too damn stupid to read between the lines and understand that I gave you an unequivocal answer to your question about my attitude toward immigration and what I expect out of EVERY foreigner.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Billo_Really said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what are laws say you stupid fucker
> 
> 
> 
> Then you haven't read the American Disabilities Act.
Click to expand...



Kind of lame retort no?


You kept telling me you were a bad ass .

I keep on waiting for you to out flame me


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking digging a post hole for a fence is a bitch .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn son.  After all these exchanges, you finally give a clue as to what you're talking about.  I have several sets of post hole diggers and do this stuff on a regular basis.  Yes, it is hard work.
> 
> Obviously you don't like hard work.  Since white boys with drug habits and thinking the world owes them a living WON'T do it, somebody has to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So digging a 2 foot hole is a bitch, but  you think a 80 foot hole is easy then digging horizontal for 200 feet or so?
Click to expand...


When you come down from that acid trip, reread your posts and tell me what you were blathering about.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what are laws say you stupid fucker
> 
> 
> 
> Then you haven't read the American Disabilities Act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of lame retort no?
> 
> 
> You kept telling me you were a bad ass .
> 
> I keep on waiting for you to out flame me
Click to expand...


Maybe when he inferred he was a bad ass, he's not a keyboard commando like you.  You aren't proving anything by trying to intimidate people on a discussion board.  It's what you're willing to say to them to their face that counts.  Real bad asses seldom have protracted name calling contests on the Internet.  They cut the crap short, meet face to face and iron out their differences.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wall works to keep people out no matter if there is a conflict or not.  You can't say a wall will work on people who are at war but not for people who are not.  A wall either works or it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people are all over this topic telling us how a wall won't work.  Well if that's the case, then why does it bother you if we built it? After all, this is what you want.......don't you?  The ability for these people to easily cross over?
> 
> So we can say we are at an agreement.  The wall won't work, so put it up to make us happy and the illegals will still  be flowing through like water, and that will make you people happy.
> 
> Everybody's happy.  What a great way to start the new year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the one who is all over the place.  For example when I talked about the Americans who were on drugs as a reason that we have to fix that, you wanted a debate as whether or not ADD / ADHD were real conditions.
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that I enjoy the Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled and died for.
> 
> If you eliminate the incentives for foreigners to come here, they won't enter the U.S.  That is NOT what you're after.  You are on the side that had a problem with the Americans Right to own private property.  You and your ilk have been attacking it ever since this little immigration battle began.  You are on the side invoking the great successes of communist countries, dictatorships and countries at war with these nutty walls.  You hate private property Rights, Liberty, and you have no use for the free market.  I'm against the socialist utopia you are working toward.
> 
> Insofar as the immigrants, if you went back to the way America was designed to work, you would not have a problem with them.  And, son, you've spent so much time calling people names, I realize that you will be too damn stupid to read between the lines and understand that I gave you an unequivocal answer to your question about my attitude toward immigration and what I expect out of EVERY foreigner.
Click to expand...



*If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size,*


That's called being a *hypocrite*.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how often are you at our southern border where a wall will bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> This is a barrier free country.  I don't want to be bothered by a wall.  And I certainly don't want my tax dollars spent on a non-issue.
Click to expand...


Correct, this is a barrier free country, and that's why we have over 20 million illegals here.  If you don't think 20 million people here illegally is an issue, over 70,000 Americans dying from overdoses every year is an issue, Americans losing work and working for lower pay because of foreigners is an issue, Americans getting murdered by these foreigners is an issue, then what is an issue to you?  

I don't like that we spend 70 billion a  year on food stamps either; especially when I see the kind of people using them at my grocery store, but hey......... we keep spending it anyway.  

A wall that we originally wanted is less than half of that, and it's one time only, not an annual thing.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what are laws say you stupid fucker
> 
> 
> 
> Then you haven't read the American Disabilities Act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of lame retort no?
> 
> 
> You kept telling me you were a bad ass .
> 
> I keep on waiting for you to out flame me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe when he inferred he was a bad ass, he's not a keyboard commando like you.  You aren't proving anything by trying to intimidate people on a discussion board.  It's what you're willing to say to them to their face that counts.  Real bad asses seldom have protracted name calling contests on the Internet.  They cut the crap short, meet face to face and iron out their differences.
Click to expand...



You're a fucking hypocrite .

It's amazing how you bitch about people cutting you down and do the same thing to try to make a point, you're not even a fucking American


.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other countries are not fighting the same demons we are.  Walls work for communists, socialists, dictatorships and countries that are at war... then, they work temporarily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A wall works to keep people out no matter if there is a conflict or not.  You can't say a wall will work on people who are at war but not for people who are not.  A wall either works or it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people are all over this topic telling us how a wall won't work.  Well if that's the case, then why does it bother you if we build it? After all, this is what you want.......isn't it?  The ability for these people to easily cross over?
> 
> So we can say we are at an agreement.  The wall won't work, so put it up to make us happy and the illegals will still  be flowing through like water, and that will make you people happy.
> 
> Everybody's happy.  What a great way to start the new year.
Click to expand...



I've answered this many times, but the problem only begins when a wall is erected.  The problems it produces - seen and unforeseen will change America into a socialist cesspool.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Billo_Really said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what are laws say you stupid fucker
> 
> 
> 
> Then you haven't read the American Disabilities Act.
Click to expand...



Come on dude you keep on saying you are tough..take me on?



Or are you scared of me?


.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wall works to keep people out no matter if there is a conflict or not.  You can't say a wall will work on people who are at war but not for people who are not.  A wall either works or it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people are all over this topic telling us how a wall won't work.  Well if that's the case, then why does it bother you if we build it? After all, this is what you want.......isn't it?  The ability for these people to easily cross over?
> 
> So we can say we are at an agreement.  The wall won't work, so put it up to make us happy and the illegals will still  be flowing through like water, and that will make you people happy.
> 
> Everybody's happy.  What a great way to start the new year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered this many times, but the problem only begins when a wall is erected.  The problems it produces - seen and unforeseen will change America into a socialist cesspool.
Click to expand...



600 miles plus of the walls are already built..

You keep on talking in circles..

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what are laws say you stupid fucker
> 
> 
> 
> Then you haven't read the American Disabilities Act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of lame retort no?
> 
> 
> You kept telling me you were a bad ass .
> 
> I keep on waiting for you to out flame me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe when he inferred he was a bad ass, he's not a keyboard commando like you.  You aren't proving anything by trying to intimidate people on a discussion board.  It's what you're willing to say to them to their face that counts.  Real bad asses seldom have protracted name calling contests on the Internet.  They cut the crap short, meet face to face and iron out their differences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking hypocrite .
> 
> It's amazing how you bitch about people cutting you down and do the same thing to try to make a point, you're not even a fucking American
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


And I'd say you're standing in front of a mirror.  If you take a long and objective hard look, it took you a long time of calling me names and badgering me to get me to respond to your lame attempts at Internet intimidation.

YOU obviously hate the Constitution and everything it stands for.  If you had a point, you'd make it.  You have ZERO knowledge about how our laws work; you've never read a civics book or law book.  You're clueless when it comes to history.  You've spent the bulk of your life pecking a keyboard in places where equally misguided people think you're the man, but when you are confronted with those people that called you out, all you can do is come back with petty insults and allegations that, once you come off that high, will be embarrassed to say in public and you will even be thanking God your real name isn't attached to such crap here.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what are laws say you stupid fucker
> 
> 
> 
> Then you haven't read the American Disabilities Act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of lame retort no?
> 
> 
> You kept telling me you were a bad ass .
> 
> I keep on waiting for you to out flame me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe when he inferred he was a bad ass, he's not a keyboard commando like you.  You aren't proving anything by trying to intimidate people on a discussion board.  It's what you're willing to say to them to their face that counts.  Real bad asses seldom have protracted name calling contests on the Internet.  They cut the crap short, meet face to face and iron out their differences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking hypocrite .
> 
> It's amazing how you bitch about people cutting you down and do the same thing to try to make a point, you're not even a fucking American
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'd say you're standing in front of a mirror.  If you take a long and objective hard look, it took you a long time of calling me names and badgering me to get me to respond to your lame attempts at Internet intimidation.
> 
> YOU obviously hate the Constitution and everything it stands for.  If you had a point, you'd make it.  You have ZERO knowledge about how our laws work; you've never read a civics book or law book.  You're clueless when it comes to history.  You've spent the bulk of your life pecking a keyboard in places where equally misguided people think you're the man, but when you are confronted with those people that called you out, all you can do is come back with petty insults and allegations that, once you come off that high, will be embarrassed to say in public and you will even be thanking God your real name isn't attached to such crap here.
Click to expand...


Huh?

So i should be for anarchy as you suggest..


Dude keep talking ..I will fuck you up..


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people are all over this topic telling us how a wall won't work.  Well if that's the case, then why does it bother you if we build it? After all, this is what you want.......isn't it?  The ability for these people to easily cross over?
> 
> So we can say we are at an agreement.  The wall won't work, so put it up to make us happy and the illegals will still  be flowing through like water, and that will make you people happy.
> 
> Everybody's happy.  What a great way to start the new year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered this many times, but the problem only begins when a wall is erected.  The problems it produces - seen and unforeseen will change America into a socialist cesspool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 600 miles plus of the walls are already built..
> 
> You keep on talking in circles..
> 
> .
Click to expand...


When you get off that acid trip, let me know.  I don't talk in circles.  I've told you over and over and over again, that I'm convinced the wall is going to be built.  You've also been warned that the first victim to the deal that has been struck to give you what you want is the evisceration of the Second Amendment.

You are advocating treason and I hope that you are held accountable for the carnage that will befall many Americans due to your ignorance, arrogance and outright stupidity.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wall works to keep people out no matter if there is a conflict or not.  You can't say a wall will work on people who are at war but not for people who are not.  A wall either works or it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people are all over this topic telling us how a wall won't work.  Well if that's the case, then why does it bother you if we built it? After all, this is what you want.......don't you?  The ability for these people to easily cross over?
> 
> So we can say we are at an agreement.  The wall won't work, so put it up to make us happy and the illegals will still  be flowing through like water, and that will make you people happy.
> 
> Everybody's happy.  What a great way to start the new year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the one who is all over the place.  For example when I talked about the Americans who were on drugs as a reason that we have to fix that, you wanted a debate as whether or not ADD / ADHD were real conditions.
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that I enjoy the Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled and died for.
> 
> If you eliminate the incentives for foreigners to come here, they won't enter the U.S.  That is NOT what you're after.  You are on the side that had a problem with the Americans Right to own private property.  You and your ilk have been attacking it ever since this little immigration battle began.  You are on the side invoking the great successes of communist countries, dictatorships and countries at war with these nutty walls.  You hate private property Rights, Liberty, and you have no use for the free market.  I'm against the socialist utopia you are working toward.
> 
> Insofar as the immigrants, if you went back to the way America was designed to work, you would not have a problem with them.  And, son, you've spent so much time calling people names, I realize that you will be too damn stupid to read between the lines and understand that I gave you an unequivocal answer to your question about my attitude toward immigration and what I expect out of EVERY foreigner.
Click to expand...


Who have I called a name unprovoked?  Nobody.  If anything, it's you hurling the names.  I don't draw first blood on message boards.  Your personal insults like the one you just posted is a perfect example. 

The only people losing freedoms by a wall are the invaders themselves.  Unless you are an illegal yourself, then you're not going to lose one freedom and neither will I.  And if the wall is built and you are losing freedom, write back and I will support you in tearing down the wall.  

You mentioned several times you are an elderly person.  I think what you should do is keep a notepad by your computer, and write down key things people write.  Because it's getting quite annoying when you tell me about things I said that I never even mentioned, things like insulting people when I haven't unless I was returning an insult, things you think I'm against like property rights when I never brought up the subject, and that way you at least won't be called a liar so often.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you haven't read the American Disabilities Act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of lame retort no?
> 
> 
> You kept telling me you were a bad ass .
> 
> I keep on waiting for you to out flame me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe when he inferred he was a bad ass, he's not a keyboard commando like you.  You aren't proving anything by trying to intimidate people on a discussion board.  It's what you're willing to say to them to their face that counts.  Real bad asses seldom have protracted name calling contests on the Internet.  They cut the crap short, meet face to face and iron out their differences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking hypocrite .
> 
> It's amazing how you bitch about people cutting you down and do the same thing to try to make a point, you're not even a fucking American
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'd say you're standing in front of a mirror.  If you take a long and objective hard look, it took you a long time of calling me names and badgering me to get me to respond to your lame attempts at Internet intimidation.
> 
> YOU obviously hate the Constitution and everything it stands for.  If you had a point, you'd make it.  You have ZERO knowledge about how our laws work; you've never read a civics book or law book.  You're clueless when it comes to history.  You've spent the bulk of your life pecking a keyboard in places where equally misguided people think you're the man, but when you are confronted with those people that called you out, all you can do is come back with petty insults and allegations that, once you come off that high, will be embarrassed to say in public and you will even be thanking God your real name isn't attached to such crap here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> So i should be for anarchy as you suggest..
> 
> 
> Dude keep talking ..I will fuck you up..
Click to expand...



If that is a threat, you should take it to PM.  Idle threats don't impress me.  Again, on the celebration day of the birth of Christ, be glad you are not making the statements you are making in a public crowd.  A lot of people would not find it tolerable.  You have a Right to Freedom of the Press and you should be held accountable when you abuse the Right.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people are all over this topic telling us how a wall won't work.  Well if that's the case, then why does it bother you if we built it? After all, this is what you want.......don't you?  The ability for these people to easily cross over?
> 
> So we can say we are at an agreement.  The wall won't work, so put it up to make us happy and the illegals will still  be flowing through like water, and that will make you people happy.
> 
> Everybody's happy.  What a great way to start the new year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the one who is all over the place.  For example when I talked about the Americans who were on drugs as a reason that we have to fix that, you wanted a debate as whether or not ADD / ADHD were real conditions.
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that I enjoy the Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled and died for.
> 
> If you eliminate the incentives for foreigners to come here, they won't enter the U.S.  That is NOT what you're after.  You are on the side that had a problem with the Americans Right to own private property.  You and your ilk have been attacking it ever since this little immigration battle began.  You are on the side invoking the great successes of communist countries, dictatorships and countries at war with these nutty walls.  You hate private property Rights, Liberty, and you have no use for the free market.  I'm against the socialist utopia you are working toward.
> 
> Insofar as the immigrants, if you went back to the way America was designed to work, you would not have a problem with them.  And, son, you've spent so much time calling people names, I realize that you will be too damn stupid to read between the lines and understand that I gave you an unequivocal answer to your question about my attitude toward immigration and what I expect out of EVERY foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who have I called a name unprovoked?  Nobody.  If anything, it's you hurling the names.  I don't draw first blood on message boards.  Your personal insults like the one you just posted is a perfect example.
> 
> The only people losing freedoms by a wall are the invaders themselves.  Unless you are an illegal yourself, then you're not going to lose one freedom and neither will I.  And if the wall is built and you are losing freedom, write back and I will support you in tearing down the wall.
> 
> You mentioned several times you are an elderly person.  I think what you should do is keep a notepad by your computer, and write down key things people write.  Because it's getting quite annoying when you tell me about things I said that I never even mentioned, things like insulting people when I haven't unless I was returning an insult, things you think I'm against like property rights when I never brought up the subject, and that way you at least won't be called a liar so often.
Click to expand...


I've never initiated any name calling.  And since you're making the allegation, what name did I call you?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of lame retort no?
> 
> 
> You kept telling me you were a bad ass .
> 
> I keep on waiting for you to out flame me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe when he inferred he was a bad ass, he's not a keyboard commando like you.  You aren't proving anything by trying to intimidate people on a discussion board.  It's what you're willing to say to them to their face that counts.  Real bad asses seldom have protracted name calling contests on the Internet.  They cut the crap short, meet face to face and iron out their differences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking hypocrite .
> 
> It's amazing how you bitch about people cutting you down and do the same thing to try to make a point, you're not even a fucking American
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'd say you're standing in front of a mirror.  If you take a long and objective hard look, it took you a long time of calling me names and badgering me to get me to respond to your lame attempts at Internet intimidation.
> 
> YOU obviously hate the Constitution and everything it stands for.  If you had a point, you'd make it.  You have ZERO knowledge about how our laws work; you've never read a civics book or law book.  You're clueless when it comes to history.  You've spent the bulk of your life pecking a keyboard in places where equally misguided people think you're the man, but when you are confronted with those people that called you out, all you can do is come back with petty insults and allegations that, once you come off that high, will be embarrassed to say in public and you will even be thanking God your real name isn't attached to such crap here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> So i should be for anarchy as you suggest..
> 
> 
> Dude keep talking ..I will fuck you up..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If that is a threat, you should take it to PM.  Idle threats don't impress me.  Again, on the celebration day of the birth of Christ, be glad you are not making the statements you are making in a public crowd.  A lot of people would not find it tolerable.  You have a Right to Freedom of the Press and you should be held accountable when you abuse the Right.
Click to expand...



Uhm so you are anti fag?


Of course so..


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe when he inferred he was a bad ass, he's not a keyboard commando like you.  You aren't proving anything by trying to intimidate people on a discussion board.  It's what you're willing to say to them to their face that counts.  Real bad asses seldom have protracted name calling contests on the Internet.  They cut the crap short, meet face to face and iron out their differences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking hypocrite .
> 
> It's amazing how you bitch about people cutting you down and do the same thing to try to make a point, you're not even a fucking American
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'd say you're standing in front of a mirror.  If you take a long and objective hard look, it took you a long time of calling me names and badgering me to get me to respond to your lame attempts at Internet intimidation.
> 
> YOU obviously hate the Constitution and everything it stands for.  If you had a point, you'd make it.  You have ZERO knowledge about how our laws work; you've never read a civics book or law book.  You're clueless when it comes to history.  You've spent the bulk of your life pecking a keyboard in places where equally misguided people think you're the man, but when you are confronted with those people that called you out, all you can do is come back with petty insults and allegations that, once you come off that high, will be embarrassed to say in public and you will even be thanking God your real name isn't attached to such crap here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> So i should be for anarchy as you suggest..
> 
> 
> Dude keep talking ..I will fuck you up..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If that is a threat, you should take it to PM.  Idle threats don't impress me.  Again, on the celebration day of the birth of Christ, be glad you are not making the statements you are making in a public crowd.  A lot of people would not find it tolerable.  You have a Right to Freedom of the Press and you should be held accountable when you abuse the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm so you are anti fag?
> 
> 
> Of course so..
Click to expand...


Are YOU a "fag?"


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of lame retort no?
> 
> 
> You kept telling me you were a bad ass .
> 
> I keep on waiting for you to out flame me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe when he inferred he was a bad ass, he's not a keyboard commando like you.  You aren't proving anything by trying to intimidate people on a discussion board.  It's what you're willing to say to them to their face that counts.  Real bad asses seldom have protracted name calling contests on the Internet.  They cut the crap short, meet face to face and iron out their differences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking hypocrite .
> 
> It's amazing how you bitch about people cutting you down and do the same thing to try to make a point, you're not even a fucking American
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'd say you're standing in front of a mirror.  If you take a long and objective hard look, it took you a long time of calling me names and badgering me to get me to respond to your lame attempts at Internet intimidation.
> 
> YOU obviously hate the Constitution and everything it stands for.  If you had a point, you'd make it.  You have ZERO knowledge about how our laws work; you've never read a civics book or law book.  You're clueless when it comes to history.  You've spent the bulk of your life pecking a keyboard in places where equally misguided people think you're the man, but when you are confronted with those people that called you out, all you can do is come back with petty insults and allegations that, once you come off that high, will be embarrassed to say in public and you will even be thanking God your real name isn't attached to such crap here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> So i should be for anarchy as you suggest..
> 
> 
> Dude keep talking ..I will fuck you up..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If that is a threat, you should take it to PM.  Idle threats don't impress me.  Again, on the celebration day of the birth of Christ, be glad you are not making the statements you are making in a public crowd.  A lot of people would not find it tolerable.  You have a Right to Freedom of the Press and you should be held accountable when you abuse the Right.
Click to expand...


Don't give me any of that, you logged on to this site because your a paid troll . fucking propaganda like greenbeard was during Obama care..


I *know your shit Tom steyer..

You little billionare faggot

.*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people are all over this topic telling us how a wall won't work.  Well if that's the case, then why does it bother you if we built it? After all, this is what you want.......don't you?  The ability for these people to easily cross over?
> 
> So we can say we are at an agreement.  The wall won't work, so put it up to make us happy and the illegals will still  be flowing through like water, and that will make you people happy.
> 
> Everybody's happy.  What a great way to start the new year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the one who is all over the place.  For example when I talked about the Americans who were on drugs as a reason that we have to fix that, you wanted a debate as whether or not ADD / ADHD were real conditions.
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that I enjoy the Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled and died for.
> 
> If you eliminate the incentives for foreigners to come here, they won't enter the U.S.  That is NOT what you're after.  You are on the side that had a problem with the Americans Right to own private property.  You and your ilk have been attacking it ever since this little immigration battle began.  You are on the side invoking the great successes of communist countries, dictatorships and countries at war with these nutty walls.  You hate private property Rights, Liberty, and you have no use for the free market.  I'm against the socialist utopia you are working toward.
> 
> Insofar as the immigrants, if you went back to the way America was designed to work, you would not have a problem with them.  And, son, you've spent so much time calling people names, I realize that you will be too damn stupid to read between the lines and understand that I gave you an unequivocal answer to your question about my attitude toward immigration and what I expect out of EVERY foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who have I called a name unprovoked?  Nobody.  If anything, it's you hurling the names.  I don't draw first blood on message boards.  Your personal insults like the one you just posted is a perfect example.
> 
> The only people losing freedoms by a wall are the invaders themselves.  Unless you are an illegal yourself, then you're not going to lose one freedom and neither will I.  And if the wall is built and you are losing freedom, write back and I will support you in tearing down the wall.
> 
> You mentioned several times you are an elderly person.  I think what you should do is keep a notepad by your computer, and write down key things people write.  Because it's getting quite annoying when you tell me about things I said that I never even mentioned, things like insulting people when I haven't unless I was returning an insult, things you think I'm against like property rights when I never brought up the subject, and that way you at least won't be called a liar so often.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never initiated any name calling.  And since you're making the allegation, what name did I call you?
Click to expand...




Porter Rockwell said:


> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that



See?  Crap like that; personal insults.  I didn't say one thing to you on that level for you to respond that way.  Like I said, you stated you were an elderly person, and as people age, they get more confused.  That's why I suggested that perhaps you keep a note pad and write things down so you at least know who said what.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking hypocrite .
> 
> It's amazing how you bitch about people cutting you down and do the same thing to try to make a point, you're not even a fucking American
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I'd say you're standing in front of a mirror.  If you take a long and objective hard look, it took you a long time of calling me names and badgering me to get me to respond to your lame attempts at Internet intimidation.
> 
> YOU obviously hate the Constitution and everything it stands for.  If you had a point, you'd make it.  You have ZERO knowledge about how our laws work; you've never read a civics book or law book.  You're clueless when it comes to history.  You've spent the bulk of your life pecking a keyboard in places where equally misguided people think you're the man, but when you are confronted with those people that called you out, all you can do is come back with petty insults and allegations that, once you come off that high, will be embarrassed to say in public and you will even be thanking God your real name isn't attached to such crap here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> So i should be for anarchy as you suggest..
> 
> 
> Dude keep talking ..I will fuck you up..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If that is a threat, you should take it to PM.  Idle threats don't impress me.  Again, on the celebration day of the birth of Christ, be glad you are not making the statements you are making in a public crowd.  A lot of people would not find it tolerable.  You have a Right to Freedom of the Press and you should be held accountable when you abuse the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm so you are anti fag?
> 
> 
> Of course so..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are YOU a "fag?"
Click to expand...



3 kids and 5 step children why would you suggest that paid troll?


----------



## danielpalos

Our federal doctrine has a better solution and is more doctrinal than right wing fantasy.


----------



## Dragonlady

bripat9643 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flopper stupidly assumes that we will have border patrol stationed only every 60 miles since he says it would take them 30 minutes to get to any spot on the wall.  How many people would it take to have border patrol stationed every 5 miles?  Then it would take 2 1/2 minutes to get to any point on the wall.  The agents could simply wait in their building monitoring the wall with cameras on the wall and/or with drones.  Long before any potential border crossers got to the wall, the border patrol could be there waiting for them.
> 
> Idiots like Flopper claim the wall won't work only by claiming the border patrol is stupid.  Yet these people are supposedly savvy enough to prevent border crossings without a wall.  Nothing these idiots say makes sense on even basic level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are absolutely correct.
> 
> Our agencies that fight this problem have decades of experience.  We have the best engineers in the world not to mention security forces.  And while these forces support the Presidents idea of a wall.......they will simply take a ladder and jump over it according to those that are against a wall.
> 
> Like gee...........didn't it ever occur to these people that our security forces considered that already????
> 
> Yes.....we have posted links, stories, success of walls built in other places, yet they continue to try and convince us that those links are fake; walls are temporary; they will not stand the test of time.....
> 
> And it's my suspicion that none of these people ever carried a ladder large enough to accomplish this feat.   I'm from a construction family.  I worked as a laborer for my bricklayer father since the age of 11.  I know what it's like to be three stories high with little around you to stop you from falling.
> 
> Deep down inside (regardless what they say here) they too know a wall would reduce drugs and illegals invading our country.  Because if they really believed it would be a waste of time and money, they would welcome the idea of a wall to rub our noses in it for generations to come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The goal of building border barriers is to delay intruders till the guards get there.  In densely populated areas where border crossing are very common barriers are monitored and guards arrive in a few minutes of an intrusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what makes you think that can't be done alone the entire length of the wall?
Click to expand...


The cost would be prohibitive. Walls do nothing but give a false sense of security. It easier to breach a wall because they’re not well guarded. And people on the other side think they’re safe. 

Even in medieval times when everyone built walls, they were built to give defenders the advantage of height, over their aggressors, not just to keep people out. But even manned and heavily fortified walls didn’t keep the people inside safe or secure.


----------



## Wyatt earp

danielpalos said:


> Our federal doctrine has a better solution and is more doctrinal than right wing fantasy.




So that was good bud?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Dragonlady said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper stupidly assumes that we will have border patrol stationed only every 60 miles since he says it would take them 30 minutes to get to any spot on the wall.  How many people would it take to have border patrol stationed every 5 miles?  Then it would take 2 1/2 minutes to get to any point on the wall.  The agents could simply wait in their building monitoring the wall with cameras on the wall and/or with drones.  Long before any potential border crossers got to the wall, the border patrol could be there waiting for them.
> 
> Idiots like Flopper claim the wall won't work only by claiming the border patrol is stupid.  Yet these people are supposedly savvy enough to prevent border crossings without a wall.  Nothing these idiots say makes sense on even basic level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are absolutely correct.
> 
> Our agencies that fight this problem have decades of experience.  We have the best engineers in the world not to mention security forces.  And while these forces support the Presidents idea of a wall.......they will simply take a ladder and jump over it according to those that are against a wall.
> 
> Like gee...........didn't it ever occur to these people that our security forces considered that already????
> 
> Yes.....we have posted links, stories, success of walls built in other places, yet they continue to try and convince us that those links are fake; walls are temporary; they will not stand the test of time.....
> 
> And it's my suspicion that none of these people ever carried a ladder large enough to accomplish this feat.   I'm from a construction family.  I worked as a laborer for my bricklayer father since the age of 11.  I know what it's like to be three stories high with little around you to stop you from falling.
> 
> Deep down inside (regardless what they say here) they too know a wall would reduce drugs and illegals invading our country.  Because if they really believed it would be a waste of time and money, they would welcome the idea of a wall to rub our noses in it for generations to come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The goal of building border barriers is to delay intruders till the guards get there.  In densely populated areas where border crossing are very common barriers are monitored and guards arrive in a few minutes of an intrusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what makes you think that can't be done alone the entire length of the wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cost would be prohibitive. Walls do nothing but give a false sense of security. It easier to breach a wall because they’re not well guarded. And people on the other side think they’re safe.
> 
> Even in medieval times when everyone built walls, they were built to give defenders the advantage of height, over their aggressors, not just to keep people out. But even manned and heavily fortified walls didn’t keep the people inside safe or secure.
Click to expand...



So you suggest we dont need walls around swimming pools , because toddlers and dogs can dig under them
Or get a ladder and go over them?


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal doctrine has a better solution and is more doctrinal than right wing fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that was good bud?
Click to expand...

so much better than right wing fantasy, every time.


----------



## Wyatt earp

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal doctrine has a better solution and is more doctrinal than right wing fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that was good bud?
Click to expand...


Merry Christmas danielpalos...




I love you bro


----------



## Wyatt earp

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal doctrine has a better solution and is more doctrinal than right wing fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that was good bud?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so much better than right wing fantasy, every time.
Click to expand...



Faggot.


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal doctrine has a better solution and is more doctrinal than right wing fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that was good bud?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so much better than right wing fantasy, every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Faggot.
Click to expand...

sore loser, bro?


----------



## Wyatt earp

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal doctrine has a better solution and is more doctrinal than right wing fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that was good bud?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so much better than right wing fantasy, every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Faggot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sore loser, bro?
Click to expand...



I said Merry Christmas faggot, and I would miss you if your gone dick weed asshole..


What more do you want?




.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dragonlady said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper stupidly assumes that we will have border patrol stationed only every 60 miles since he says it would take them 30 minutes to get to any spot on the wall.  How many people would it take to have border patrol stationed every 5 miles?  Then it would take 2 1/2 minutes to get to any point on the wall.  The agents could simply wait in their building monitoring the wall with cameras on the wall and/or with drones.  Long before any potential border crossers got to the wall, the border patrol could be there waiting for them.
> 
> Idiots like Flopper claim the wall won't work only by claiming the border patrol is stupid.  Yet these people are supposedly savvy enough to prevent border crossings without a wall.  Nothing these idiots say makes sense on even basic level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are absolutely correct.
> 
> Our agencies that fight this problem have decades of experience.  We have the best engineers in the world not to mention security forces.  And while these forces support the Presidents idea of a wall.......they will simply take a ladder and jump over it according to those that are against a wall.
> 
> Like gee...........didn't it ever occur to these people that our security forces considered that already????
> 
> Yes.....we have posted links, stories, success of walls built in other places, yet they continue to try and convince us that those links are fake; walls are temporary; they will not stand the test of time.....
> 
> And it's my suspicion that none of these people ever carried a ladder large enough to accomplish this feat.   I'm from a construction family.  I worked as a laborer for my bricklayer father since the age of 11.  I know what it's like to be three stories high with little around you to stop you from falling.
> 
> Deep down inside (regardless what they say here) they too know a wall would reduce drugs and illegals invading our country.  Because if they really believed it would be a waste of time and money, they would welcome the idea of a wall to rub our noses in it for generations to come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The goal of building border barriers is to delay intruders till the guards get there.  In densely populated areas where border crossing are very common barriers are monitored and guards arrive in a few minutes of an intrusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what makes you think that can't be done alone the entire length of the wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cost would be prohibitive. Walls do nothing but give a false sense of security. It easier to breach a wall because they’re not well guarded. And people on the other side think they’re safe.
> 
> Even in medieval times when everyone built walls, they were built to give defenders the advantage of height, over their aggressors, not just to keep people out. But even manned and heavily fortified walls didn’t keep the people inside safe or secure.
Click to expand...


Great.  So let's build the wall and when it doesn't work, you can brag how correct you were and the illegals will still be invading our country because the wall won't stop them. 

I think that's a fair tradeoff.


----------



## danielpalos

There is no express wall building power.  Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe when he inferred he was a bad ass, he's not a keyboard commando like you.  You aren't proving anything by trying to intimidate people on a discussion board.  It's what you're willing to say to them to their face that counts.  Real bad asses seldom have protracted name calling contests on the Internet.  They cut the crap short, meet face to face and iron out their differences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking hypocrite .
> 
> It's amazing how you bitch about people cutting you down and do the same thing to try to make a point, you're not even a fucking American
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'd say you're standing in front of a mirror.  If you take a long and objective hard look, it took you a long time of calling me names and badgering me to get me to respond to your lame attempts at Internet intimidation.
> 
> YOU obviously hate the Constitution and everything it stands for.  If you had a point, you'd make it.  You have ZERO knowledge about how our laws work; you've never read a civics book or law book.  You're clueless when it comes to history.  You've spent the bulk of your life pecking a keyboard in places where equally misguided people think you're the man, but when you are confronted with those people that called you out, all you can do is come back with petty insults and allegations that, once you come off that high, will be embarrassed to say in public and you will even be thanking God your real name isn't attached to such crap here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> So i should be for anarchy as you suggest..
> 
> 
> Dude keep talking ..I will fuck you up..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If that is a threat, you should take it to PM.  Idle threats don't impress me.  Again, on the celebration day of the birth of Christ, be glad you are not making the statements you are making in a public crowd.  A lot of people would not find it tolerable.  You have a Right to Freedom of the Press and you should be held accountable when you abuse the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't give me any of that, you logged on to this site because your a paid troll . fucking propaganda like greenbeard was during Obama care..
> 
> 
> I *know your shit Tom steyer..
> 
> You little billionare faggot
> 
> .*
Click to expand...


I wish someone would pay me for posting here.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking hypocrite .
> 
> It's amazing how you bitch about people cutting you down and do the same thing to try to make a point, you're not even a fucking American
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I'd say you're standing in front of a mirror.  If you take a long and objective hard look, it took you a long time of calling me names and badgering me to get me to respond to your lame attempts at Internet intimidation.
> 
> YOU obviously hate the Constitution and everything it stands for.  If you had a point, you'd make it.  You have ZERO knowledge about how our laws work; you've never read a civics book or law book.  You're clueless when it comes to history.  You've spent the bulk of your life pecking a keyboard in places where equally misguided people think you're the man, but when you are confronted with those people that called you out, all you can do is come back with petty insults and allegations that, once you come off that high, will be embarrassed to say in public and you will even be thanking God your real name isn't attached to such crap here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> So i should be for anarchy as you suggest..
> 
> 
> Dude keep talking ..I will fuck you up..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If that is a threat, you should take it to PM.  Idle threats don't impress me.  Again, on the celebration day of the birth of Christ, be glad you are not making the statements you are making in a public crowd.  A lot of people would not find it tolerable.  You have a Right to Freedom of the Press and you should be held accountable when you abuse the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't give me any of that, you logged on to this site because your a paid troll . fucking propaganda like greenbeard was during Obama care..
> 
> 
> I *know your shit Tom steyer..
> 
> You little billionare faggot
> 
> .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish someone would pay me for posting here.
Click to expand...



You are a paid troll..

It's easy to tell when they post 100 words of nonsense.


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wall works to keep people out no matter if there is a conflict or not.  You can't say a wall will work on people who are at war but not for people who are not.  A wall either works or it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
Click to expand...



Handful?  A grand?  I know my tools.  Please give us a list of these tools that you say can defeat most any wall with.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper stupidly assumes that we will have border patrol stationed only every 60 miles since he says it would take them 30 minutes to get to any spot on the wall.  How many people would it take to have border patrol stationed every 5 miles?  Then it would take 2 1/2 minutes to get to any point on the wall.  The agents could simply wait in their building monitoring the wall with cameras on the wall and/or with drones.  Long before any potential border crossers got to the wall, the border patrol could be there waiting for them.
> 
> Idiots like Flopper claim the wall won't work only by claiming the border patrol is stupid.  Yet these people are supposedly savvy enough to prevent border crossings without a wall.  Nothing these idiots say makes sense on even basic level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely correct.
> 
> Our agencies that fight this problem have decades of experience.  We have the best engineers in the world not to mention security forces.  And while these forces support the Presidents idea of a wall.......they will simply take a ladder and jump over it according to those that are against a wall.
> 
> Like gee...........didn't it ever occur to these people that our security forces considered that already????
> 
> Yes.....we have posted links, stories, success of walls built in other places, yet they continue to try and convince us that those links are fake; walls are temporary; they will not stand the test of time.....
> 
> And it's my suspicion that none of these people ever carried a ladder large enough to accomplish this feat.   I'm from a construction family.  I worked as a laborer for my bricklayer father since the age of 11.  I know what it's like to be three stories high with little around you to stop you from falling.
> 
> Deep down inside (regardless what they say here) they too know a wall would reduce drugs and illegals invading our country.  Because if they really believed it would be a waste of time and money, they would welcome the idea of a wall to rub our noses in it for generations to come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The goal of building border barriers is to delay intruders till the guards get there.  In densely populated areas where border crossing are very common barriers are monitored and guards arrive in a few minutes of an intrusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what makes you think that can't be done alone the entire length of the wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cost would be prohibitive. Walls do nothing but give a false sense of security. It easier to breach a wall because they’re not well guarded. And people on the other side think they’re safe.
> 
> Even in medieval times when everyone built walls, they were built to give defenders the advantage of height, over their aggressors, not just to keep people out. But even manned and heavily fortified walls didn’t keep the people inside safe or secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great.  So let's build the wall and when it doesn't work, you can brag how correct you were and the illegals will still be invading our country because the wall won't stop them.
> 
> I think that's a fair tradeoff.
Click to expand...


If your grip on reality were as good as the grip on your handgun, you might actually have an IQ as large as your shoe size.

NOBODY is invading this country.  The people from south of the border are being welcomed in by Americans willingly hiring them and doing business with them.

The three best things you can do to affect the situation:

*  Don't do business with companies that use foreign labor
*  Petition your congresscritters to make sure that entitlements and welfare are expressly benefits of citizenship not available to foreigners
*  Help put Americans locked out of the system back to work


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want no Iron Curtain built along our southern border.  This is not Berlin.
Click to expand...

It's not the Berlin wall, dumbass.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you never dug dirt?
> 
> You stupid fuck, go pick up a shovel and start digging.. let's see how far you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Start digging, you idiot..you need huge man power and money..
> 
> It's obvious you never dug a hole in your life
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My father and I once dug an 80 foot deep well by hand.  Your ignorance is now beginning to show.
Click to expand...

How long did that take?


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> You call me an idiot



That's because you are an idiot and a jive MFer too.  So far you have not responded to a single question or challenge to explain or justify any of your wild claims.  You're so damned sure a wall can't work despite it working everywhere else you're not willing to even try.  You totally deny the vast cost and potential threat of mass illegal invasions by unknown and unvetted people across thousands of miles of border that the wall would largely save us from while claiming the whole world hates us and is out to get us.  Don't you know that with cameras, electronic screening and vibration detectors, we can monitor every inch of that wall if we choose?!

Europe built a high speed train at huge cost to solve a big problem.  Our big problem to solve is our wide open southern border.   Everywhere I go I see foreign riff raff that has no money and can't even speak English.  They are not wanted.  Time to cut off the supply route of cheap labor and cheap democrat votes.  I don't need these low lifes picking my next president.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

toobfreak said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How effective do think a prison wall would be if the guards were say 5 or 10 miles away.  That's the situation you would have on most of the border.  All it takes to go over a wall is a ladder and a couple of minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Handful?  A grand?  I know my tools.  Please give us a list of these tools that you say can defeat most any wall with.
Click to expand...


https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01AX4AWO6/?tag=ff0d01-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B079FBDLSQ/?tag=ff0d01-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0757944LV/?tag=ff0d01-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006ZB97ES/?tag=ff0d01-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01FZRVCQI/?tag=ff0d01-20

You'll begin to get the idea.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You people are all over this topic telling us how a wall won't work.  Well if that's the case, then why does it bother you if we built it? After all, this is what you want.......don't you?  The ability for these people to easily cross over?
> 
> So we can say we are at an agreement.  The wall won't work, so put it up to make us happy and the illegals will still  be flowing through like water, and that will make you people happy.
> 
> Everybody's happy.  What a great way to start the new year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the one who is all over the place.  For example when I talked about the Americans who were on drugs as a reason that we have to fix that, you wanted a debate as whether or not ADD / ADHD were real conditions.
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that I enjoy the Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled and died for.
> 
> If you eliminate the incentives for foreigners to come here, they won't enter the U.S.  That is NOT what you're after.  You are on the side that had a problem with the Americans Right to own private property.  You and your ilk have been attacking it ever since this little immigration battle began.  You are on the side invoking the great successes of communist countries, dictatorships and countries at war with these nutty walls.  You hate private property Rights, Liberty, and you have no use for the free market.  I'm against the socialist utopia you are working toward.
> 
> Insofar as the immigrants, if you went back to the way America was designed to work, you would not have a problem with them.  And, son, you've spent so much time calling people names, I realize that you will be too damn stupid to read between the lines and understand that I gave you an unequivocal answer to your question about my attitude toward immigration and what I expect out of EVERY foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who have I called a name unprovoked?  Nobody.  If anything, it's you hurling the names.  I don't draw first blood on message boards.  Your personal insults like the one you just posted is a perfect example.
> 
> The only people losing freedoms by a wall are the invaders themselves.  Unless you are an illegal yourself, then you're not going to lose one freedom and neither will I.  And if the wall is built and you are losing freedom, write back and I will support you in tearing down the wall.
> 
> You mentioned several times you are an elderly person.  I think what you should do is keep a notepad by your computer, and write down key things people write.  Because it's getting quite annoying when you tell me about things I said that I never even mentioned, things like insulting people when I haven't unless I was returning an insult, things you think I'm against like property rights when I never brought up the subject, and that way you at least won't be called a liar so often.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never initiated any name calling.  And since you're making the allegation, what name did I call you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  Crap like that; personal insults.  I didn't say one thing to you on that level for you to respond that way.  Like I said, you stated you were an elderly person, and as people age, they get more confused.  That's why I suggested that perhaps you keep a note pad and write things down so you at least know who said what.
Click to expand...


You continue to accuse me of "being all over the place" for responding to issues YOU inquire about

You continue to want to cover questions asked and answered

You continue to post things you think are authoritative without providing any verifiable references save of those from socialist and / or partisan propaganda sites

You ignore the views of others even when such views are based upon legal principles, verifiable non-partisan studies, and plain old common sense

You continue to promote the political ideologies of totalitarian governments, communists, and socialists.

At some point you merit an equal response.


----------



## danielpalos

toobfreak said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You call me an idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you are an idiot and a jive MFer too.  So far you have not responded to a single question or challenge to explain or justify any of your wild claims.  You're so damned sure a wall can't work despite it working everywhere else you're not willing to even try.  You totally deny the vast cost and potential threat of mass illegal invasions by unknown and unvetted people across thousands of miles of border that the wall would largely save us from while claiming the whole world hates us and is out to get us.  Don't you know that with cameras, electronic screening and vibration detectors, we can monitor every inch of that wall if we choose?!
> 
> Europe built a high speed train at huge cost to solve a big problem.  Our big problem to solve is our wide open southern border.   Everywhere I go I see foreign riff raff that has no money and can't even speak English.  They are not wanted.  Time to cut off the supply route of cheap labor and cheap democrat votes.  I don't need these low lifes picking my next president.
Click to expand...

Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I'd say you're standing in front of a mirror.  If you take a long and objective hard look, it took you a long time of calling me names and badgering me to get me to respond to your lame attempts at Internet intimidation.
> 
> YOU obviously hate the Constitution and everything it stands for.  If you had a point, you'd make it.  You have ZERO knowledge about how our laws work; you've never read a civics book or law book.  You're clueless when it comes to history.  You've spent the bulk of your life pecking a keyboard in places where equally misguided people think you're the man, but when you are confronted with those people that called you out, all you can do is come back with petty insults and allegations that, once you come off that high, will be embarrassed to say in public and you will even be thanking God your real name isn't attached to such crap here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> So i should be for anarchy as you suggest..
> 
> 
> Dude keep talking ..I will fuck you up..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If that is a threat, you should take it to PM.  Idle threats don't impress me.  Again, on the celebration day of the birth of Christ, be glad you are not making the statements you are making in a public crowd.  A lot of people would not find it tolerable.  You have a Right to Freedom of the Press and you should be held accountable when you abuse the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm so you are anti fag?
> 
> 
> Of course so..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are YOU a "fag?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 3 kids and 5 step children why would you suggest that paid troll?
Click to expand...



I suggest nothing.  You brought the issue up.  Are you paid to post the filth you fill this board with?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you never dug dirt?
> 
> You stupid fuck, go pick up a shovel and start digging.. let's see how far you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Start digging, you idiot..you need huge man power and money..
> 
> It's obvious you never dug a hole in your life
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My father and I once dug an 80 foot deep well by hand.  Your ignorance is now beginning to show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How long did that take?
Click to expand...


It's been so many years ago, but four Mexicans could have done it in a fourth of the time it took us.


----------



## Wyatt earp

My


Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> So i should be for anarchy as you suggest..
> 
> 
> Dude keep talking ..I will fuck you up..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that is a threat, you should take it to PM.  Idle threats don't impress me.  Again, on the celebration day of the birth of Christ, be glad you are not making the statements you are making in a public crowd.  A lot of people would not find it tolerable.  You have a Right to Freedom of the Press and you should be held accountable when you abuse the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm so you are anti fag?
> 
> 
> Of course so..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are YOU a "fag?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 3 kids and 5 step children why would you suggest that paid troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest nothing.  You brought the issue up.  Are you paid to post the filth you fill this board with?
Click to expand...



It's obvious you logged on a few weeks ago with no soul


----------



## Wyatt earp

bear513 said:


> My
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that is a threat, you should take it to PM.  Idle threats don't impress me.  Again, on the celebration day of the birth of Christ, be glad you are not making the statements you are making in a public crowd.  A lot of people would not find it tolerable.  You have a Right to Freedom of the Press and you should be held accountable when you abuse the Right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm so you are anti fag?
> 
> 
> Of course so..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are YOU a "fag?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 3 kids and 5 step children why would you suggest that paid troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest nothing.  You brought the issue up.  Are you paid to post the filth you fill this board with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious you logged on a few weeks ago with no soul
Click to expand...

The only goal you have is fucking propaganda..


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people are all over this topic telling us how a wall won't work.  Well if that's the case, then why does it bother you if we built it? After all, this is what you want.......don't you?  The ability for these people to easily cross over?
> 
> So we can say we are at an agreement.  The wall won't work, so put it up to make us happy and the illegals will still  be flowing through like water, and that will make you people happy.
> 
> Everybody's happy.  What a great way to start the new year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the one who is all over the place.  For example when I talked about the Americans who were on drugs as a reason that we have to fix that, you wanted a debate as whether or not ADD / ADHD were real conditions.
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that I enjoy the Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled and died for.
> 
> If you eliminate the incentives for foreigners to come here, they won't enter the U.S.  That is NOT what you're after.  You are on the side that had a problem with the Americans Right to own private property.  You and your ilk have been attacking it ever since this little immigration battle began.  You are on the side invoking the great successes of communist countries, dictatorships and countries at war with these nutty walls.  You hate private property Rights, Liberty, and you have no use for the free market.  I'm against the socialist utopia you are working toward.
> 
> Insofar as the immigrants, if you went back to the way America was designed to work, you would not have a problem with them.  And, son, you've spent so much time calling people names, I realize that you will be too damn stupid to read between the lines and understand that I gave you an unequivocal answer to your question about my attitude toward immigration and what I expect out of EVERY foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who have I called a name unprovoked?  Nobody.  If anything, it's you hurling the names.  I don't draw first blood on message boards.  Your personal insults like the one you just posted is a perfect example.
> 
> The only people losing freedoms by a wall are the invaders themselves.  Unless you are an illegal yourself, then you're not going to lose one freedom and neither will I.  And if the wall is built and you are losing freedom, write back and I will support you in tearing down the wall.
> 
> You mentioned several times you are an elderly person.  I think what you should do is keep a notepad by your computer, and write down key things people write.  Because it's getting quite annoying when you tell me about things I said that I never even mentioned, things like insulting people when I haven't unless I was returning an insult, things you think I'm against like property rights when I never brought up the subject, and that way you at least won't be called a liar so often.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never initiated any name calling.  And since you're making the allegation, what name did I call you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  Crap like that; personal insults.  I didn't say one thing to you on that level for you to respond that way.  Like I said, you stated you were an elderly person, and as people age, they get more confused.  That's why I suggested that perhaps you keep a note pad and write things down so you at least know who said what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to accuse me of "being all over the place" for responding to issues YOU inquire about
> 
> You continue to want to cover questions asked and answered
> 
> You continue to post things you think are authoritative without providing any verifiable references save of those from socialist and / or partisan propaganda sites
> 
> You ignore the views of others even when such views are based upon legal principles, verifiable non-partisan studies, and plain old common sense
> 
> You continue to promote the political ideologies of totalitarian governments, communists, and socialists.
> 
> At some point you merit an equal response.
Click to expand...



We know you are a paid troll..


Give it up fucker.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people are all over this topic telling us how a wall won't work.  Well if that's the case, then why does it bother you if we built it? After all, this is what you want.......don't you?  The ability for these people to easily cross over?
> 
> So we can say we are at an agreement.  The wall won't work, so put it up to make us happy and the illegals will still  be flowing through like water, and that will make you people happy.
> 
> Everybody's happy.  What a great way to start the new year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the one who is all over the place.  For example when I talked about the Americans who were on drugs as a reason that we have to fix that, you wanted a debate as whether or not ADD / ADHD were real conditions.
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that I enjoy the Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled and died for.
> 
> If you eliminate the incentives for foreigners to come here, they won't enter the U.S.  That is NOT what you're after.  You are on the side that had a problem with the Americans Right to own private property.  You and your ilk have been attacking it ever since this little immigration battle began.  You are on the side invoking the great successes of communist countries, dictatorships and countries at war with these nutty walls.  You hate private property Rights, Liberty, and you have no use for the free market.  I'm against the socialist utopia you are working toward.
> 
> Insofar as the immigrants, if you went back to the way America was designed to work, you would not have a problem with them.  And, son, you've spent so much time calling people names, I realize that you will be too damn stupid to read between the lines and understand that I gave you an unequivocal answer to your question about my attitude toward immigration and what I expect out of EVERY foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who have I called a name unprovoked?  Nobody.  If anything, it's you hurling the names.  I don't draw first blood on message boards.  Your personal insults like the one you just posted is a perfect example.
> 
> The only people losing freedoms by a wall are the invaders themselves.  Unless you are an illegal yourself, then you're not going to lose one freedom and neither will I.  And if the wall is built and you are losing freedom, write back and I will support you in tearing down the wall.
> 
> You mentioned several times you are an elderly person.  I think what you should do is keep a notepad by your computer, and write down key things people write.  Because it's getting quite annoying when you tell me about things I said that I never even mentioned, things like insulting people when I haven't unless I was returning an insult, things you think I'm against like property rights when I never brought up the subject, and that way you at least won't be called a liar so often.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never initiated any name calling.  And since you're making the allegation, what name did I call you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  Crap like that; personal insults.  I didn't say one thing to you on that level for you to respond that way.  Like I said, you stated you were an elderly person, and as people age, they get more confused.  That's why I suggested that perhaps you keep a note pad and write things down so you at least know who said what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to accuse me of "being all over the place" for responding to issues YOU inquire about
> 
> You continue to want to cover questions asked and answered
> 
> You continue to post things you think are authoritative without providing any verifiable references save of those from socialist and / or partisan propaganda sites
> 
> You ignore the views of others even when such views are based upon legal principles, verifiable non-partisan studies, and plain old common sense
> 
> You continue to promote the political ideologies of totalitarian governments, communists, and socialists.
> 
> At some point you merit an equal response.
Click to expand...


You are a paid troll mother fucker and it's obvious..


----------



## Porter Rockwell

toobfreak said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You call me an idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you are an idiot and a jive MFer too.  So far you have not responded to a single question or challenge to explain or justify any of your wild claims.  You're so damned sure a wall can't work despite it working everywhere else you're not willing to even try.  You totally deny the vast cost and potential threat of mass illegal invasions by unknown and unvetted people across thousands of miles of border that the wall would largely save us from while claiming the whole world hates us and is out to get us.  Don't you know that with cameras, electronic screening and vibration detectors, we can monitor every inch of that wall if we choose?!
> 
> Europe built a high speed train at huge cost to solve a big problem.  Our big problem to solve is our wide open southern border.   Everywhere I go I see foreign riff raff that has no money and can't even speak English.  They are not wanted.  Time to cut off the supply route of cheap labor and cheap democrat votes.  I don't need these low lifes picking my next president.
Click to expand...


OMG, at the expense of posting literally walls of text I've answered EVERY question I've been asked.  So that is a lie.  Otherwise, you would have quoted some question that has not been addressed.

I don't deny the costs.  That is a lie. What YOU deny is that those foreign laborers pay taxes, create wealth, are more productive than lazy ass Americans and contribute toward those costs.  You don't want a true picture of the situation.

The people that hate us the most are the foreigners you choose to ignore.  That is very telling.

Are you so naive as to believe that if a government were sending people here to do us harm they would give you honest intel on them during any vetting process?   THAT mindset is the very reason I believe the wall will be built at the cost of firearms ownership.  Background checks, waiting periods, limits on how many firearms a gun collector can get, separating Americans into different classes of people.

I might be a jive mother fornicator as you say, but I did not realize that she was your mother.  You sure you want to start down that road?


----------



## Wyatt earp

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the one who is all over the place.  For example when I talked about the Americans who were on drugs as a reason that we have to fix that, you wanted a debate as whether or not ADD / ADHD were real conditions.
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that I enjoy the Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled and died for.
> 
> If you eliminate the incentives for foreigners to come here, they won't enter the U.S.  That is NOT what you're after.  You are on the side that had a problem with the Americans Right to own private property.  You and your ilk have been attacking it ever since this little immigration battle began.  You are on the side invoking the great successes of communist countries, dictatorships and countries at war with these nutty walls.  You hate private property Rights, Liberty, and you have no use for the free market.  I'm against the socialist utopia you are working toward.
> 
> Insofar as the immigrants, if you went back to the way America was designed to work, you would not have a problem with them.  And, son, you've spent so much time calling people names, I realize that you will be too damn stupid to read between the lines and understand that I gave you an unequivocal answer to your question about my attitude toward immigration and what I expect out of EVERY foreigner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who have I called a name unprovoked?  Nobody.  If anything, it's you hurling the names.  I don't draw first blood on message boards.  Your personal insults like the one you just posted is a perfect example.
> 
> The only people losing freedoms by a wall are the invaders themselves.  Unless you are an illegal yourself, then you're not going to lose one freedom and neither will I.  And if the wall is built and you are losing freedom, write back and I will support you in tearing down the wall.
> 
> You mentioned several times you are an elderly person.  I think what you should do is keep a notepad by your computer, and write down key things people write.  Because it's getting quite annoying when you tell me about things I said that I never even mentioned, things like insulting people when I haven't unless I was returning an insult, things you think I'm against like property rights when I never brought up the subject, and that way you at least won't be called a liar so often.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never initiated any name calling.  And since you're making the allegation, what name did I call you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  Crap like that; personal insults.  I didn't say one thing to you on that level for you to respond that way.  Like I said, you stated you were an elderly person, and as people age, they get more confused.  That's why I suggested that perhaps you keep a note pad and write things down so you at least know who said what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to accuse me of "being all over the place" for responding to issues YOU inquire about
> 
> You continue to want to cover questions asked and answered
> 
> You continue to post things you think are authoritative without providing any verifiable references save of those from socialist and / or partisan propaganda sites
> 
> You ignore the views of others even when such views are based upon legal principles, verifiable non-partisan studies, and plain old common sense
> 
> You continue to promote the political ideologies of totalitarian governments, communists, and socialists.
> 
> At some point you merit an equal response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a paid troll mother fucker and it's obvious..
Click to expand...


No heart no soul just a paid off troll


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the one who is all over the place.  For example when I talked about the Americans who were on drugs as a reason that we have to fix that, you wanted a debate as whether or not ADD / ADHD were real conditions.
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that I enjoy the Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled and died for.
> 
> If you eliminate the incentives for foreigners to come here, they won't enter the U.S.  That is NOT what you're after.  You are on the side that had a problem with the Americans Right to own private property.  You and your ilk have been attacking it ever since this little immigration battle began.  You are on the side invoking the great successes of communist countries, dictatorships and countries at war with these nutty walls.  You hate private property Rights, Liberty, and you have no use for the free market.  I'm against the socialist utopia you are working toward.
> 
> Insofar as the immigrants, if you went back to the way America was designed to work, you would not have a problem with them.  And, son, you've spent so much time calling people names, I realize that you will be too damn stupid to read between the lines and understand that I gave you an unequivocal answer to your question about my attitude toward immigration and what I expect out of EVERY foreigner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who have I called a name unprovoked?  Nobody.  If anything, it's you hurling the names.  I don't draw first blood on message boards.  Your personal insults like the one you just posted is a perfect example.
> 
> The only people losing freedoms by a wall are the invaders themselves.  Unless you are an illegal yourself, then you're not going to lose one freedom and neither will I.  And if the wall is built and you are losing freedom, write back and I will support you in tearing down the wall.
> 
> You mentioned several times you are an elderly person.  I think what you should do is keep a notepad by your computer, and write down key things people write.  Because it's getting quite annoying when you tell me about things I said that I never even mentioned, things like insulting people when I haven't unless I was returning an insult, things you think I'm against like property rights when I never brought up the subject, and that way you at least won't be called a liar so often.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never initiated any name calling.  And since you're making the allegation, what name did I call you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  Crap like that; personal insults.  I didn't say one thing to you on that level for you to respond that way.  Like I said, you stated you were an elderly person, and as people age, they get more confused.  That's why I suggested that perhaps you keep a note pad and write things down so you at least know who said what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to accuse me of "being all over the place" for responding to issues YOU inquire about
> 
> You continue to want to cover questions asked and answered
> 
> You continue to post things you think are authoritative without providing any verifiable references save of those from socialist and / or partisan propaganda sites
> 
> You ignore the views of others even when such views are based upon legal principles, verifiable non-partisan studies, and plain old common sense
> 
> You continue to promote the political ideologies of totalitarian governments, communists, and socialists.
> 
> At some point you merit an equal response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We know you are a paid troll..
> 
> 
> Give it up fucker.
Click to expand...


Let's see if you can answer one single honest question:

How many minds do you think I've changed by posting on this thread?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You call me an idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you are an idiot and a jive MFer too.  So far you have not responded to a single question or challenge to explain or justify any of your wild claims.  You're so damned sure a wall can't work despite it working everywhere else you're not willing to even try.  You totally deny the vast cost and potential threat of mass illegal invasions by unknown and unvetted people across thousands of miles of border that the wall would largely save us from while claiming the whole world hates us and is out to get us.  Don't you know that with cameras, electronic screening and vibration detectors, we can monitor every inch of that wall if we choose?!
> 
> Europe built a high speed train at huge cost to solve a big problem.  Our big problem to solve is our wide open southern border.   Everywhere I go I see foreign riff raff that has no money and can't even speak English.  They are not wanted.  Time to cut off the supply route of cheap labor and cheap democrat votes.  I don't need these low lifes picking my next president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG, at the expense of posting literally walls of text I've answered EVERY question I've been asked.  So that is a lie.  Otherwise, you would have quoted some question that has not been addressed.
> 
> I don't deny the costs.  That is a lie. What YOU deny is that those foreign laborers pay taxes, create wealth, are more productive than lazy ass Americans and contribute toward those costs.  You don't want a true picture of the situation.
> 
> The people that hate us the most are the foreigners you choose to ignore.  That is very telling.
> 
> Are you so naive as to believe that if a government were sending people here to do us harm they would give you honest intel on them during any vetting process?   THAT mindset is the very reason I believe the wall will be built at the cost of firearms ownership.  Background checks, waiting periods, limits on how many firearms a gun collector can get, separating Americans into different classes of people.
> 
> I might be a jive mother fornicator as you say, but I did not realize that she was your mother.  You sure you want to start down that road?
Click to expand...



^^ paid off propaganda troll


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who have I called a name unprovoked?  Nobody.  If anything, it's you hurling the names.  I don't draw first blood on message boards.  Your personal insults like the one you just posted is a perfect example.
> 
> The only people losing freedoms by a wall are the invaders themselves.  Unless you are an illegal yourself, then you're not going to lose one freedom and neither will I.  And if the wall is built and you are losing freedom, write back and I will support you in tearing down the wall.
> 
> You mentioned several times you are an elderly person.  I think what you should do is keep a notepad by your computer, and write down key things people write.  Because it's getting quite annoying when you tell me about things I said that I never even mentioned, things like insulting people when I haven't unless I was returning an insult, things you think I'm against like property rights when I never brought up the subject, and that way you at least won't be called a liar so often.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never initiated any name calling.  And since you're making the allegation, what name did I call you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  Crap like that; personal insults.  I didn't say one thing to you on that level for you to respond that way.  Like I said, you stated you were an elderly person, and as people age, they get more confused.  That's why I suggested that perhaps you keep a note pad and write things down so you at least know who said what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to accuse me of "being all over the place" for responding to issues YOU inquire about
> 
> You continue to want to cover questions asked and answered
> 
> You continue to post things you think are authoritative without providing any verifiable references save of those from socialist and / or partisan propaganda sites
> 
> You ignore the views of others even when such views are based upon legal principles, verifiable non-partisan studies, and plain old common sense
> 
> You continue to promote the political ideologies of totalitarian governments, communists, and socialists.
> 
> At some point you merit an equal response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a paid troll mother fucker and it's obvious..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No heart no soul just a paid off troll
Click to expand...


So says the guy who hangs with people that would mine the border and kill innocent women and children at the border.

And, while I'm trying to help Americans get back on their feet and become self sufficient, the people supporting your position are condemning me for it.  Oh, I'm sorry.  I didn't realize you were telling me about yourself.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who have I called a name unprovoked?  Nobody.  If anything, it's you hurling the names.  I don't draw first blood on message boards.  Your personal insults like the one you just posted is a perfect example.
> 
> The only people losing freedoms by a wall are the invaders themselves.  Unless you are an illegal yourself, then you're not going to lose one freedom and neither will I.  And if the wall is built and you are losing freedom, write back and I will support you in tearing down the wall.
> 
> You mentioned several times you are an elderly person.  I think what you should do is keep a notepad by your computer, and write down key things people write.  Because it's getting quite annoying when you tell me about things I said that I never even mentioned, things like insulting people when I haven't unless I was returning an insult, things you think I'm against like property rights when I never brought up the subject, and that way you at least won't be called a liar so often.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never initiated any name calling.  And since you're making the allegation, what name did I call you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  Crap like that; personal insults.  I didn't say one thing to you on that level for you to respond that way.  Like I said, you stated you were an elderly person, and as people age, they get more confused.  That's why I suggested that perhaps you keep a note pad and write things down so you at least know who said what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to accuse me of "being all over the place" for responding to issues YOU inquire about
> 
> You continue to want to cover questions asked and answered
> 
> You continue to post things you think are authoritative without providing any verifiable references save of those from socialist and / or partisan propaganda sites
> 
> You ignore the views of others even when such views are based upon legal principles, verifiable non-partisan studies, and plain old common sense
> 
> You continue to promote the political ideologies of totalitarian governments, communists, and socialists.
> 
> At some point you merit an equal response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We know you are a paid troll..
> 
> 
> Give it up fucker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see if you can answer one single honest question:
> 
> How many minds do you think I've changed by posting on this thread?
Click to expand...


It's obvious.. your like green beard..

A paid troll  by Tom steyer 


.

I can figure this out real fast..


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You call me an idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you are an idiot and a jive MFer too.  So far you have not responded to a single question or challenge to explain or justify any of your wild claims.  You're so damned sure a wall can't work despite it working everywhere else you're not willing to even try.  You totally deny the vast cost and potential threat of mass illegal invasions by unknown and unvetted people across thousands of miles of border that the wall would largely save us from while claiming the whole world hates us and is out to get us.  Don't you know that with cameras, electronic screening and vibration detectors, we can monitor every inch of that wall if we choose?!
> 
> Europe built a high speed train at huge cost to solve a big problem.  Our big problem to solve is our wide open southern border.   Everywhere I go I see foreign riff raff that has no money and can't even speak English.  They are not wanted.  Time to cut off the supply route of cheap labor and cheap democrat votes.  I don't need these low lifes picking my next president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG, at the expense of posting literally walls of text I've answered EVERY question I've been asked.  So that is a lie.  Otherwise, you would have quoted some question that has not been addressed.
> 
> I don't deny the costs.  That is a lie. What YOU deny is that those foreign laborers pay taxes, create wealth, are more productive than lazy ass Americans and contribute toward those costs.  You don't want a true picture of the situation.
> 
> The people that hate us the most are the foreigners you choose to ignore.  That is very telling.
> 
> Are you so naive as to believe that if a government were sending people here to do us harm they would give you honest intel on them during any vetting process?   THAT mindset is the very reason I believe the wall will be built at the cost of firearms ownership.  Background checks, waiting periods, limits on how many firearms a gun collector can get, separating Americans into different classes of people.
> 
> I might be a jive mother fornicator as you say, but I did not realize that she was your mother.  You sure you want to start down that road?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ paid off propaganda troll
Click to expand...


You couldn't answer the question, could you?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never initiated any name calling.  And since you're making the allegation, what name did I call you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  Crap like that; personal insults.  I didn't say one thing to you on that level for you to respond that way.  Like I said, you stated you were an elderly person, and as people age, they get more confused.  That's why I suggested that perhaps you keep a note pad and write things down so you at least know who said what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to accuse me of "being all over the place" for responding to issues YOU inquire about
> 
> You continue to want to cover questions asked and answered
> 
> You continue to post things you think are authoritative without providing any verifiable references save of those from socialist and / or partisan propaganda sites
> 
> You ignore the views of others even when such views are based upon legal principles, verifiable non-partisan studies, and plain old common sense
> 
> You continue to promote the political ideologies of totalitarian governments, communists, and socialists.
> 
> At some point you merit an equal response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a paid troll mother fucker and it's obvious..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No heart no soul just a paid off troll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So says the guy who hangs with people that would mine the border and kill innocent women and children at the border.
> 
> And, while I'm trying to help Americans get back on their feet and become self sufficient, the people supporting your position are condemning me for it.  Oh, I'm sorry.  I didn't realize you were telling me about yourself.
Click to expand...




Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never initiated any name calling.  And since you're making the allegation, what name did I call you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  Crap like that; personal insults.  I didn't say one thing to you on that level for you to respond that way.  Like I said, you stated you were an elderly person, and as people age, they get more confused.  That's why I suggested that perhaps you keep a note pad and write things down so you at least know who said what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to accuse me of "being all over the place" for responding to issues YOU inquire about
> 
> You continue to want to cover questions asked and answered
> 
> You continue to post things you think are authoritative without providing any verifiable references save of those from socialist and / or partisan propaganda sites
> 
> You ignore the views of others even when such views are based upon legal principles, verifiable non-partisan studies, and plain old common sense
> 
> You continue to promote the political ideologies of totalitarian governments, communists, and socialists.
> 
> At some point you merit an equal response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a paid troll mother fucker and it's obvious..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No heart no soul just a paid off troll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So says the guy who hangs with people that would mine the border and kill innocent women and children at the border.
> 
> And, while I'm trying to help Americans get back on their feet and become self sufficient, the people supporting your position are condemning me for it.  Oh, I'm sorry.  I didn't realize you were telling me about yourself.
Click to expand...



Look at you on Christmas day trying to push propaganda you dumb mother fucker.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You call me an idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you are an idiot and a jive MFer too.  So far you have not responded to a single question or challenge to explain or justify any of your wild claims.  You're so damned sure a wall can't work despite it working everywhere else you're not willing to even try.  You totally deny the vast cost and potential threat of mass illegal invasions by unknown and unvetted people across thousands of miles of border that the wall would largely save us from while claiming the whole world hates us and is out to get us.  Don't you know that with cameras, electronic screening and vibration detectors, we can monitor every inch of that wall if we choose?!
> 
> Europe built a high speed train at huge cost to solve a big problem.  Our big problem to solve is our wide open southern border.   Everywhere I go I see foreign riff raff that has no money and can't even speak English.  They are not wanted.  Time to cut off the supply route of cheap labor and cheap democrat votes.  I don't need these low lifes picking my next president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG, at the expense of posting literally walls of text I've answered EVERY question I've been asked.  So that is a lie.  Otherwise, you would have quoted some question that has not been addressed.
> 
> I don't deny the costs.  That is a lie. What YOU deny is that those foreign laborers pay taxes, create wealth, are more productive than lazy ass Americans and contribute toward those costs.  You don't want a true picture of the situation.
> 
> The people that hate us the most are the foreigners you choose to ignore.  That is very telling.
> 
> Are you so naive as to believe that if a government were sending people here to do us harm they would give you honest intel on them during any vetting process?   THAT mindset is the very reason I believe the wall will be built at the cost of firearms ownership.  Background checks, waiting periods, limits on how many firearms a gun collector can get, separating Americans into different classes of people.
> 
> I might be a jive mother fornicator as you say, but I did not realize that she was your mother.  You sure you want to start down that road?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ paid off propaganda troll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You couldn't answer the question, could you?
Click to expand...



Fuck you paid troll.


----------



## Wyatt earp

If you were a human being you don't do this on Christmas


.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> See?  Crap like that; personal insults.  I didn't say one thing to you on that level for you to respond that way.  Like I said, you stated you were an elderly person, and as people age, they get more confused.  That's why I suggested that perhaps you keep a note pad and write things down so you at least know who said what.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to accuse me of "being all over the place" for responding to issues YOU inquire about
> 
> You continue to want to cover questions asked and answered
> 
> You continue to post things you think are authoritative without providing any verifiable references save of those from socialist and / or partisan propaganda sites
> 
> You ignore the views of others even when such views are based upon legal principles, verifiable non-partisan studies, and plain old common sense
> 
> You continue to promote the political ideologies of totalitarian governments, communists, and socialists.
> 
> At some point you merit an equal response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a paid troll mother fucker and it's obvious..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No heart no soul just a paid off troll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So says the guy who hangs with people that would mine the border and kill innocent women and children at the border.
> 
> And, while I'm trying to help Americans get back on their feet and become self sufficient, the people supporting your position are condemning me for it.  Oh, I'm sorry.  I didn't realize you were telling me about yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> See?  Crap like that; personal insults.  I didn't say one thing to you on that level for you to respond that way.  Like I said, you stated you were an elderly person, and as people age, they get more confused.  That's why I suggested that perhaps you keep a note pad and write things down so you at least know who said what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to accuse me of "being all over the place" for responding to issues YOU inquire about
> 
> You continue to want to cover questions asked and answered
> 
> You continue to post things you think are authoritative without providing any verifiable references save of those from socialist and / or partisan propaganda sites
> 
> You ignore the views of others even when such views are based upon legal principles, verifiable non-partisan studies, and plain old common sense
> 
> You continue to promote the political ideologies of totalitarian governments, communists, and socialists.
> 
> At some point you merit an equal response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a paid troll mother fucker and it's obvious..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No heart no soul just a paid off troll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So says the guy who hangs with people that would mine the border and kill innocent women and children at the border.
> 
> And, while I'm trying to help Americans get back on their feet and become self sufficient, the people supporting your position are condemning me for it.  Oh, I'm sorry.  I didn't realize you were telling me about yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look at you on Christmas day trying to push propaganda you dumb mother fucker.
Click to expand...


I told you before, I didn't know she was your mother.  Here it is Christmas day and you're on the Internet fretting over a silly wall.  You don't have a life?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You call me an idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you are an idiot and a jive MFer too.  So far you have not responded to a single question or challenge to explain or justify any of your wild claims.  You're so damned sure a wall can't work despite it working everywhere else you're not willing to even try.  You totally deny the vast cost and potential threat of mass illegal invasions by unknown and unvetted people across thousands of miles of border that the wall would largely save us from while claiming the whole world hates us and is out to get us.  Don't you know that with cameras, electronic screening and vibration detectors, we can monitor every inch of that wall if we choose?!
> 
> Europe built a high speed train at huge cost to solve a big problem.  Our big problem to solve is our wide open southern border.   Everywhere I go I see foreign riff raff that has no money and can't even speak English.  They are not wanted.  Time to cut off the supply route of cheap labor and cheap democrat votes.  I don't need these low lifes picking my next president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG, at the expense of posting literally walls of text I've answered EVERY question I've been asked.  So that is a lie.  Otherwise, you would have quoted some question that has not been addressed.
> 
> I don't deny the costs.  That is a lie. What YOU deny is that those foreign laborers pay taxes, create wealth, are more productive than lazy ass Americans and contribute toward those costs.  You don't want a true picture of the situation.
> 
> The people that hate us the most are the foreigners you choose to ignore.  That is very telling.
> 
> Are you so naive as to believe that if a government were sending people here to do us harm they would give you honest intel on them during any vetting process?   THAT mindset is the very reason I believe the wall will be built at the cost of firearms ownership.  Background checks, waiting periods, limits on how many firearms a gun collector can get, separating Americans into different classes of people.
> 
> I might be a jive mother fornicator as you say, but I did not realize that she was your mother.  You sure you want to start down that road?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ paid off propaganda troll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You couldn't answer the question, could you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you paid troll.
Click to expand...


I don't think you're my type.  Are you trying to tell the posters here something about yourself?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to accuse me of "being all over the place" for responding to issues YOU inquire about
> 
> You continue to want to cover questions asked and answered
> 
> You continue to post things you think are authoritative without providing any verifiable references save of those from socialist and / or partisan propaganda sites
> 
> You ignore the views of others even when such views are based upon legal principles, verifiable non-partisan studies, and plain old common sense
> 
> You continue to promote the political ideologies of totalitarian governments, communists, and socialists.
> 
> At some point you merit an equal response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a paid troll mother fucker and it's obvious..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No heart no soul just a paid off troll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So says the guy who hangs with people that would mine the border and kill innocent women and children at the border.
> 
> And, while I'm trying to help Americans get back on their feet and become self sufficient, the people supporting your position are condemning me for it.  Oh, I'm sorry.  I didn't realize you were telling me about yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to accuse me of "being all over the place" for responding to issues YOU inquire about
> 
> You continue to want to cover questions asked and answered
> 
> You continue to post things you think are authoritative without providing any verifiable references save of those from socialist and / or partisan propaganda sites
> 
> You ignore the views of others even when such views are based upon legal principles, verifiable non-partisan studies, and plain old common sense
> 
> You continue to promote the political ideologies of totalitarian governments, communists, and socialists.
> 
> At some point you merit an equal response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a paid troll mother fucker and it's obvious..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No heart no soul just a paid off troll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So says the guy who hangs with people that would mine the border and kill innocent women and children at the border.
> 
> And, while I'm trying to help Americans get back on their feet and become self sufficient, the people supporting your position are condemning me for it.  Oh, I'm sorry.  I didn't realize you were telling me about yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look at you on Christmas day trying to push propaganda you dumb mother fucker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you before, I didn't know she was your mother.  Here it is Christmas day and you're on the Internet fretting over a silly wall.  You don't have a life?
Click to expand...


No I know you're a green beard..a paid Democrat troll only one thing on your agenda trying to promote...god damn assnine shit .


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you are an idiot and a jive MFer too.  So far you have not responded to a single question or challenge to explain or justify any of your wild claims.  You're so damned sure a wall can't work despite it working everywhere else you're not willing to even try.  You totally deny the vast cost and potential threat of mass illegal invasions by unknown and unvetted people across thousands of miles of border that the wall would largely save us from while claiming the whole world hates us and is out to get us.  Don't you know that with cameras, electronic screening and vibration detectors, we can monitor every inch of that wall if we choose?!
> 
> Europe built a high speed train at huge cost to solve a big problem.  Our big problem to solve is our wide open southern border.   Everywhere I go I see foreign riff raff that has no money and can't even speak English.  They are not wanted.  Time to cut off the supply route of cheap labor and cheap democrat votes.  I don't need these low lifes picking my next president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, at the expense of posting literally walls of text I've answered EVERY question I've been asked.  So that is a lie.  Otherwise, you would have quoted some question that has not been addressed.
> 
> I don't deny the costs.  That is a lie. What YOU deny is that those foreign laborers pay taxes, create wealth, are more productive than lazy ass Americans and contribute toward those costs.  You don't want a true picture of the situation.
> 
> The people that hate us the most are the foreigners you choose to ignore.  That is very telling.
> 
> Are you so naive as to believe that if a government were sending people here to do us harm they would give you honest intel on them during any vetting process?   THAT mindset is the very reason I believe the wall will be built at the cost of firearms ownership.  Background checks, waiting periods, limits on how many firearms a gun collector can get, separating Americans into different classes of people.
> 
> I might be a jive mother fornicator as you say, but I did not realize that she was your mother.  You sure you want to start down that road?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ paid off propaganda troll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You couldn't answer the question, could you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you paid troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you're my type.  Are you trying to tell the posters here something about yourself?
Click to expand...



See how I get it out of you?

Fucking another green beard..


.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> If you were a human being you don't do this on Christmas
> 
> 
> .



Then you are no human being either.  YOU took the conversation south.

Any time you're ready to get off your high horse and discuss the topic, I'm open to it.  I can only respond to the personal insults, threats and rhetoric you throw my way, lest the other wall supporters claim that I'm not answering you.

Why are you here arguing anyway?  How come you aren't spending time with your family rather than guarding Trump's lackluster legacy by crowing about an idiotic wall?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a paid troll mother fucker and it's obvious..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No heart no soul just a paid off troll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So says the guy who hangs with people that would mine the border and kill innocent women and children at the border.
> 
> And, while I'm trying to help Americans get back on their feet and become self sufficient, the people supporting your position are condemning me for it.  Oh, I'm sorry.  I didn't realize you were telling me about yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a paid troll mother fucker and it's obvious..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No heart no soul just a paid off troll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So says the guy who hangs with people that would mine the border and kill innocent women and children at the border.
> 
> And, while I'm trying to help Americans get back on their feet and become self sufficient, the people supporting your position are condemning me for it.  Oh, I'm sorry.  I didn't realize you were telling me about yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look at you on Christmas day trying to push propaganda you dumb mother fucker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you before, I didn't know she was your mother.  Here it is Christmas day and you're on the Internet fretting over a silly wall.  You don't have a life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I know you're a green beard..a paid Democrat troll only one thing on your agenda trying to promote...god damn assnine shit .
Click to expand...



Really?  Taking the Lord's name in vain on the very day many Christians are celebrating his birth.  Really?


----------



## Wyatt earp

All you have is one angle, you don't post in football or anything, you are driven for propganda mother fucker.


To promote one agenda .


I know you're a paid troll..and the mods do know..


Another green beard.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, at the expense of posting literally walls of text I've answered EVERY question I've been asked.  So that is a lie.  Otherwise, you would have quoted some question that has not been addressed.
> 
> I don't deny the costs.  That is a lie. What YOU deny is that those foreign laborers pay taxes, create wealth, are more productive than lazy ass Americans and contribute toward those costs.  You don't want a true picture of the situation.
> 
> The people that hate us the most are the foreigners you choose to ignore.  That is very telling.
> 
> Are you so naive as to believe that if a government were sending people here to do us harm they would give you honest intel on them during any vetting process?   THAT mindset is the very reason I believe the wall will be built at the cost of firearms ownership.  Background checks, waiting periods, limits on how many firearms a gun collector can get, separating Americans into different classes of people.
> 
> I might be a jive mother fornicator as you say, but I did not realize that she was your mother.  You sure you want to start down that road?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ paid off propaganda troll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You couldn't answer the question, could you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you paid troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you're my type.  Are you trying to tell the posters here something about yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See how I get it out of you?
> 
> Fucking another green beard..
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I don't know what a green beard is, but I'm just your average heterosexual male that votes for Republicans, and is concerned not only about the present, but what kind of America we leave for generations to come.  

If this "green beard" is all that bad, it must take one to know one.  You knew what they are.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> All you have is one angle, you don't post in football or anything, you are driven for propganda mother fucker.
> 
> 
> To promote one agenda .
> 
> 
> I know you're a paid troll..and the mods do know..
> 
> 
> Another green beard.




Well, I was posting on a pro-gun thread, but it's all I can do right now to keep up with this thread.  If the mods think I'm a paid troll, please let my employer know that I have not received a single nickel yet.  

If you let me know who is paying me, please tell me.  I need to collect the money.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No heart no soul just a paid off troll
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So says the guy who hangs with people that would mine the border and kill innocent women and children at the border.
> 
> And, while I'm trying to help Americans get back on their feet and become self sufficient, the people supporting your position are condemning me for it.  Oh, I'm sorry.  I didn't realize you were telling me about yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No heart no soul just a paid off troll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So says the guy who hangs with people that would mine the border and kill innocent women and children at the border.
> 
> And, while I'm trying to help Americans get back on their feet and become self sufficient, the people supporting your position are condemning me for it.  Oh, I'm sorry.  I didn't realize you were telling me about yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look at you on Christmas day trying to push propaganda you dumb mother fucker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you before, I didn't know she was your mother.  Here it is Christmas day and you're on the Internet fretting over a silly wall.  You don't have a life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I know you're a green beard..a paid Democrat troll only one thing on your agenda trying to promote...god damn assnine shit .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Taking the Lord's name in vain on the very day many Christians are celebrating his birth.  Really?
Click to expand...



See you say a 100 words trying to convince people , I know exactly who you are a paid troll ....


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have is one angle, you don't post in football or anything, you are driven for propganda mother fucker.
> 
> 
> To promote one agenda .
> 
> 
> I know you're a paid troll..and the mods do know..
> 
> 
> Another green beard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I was posting on a pro-gun thread, but it's all I can do right now to keep up with this thread.  If the mods think I'm a paid troll, please let my employer know that I have not received a single nickel yet.
> 
> If you let me know who is paying me, please tell me.  I need to collect the money.
Click to expand...



You stupid mother fucker, the mods would of shut this down by now.

They already know and are letting me cuss you out .

Bitch .


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ paid off propaganda troll
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't answer the question, could you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you paid troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you're my type.  Are you trying to tell the posters here something about yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See how I get it out of you?
> 
> Fucking another green beard..
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what a green beard is, but I'm just your average heterosexual male that votes for Republicans, and is concerned not only about the present, but what kind of America we leave for generations to come.
> 
> If this "green beard" is all that bad, it must take one to know one.  You knew what they are.
Click to expand...



You are a green beard fucked head .

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have is one angle, you don't post in football or anything, you are driven for propganda mother fucker.
> 
> 
> To promote one agenda .
> 
> 
> I know you're a paid troll..and the mods do know..
> 
> 
> Another green beard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I was posting on a pro-gun thread, but it's all I can do right now to keep up with this thread.  If the mods think I'm a paid troll, please let my employer know that I have not received a single nickel yet.
> 
> If you let me know who is paying me, please tell me.  I need to collect the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You stupid mother fucker, the mods would of shut this down by now.
> 
> They already know and are letting me cuss you out .
> 
> Bitch .
Click to expand...


Cussing me out publicly and saying the Lord's name in vain on the most holiest day for many Christians is a testament to YOUR character, so it matters little what you say.


----------



## Wyatt earp

T


bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't answer the question, could you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you paid troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you're my type.  Are you trying to tell the posters here something about yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See how I get it out of you?
> 
> Fucking another green beard..
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what a green beard is, but I'm just your average heterosexual male that votes for Republicans, and is concerned not only about the present, but what kind of America we leave for generations to come.
> 
> If this "green beard" is all that bad, it must take one to know one.  You knew what they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a green beard fucked head .
> 
> .
Click to expand...



The mods are letting this roll because they know how much I hate paid trolls.. asshole..


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people are all over this topic telling us how a wall won't work.  Well if that's the case, then why does it bother you if we built it? After all, this is what you want.......don't you?  The ability for these people to easily cross over?
> 
> So we can say we are at an agreement.  The wall won't work, so put it up to make us happy and the illegals will still  be flowing through like water, and that will make you people happy.
> 
> Everybody's happy.  What a great way to start the new year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the one who is all over the place.  For example when I talked about the Americans who were on drugs as a reason that we have to fix that, you wanted a debate as whether or not ADD / ADHD were real conditions.
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that I enjoy the Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled and died for.
> 
> If you eliminate the incentives for foreigners to come here, they won't enter the U.S.  That is NOT what you're after.  You are on the side that had a problem with the Americans Right to own private property.  You and your ilk have been attacking it ever since this little immigration battle began.  You are on the side invoking the great successes of communist countries, dictatorships and countries at war with these nutty walls.  You hate private property Rights, Liberty, and you have no use for the free market.  I'm against the socialist utopia you are working toward.
> 
> Insofar as the immigrants, if you went back to the way America was designed to work, you would not have a problem with them.  And, son, you've spent so much time calling people names, I realize that you will be too damn stupid to read between the lines and understand that I gave you an unequivocal answer to your question about my attitude toward immigration and what I expect out of EVERY foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who have I called a name unprovoked?  Nobody.  If anything, it's you hurling the names.  I don't draw first blood on message boards.  Your personal insults like the one you just posted is a perfect example.
> 
> The only people losing freedoms by a wall are the invaders themselves.  Unless you are an illegal yourself, then you're not going to lose one freedom and neither will I.  And if the wall is built and you are losing freedom, write back and I will support you in tearing down the wall.
> 
> You mentioned several times you are an elderly person.  I think what you should do is keep a notepad by your computer, and write down key things people write.  Because it's getting quite annoying when you tell me about things I said that I never even mentioned, things like insulting people when I haven't unless I was returning an insult, things you think I'm against like property rights when I never brought up the subject, and that way you at least won't be called a liar so often.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never initiated any name calling.  And since you're making the allegation, what name did I call you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  Crap like that; personal insults.  I didn't say one thing to you on that level for you to respond that way.  Like I said, you stated you were an elderly person, and as people age, they get more confused.  That's why I suggested that perhaps you keep a note pad and write things down so you at least know who said what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to accuse me of "being all over the place" for responding to issues YOU inquire about
> 
> You continue to want to cover questions asked and answered
> 
> You continue to post things you think are authoritative without providing any verifiable references save of those from socialist and / or partisan propaganda sites
> 
> You ignore the views of others even when such views are based upon legal principles, verifiable non-partisan studies, and plain old common sense
> 
> You continue to promote the political ideologies of totalitarian governments, communists, and socialists.
> 
> At some point you merit an equal response.
Click to expand...


The only thing I promote is the benefit of the American people.  I also pointed out that on several occasions, you brought something up and then accused me of doing it.  I know what I say and I know what I wrote.  

I don't ignore the view of others, I debate the view of others.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have is one angle, you don't post in football or anything, you are driven for propganda mother fucker.
> 
> 
> To promote one agenda .
> 
> 
> I know you're a paid troll..and the mods do know..
> 
> 
> Another green beard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I was posting on a pro-gun thread, but it's all I can do right now to keep up with this thread.  If the mods think I'm a paid troll, please let my employer know that I have not received a single nickel yet.
> 
> If you let me know who is paying me, please tell me.  I need to collect the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You stupid mother fucker, the mods would of shut this down by now.
> 
> They already know and are letting me cuss you out .
> 
> Bitch .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cussing me out publicly and saying the Lord's name in vain on the most holiest day for many Christians is a testament to YOUR character, so it matters little what you say.
Click to expand...



Fuck you paid troll .

We all know who you are cock sucker, I am a human being with a heart, you are a paid troll.


----------



## Wyatt earp

They are not stepping in because they know who you are another green beard.


A paid troll ..


.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the one who is all over the place.  For example when I talked about the Americans who were on drugs as a reason that we have to fix that, you wanted a debate as whether or not ADD / ADHD were real conditions.
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that I enjoy the Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled and died for.
> 
> If you eliminate the incentives for foreigners to come here, they won't enter the U.S.  That is NOT what you're after.  You are on the side that had a problem with the Americans Right to own private property.  You and your ilk have been attacking it ever since this little immigration battle began.  You are on the side invoking the great successes of communist countries, dictatorships and countries at war with these nutty walls.  You hate private property Rights, Liberty, and you have no use for the free market.  I'm against the socialist utopia you are working toward.
> 
> Insofar as the immigrants, if you went back to the way America was designed to work, you would not have a problem with them.  And, son, you've spent so much time calling people names, I realize that you will be too damn stupid to read between the lines and understand that I gave you an unequivocal answer to your question about my attitude toward immigration and what I expect out of EVERY foreigner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who have I called a name unprovoked?  Nobody.  If anything, it's you hurling the names.  I don't draw first blood on message boards.  Your personal insults like the one you just posted is a perfect example.
> 
> The only people losing freedoms by a wall are the invaders themselves.  Unless you are an illegal yourself, then you're not going to lose one freedom and neither will I.  And if the wall is built and you are losing freedom, write back and I will support you in tearing down the wall.
> 
> You mentioned several times you are an elderly person.  I think what you should do is keep a notepad by your computer, and write down key things people write.  Because it's getting quite annoying when you tell me about things I said that I never even mentioned, things like insulting people when I haven't unless I was returning an insult, things you think I'm against like property rights when I never brought up the subject, and that way you at least won't be called a liar so often.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never initiated any name calling.  And since you're making the allegation, what name did I call you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  Crap like that; personal insults.  I didn't say one thing to you on that level for you to respond that way.  Like I said, you stated you were an elderly person, and as people age, they get more confused.  That's why I suggested that perhaps you keep a note pad and write things down so you at least know who said what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to accuse me of "being all over the place" for responding to issues YOU inquire about
> 
> You continue to want to cover questions asked and answered
> 
> You continue to post things you think are authoritative without providing any verifiable references save of those from socialist and / or partisan propaganda sites
> 
> You ignore the views of others even when such views are based upon legal principles, verifiable non-partisan studies, and plain old common sense
> 
> You continue to promote the political ideologies of totalitarian governments, communists, and socialists.
> 
> At some point you merit an equal response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing I promote is the benefit of the American people.  I also pointed out that on several occasions, you brought something up and then accused me of doing it.  I know what I say and I know what I wrote.
> 
> I don't ignore the view of others, I debate the view of others.
Click to expand...


Merry Christmas Ray love you brother..

But stay away..


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the one who is all over the place.  For example when I talked about the Americans who were on drugs as a reason that we have to fix that, you wanted a debate as whether or not ADD / ADHD were real conditions.
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that I enjoy the Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled and died for.
> 
> If you eliminate the incentives for foreigners to come here, they won't enter the U.S.  That is NOT what you're after.  You are on the side that had a problem with the Americans Right to own private property.  You and your ilk have been attacking it ever since this little immigration battle began.  You are on the side invoking the great successes of communist countries, dictatorships and countries at war with these nutty walls.  You hate private property Rights, Liberty, and you have no use for the free market.  I'm against the socialist utopia you are working toward.
> 
> Insofar as the immigrants, if you went back to the way America was designed to work, you would not have a problem with them.  And, son, you've spent so much time calling people names, I realize that you will be too damn stupid to read between the lines and understand that I gave you an unequivocal answer to your question about my attitude toward immigration and what I expect out of EVERY foreigner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who have I called a name unprovoked?  Nobody.  If anything, it's you hurling the names.  I don't draw first blood on message boards.  Your personal insults like the one you just posted is a perfect example.
> 
> The only people losing freedoms by a wall are the invaders themselves.  Unless you are an illegal yourself, then you're not going to lose one freedom and neither will I.  And if the wall is built and you are losing freedom, write back and I will support you in tearing down the wall.
> 
> You mentioned several times you are an elderly person.  I think what you should do is keep a notepad by your computer, and write down key things people write.  Because it's getting quite annoying when you tell me about things I said that I never even mentioned, things like insulting people when I haven't unless I was returning an insult, things you think I'm against like property rights when I never brought up the subject, and that way you at least won't be called a liar so often.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never initiated any name calling.  And since you're making the allegation, what name did I call you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  Crap like that; personal insults.  I didn't say one thing to you on that level for you to respond that way.  Like I said, you stated you were an elderly person, and as people age, they get more confused.  That's why I suggested that perhaps you keep a note pad and write things down so you at least know who said what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to accuse me of "being all over the place" for responding to issues YOU inquire about
> 
> You continue to want to cover questions asked and answered
> 
> You continue to post things you think are authoritative without providing any verifiable references save of those from socialist and / or partisan propaganda sites
> 
> You ignore the views of others even when such views are based upon legal principles, verifiable non-partisan studies, and plain old common sense
> 
> You continue to promote the political ideologies of totalitarian governments, communists, and socialists.
> 
> At some point you merit an equal response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing I promote is the benefit of the American people.  I also pointed out that on several occasions, you brought something up and then accused me of doing it.  I know what I say and I know what I wrote.
> 
> I don't ignore the view of others, I debate the view of others.
Click to expand...


Be specific


----------



## Wyatt earp

He is another green beard


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who have I called a name unprovoked?  Nobody.  If anything, it's you hurling the names.  I don't draw first blood on message boards.  Your personal insults like the one you just posted is a perfect example.
> 
> The only people losing freedoms by a wall are the invaders themselves.  Unless you are an illegal yourself, then you're not going to lose one freedom and neither will I.  And if the wall is built and you are losing freedom, write back and I will support you in tearing down the wall.
> 
> You mentioned several times you are an elderly person.  I think what you should do is keep a notepad by your computer, and write down key things people write.  Because it's getting quite annoying when you tell me about things I said that I never even mentioned, things like insulting people when I haven't unless I was returning an insult, things you think I'm against like property rights when I never brought up the subject, and that way you at least won't be called a liar so often.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never initiated any name calling.  And since you're making the allegation, what name did I call you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  Crap like that; personal insults.  I didn't say one thing to you on that level for you to respond that way.  Like I said, you stated you were an elderly person, and as people age, they get more confused.  That's why I suggested that perhaps you keep a note pad and write things down so you at least know who said what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to accuse me of "being all over the place" for responding to issues YOU inquire about
> 
> You continue to want to cover questions asked and answered
> 
> You continue to post things you think are authoritative without providing any verifiable references save of those from socialist and / or partisan propaganda sites
> 
> You ignore the views of others even when such views are based upon legal principles, verifiable non-partisan studies, and plain old common sense
> 
> You continue to promote the political ideologies of totalitarian governments, communists, and socialists.
> 
> At some point you merit an equal response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing I promote is the benefit of the American people.  I also pointed out that on several occasions, you brought something up and then accused me of doing it.  I know what I say and I know what I wrote.
> 
> I don't ignore the view of others, I debate the view of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be specific
Click to expand...


Specific? You had a tantrum..when I called you an asshole .

It's funny how you change...


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> He is another green beard



That's funny since I'll have to look it up to even know what it is.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who have I called a name unprovoked?  Nobody.  If anything, it's you hurling the names.  I don't draw first blood on message boards.  Your personal insults like the one you just posted is a perfect example.
> 
> The only people losing freedoms by a wall are the invaders themselves.  Unless you are an illegal yourself, then you're not going to lose one freedom and neither will I.  And if the wall is built and you are losing freedom, write back and I will support you in tearing down the wall.
> 
> You mentioned several times you are an elderly person.  I think what you should do is keep a notepad by your computer, and write down key things people write.  Because it's getting quite annoying when you tell me about things I said that I never even mentioned, things like insulting people when I haven't unless I was returning an insult, things you think I'm against like property rights when I never brought up the subject, and that way you at least won't be called a liar so often.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never initiated any name calling.  And since you're making the allegation, what name did I call you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  Crap like that; personal insults.  I didn't say one thing to you on that level for you to respond that way.  Like I said, you stated you were an elderly person, and as people age, they get more confused.  That's why I suggested that perhaps you keep a note pad and write things down so you at least know who said what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to accuse me of "being all over the place" for responding to issues YOU inquire about
> 
> You continue to want to cover questions asked and answered
> 
> You continue to post things you think are authoritative without providing any verifiable references save of those from socialist and / or partisan propaganda sites
> 
> You ignore the views of others even when such views are based upon legal principles, verifiable non-partisan studies, and plain old common sense
> 
> You continue to promote the political ideologies of totalitarian governments, communists, and socialists.
> 
> At some point you merit an equal response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing I promote is the benefit of the American people.  I also pointed out that on several occasions, you brought something up and then accused me of doing it.  I know what I say and I know what I wrote.
> 
> I don't ignore the view of others, I debate the view of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be specific
Click to expand...



Wait, I thought you had wits?

An IQ that could destroy me?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never initiated any name calling.  And since you're making the allegation, what name did I call you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  Crap like that; personal insults.  I didn't say one thing to you on that level for you to respond that way.  Like I said, you stated you were an elderly person, and as people age, they get more confused.  That's why I suggested that perhaps you keep a note pad and write things down so you at least know who said what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to accuse me of "being all over the place" for responding to issues YOU inquire about
> 
> You continue to want to cover questions asked and answered
> 
> You continue to post things you think are authoritative without providing any verifiable references save of those from socialist and / or partisan propaganda sites
> 
> You ignore the views of others even when such views are based upon legal principles, verifiable non-partisan studies, and plain old common sense
> 
> You continue to promote the political ideologies of totalitarian governments, communists, and socialists.
> 
> At some point you merit an equal response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing I promote is the benefit of the American people.  I also pointed out that on several occasions, you brought something up and then accused me of doing it.  I know what I say and I know what I wrote.
> 
> I don't ignore the view of others, I debate the view of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be specific
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Specific? You had a tantrum..when I called you an asshole .
> 
> It's funny how you change...
Click to expand...


I don't care what you call me.  The threat is the only time I was even bothered in the least.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never initiated any name calling.  And since you're making the allegation, what name did I call you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  Crap like that; personal insults.  I didn't say one thing to you on that level for you to respond that way.  Like I said, you stated you were an elderly person, and as people age, they get more confused.  That's why I suggested that perhaps you keep a note pad and write things down so you at least know who said what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to accuse me of "being all over the place" for responding to issues YOU inquire about
> 
> You continue to want to cover questions asked and answered
> 
> You continue to post things you think are authoritative without providing any verifiable references save of those from socialist and / or partisan propaganda sites
> 
> You ignore the views of others even when such views are based upon legal principles, verifiable non-partisan studies, and plain old common sense
> 
> You continue to promote the political ideologies of totalitarian governments, communists, and socialists.
> 
> At some point you merit an equal response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing I promote is the benefit of the American people.  I also pointed out that on several occasions, you brought something up and then accused me of doing it.  I know what I say and I know what I wrote.
> 
> I don't ignore the view of others, I debate the view of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be specific
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, I thought you had wits?
> 
> An IQ that could destroy me?
Click to expand...


I'm not psychic and don't have a clue what you are referring to.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is another green beard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny since I'll have to look it up to even know what it is.
Click to expand...



So you're excuse now is 



You're playing dumb?

Green beard was a democrat vetran of the internet of promoting Obama care..
Like you are doing now with open borders.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you never dug dirt?
> 
> You stupid fuck, go pick up a shovel and start digging.. let's see how far you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Start digging, you idiot..you need huge man power and money..
> 
> It's obvious you never dug a hole in your life
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My father and I once dug an 80 foot deep well by hand.  Your ignorance is now beginning to show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How long did that take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been so many years ago, but four Mexicans could have done it in a fourth of the time it took us.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it took days, if not weeks.  Meanwhile, the border patrol can arrive in two minutes.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who have I called a name unprovoked?  Nobody.  If anything, it's you hurling the names.  I don't draw first blood on message boards.  Your personal insults like the one you just posted is a perfect example.
> 
> The only people losing freedoms by a wall are the invaders themselves.  Unless you are an illegal yourself, then you're not going to lose one freedom and neither will I.  And if the wall is built and you are losing freedom, write back and I will support you in tearing down the wall.
> 
> You mentioned several times you are an elderly person.  I think what you should do is keep a notepad by your computer, and write down key things people write.  Because it's getting quite annoying when you tell me about things I said that I never even mentioned, things like insulting people when I haven't unless I was returning an insult, things you think I'm against like property rights when I never brought up the subject, and that way you at least won't be called a liar so often.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never initiated any name calling.  And since you're making the allegation, what name did I call you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  Crap like that; personal insults.  I didn't say one thing to you on that level for you to respond that way.  Like I said, you stated you were an elderly person, and as people age, they get more confused.  That's why I suggested that perhaps you keep a note pad and write things down so you at least know who said what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to accuse me of "being all over the place" for responding to issues YOU inquire about
> 
> You continue to want to cover questions asked and answered
> 
> You continue to post things you think are authoritative without providing any verifiable references save of those from socialist and / or partisan propaganda sites
> 
> You ignore the views of others even when such views are based upon legal principles, verifiable non-partisan studies, and plain old common sense
> 
> You continue to promote the political ideologies of totalitarian governments, communists, and socialists.
> 
> At some point you merit an equal response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We know you are a paid troll..
> 
> 
> Give it up fucker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see if you can answer one single honest question:
> 
> How many minds do you think I've changed by posting on this thread?
Click to expand...

None.   The gullible already believe what you say, and the skeptical will never believe it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is another green beard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny since I'll have to look it up to even know what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you're excuse now is
> 
> 
> 
> You're playing dumb?
> 
> Green beard was a democrat vetran of the internet of promoting Obama care..
> Like you are doing now with open borders.
Click to expand...


I didn't support the community organizer; I don't vote for Democrats; and do not support socialized medical care in any form.

Maybe that's why I didn't know what a green beard was.  You got the wrong guy.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you never dug dirt?
> 
> You stupid fuck, go pick up a shovel and start digging.. let's see how far you get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Start digging, you idiot..you need huge man power and money..
> 
> It's obvious you never dug a hole in your life
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My father and I once dug an 80 foot deep well by hand.  Your ignorance is now beginning to show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How long did that take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been so many years ago, but four Mexicans could have done it in a fourth of the time it took us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure it took days, if not weeks.  Meanwhile, the border patrol can arrive in two minutes.
Click to expand...


Then the border patrol should have no problem getting there now in that span of time.  That's not the case - even when the military is there.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start digging, you idiot..you need huge man power and money..
> 
> It's obvious you never dug a hole in your life
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My father and I once dug an 80 foot deep well by hand.  Your ignorance is now beginning to show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How long did that take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been so many years ago, but four Mexicans could have done it in a fourth of the time it took us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure it took days, if not weeks.  Meanwhile, the border patrol can arrive in two minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the border patrol should have no problem getting there now in that span of time.  That's not the case - even when the military is there.
Click to expand...

Right now there is no wall that forces anyone to dig a tunnel.  They can simply walk across the border and be long gone before the border patrol arrives.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never initiated any name calling.  And since you're making the allegation, what name did I call you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you would understand that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  Crap like that; personal insults.  I didn't say one thing to you on that level for you to respond that way.  Like I said, you stated you were an elderly person, and as people age, they get more confused.  That's why I suggested that perhaps you keep a note pad and write things down so you at least know who said what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to accuse me of "being all over the place" for responding to issues YOU inquire about
> 
> You continue to want to cover questions asked and answered
> 
> You continue to post things you think are authoritative without providing any verifiable references save of those from socialist and / or partisan propaganda sites
> 
> You ignore the views of others even when such views are based upon legal principles, verifiable non-partisan studies, and plain old common sense
> 
> You continue to promote the political ideologies of totalitarian governments, communists, and socialists.
> 
> At some point you merit an equal response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We know you are a paid troll..
> 
> 
> Give it up fucker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see if you can answer one single honest question:
> 
> How many minds do you think I've changed by posting on this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None.   The gullible already believe what you say, and the skeptical will never believe it.
Click to expand...



And the answer is NONE.  NOBODY has changed their mind on the basis of my posts.  Trolls get paid to change minds.  Since I'm ineffective, nobody is paying me.  I'm here giving my opinion.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> My father and I once dug an 80 foot deep well by hand.  Your ignorance is now beginning to show.
> 
> 
> 
> How long did that take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been so many years ago, but four Mexicans could have done it in a fourth of the time it took us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure it took days, if not weeks.  Meanwhile, the border patrol can arrive in two minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the border patrol should have no problem getting there now in that span of time.  That's not the case - even when the military is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right now there is no wall that forces anyone to dig a tunnel.  They can simply walk across the border and be long gone before the border patrol arrives.
Click to expand...


Yet the people from the  south have dug tunnels into the U.S.

Largest-ever drug tunnel in Nogales found

That was just a quick example.

Taking a time out to go grab lunch and do something to help someone out.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long did that take?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been so many years ago, but four Mexicans could have done it in a fourth of the time it took us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure it took days, if not weeks.  Meanwhile, the border patrol can arrive in two minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the border patrol should have no problem getting there now in that span of time.  That's not the case - even when the military is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right now there is no wall that forces anyone to dig a tunnel.  They can simply walk across the border and be long gone before the border patrol arrives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet the people from the  south have dug tunnels into the U.S.
> 
> Largest-ever drug tunnel in Nogales found
> 
> That was just a quick example.
> 
> Taking a time out to go grab lunch and do something to help someone out.
Click to expand...

Yes they have.  That's because we haven't employed the technology to stop these tunnels because the Dims won't fund it.

Even so, how many illegals have snuck into the US using these tunnels?  Answer: virtually none.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Correct, this is a barrier free country, and that's why we have over 20 million illegals here.  If you don't think 20 million people here illegally is an issue, over 70,000 Americans dying from overdoses every year is an issue, Americans losing work and working for lower pay because of foreigners is an issue, Americans getting murdered by these foreigners is an issue, then what is an issue to you?
> 
> I don't like that we spend 70 billion a  year on food stamps either; especially when I see the kind of people using them at my grocery store, but hey......... we keep spending it anyway.
> 
> A wall that we originally wanted is less than half of that, and it's one time only, not an annual thing.


The majority of those 20 million came in to the country legally, then wound up not reporting to the INS when their visas ran out.  They take jobs Americans don't want.  And you have a bigger chance getting murdered by the alt right, than you do someone whose in the country illegally.

This is a non-issue.  Only 10% of the most whacked out part of our population wants this wall.


----------



## Thinker101

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, this is a barrier free country, and that's why we have over 20 million illegals here.  If you don't think 20 million people here illegally is an issue, over 70,000 Americans dying from overdoses every year is an issue, Americans losing work and working for lower pay because of foreigners is an issue, Americans getting murdered by these foreigners is an issue, then what is an issue to you?
> 
> I don't like that we spend 70 billion a  year on food stamps either; especially when I see the kind of people using them at my grocery store, but hey......... we keep spending it anyway.
> 
> A wall that we originally wanted is less than half of that, and it's one time only, not an annual thing.
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of those 20 million came in to the country legally, then wound up not reporting to the INS when their visas ran out.  They take jobs Americans don't want.  And you have a bigger chance getting murdered by the alt right, than you do someone whose in the country illegally.
> 
> This is a non-issue.  Only 10% of the most whacked out part of our population wants this wall.
Click to expand...


Brilliant, now the majority of those 20 million are in the country illegally.


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, this is a barrier free country, and that's why we have over 20 million illegals here.  If you don't think 20 million people here illegally is an issue, over 70,000 Americans dying from overdoses every year is an issue, Americans losing work and working for lower pay because of foreigners is an issue, Americans getting murdered by these foreigners is an issue, then what is an issue to you?
> 
> I don't like that we spend 70 billion a  year on food stamps either; especially when I see the kind of people using them at my grocery store, but hey......... we keep spending it anyway.
> 
> A wall that we originally wanted is less than half of that, and it's one time only, not an annual thing.
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of those 20 million came in to the country legally, then wound up not reporting to the INS when their visas ran out.  They take jobs Americans don't want.  And you have a bigger chance getting murdered by the alt right, than you do someone whose in the country illegally.
> 
> This is a non-issue.  Only 10% of the most whacked out part of our population wants this wall.
Click to expand...

Another big fat lie.


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> It's not the Berlin wall, dumbass.


If it gets built it will be.


----------



## Billo_Really

Thinker101 said:


> Brilliant, now the majority of those 20 million are in the country illegally.


Paying taxes and contributing the local economies where they live.


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> Another big fat lie.


Prove it.


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the Berlin wall, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> If it gets built it will be.
Click to expand...

ROFL!  Based on what, asshole?  Is Austria arresting people without any criminal warrant and sending them to a Gulag?


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another big fat lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...

It's already been proven many times in this forum, so I won't even bother.  We all know that you're just another lying idiot.


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> ROFL!  Based on what, asshole?  Is Austria arresting people without any criminal warrant and sending them to a Gulag?


Get this through your fucking head, you ain't gettin' no wall!


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant, now the majority of those 20 million are in the country illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> Paying taxes and contributing the local economies where they live.
Click to expand...

Taking jobs from Americans and collecting welfare.


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Based on what, asshole?  Is Austria arresting people without any criminal warrant and sending them to a Gulag?
> 
> 
> 
> Get this through your fucking head, you ain't gettin' no wall!
Click to expand...

Apparently you realized your claim was pure idiocy.


----------



## Thinker101

Billo_Really said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant, now the majority of those 20 million are in the country illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> Paying taxes and contributing the local economies where they live.
Click to expand...


Sure, some of us should be so lucky to just pay sales taxes....dumbass.


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> [You'll begin to get the idea.



Yeah.

That you're an even bigger idiot than I thought, if you think you can get through Trump's border wall with that.


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> [OMG, at the expense of posting literally walls of text I've answered EVERY question I've been asked.  So that is a lie.  Otherwise, you would have quoted some question that has not been addressed.




Except mine.  Once again, tell me where any walls are built that have totally failed in their design goal to either keep people by and large in or others out.  Right now, all it takes to cross the border are two good feet or a pair of wire snips.  How is it that Israel can built a wall that keeps 99% of all but the most extreme, organized and determined out (who eventually get detected and stopped anyway) but the USA can't?

If walls don't work, why is every jail surrounded by one, every secure facility surrounded by one, the Vatican surrounded by one, every castle surrounded by one, every gated community surrounded by one and every Hollywood actor's home who opposes the wall, SURROUNDED BY ONE?


----------



## toobfreak

bear513 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, at the expense of posting literally walls of text I've answered EVERY question I've been asked.  So that is a lie.  Otherwise, you would have quoted some question that has not been addressed.
> 
> I don't deny the costs.  That is a lie. What YOU deny is that those foreign laborers pay taxes, create wealth, are more productive than lazy ass Americans and contribute toward those costs.  You don't want a true picture of the situation.
> 
> The people that hate us the most are the foreigners you choose to ignore.  That is very telling.
> 
> Are you so naive as to believe that if a government were sending people here to do us harm they would give you honest intel on them during any vetting process?   THAT mindset is the very reason I believe the wall will be built at the cost of firearms ownership.  Background checks, waiting periods, limits on how many firearms a gun collector can get, separating Americans into different classes of people.
> 
> I might be a jive mother fornicator as you say, but I did not realize that she was your mother.  You sure you want to start down that road?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ paid off propaganda troll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You couldn't answer the question, could you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you paid troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you're my type.  Are you trying to tell the posters here something about yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See how I get it out of you?
> 
> Fucking another green beard..
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...



No one but a paid troll could be so fixatingly obtuse about something so simple.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's been so many years ago, but four Mexicans could have done it in a fourth of the time it took us.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure it took days, if not weeks.  Meanwhile, the border patrol can arrive in two minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the border patrol should have no problem getting there now in that span of time.  That's not the case - even when the military is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right now there is no wall that forces anyone to dig a tunnel.  They can simply walk across the border and be long gone before the border patrol arrives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet the people from the  south have dug tunnels into the U.S.
> 
> Largest-ever drug tunnel in Nogales found
> 
> That was just a quick example.
> 
> Taking a time out to go grab lunch and do something to help someone out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they have.  That's because we haven't employed the technology to stop these tunnels because the Dims won't fund it.
> 
> Even so, how many illegals have snuck into the US using these tunnels?  Answer: virtually none.
Click to expand...



The way technology works is that you build something to detect the tunnels and the other side uses different technology to defeat it.

What is REALLY needed is a policy that addresses ALL the immigration issues; gives both sides something; resolves the problem and allows us to move forward on other issues.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

toobfreak said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> [You'll begin to get the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> That you're an even bigger idiot than I thought, if you think you can get through Trump's border wall with that.
Click to expand...


I haven't seen his wall, but if it's concrete, yeah those tools will do the trick.  If it's slats, I can draw you up plans for a tool that takes three guys to operate and it will open the wall in under ten minutes.  It would take less that $50 in material and you need a welder and a drill with a few pieces of metal to make it.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure it took days, if not weeks.  Meanwhile, the border patrol can arrive in two minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the border patrol should have no problem getting there now in that span of time.  That's not the case - even when the military is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right now there is no wall that forces anyone to dig a tunnel.  They can simply walk across the border and be long gone before the border patrol arrives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet the people from the  south have dug tunnels into the U.S.
> 
> Largest-ever drug tunnel in Nogales found
> 
> That was just a quick example.
> 
> Taking a time out to go grab lunch and do something to help someone out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they have.  That's because we haven't employed the technology to stop these tunnels because the Dims won't fund it.
> 
> Even so, how many illegals have snuck into the US using these tunnels?  Answer: virtually none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The way technology works is that you build something to detect the tunnels and the other side uses different technology to defeat it.
> 
> What is REALLY needed is a policy that addresses ALL the immigration issues; gives both sides something; resolves the problem and allows us to move forward on other issues.
Click to expand...

The Israelis reduced illegal crossings to 0%.  You're obviously full of shit.

The wall is what is REALLY needed.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> [You'll begin to get the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> That you're an even bigger idiot than I thought, if you think you can get through Trump's border wall with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't seen his wall, but if it's concrete, yeah those tools will do the trick.  If it's slats, I can draw you up plans for a tool that takes three guys to operate and it will open the wall in under ten minutes.  It would take less that $50 in material and you need a welder and a drill with a few pieces of metal to make it.
Click to expand...

It's all pointless since the border patrol can arrive in a couple of minutes.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

toobfreak said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> [OMG, at the expense of posting literally walls of text I've answered EVERY question I've been asked.  So that is a lie.  Otherwise, you would have quoted some question that has not been addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except mine.  Once again, tell me where any walls are built that have totally failed in their design goal to either keep people by and large in or others out.  Right now, all it takes to cross the border are two good feet or a pair of wire snips.  How is it that Israel can built a wall that keeps 99% of all but the most extreme, organized and determined out (who eventually get detected and stopped anyway) but the USA can't?
> 
> If walls don't work, why is every jail surrounded by one, every secure facility surrounded by one, the Vatican surrounded by one, every castle surrounded by one, every gated community surrounded by one and every Hollywood actor's home who opposes the wall, SURROUNDED BY ONE?
Click to expand...


What you need to do is step back and use your head for a moment.

Other countries use walls because they are engaged in wars and / or they want to keep people separated (i.e. as was the case with the Berlin Wall.)

Now, whether you like it or not; agree with it or not the masses of Americans willingly do business with these foreigners.  The bulk of the U.S. population has NO interest in keeping people out.  You could regulate people coming and going by revisiting the visa system and updating it and modernizing it.  You are not going to stop people from south of the border from coming here UNLESS you plan on having the 14th Amendment nullified or voided out.

The wall idea is not going to work when the majority of the American people, if given a vote, would revise the immigration laws rather than build a wall.  You said it.  You want the wall to keep people out.  Most Americans do not want to keep these people out.  Consequently, the wall is not a solution.  You still have an immigration issue; you still need a solution, but you're only going to trade one set of problems for another.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

toobfreak said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> [OMG, at the expense of posting literally walls of text I've answered EVERY question I've been asked.  So that is a lie.  Otherwise, you would have quoted some question that has not been addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except mine.  Once again, tell me where any walls are built that have totally failed in their design goal to either keep people by and large in or others out.  Right now, all it takes to cross the border are two good feet or a pair of wire snips.  How is it that Israel can built a wall that keeps 99% of all but the most extreme, organized and determined out (who eventually get detected and stopped anyway) but the USA can't?
> 
> If walls don't work, why is every jail surrounded by one, every secure facility surrounded by one, the Vatican surrounded by one, every castle surrounded by one, every gated community surrounded by one and every Hollywood actor's home who opposes the wall, SURROUNDED BY ONE?
Click to expand...


You don't suppose a nation guarded by machine gun toting soldiers has anything to do with Israel's ability to keep people out, do you?  We're not at war like the Israelis are and, if it's all the same to you, I'd like us to be able to address the immigration issue without having to go to war.


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure it took days, if not weeks.  Meanwhile, the border patrol can arrive in two minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the border patrol should have no problem getting there now in that span of time.  That's not the case - even when the military is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right now there is no wall that forces anyone to dig a tunnel.  They can simply walk across the border and be long gone before the border patrol arrives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet the people from the  south have dug tunnels into the U.S.
> 
> Largest-ever drug tunnel in Nogales found
> 
> That was just a quick example.
> 
> Taking a time out to go grab lunch and do something to help someone out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they have.  That's because we haven't employed the technology to stop these tunnels because the Dims won't fund it.
> 
> Even so, how many illegals have snuck into the US using these tunnels?  Answer: virtually none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The way technology works is that you build something to detect the tunnels and the other side uses different technology to defeat it.
Click to expand...



Right poontang, now we're in a technological race to stay ahead of the Mexicans and Guatemalans, right?  What is REALLY needed is a policy that addresses the MAIN ISSUE first, stop the invasion with a wall, then after you've wrested control of the main problem, you can fix everything else.  

That is exactly what Trump has been doing.

Building the wall.
Busting gangs.
Getting MS13 out.

Next will come:

Building more wall.
Improving legal immigration.
Expelling illegal criminals.

Go, Baby, Go!


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> Other countries use walls because they are engaged in wars and / or they want to keep people separated



Congratulations, farm boy!

The USA IS in a war (or at least we are under attack).

We DO want to keep people separated, legal, taxpaying American citizens and illegal invading aliens!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the border patrol should have no problem getting there now in that span of time.  That's not the case - even when the military is there.
> 
> 
> 
> Right now there is no wall that forces anyone to dig a tunnel.  They can simply walk across the border and be long gone before the border patrol arrives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet the people from the  south have dug tunnels into the U.S.
> 
> Largest-ever drug tunnel in Nogales found
> 
> That was just a quick example.
> 
> Taking a time out to go grab lunch and do something to help someone out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they have.  That's because we haven't employed the technology to stop these tunnels because the Dims won't fund it.
> 
> Even so, how many illegals have snuck into the US using these tunnels?  Answer: virtually none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The way technology works is that you build something to detect the tunnels and the other side uses different technology to defeat it.
> 
> What is REALLY needed is a policy that addresses ALL the immigration issues; gives both sides something; resolves the problem and allows us to move forward on other issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Israelis reduced illegal crossings to 0%.  You're obviously full of shit.
> 
> The wall is what is REALLY needed.
Click to expand...


Again, the Israelis are at war.  Add to that they have a lot less land to protect.  It takes manpower, technology and maintenance to keep a wall guarded.  With the size of our country, if you do a Cost / Benefits Analysis AND add to that the numbers of Americans that do not share your objective in keeping people out, the wall idea is not feasible.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> [You'll begin to get the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> That you're an even bigger idiot than I thought, if you think you can get through Trump's border wall with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't seen his wall, but if it's concrete, yeah those tools will do the trick.  If it's slats, I can draw you up plans for a tool that takes three guys to operate and it will open the wall in under ten minutes.  It would take less that $50 in material and you need a welder and a drill with a few pieces of metal to make it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all pointless since the border patrol can arrive in a couple of minutes.
Click to expand...


Did you take math in school?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

toobfreak said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the border patrol should have no problem getting there now in that span of time.  That's not the case - even when the military is there.
> 
> 
> 
> Right now there is no wall that forces anyone to dig a tunnel.  They can simply walk across the border and be long gone before the border patrol arrives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet the people from the  south have dug tunnels into the U.S.
> 
> Largest-ever drug tunnel in Nogales found
> 
> That was just a quick example.
> 
> Taking a time out to go grab lunch and do something to help someone out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they have.  That's because we haven't employed the technology to stop these tunnels because the Dims won't fund it.
> 
> Even so, how many illegals have snuck into the US using these tunnels?  Answer: virtually none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The way technology works is that you build something to detect the tunnels and the other side uses different technology to defeat it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right poontang, now we're in a technological race to stay ahead of the Mexicans and Guatemalans, right?  What is REALLY needed is a policy that addresses the MAIN ISSUE first, stop the invasion with a wall, then after you've wrested control of the main problem, you can fix everything else.
> 
> That is exactly what Trump has been doing.
> 
> Building the wall.
> Busting gangs.
> Getting MS13 out.
> 
> Next will come:
> 
> Building more wall.
> Improving legal immigration.
> Expelling illegal criminals.
> 
> Go, Baby, Go!
Click to expand...



You are out of touch reality.  MILLIONS of Americans willingly do business with the foreigners and, therefore, there is NO invasion.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

toobfreak said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other countries use walls because they are engaged in wars and / or they want to keep people separated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations, farm boy!
> 
> The USA IS in a war (or at least we are under attack).
> 
> We DO want to keep people separated, legal, taxpaying American citizens and illegal invading aliens!
Click to expand...


When did Congress declare war on Mexico or any country south of there?  This is your free enterprise system working to give every American an opportunity.  It is your fellow Americans that are locking their American brethren out of the system.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> [OMG, at the expense of posting literally walls of text I've answered EVERY question I've been asked.  So that is a lie.  Otherwise, you would have quoted some question that has not been addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except mine.  Once again, tell me where any walls are built that have totally failed in their design goal to either keep people by and large in or others out.  Right now, all it takes to cross the border are two good feet or a pair of wire snips.  How is it that Israel can built a wall that keeps 99% of all but the most extreme, organized and determined out (who eventually get detected and stopped anyway) but the USA can't?
> 
> If walls don't work, why is every jail surrounded by one, every secure facility surrounded by one, the Vatican surrounded by one, every castle surrounded by one, every gated community surrounded by one and every Hollywood actor's home who opposes the wall, SURROUNDED BY ONE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you need to do is step back and use your head for a moment.
> 
> Other countries use walls because they are engaged in wars and / or they want to keep people separated (i.e. as was the case with the Berlin Wall.)
> 
> Now, whether you like it or not; agree with it or not the masses of Americans willingly do business with these foreigners.  The bulk of the U.S. population has NO interest in keeping people out.  You could regulate people coming and going by revisiting the visa system and updating it and modernizing it.  You are not going to stop people from south of the border from coming here UNLESS you plan on having the 14th Amendment nullified or voided out.
> 
> The wall idea is not going to work when the majority of the American people, if given a vote, would revise the immigration laws rather than build a wall.  You said it.  You want the wall to keep people out.  Most Americans do not want to keep these people out.  Consequently, the wall is not a solution.  You still have an immigration issue; you still need a solution, but you're only going to trade one set of problems for another.
Click to expand...

Actually, the bulk of American citizens want Mexicans to stay on their side of the border.  You're totally full of shit.  And, no, the majority of Americans do not want to change our immigration laws to allow Mexicans to walk over the border whenever they like.  The want immigration controlled.  That's why Trump got elected.

It's truly amazing how just about everything you post is the exact opposite of the facts.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now there is no wall that forces anyone to dig a tunnel.  They can simply walk across the border and be long gone before the border patrol arrives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the people from the  south have dug tunnels into the U.S.
> 
> Largest-ever drug tunnel in Nogales found
> 
> That was just a quick example.
> 
> Taking a time out to go grab lunch and do something to help someone out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they have.  That's because we haven't employed the technology to stop these tunnels because the Dims won't fund it.
> 
> Even so, how many illegals have snuck into the US using these tunnels?  Answer: virtually none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The way technology works is that you build something to detect the tunnels and the other side uses different technology to defeat it.
> 
> What is REALLY needed is a policy that addresses ALL the immigration issues; gives both sides something; resolves the problem and allows us to move forward on other issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Israelis reduced illegal crossings to 0%.  You're obviously full of shit.
> 
> The wall is what is REALLY needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the Israelis are at war.  Add to that they have a lot less land to protect.  It takes manpower, technology and maintenance to keep a wall guarded.  With the size of our country, if you do a Cost / Benefits Analysis AND add to that the numbers of Americans that do not share your objective in keeping people out, the wall idea is not feasible.
Click to expand...


You're a dumb fucking imbecile.  The population of the United States is 36 times the population of Israel.  furthermore our per capita income is higher.  That means we can easily afford to spend at least 36 times what Israel spent on its wall.  That would be more then $130 billion.  The idea that we can't afford to do what Israel did is beyond absurd.  

A cost benefit analysis has already been done and discussed as nauseum in the forum.  It's way in favor of the benefit side.

Why should we exclude numskulls like you who don't want the wall?  Did you exclude people who didn't want Obama's ACA boondoggle?  You apparently don't understand how democracy works.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> [OMG, at the expense of posting literally walls of text I've answered EVERY question I've been asked.  So that is a lie.  Otherwise, you would have quoted some question that has not been addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except mine.  Once again, tell me where any walls are built that have totally failed in their design goal to either keep people by and large in or others out.  Right now, all it takes to cross the border are two good feet or a pair of wire snips.  How is it that Israel can built a wall that keeps 99% of all but the most extreme, organized and determined out (who eventually get detected and stopped anyway) but the USA can't?
> 
> If walls don't work, why is every jail surrounded by one, every secure facility surrounded by one, the Vatican surrounded by one, every castle surrounded by one, every gated community surrounded by one and every Hollywood actor's home who opposes the wall, SURROUNDED BY ONE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't suppose a nation guarded by machine gun toting soldiers has anything to do with Israel's ability to keep people out, do you?  We're not at war like the Israelis are and, if it's all the same to you, I'd like us to be able to address the immigration issue without having to go to war.
Click to expand...

Look at the chart below, moron.  It shows that before the wall was built Israel was not able to keep illegals out, despite their machine gun toting soldiers.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AN ADDITION TO MY RANT:

Since I have been involved in this thread, the posts begin and it's never ending.  The back and forth is a battle of wills with few people willing to read and understand what others write.  As a result, you've witnessed everything from threats to admissions that others are here trying to make it miserable for their political opponents.

So that I am not misrepresented, I'm going to tell those who are doing what they can to cause me problems instead of discussing the issue exactly how I feel.

The build the wall advocates want people out.  They do not care about any alleged illegal immigration.  The real objective is, they want people out.  The problem is, an equal number of Americans DON'T share their sentiment.  My view is very simple.  Either the government doles out your "rights" based upon your citizenship or immigration status OR the government has limited authority over your unalienable Rights.  So, do foreigners have Rights?  The Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

The number ONE issue here is that either we have Rights that are bestowed upon us at birth by a Creator OR rights are a privilege to be doled out by bureaucrats in government.  Let's take gun control for a moment:

I see the Right to Life and Liberty to mean that I have a God given Right to keep and bear Arms as tools to defend my life with.  I know the value of my life and will use the best tools I can afford regardless of how many gun laws are passed.  My Rights supersede man made law.

Foreigners have a Right to Life and they have a Right to Liberty.  Wher I live, we have a squirrel problem.  So, the county has an approved way to allow residents to kill the squirrels and dispose of them.  Well, if I go along with the presupposition that foreigners have no Rights, the government would so instruct me on how to kill them and dispose of their bodies.  That principle of an unalienable Right to Life obviously applies to the foreigner as we cannot kill them if we think they are rodents.  If they have a Right to Life, they have a Right to be here.  That would come under the heading of a Right to Liberty.

Our government has a duty to protect the borders and provide for the general welfare; however, that does not extend to keeping people out.  We have every Right and every responsibility to regulate the flow of people in and out of the U.S.  Those who advocate for the wall have admitted it: their goal is to keep people out.  

My objective is to keep America from being flooded by foreigners without jeopardizing their unalienable Rights.  I'm not trying to keep them out and those who scream, curse and call me names while making baseless allegations don't want to admit that there are better ways to address the issue.  Between the POLICE STATE and the Nanny State there is a workable solution that allows foreigners to work here without becoming citizens.  There is a way to distribute entitlements and welfare to citizens while NOT allowing the foreigners to receive the benefits and privileges of citizenship.  

There are ways to encourage employers to hire all American staffs without stepping on the employer's Rights.  And, all of what I'm advocating does not cost money.  It would actually save your tax dollars.  We would not have to go to war AND the solution would not be undone by the next liberal administration.  We would not be flooded by foreigners NOR would they be able to take control of our government.  That is where I stand.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now there is no wall that forces anyone to dig a tunnel.  They can simply walk across the border and be long gone before the border patrol arrives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the people from the  south have dug tunnels into the U.S.
> 
> Largest-ever drug tunnel in Nogales found
> 
> That was just a quick example.
> 
> Taking a time out to go grab lunch and do something to help someone out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they have.  That's because we haven't employed the technology to stop these tunnels because the Dims won't fund it.
> 
> Even so, how many illegals have snuck into the US using these tunnels?  Answer: virtually none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The way technology works is that you build something to detect the tunnels and the other side uses different technology to defeat it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right poontang, now we're in a technological race to stay ahead of the Mexicans and Guatemalans, right?  What is REALLY needed is a policy that addresses the MAIN ISSUE first, stop the invasion with a wall, then after you've wrested control of the main problem, you can fix everything else.
> 
> That is exactly what Trump has been doing.
> 
> Building the wall.
> Busting gangs.
> Getting MS13 out.
> 
> Next will come:
> 
> Building more wall.
> Improving legal immigration.
> Expelling illegal criminals.
> 
> Go, Baby, Go!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are out of touch reality.  MILLIONS of Americans willingly do business with the foreigners and, therefore, there is NO invasion.
Click to expand...

Doing business with them is hardly the same thing has having them move in.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> [OMG, at the expense of posting literally walls of text I've answered EVERY question I've been asked.  So that is a lie.  Otherwise, you would have quoted some question that has not been addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except mine.  Once again, tell me where any walls are built that have totally failed in their design goal to either keep people by and large in or others out.  Right now, all it takes to cross the border are two good feet or a pair of wire snips.  How is it that Israel can built a wall that keeps 99% of all but the most extreme, organized and determined out (who eventually get detected and stopped anyway) but the USA can't?
> 
> If walls don't work, why is every jail surrounded by one, every secure facility surrounded by one, the Vatican surrounded by one, every castle surrounded by one, every gated community surrounded by one and every Hollywood actor's home who opposes the wall, SURROUNDED BY ONE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you need to do is step back and use your head for a moment.
> 
> Other countries use walls because they are engaged in wars and / or they want to keep people separated (i.e. as was the case with the Berlin Wall.)
> 
> Now, whether you like it or not; agree with it or not the masses of Americans willingly do business with these foreigners.  The bulk of the U.S. population has NO interest in keeping people out.  You could regulate people coming and going by revisiting the visa system and updating it and modernizing it.  You are not going to stop people from south of the border from coming here UNLESS you plan on having the 14th Amendment nullified or voided out.
> 
> The wall idea is not going to work when the majority of the American people, if given a vote, would revise the immigration laws rather than build a wall.  You said it.  You want the wall to keep people out.  Most Americans do not want to keep these people out.  Consequently, the wall is not a solution.  You still have an immigration issue; you still need a solution, but you're only going to trade one set of problems for another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the bulk of American citizens want Mexicans to stay on their side of the border.  You're totally full of shit.  And, no, the majority of Americans do not want to change our immigration laws to allow Mexicans to walk over the border whenever they like.  The want immigration controlled.  That's why Trump got elected.
> 
> It's truly amazing how just about everything you post is the exact opposite of the facts.
Click to expand...


Controlling immigration and keeping people out are two different things.

Last I heard, Trump's signature issue was immigration.  Last I heard, Trump got spanked in the last election.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> AN ADDITION TO MY RANT:
> 
> Since I have been involved in this thread, the posts begin and it's never ending.  The back and forth is a battle of wills with few people willing to read and understand what others write.  As a result, you've witnessed everything from threats to admissions that others are here trying to make it miserable for their political opponents.
> 
> So that I am not misrepresented, I'm going to tell those who are doing what they can to cause me problems instead of discussing the issue exactly how I feel.
> 
> The build the wall advocates want people out.  They do not care about any alleged illegal immigration.  The real objective is, they want people out.  The problem is, an equal number of Americans DON'T share their sentiment.  My view is very simple.  Either the government doles out your "rights" based upon your citizenship or immigration status OR the government has limited authority over your unalienable Rights.  So, do foreigners have Rights?  The Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
> 
> The number ONE issue here is that either we have Rights that are bestowed upon us at birth by a Creator OR rights are a privilege to be doled out by bureaucrats in government.  Let's take gun control for a moment:
> 
> I see the Right to Life and Liberty to mean that I have a God given Right to keep and bear Arms as tools to defend my life with.  I know the value of my life and will use the best tools I can afford regardless of how many gun laws are passed.  My Rights supersede man made law.
> 
> Foreigners have a Right to Life and they have a Right to Liberty.  Wher I live, we have a squirrel problem.  So, the county has an approved way to allow residents to kill the squirrels and dispose of them.  Well, if I go along with the presupposition that foreigners have no Rights, the government would so instruct me on how to kill them and dispose of their bodies.  That principle of an unalienable Right to Life obviously applies to the foreigner as we cannot kill them if we think they are rodents.  If they have a Right to Life, they have a Right to be here.  That would come under the heading of a Right to Liberty.
> 
> Our government has a duty to protect the borders and provide for the general welfare; however, that does not extend to keeping people out.  We have every Right and every responsibility to regulate the flow of people in and out of the U.S.  Those who advocate for the wall have admitted it: their goal is to keep people out.
> 
> My objective is to keep America from being flooded by foreigners without jeopardizing their unalienable Rights.  I'm not trying to keep them out and those who scream, curse and call me names while making baseless allegations don't want to admit that there are better ways to address the issue.  Between the POLICE STATE and the Nanny State there is a workable solution that allows foreigners to work here without becoming citizens.  There is a way to distribute entitlements and welfare to citizens while NOT allowing the foreigners to receive the benefits and privileges of citizenship.
> 
> There are ways to encourage employers to hire all American staffs without stepping on the employer's Rights.  And, all of what I'm advocating does not cost money.  It would actually save your tax dollars.  We would not have to go to war AND the solution would not be undone by the next liberal administration.  We would not be flooded by foreigners NOR would they be able to take control of our government.  That is where I stand.


The one right foreigners do not have is the right to live here without our permission.  You can't get around that irrefutable fact no matter how much shit you throw against the wall.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> [OMG, at the expense of posting literally walls of text I've answered EVERY question I've been asked.  So that is a lie.  Otherwise, you would have quoted some question that has not been addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except mine.  Once again, tell me where any walls are built that have totally failed in their design goal to either keep people by and large in or others out.  Right now, all it takes to cross the border are two good feet or a pair of wire snips.  How is it that Israel can built a wall that keeps 99% of all but the most extreme, organized and determined out (who eventually get detected and stopped anyway) but the USA can't?
> 
> If walls don't work, why is every jail surrounded by one, every secure facility surrounded by one, the Vatican surrounded by one, every castle surrounded by one, every gated community surrounded by one and every Hollywood actor's home who opposes the wall, SURROUNDED BY ONE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you need to do is step back and use your head for a moment.
> 
> Other countries use walls because they are engaged in wars and / or they want to keep people separated (i.e. as was the case with the Berlin Wall.)
> 
> Now, whether you like it or not; agree with it or not the masses of Americans willingly do business with these foreigners.  The bulk of the U.S. population has NO interest in keeping people out.  You could regulate people coming and going by revisiting the visa system and updating it and modernizing it.  You are not going to stop people from south of the border from coming here UNLESS you plan on having the 14th Amendment nullified or voided out.
> 
> The wall idea is not going to work when the majority of the American people, if given a vote, would revise the immigration laws rather than build a wall.  You said it.  You want the wall to keep people out.  Most Americans do not want to keep these people out.  Consequently, the wall is not a solution.  You still have an immigration issue; you still need a solution, but you're only going to trade one set of problems for another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the bulk of American citizens want Mexicans to stay on their side of the border.  You're totally full of shit.  And, no, the majority of Americans do not want to change our immigration laws to allow Mexicans to walk over the border whenever they like.  The want immigration controlled.  That's why Trump got elected.
> 
> It's truly amazing how just about everything you post is the exact opposite of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Controlling immigration and keeping people out are two different things.
> 
> Last I heard, Trump's signature issue was immigration.  Last I heard, Trump got spanked in the last election.
Click to expand...

They are one and the same, moron.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the people from the  south have dug tunnels into the U.S.
> 
> Largest-ever drug tunnel in Nogales found
> 
> That was just a quick example.
> 
> Taking a time out to go grab lunch and do something to help someone out.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they have.  That's because we haven't employed the technology to stop these tunnels because the Dims won't fund it.
> 
> Even so, how many illegals have snuck into the US using these tunnels?  Answer: virtually none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The way technology works is that you build something to detect the tunnels and the other side uses different technology to defeat it.
> 
> What is REALLY needed is a policy that addresses ALL the immigration issues; gives both sides something; resolves the problem and allows us to move forward on other issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Israelis reduced illegal crossings to 0%.  You're obviously full of shit.
> 
> The wall is what is REALLY needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the Israelis are at war.  Add to that they have a lot less land to protect.  It takes manpower, technology and maintenance to keep a wall guarded.  With the size of our country, if you do a Cost / Benefits Analysis AND add to that the numbers of Americans that do not share your objective in keeping people out, the wall idea is not feasible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a dumb fucking imbecile.  The population of the United States is 36 times the population of Israel.  furthermore our per capita income is higher.  That means we can easily afford to spend at least 36 times what Israel spent on its wall.  That would be more then $130 billion.  The idea that we can't afford to do what Israel did is beyond absurd.
> 
> A cost benefit analysis has already been done and discussed as nauseum in the forum.  It's way in favor of the benefit side.
> 
> Why should we exclude numskulls like you who don't want the wall?  Did you exclude people who didn't want Obama's ACA boondoggle?  You apparently don't understand how democracy works.
Click to expand...


Israel gets a lot of that money from us.  If you believe the crap you post, why bother posting over and over and over again against everything I say.  If I were, as you claim, all those things nobody would pay attention to me.  You are desperate, full of fear, realizing that you don't have a case.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> [OMG, at the expense of posting literally walls of text I've answered EVERY question I've been asked.  So that is a lie.  Otherwise, you would have quoted some question that has not been addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except mine.  Once again, tell me where any walls are built that have totally failed in their design goal to either keep people by and large in or others out.  Right now, all it takes to cross the border are two good feet or a pair of wire snips.  How is it that Israel can built a wall that keeps 99% of all but the most extreme, organized and determined out (who eventually get detected and stopped anyway) but the USA can't?
> 
> If walls don't work, why is every jail surrounded by one, every secure facility surrounded by one, the Vatican surrounded by one, every castle surrounded by one, every gated community surrounded by one and every Hollywood actor's home who opposes the wall, SURROUNDED BY ONE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't suppose a nation guarded by machine gun toting soldiers has anything to do with Israel's ability to keep people out, do you?  We're not at war like the Israelis are and, if it's all the same to you, I'd like us to be able to address the immigration issue without having to go to war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look at the chart below, moron.  It shows that before the wall was built Israel was not able to keep illegals out, despite their machine gun toting soldiers.
Click to expand...


More money was spent on more soldiers, more technology and more help from their government / God... the good old United States.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> [OMG, at the expense of posting literally walls of text I've answered EVERY question I've been asked.  So that is a lie.  Otherwise, you would have quoted some question that has not been addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except mine.  Once again, tell me where any walls are built that have totally failed in their design goal to either keep people by and large in or others out.  Right now, all it takes to cross the border are two good feet or a pair of wire snips.  How is it that Israel can built a wall that keeps 99% of all but the most extreme, organized and determined out (who eventually get detected and stopped anyway) but the USA can't?
> 
> If walls don't work, why is every jail surrounded by one, every secure facility surrounded by one, the Vatican surrounded by one, every castle surrounded by one, every gated community surrounded by one and every Hollywood actor's home who opposes the wall, SURROUNDED BY ONE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you need to do is step back and use your head for a moment.
> 
> Other countries use walls because they are engaged in wars and / or they want to keep people separated (i.e. as was the case with the Berlin Wall.)
> 
> Now, whether you like it or not; agree with it or not the masses of Americans willingly do business with these foreigners.  The bulk of the U.S. population has NO interest in keeping people out.  You could regulate people coming and going by revisiting the visa system and updating it and modernizing it.  You are not going to stop people from south of the border from coming here UNLESS you plan on having the 14th Amendment nullified or voided out.
> 
> The wall idea is not going to work when the majority of the American people, if given a vote, would revise the immigration laws rather than build a wall.  You said it.  You want the wall to keep people out.  Most Americans do not want to keep these people out.  Consequently, the wall is not a solution.  You still have an immigration issue; you still need a solution, but you're only going to trade one set of problems for another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the bulk of American citizens want Mexicans to stay on their side of the border.  You're totally full of shit.  And, no, the majority of Americans do not want to change our immigration laws to allow Mexicans to walk over the border whenever they like.  The want immigration controlled.  That's why Trump got elected.
> 
> It's truly amazing how just about everything you post is the exact opposite of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Controlling immigration and keeping people out are two different things.
> 
> Last I heard, Trump's signature issue was immigration.  Last I heard, Trump got spanked in the last election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are one and the same, moron.
Click to expand...


No, they are not the same.  When your vocabulary consists of curse words, insults and name calling, you probably lack the mental capacity to understand the difference so pardon me for not arguing the point.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they have.  That's because we haven't employed the technology to stop these tunnels because the Dims won't fund it.
> 
> Even so, how many illegals have snuck into the US using these tunnels?  Answer: virtually none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The way technology works is that you build something to detect the tunnels and the other side uses different technology to defeat it.
> 
> What is REALLY needed is a policy that addresses ALL the immigration issues; gives both sides something; resolves the problem and allows us to move forward on other issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Israelis reduced illegal crossings to 0%.  You're obviously full of shit.
> 
> The wall is what is REALLY needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the Israelis are at war.  Add to that they have a lot less land to protect.  It takes manpower, technology and maintenance to keep a wall guarded.  With the size of our country, if you do a Cost / Benefits Analysis AND add to that the numbers of Americans that do not share your objective in keeping people out, the wall idea is not feasible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a dumb fucking imbecile.  The population of the United States is 36 times the population of Israel.  furthermore our per capita income is higher.  That means we can easily afford to spend at least 36 times what Israel spent on its wall.  That would be more then $130 billion.  The idea that we can't afford to do what Israel did is beyond absurd.
> 
> A cost benefit analysis has already been done and discussed as nauseum in the forum.  It's way in favor of the benefit side.
> 
> Why should we exclude numskulls like you who don't want the wall?  Did you exclude people who didn't want Obama's ACA boondoggle?  You apparently don't understand how democracy works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel gets a lot of that money from us.  If you believe the crap you post, why bother posting over and over and over again against everything I say.  If I were, as you claim, all those things nobody would pay attention to me.  You are desperate, full of fear, realizing that you don't have a case.
Click to expand...

Israel gets a couple billion a year for weapons from us.  If they can afford a wall, then so can we. On a per capita basis it will be far cheaper for us.  You just don't know what the fuck you're talking about.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

I can only take so much of these guys whose arguments consist of the mental midgetry of name calling and posting partial arguments.  So I have one more "alert" to respond to and then I'm gone for the day.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> [OMG, at the expense of posting literally walls of text I've answered EVERY question I've been asked.  So that is a lie.  Otherwise, you would have quoted some question that has not been addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except mine.  Once again, tell me where any walls are built that have totally failed in their design goal to either keep people by and large in or others out.  Right now, all it takes to cross the border are two good feet or a pair of wire snips.  How is it that Israel can built a wall that keeps 99% of all but the most extreme, organized and determined out (who eventually get detected and stopped anyway) but the USA can't?
> 
> If walls don't work, why is every jail surrounded by one, every secure facility surrounded by one, the Vatican surrounded by one, every castle surrounded by one, every gated community surrounded by one and every Hollywood actor's home who opposes the wall, SURROUNDED BY ONE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't suppose a nation guarded by machine gun toting soldiers has anything to do with Israel's ability to keep people out, do you?  We're not at war like the Israelis are and, if it's all the same to you, I'd like us to be able to address the immigration issue without having to go to war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look at the chart below, moron.  It shows that before the wall was built Israel was not able to keep illegals out, despite their machine gun toting soldiers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More money was spent on more soldiers, more technology and more help from their government / God... the good old United States.
Click to expand...

I don't know what that means.  The chart shows that before the wall was built, they weren't able to keep illegal aliens out.  The drop in illegals correlates exactly with the construction of the wall.  There is a similar chart for Hungary.

The evidence that walls work is irrefutable.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> I can only take so much of these guys whose arguments consist of the mental midgetry of name calling and posting partial arguments.  So I have one more "alert" to respond to and then I'm gone for the day.


Wrong, dumbfuck.  I posted irrefutable empirical evidence.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The way technology works is that you build something to detect the tunnels and the other side uses different technology to defeat it.
> 
> What is REALLY needed is a policy that addresses ALL the immigration issues; gives both sides something; resolves the problem and allows us to move forward on other issues.
> 
> 
> 
> The Israelis reduced illegal crossings to 0%.  You're obviously full of shit.
> 
> The wall is what is REALLY needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the Israelis are at war.  Add to that they have a lot less land to protect.  It takes manpower, technology and maintenance to keep a wall guarded.  With the size of our country, if you do a Cost / Benefits Analysis AND add to that the numbers of Americans that do not share your objective in keeping people out, the wall idea is not feasible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a dumb fucking imbecile.  The population of the United States is 36 times the population of Israel.  furthermore our per capita income is higher.  That means we can easily afford to spend at least 36 times what Israel spent on its wall.  That would be more then $130 billion.  The idea that we can't afford to do what Israel did is beyond absurd.
> 
> A cost benefit analysis has already been done and discussed as nauseum in the forum.  It's way in favor of the benefit side.
> 
> Why should we exclude numskulls like you who don't want the wall?  Did you exclude people who didn't want Obama's ACA boondoggle?  You apparently don't understand how democracy works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel gets a lot of that money from us.  If you believe the crap you post, why bother posting over and over and over again against everything I say.  If I were, as you claim, all those things nobody would pay attention to me.  You are desperate, full of fear, realizing that you don't have a case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel gets a couple billion a year for weapons from us.  If they can afford a wall, then so can we. On a per capita basis it will be far cheaper for us.  You just don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Click to expand...


No sir, it is YOU who does not know what they're talking about.  

Across the U.S. Trump's position did NOT turn out the votes and Americans took a dump on his agenda.


----------



## dblack

Wall cowards gonna cower.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can only take so much of these guys whose arguments consist of the mental midgetry of name calling and posting partial arguments.  So I have one more "alert" to respond to and then I'm gone for the day.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, dumbfuck.  I posted irrefutable empirical evidence.
Click to expand...



NOTHING you've posted is irrefutable.  Otherwise, you could sway people to your side without the insults and playing God with your narcissistic attitude.  See you tomorrow.  I'm taking a break from your idiocy.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except mine.  Once again, tell me where any walls are built that have totally failed in their design goal to either keep people by and large in or others out.  Right now, all it takes to cross the border are two good feet or a pair of wire snips.  How is it that Israel can built a wall that keeps 99% of all but the most extreme, organized and determined out (who eventually get detected and stopped anyway) but the USA can't?
> 
> If walls don't work, why is every jail surrounded by one, every secure facility surrounded by one, the Vatican surrounded by one, every castle surrounded by one, every gated community surrounded by one and every Hollywood actor's home who opposes the wall, SURROUNDED BY ONE?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you need to do is step back and use your head for a moment.
> 
> Other countries use walls because they are engaged in wars and / or they want to keep people separated (i.e. as was the case with the Berlin Wall.)
> 
> Now, whether you like it or not; agree with it or not the masses of Americans willingly do business with these foreigners.  The bulk of the U.S. population has NO interest in keeping people out.  You could regulate people coming and going by revisiting the visa system and updating it and modernizing it.  You are not going to stop people from south of the border from coming here UNLESS you plan on having the 14th Amendment nullified or voided out.
> 
> The wall idea is not going to work when the majority of the American people, if given a vote, would revise the immigration laws rather than build a wall.  You said it.  You want the wall to keep people out.  Most Americans do not want to keep these people out.  Consequently, the wall is not a solution.  You still have an immigration issue; you still need a solution, but you're only going to trade one set of problems for another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the bulk of American citizens want Mexicans to stay on their side of the border.  You're totally full of shit.  And, no, the majority of Americans do not want to change our immigration laws to allow Mexicans to walk over the border whenever they like.  The want immigration controlled.  That's why Trump got elected.
> 
> It's truly amazing how just about everything you post is the exact opposite of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Controlling immigration and keeping people out are two different things.
> 
> Last I heard, Trump's signature issue was immigration.  Last I heard, Trump got spanked in the last election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are one and the same, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not the same.  When your vocabulary consists of curse words, insults and name calling, you probably lack the mental capacity to understand the difference so pardon me for not arguing the point.
Click to expand...

Listen to the asshole who called me a Stalinist and a racist.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you need to do is step back and use your head for a moment.
> 
> Other countries use walls because they are engaged in wars and / or they want to keep people separated (i.e. as was the case with the Berlin Wall.)
> 
> Now, whether you like it or not; agree with it or not the masses of Americans willingly do business with these foreigners.  The bulk of the U.S. population has NO interest in keeping people out.  You could regulate people coming and going by revisiting the visa system and updating it and modernizing it.  You are not going to stop people from south of the border from coming here UNLESS you plan on having the 14th Amendment nullified or voided out.
> 
> The wall idea is not going to work when the majority of the American people, if given a vote, would revise the immigration laws rather than build a wall.  You said it.  You want the wall to keep people out.  Most Americans do not want to keep these people out.  Consequently, the wall is not a solution.  You still have an immigration issue; you still need a solution, but you're only going to trade one set of problems for another.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the bulk of American citizens want Mexicans to stay on their side of the border.  You're totally full of shit.  And, no, the majority of Americans do not want to change our immigration laws to allow Mexicans to walk over the border whenever they like.  The want immigration controlled.  That's why Trump got elected.
> 
> It's truly amazing how just about everything you post is the exact opposite of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Controlling immigration and keeping people out are two different things.
> 
> Last I heard, Trump's signature issue was immigration.  Last I heard, Trump got spanked in the last election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are one and the same, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not the same.  When your vocabulary consists of curse words, insults and name calling, you probably lack the mental capacity to understand the difference so pardon me for not arguing the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Listen to the asshole who called me a Stalinist and a racist.
Click to expand...


Before I check out today, who, on this thread. called you a racist and a Stalinist?  If you cannot provide a link to that on this thread I'll call you a flat out LIAR.  You will end this conversation by discrediting yourself..

So, where is this allegation?

I'll deal with it tomorrow.


----------



## Aponi

We spend 18.5 billion a year for illegals health care.
The cost of illegal narcotics such as meth coke and herion and fentanyl is 192 billion a year.

Add in other cost and lost productivity and jobs to Americans and yoir talking a easy 300 to 350 billion a year..

Then you have the crime generated by illegals drug dealers and death by overdose.
I want one democrat here to honestly tell me it not worth reducing these costs.

Now I know full well that the above issues can not be stopped completely but if a wall reduced this all by say 10 percent to 20 percent your talking about a savings of 40 to 80 billion a year.

No look at that over 10 to 20 years 1.6 trillion or more in 20 years.
And your aginst that . your saying were all for illegals crime drug use supporting gangs.


----------



## OKTexas

Aponi said:


> We spend 18.5 billion a year for illegals health care.
> The cost of illegal narcotics such as meth coke and herion and fentanyl is 192 billion a year.
> 
> Add in other cost and lost productivity and jobs to Americans and yoir talking a easy 300 to 350 billion a year..
> 
> Then you have the crime generated by illegals drug dealers and death by overdose.
> I want one democrat here to honestly tell me it not worth reducing these costs.
> 
> Now I know full well that the above issues can not be stopped completely but if a wall reduced this all by say 10 percent to 20 percent your talking about a savings of 40 to 80 billion a year.
> 
> No look at that over 10 to 20 years 1.6 trillion or more in 20 years.
> And your aginst that . your saying were all for illegals crime drug use supporting gangs.




You forgot the fact that it costs almost $11,000 per illegal to deport them. That's why it's necessary to prevent them for setting foot on US soil until the laws are changed to make it easier to get rid of these criminals.

OH, and welcome.

.


----------



## MarathonMike

We aren't building a wall, we are upgrading the one we have.


----------



## cutter

All the libs wanted a wall until Trump wanted a wall then no libs want a wall. Perfect example of TDS, it affects all libs.


----------



## Timmy

Do you ever put an ounce of thought into your dumb ideas ? 

Walls in the mid of nowhere are not worth the cost.

Populated areas .  Fine .  Clear across mountains and wasteland ?  Stupid .

Y’all are falling for typical scapegoating .  Where’s the Canadian wall??  Oh, they are white peoples !


----------



## Indeependent

Timmy said:


> Do you ever put an ounce of thought into your dumb ideas ?
> 
> Walls in the mid of nowhere are not worth the cost.
> 
> Populated areas .  Fine .  Clear across mountains and wasteland ?  Stupid .
> 
> Y’all are falling for typical scapegoating .  Where’s the Canadian wall??  Oh, they are white peoples !


Who’s the illegal in your family?


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other countries use walls because they are engaged in wars and / or they want to keep people separated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations, farm boy!
> 
> The USA IS in a war (or at least we are under attack).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did Congress declare war on Mexico?  This is your free enterprise system working to give every American an opportunity.  It is your fellow Americans that are locking their American brethren out of the system.
Click to expand...


Ah.  There it is.  We are under attack.  When did Congress declare war on Mexico?!  

I never said that.  La Raza has declared war on us.

Free enterprise?  Locking Americans out of the system?  What Americans?  Ahha.  NORTH and CENTRAL Americans, not U.S. Americans.  You have finally admitted your pathetic, dejected goal here.  That you think the USA is the property and right of anyone living in the Americas, from Patagonia to the Boreal Forests.

Have a big flash for you, Crumbcake, NO ONE has any right to the USA except U.S. Citizens, and what the border wall can't keep out, what few of you cretins get past our border security, private citizens and land owners of the United States are prepared to gun you down and bury you as they catch your sorry butts trespassing across their private land invading us.

DO YOURSELF A FAVOR.  Stay home and work on making your own country a better place to live.  You're not welcome here.


----------



## Timmy

Indeependent said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever put an ounce of thought into your dumb ideas ?
> 
> Walls in the mid of nowhere are not worth the cost.
> 
> Populated areas .  Fine .  Clear across mountains and wasteland ?  Stupid .
> 
> Y’all are falling for typical scapegoating .  Where’s the Canadian wall??  Oh, they are white peoples !
> 
> 
> 
> Who’s the illegal in your family?
Click to expand...


Mine came over legally .   

Just because I don’t want to waste money on a white elephant doesn’t mean I’m against border patrol .

Have y’all sat down and thought of the logistics of this thing ?  And it’s realky about trumps ego.


----------



## Indeependent

Timmy said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever put an ounce of thought into your dumb ideas ?
> 
> Walls in the mid of nowhere are not worth the cost.
> 
> Populated areas .  Fine .  Clear across mountains and wasteland ?  Stupid .
> 
> Y’all are falling for typical scapegoating .  Where’s the Canadian wall??  Oh, they are white peoples !
> 
> 
> 
> Who’s the illegal in your family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mine came over legally .
> 
> Just because I don’t want to waste money on a white elephant doesn’t mean I’m against border patrol .
> 
> Have y’all sat down and thought of the logistics of this thing ?  And it’s realky about trumps ego.
Click to expand...

Just because the wall costs less than illegals...
Oh!  What’s the point?
You’re a moron.


----------



## Aponi

OKTexas said:


> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> We spend 18.5 billion a year for illegals health care.
> The cost of illegal narcotics such as meth coke and herion and fentanyl is 192 billion a year.
> 
> Add in other cost and lost productivity and jobs to Americans and yoir talking a easy 300 to 350 billion a year..
> 
> Then you have the crime generated by illegals drug dealers and death by overdose.
> I want one democrat here to honestly tell me it not worth reducing these costs.
> 
> Now I know full well that the above issues can not be stopped completely but if a wall reduced this all by say 10 percent to 20 percent your talking about a savings of 40 to 80 billion a year.
> 
> No look at that over 10 to 20 years 1.6 trillion or more in 20 years.
> And your aginst that . your saying were all for illegals crime drug use supporting gangs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot the fact that it costs almost $11,000 per illegal to deport them. That's why it's necessary to prevent them for setting foot on US soil until the laws are changed to make it easier to get rid of these criminals.
> 
> OH, and welcome.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

No I did not include that but it is a added cost to take into consideration


----------



## Indeependent

Aponi said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> We spend 18.5 billion a year for illegals health care.
> The cost of illegal narcotics such as meth coke and herion and fentanyl is 192 billion a year.
> 
> Add in other cost and lost productivity and jobs to Americans and yoir talking a easy 300 to 350 billion a year..
> 
> Then you have the crime generated by illegals drug dealers and death by overdose.
> I want one democrat here to honestly tell me it not worth reducing these costs.
> 
> Now I know full well that the above issues can not be stopped completely but if a wall reduced this all by say 10 percent to 20 percent your talking about a savings of 40 to 80 billion a year.
> 
> No look at that over 10 to 20 years 1.6 trillion or more in 20 years.
> And your aginst that . your saying were all for illegals crime drug use supporting gangs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot the fact that it costs almost $11,000 per illegal to deport them. That's why it's necessary to prevent them for setting foot on US soil until the laws are changed to make it easier to get rid of these criminals.
> 
> OH, and welcome.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I did not include that but it is a added cost to take into consideration
Click to expand...

Be aware that Liberal brains are dysfunctional and cannot process facts.


----------



## tyroneweaver

Timmy said:


> Do you ever put an ounce of thought into your dumb ideas ?
> 
> Walls in the mid of nowhere are not worth the cost.
> 
> Populated areas .  Fine .  Clear across mountains and wasteland ?  Stupid .
> 
> Y’all are falling for typical scapegoating .  Where’s the Canadian wall??  Oh, they are white peoples !


Tell ya what timmy
Lets buidl the wall, And if it's a giant failure imagine the political ammunition it gives you and the other dems.
You can use it as a great big  failure. Pics to boot.
Seems like a fair trade. 
Ya up to it Timmy?


----------



## Timmy

Indeependent said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever put an ounce of thought into your dumb ideas ?
> 
> Walls in the mid of nowhere are not worth the cost.
> 
> Populated areas .  Fine .  Clear across mountains and wasteland ?  Stupid .
> 
> Y’all are falling for typical scapegoating .  Where’s the Canadian wall??  Oh, they are white peoples !
> 
> 
> 
> Who’s the illegal in your family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mine came over legally .
> 
> Just because I don’t want to waste money on a white elephant doesn’t mean I’m against border patrol .
> 
> Have y’all sat down and thought of the logistics of this thing ?  And it’s realky about trumps ego.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because the wall costs less than illegals...
> Oh!  What’s the point?
> You’re a moron.
Click to expand...


Maybe in your racists fantasy land !

Your math doesn’t work out .   
1- 40% come in illegally and overstays 
2- a wall is not 100% effective .
3 - all illegals are not a negative drain to the economy.


----------



## The Purge




----------



## Timmy

tyroneweaver said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever put an ounce of thought into your dumb ideas ?
> 
> Walls in the mid of nowhere are not worth the cost.
> 
> Populated areas .  Fine .  Clear across mountains and wasteland ?  Stupid .
> 
> Y’all are falling for typical scapegoating .  Where’s the Canadian wall??  Oh, they are white peoples !
> 
> 
> 
> Tell ya what timmy
> Lets buidl the wall, And if it's a giant failure imagine the political ammunition it gives you and the other dems.
> You can use it as a great big  failure. Pics to boot.
> Seems like a fair trade.
> Ya up to it Timmy?
Click to expand...


Sure , let’s just throw 5 billion away!   To start!

Now if you wanted to use that money to gee.... provided health care to Americans, you’d be freaking out that we can’t afford it .


----------



## Timmy

The Purge said:


>



Then I guess you want a big Canada wall too?


----------



## Slyhunter

tyroneweaver said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever put an ounce of thought into your dumb ideas ?
> 
> Walls in the mid of nowhere are not worth the cost.
> 
> Populated areas .  Fine .  Clear across mountains and wasteland ?  Stupid .
> 
> Y’all are falling for typical scapegoating .  Where’s the Canadian wall??  Oh, they are white peoples !
> 
> 
> 
> Tell ya what timmy
> Lets buidl the wall, And if it's a giant failure imagine the political ammunition it gives you and the other dems.
> You can use it as a great big  failure. Pics to boot.
> Seems like a fair trade.
> Ya up to it Timmy?
Click to expand...

If the wall is a failure the Dems will win in 2020, but they won't.


----------



## The Purge

Timmy said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess you want a big Canada wall too?
Click to expand...

How much drugs, child trafficking  and terrorists come from Canada?....You need that 5th grader to post here!


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> Taking jobs from Americans and collecting welfare.


They're taking jobs Americans don't want, you fucking racist.


----------



## Sandy Shanks

Aponi said:


> We spend 18.5 billion a year for illegals health care.
> The cost of illegal narcotics such as meth coke and herion and fentanyl is 192 billion a year.
> 
> Add in other cost and lost productivity and jobs to Americans and yoir talking a easy 300 to 350 billion a year..
> 
> Then you have the crime generated by illegals drug dealers and death by overdose.
> I want one democrat here to honestly tell me it not worth reducing these costs.
> 
> Now I know full well that the above issues can not be stopped completely but if a wall reduced this all by say 10 percent to 20 percent your talking about a savings of 40 to 80 billion a year.
> 
> No look at that over 10 to 20 years 1.6 trillion or more in 20 years.
> And your aginst that . your saying were all for illegals crime drug use supporting gangs.



Lets be clear on one particular point. Trump is alone in Washington and he is making a lot of statements and tweeting like a songbird. The Washington Post, which tracks Trump's false and misleading claims, has tallied up 6,420 lies. _*

Which means we cannot believe anything Trump says or tweets.*_ He lies so much, he no longer can differentiate between fantasy and reality. 

Take for example his Christmas message he provided us today. "I can't tell you when the government is going to be open. I can tell you it's not going to be open until we have a wall, a fence, whatever they would like to call it," Trump said in the Oval Office after a Christmas call with US troops. So now he trying to turn the shutdown into an issue of semantics, and who is "they." He told a television audience, "I am proud to shut down the government for border security." Semantics again, he means his border wall.

Trump then repeated a claim made a day earlier -- without explanation -- that he'd recently approved 115 miles worth of border barrier. _*The White House hasn't provided any further details about the claim*_. No one, not the media, not his advisors, not Republicans on the Hill know what he is talking about. 

"It's going to be built, hopefully rapidly," he said. "I'm going there at the end of January for the start of construction. That's a big stretch."

"We're almost having a groundbreaking, it's such a big section," he said. "It's probably the biggest section we'll get out."

Has he lost it? Again, no one knows what he is talking about. 

Trump also claimed, without evidence, that federal employees on furlough or working without pay understand his demand for a border wall -- and support him in his mission.

"I think they understand what's happening," he said. "They want border security. The people of this country want border security."

Huh, so now he has stopped to talked to government workers? They are happy to be furloughed or work without pay for his border wall? 

Trump is responsible for the shutdown and proud of it. "I am proud to shut down the government." Now he wants our sympathy. "It's not a question of me. I would rather not be doing shutdowns. I've been at the White House. I love the White House, but I wasn't able to be with my family. I thought it would be wrong for me to be with my family, my family is in Florida, Palm Beach, and I just didn't want to go down and be there when other people are hurting."

Why he thought being with his family at Christmas is wrong is anyone's guess. Actually, in addition to lying, he is also talented at providing B.S. 

"But other than that," Trump said, his hands gesturing outward, "I wish everybody a very merry Christmas."

He managed to finally say something right. I second that message.


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> Apparently you realized your claim was pure idiocy.


You need to realize, you ain't gettin' no wall!


----------



## Indeependent

Timmy said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever put an ounce of thought into your dumb ideas ?
> 
> Walls in the mid of nowhere are not worth the cost.
> 
> Populated areas .  Fine .  Clear across mountains and wasteland ?  Stupid .
> 
> Y’all are falling for typical scapegoating .  Where’s the Canadian wall??  Oh, they are white peoples !
> 
> 
> 
> Who’s the illegal in your family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mine came over legally .
> 
> Just because I don’t want to waste money on a white elephant doesn’t mean I’m against border patrol .
> 
> Have y’all sat down and thought of the logistics of this thing ?  And it’s realky about trumps ego.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because the wall costs less than illegals...
> Oh!  What’s the point?
> You’re a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe in your racists fantasy land !
> 
> Your math doesn’t work out .
> 1- 40% come in illegally and overstays
> 2- a wall is not 100% effective .
> 3 - all illegals are not a negative drain to the economy.
Click to expand...

Thanks for ignoring documented facts that users here post and how the hell does a illegal overstay their welcome.
Are you truly as stupid in real life as your postings?


----------



## Billo_Really

Thinker101 said:


> Sure, some of us should be so lucky to just pay sales taxes....dumbass.


The taxes you pay is not their fault.


----------



## Indeependent

Sandy Shanks said:


> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> We spend 18.5 billion a year for illegals health care.
> The cost of illegal narcotics such as meth coke and herion and fentanyl is 192 billion a year.
> 
> Add in other cost and lost productivity and jobs to Americans and yoir talking a easy 300 to 350 billion a year..
> 
> Then you have the crime generated by illegals drug dealers and death by overdose.
> I want one democrat here to honestly tell me it not worth reducing these costs.
> 
> Now I know full well that the above issues can not be stopped completely but if a wall reduced this all by say 10 percent to 20 percent your talking about a savings of 40 to 80 billion a year.
> 
> No look at that over 10 to 20 years 1.6 trillion or more in 20 years.
> And your aginst that . your saying were all for illegals crime drug use supporting gangs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets be clear on one particular point. Trump is alone in Washington and he is making a lot of statements and tweeting like a songbird. The Washington Post, which tracks Trump's false and misleading claims, has tallied up 6,420 lies.
> _*
> Which means we cannot believe anything Trump says or tweets.*_ He lies so much, he no longer can differentiate between fantasy and reality.
> 
> Take for example his Christmas message he provided us today. "I can't tell you when the government is going to be open. I can tell you it's not going to be open until we have a wall, a fence, whatever they would like to call it," Trump said in the Oval Office after a Christmas call with US troops. So now he trying to turn the shutdown into an issue of semantics, and who is "they." He told a television audience, "I am proud to shut down the government for border security." Semantics again, he means his border wall.
> 
> Trump then repeated a claim made a day earlier -- without explanation -- that he'd recently approved 115 miles worth of border barrier. _*The White House hasn't provided any further details about the claim*_. No one, not the media, not his advisors, not Republicans on the Hill know what he is talking about.
> 
> "It's going to be built, hopefully rapidly," he said. "I'm going there at the end of January for the start of construction. That's a big stretch."
> 
> "We're almost having a groundbreaking, it's such a big section," he said. "It's probably the biggest section we'll get out."
> 
> Has he lost it? Again, no one knows what he is talking about.
> 
> Trump also claimed, without evidence, that federal employees on furlough or working without pay understand his demand for a border wall -- and support him in his mission.
> 
> "I think they understand what's happening," he said. "They want border security. The people of this country want border security."
> 
> Huh, so now he has stopped to talked to government workers? They are happy to be furloughed or work without pay for his border wall?
> 
> Trump is responsible for the shutdown and proud of it. "I am proud to shut down the government." Now he wants our sympathy. "It's not a question of me. I would rather not be doing shutdowns. I've been at the White House. I love the White House, but I wasn't able to be with my family. I thought it would be wrong for me to be with my family, my family is in Florida, Palm Beach, and I just didn't want to go down and be there when other people are hurting."
> 
> Why he thought being with his family at Christmas is wrong is anyone's guess. Actually, in addition to lying, he is also talented at providing B.S.
> 
> "But other than that," Trump said, his hands gesturing outward, "I wish everybody a very merry Christmas."
> 
> He managed to finally say something right. I second that message.
Click to expand...

The WashedUp Compost has been cursing out Trump since the day he tossed his hat in the ring.


----------



## Timmy

The Purge said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess you want a big Canada wall too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much drugs, child trafficking  and terrorists come from Canada?....You need that 5th grader to post here!
Click to expand...


Fool.  Where do terrorists come from ?  Bunch of Mid East places ?  Who allows for more Mid East asylum seekers and immigrants ?  Canada .

So yeah ,  the Canada border is a bigger terrorism threat. 

As for “drugs “.  They come within .  All these opioids come from big biz .


----------



## Timmy

Indeependent said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever put an ounce of thought into your dumb ideas ?
> 
> Walls in the mid of nowhere are not worth the cost.
> 
> Populated areas .  Fine .  Clear across mountains and wasteland ?  Stupid .
> 
> Y’all are falling for typical scapegoating .  Where’s the Canadian wall??  Oh, they are white peoples !
> 
> 
> 
> Who’s the illegal in your family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mine came over legally .
> 
> Just because I don’t want to waste money on a white elephant doesn’t mean I’m against border patrol .
> 
> Have y’all sat down and thought of the logistics of this thing ?  And it’s realky about trumps ego.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because the wall costs less than illegals...
> Oh!  What’s the point?
> You’re a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe in your racists fantasy land !
> 
> Your math doesn’t work out .
> 1- 40% come in illegally and overstays
> 2- a wall is not 100% effective .
> 3 - all illegals are not a negative drain to the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for ignoring documented facts that users here post and how the hell does a illegal overstay their welcome.
> Are you truly as stupid in real life as your postings?
Click to expand...


So you really know nothing on how immigration works ?


----------



## Sandy Shanks

Aponi said:


> We spend 18.5 billion a year for illegals health care.
> The cost of illegal narcotics such as meth coke and herion and fentanyl is 192 billion a year.
> 
> Add in other cost and lost productivity and jobs to Americans and yoir talking a easy 300 to 350 billion a year..
> 
> Then you have the crime generated by illegals drug dealers and death by overdose.
> I want one democrat here to honestly tell me it not worth reducing these costs.
> 
> Now I know full well that the above issues can not be stopped completely but if a wall reduced this all by say 10 percent to 20 percent your talking about a savings of 40 to 80 billion a year.
> 
> No look at that over 10 to 20 years 1.6 trillion or more in 20 years.
> And your aginst that . your saying were all for illegals crime drug use supporting gangs.



What makes you think Trump's border wall, an example of Medieval technology, will stop any of that? 

Trump thinks so. He says it all the time. But you are brighter than Trump.


----------



## tyroneweaver

Timmy said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever put an ounce of thought into your dumb ideas ?
> 
> Walls in the mid of nowhere are not worth the cost.
> 
> Populated areas .  Fine .  Clear across mountains and wasteland ?  Stupid .
> 
> Y’all are falling for typical scapegoating .  Where’s the Canadian wall??  Oh, they are white peoples !
> 
> 
> 
> Tell ya what timmy
> Lets buidl the wall, And if it's a giant failure imagine the political ammunition it gives you and the other dems.
> You can use it as a great big  failure. Pics to boot.
> Seems like a fair trade.
> Ya up to it Timmy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure , let’s just throw 5 billion away!   To start!
> 
> Now if you wanted to use that money to gee.... provided health care to Americans, you’d be freaking out that we can’t afford it .
Click to expand...

So the net worth of The Beatles, Rollling Stones, Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Michael Jordan,  alexandria Cortez, and Oprah Winfry is to much.

So 5 billion aint worth winning the election for the dems ehh?


----------



## toobfreak

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you realized your claim was pure idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to realize, you ain't gettin' no wall!
Click to expand...



Poor Billy, hundreds of miles have already been put up!  Hundreds more on the way.


----------



## tyroneweaver

Timmy said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who’s the illegal in your family?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mine came over legally .
> 
> Just because I don’t want to waste money on a white elephant doesn’t mean I’m against border patrol .
> 
> Have y’all sat down and thought of the logistics of this thing ?  And it’s realky about trumps ego.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because the wall costs less than illegals...
> Oh!  What’s the point?
> You’re a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe in your racists fantasy land !
> 
> Your math doesn’t work out .
> 1- 40% come in illegally and overstays
> 2- a wall is not 100% effective .
> 3 - all illegals are not a negative drain to the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for ignoring documented facts that users here post and how the hell does a illegal overstay their welcome.
> Are you truly as stupid in real life as your postings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you really know nothing on how immigration works ?
Click to expand...

irrelevant. Build the wall and see who wins


----------



## OKTexas

Timmy said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever put an ounce of thought into your dumb ideas ?
> 
> Walls in the mid of nowhere are not worth the cost.
> 
> Populated areas .  Fine .  Clear across mountains and wasteland ?  Stupid .
> 
> Y’all are falling for typical scapegoating .  Where’s the Canadian wall??  Oh, they are white peoples !
> 
> 
> 
> Who’s the illegal in your family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mine came over legally .
> 
> Just because I don’t want to waste money on a white elephant doesn’t mean I’m against border patrol .
> 
> Have y’all sat down and thought of the logistics of this thing ?  And it’s realky about trumps ego.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because the wall costs less than illegals...
> Oh!  What’s the point?
> You’re a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe in your racists fantasy land !
> 
> Your math doesn’t work out .
> 1- 40% come in illegally and overstays
> 2- a wall is not 100% effective .
> 3 - all illegals are not a negative drain to the economy.
Click to expand...



No the border patrol says the wall is 95% effective. And yes criminals are always a drain on the economy.

.


----------



## Indeependent

Timmy said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who’s the illegal in your family?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mine came over legally .
> 
> Just because I don’t want to waste money on a white elephant doesn’t mean I’m against border patrol .
> 
> Have y’all sat down and thought of the logistics of this thing ?  And it’s realky about trumps ego.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because the wall costs less than illegals...
> Oh!  What’s the point?
> You’re a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe in your racists fantasy land !
> 
> Your math doesn’t work out .
> 1- 40% come in illegally and overstays
> 2- a wall is not 100% effective .
> 3 - all illegals are not a negative drain to the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for ignoring documented facts that users here post and how the hell does a illegal overstay their welcome.
> Are you truly as stupid in real life as your postings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you really know nothing on how immigration works ?
Click to expand...

I have several friends who are immigration lawyers.
Any other questions?


----------



## occupied

There is nothing wrong with a wall in itself. In certain situations a physical barrier is essential to secure an area. In this case though a wall nothing is more than a vanity project for a man consumed only with feeding his massive ego. There is no obligation by our country to fund whatever the president wants, he must sell a project like anyone else. The problem here is that the "master of the deal" did a lousy job selling his pet project.


----------



## Indeependent

occupied said:


> There is nothing wrong with a wall in itself. In certain situations a physical barrier is essential to secure an area. In this case though a wall nothing is more than a vanity project for a man consumed only with feeding his massive ego. There is no obligation by our country to fund whatever the president wants, he must sell a project like anyone else. The problem here is that the "master of the deal" did a lousy job selling his pet project.


Unless you’re an electrician, plumber or carpenter who has been mostly unemployed since GW opened the Southern Border.
Of course they know shit when it actually comes to the crafts they have deprived Americans of.


----------



## occupied

Indeependent said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with a wall in itself. In certain situations a physical barrier is essential to secure an area. In this case though a wall nothing is more than a vanity project for a man consumed only with feeding his massive ego. There is no obligation by our country to fund whatever the president wants, he must sell a project like anyone else. The problem here is that the "master of the deal" did a lousy job selling his pet project.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you’re an electrician, plumber or carpenter who has been mostly unemployed since GW opened the Southern Border.
> Of course they know shit when it actually comes to the crafts they have deprived Americans of.
Click to expand...

I am a home builder and you do not know what you are talking about.  The only people not working right now are those who would rather sit home and complain.


----------



## OKTexas

Timmy said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever put an ounce of thought into your dumb ideas ?
> 
> Walls in the mid of nowhere are not worth the cost.
> 
> Populated areas .  Fine .  Clear across mountains and wasteland ?  Stupid .
> 
> Y’all are falling for typical scapegoating .  Where’s the Canadian wall??  Oh, they are white peoples !
> 
> 
> 
> Tell ya what timmy
> Lets buidl the wall, And if it's a giant failure imagine the political ammunition it gives you and the other dems.
> You can use it as a great big  failure. Pics to boot.
> Seems like a fair trade.
> Ya up to it Timmy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure , let’s just throw 5 billion away!   To start!
> 
> Now if you wanted to use that money to gee.... provided health care to Americans, you’d be freaking out that we can’t afford it .
Click to expand...



But you have no problems with spending more than 100 billion a year on illegals and you think that makes sense. You regressives are really something.

.


----------



## Indeependent

occupied said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with a wall in itself. In certain situations a physical barrier is essential to secure an area. In this case though a wall nothing is more than a vanity project for a man consumed only with feeding his massive ego. There is no obligation by our country to fund whatever the president wants, he must sell a project like anyone else. The problem here is that the "master of the deal" did a lousy job selling his pet project.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you’re an electrician, plumber or carpenter who has been mostly unemployed since GW opened the Southern Border.
> Of course they know shit when it actually comes to the crafts they have deprived Americans of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a home builder and you do not know what you are talking about.  The only people not working right now are those who would rather sit home and complain.
Click to expand...

Oddball and many of my friends in construction in NY disagree with you.
The people who know how to build are always telling the owner of the illegals to tell their guys how to do it right.


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taking jobs from Americans and collecting welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> They're taking jobs Americans don't want, you fucking racist.
Click to expand...

Americans don't want them at the wage that Mexicans are willing to accept. Americans used to do all those jobs, you fucking moron.  My brother used to be a construction contractor until all the low wage Mexican contractors ran him out of business because they hired illegal aliens.


----------



## Indeependent

occupied said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with a wall in itself. In certain situations a physical barrier is essential to secure an area. In this case though a wall nothing is more than a vanity project for a man consumed only with feeding his massive ego. There is no obligation by our country to fund whatever the president wants, he must sell a project like anyone else. The problem here is that the "master of the deal" did a lousy job selling his pet project.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you’re an electrician, plumber or carpenter who has been mostly unemployed since GW opened the Southern Border.
> Of course they know shit when it actually comes to the crafts they have deprived Americans of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a home builder and you do not know what you are talking about.  The only people not working right now are those who would rather sit home and complain.
Click to expand...

I forgot...
I work with 6 guys who know their stuff and they say most of the actual workers know nothing about what they’re doing.
It takes more than a hammer and nails to put up a roof or install a window.


----------



## LoneLaugher

If undocumented immigrants represented a net positive for the US economy, would the OP have a change of heart?


----------



## Indeependent

LoneLaugher said:


> If undocumented immigrants represented a net positive for the US economy, would the OP have a change of heart?


Would will still be paying taxes to house, fees, clothe and educate them?


----------



## candycorn

Aponi said:


> We spend 18.5 billion a year for illegals health care.
> The cost of illegal narcotics such as meth coke and herion and fentanyl is 192 billion a year.
> 
> Add in other cost and lost productivity and jobs to Americans and yoir talking a easy 300 to 350 billion a year..
> 
> Then you have the crime generated by illegals drug dealers and death by overdose.
> I want one democrat here to honestly tell me it not worth reducing these costs.
> 
> Now I know full well that the above issues can not be stopped completely but if a wall reduced this all by say 10 percent to 20 percent your talking about a savings of 40 to 80 billion a year.
> 
> No look at that over 10 to 20 years 1.6 trillion or more in 20 years.
> And your aginst that . your saying were all for illegals crime drug use supporting gangs.



The total costs of crime in this nation from jaywalking to homicide is in the hundreds of billions of dollars in terms of court costs, housing inmates, and the price of incarceration; this is to say nothing about the untold tragic circumstances to the people that criminals affect. 

I propose summary executions for anyone breaking the law; from crossing the line in traffic, to failing to signal a turn to tossing a straw outside of he car window to playing your stereo in your house too loud to giving a haircut without a license.  It will save us money. 

If you’re not for this; you’re saying you’re for all crime; everywhere.   So which is it?

-------


----------



## Flopper

Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you never dug dirt?
> 
> You stupid fuck, go pick up a shovel and start digging.. let's see how far you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I grew up in the construction business.  I've spent as much time with shovels as you have with keyboards.  You just aren't making any sense with your cryptic posts.
Click to expand...

Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.


Porter Rockwell said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> First problem is paying for the cost of a ladder that can reach that height.  Second problem is getting the ladder to the wall undetected. Third problem is getting on to the 40 foot wall undetected.  Fourth problem is how to get down from the top of the wall.  Fifth problem is getting to the other side undetected.  The more people involved or using the ladder, the easier they are detected.
> 
> The wall will likely not be there alone.  We will still have boarder security in place, drones and even cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you never dug dirt?
> 
> You stupid fuck, go pick up a shovel and start digging.. let's see how far you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I grew up in the construction business.  I've spent as much time with shovels as you have with keyboards.  You just aren't making any sense with your cryptic posts.
Click to expand...

If you have any understanding of the construction business you probably understand congress's problem  with the Trump the wall.  Suppose you went to the bank and asked for 5 billion dollars to start building a wall somewhere along the US border with the location not yet determined, the type of wall undetermined, time frame to complete the wall undetermined, environmental impact undetermined, the total cost of the wall undetermined, additional personnel to support the wall undetermined undetermined, and the plan for boarder security where there is no wall undetermined.  Obliviously, you would have no chance of getting funding.  However, this being goverment the president believes he can get his big beautiful wall by just asking for a slush fund for a wall and border security.

If Trump actually presented congress with a real plan for better border security covering the barrier to used on all 2000 miles of border, the total estimated cost and completion time, then congress could actually evaluate the request.  The total lack of details means any decision will not be based on quality of the plan but on party ideology.  So congress and the nation would be stuck with whatever Trump decides.  That's absolutely unacceptable.


----------



## candycorn

Indeependent said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If undocumented immigrants represented a net positive for the US economy, would the OP have a change of heart?
> 
> 
> 
> Would will still be paying taxes to house, fees, clothe and educate them?
Click to expand...


There is a federal program to buy clothing for illegal aliens?  Who knew?


----------



## occupied

Indeependent said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with a wall in itself. In certain situations a physical barrier is essential to secure an area. In this case though a wall nothing is more than a vanity project for a man consumed only with feeding his massive ego. There is no obligation by our country to fund whatever the president wants, he must sell a project like anyone else. The problem here is that the "master of the deal" did a lousy job selling his pet project.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you’re an electrician, plumber or carpenter who has been mostly unemployed since GW opened the Southern Border.
> Of course they know shit when it actually comes to the crafts they have deprived Americans of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a home builder and you do not know what you are talking about.  The only people not working right now are those who would rather sit home and complain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I forgot...
> I work with 6 guys who know their stuff and they say most of the actual workers know nothing about what they’re doing.
> It takes more than a hammer and nails to put up a roof or install a window.
Click to expand...

I live very close to the area hurricane Michael made landfall. We do not have even a quarter of the people needed to rebuild. I look around and do not see this wave of illegal workers allegedly putting us all out of business.


----------



## Indeependent

candycorn said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If undocumented immigrants represented a net positive for the US economy, would the OP have a change of heart?
> 
> 
> 
> Would will still be paying taxes to house, fees, clothe and educate them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a federal program to buy clothing for illegal aliens?  Who knew?
Click to expand...

Where do they get enough money to buy anything when they’re making $5.00/hour?
I know a few garbage collectors with damaged spines who are fed up with 5 families living in one apartment.
But then again, you don’t give a fuck about Americans.


----------



## candycorn

Indeependent said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If undocumented immigrants represented a net positive for the US economy, would the OP have a change of heart?
> 
> 
> 
> Would will still be paying taxes to house, fees, clothe and educate them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a federal program to buy clothing for illegal aliens?  Who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do they get enough money to buy anything when they’re making $5.00/hour?
> I know a few garbage collectors with damaged spines who are fed up with 5 families living in one apartment.
> But then again, you don’t give a fuck about Americans.
Click to expand...


ok.


----------



## Indeependent

occupied said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with a wall in itself. In certain situations a physical barrier is essential to secure an area. In this case though a wall nothing is more than a vanity project for a man consumed only with feeding his massive ego. There is no obligation by our country to fund whatever the president wants, he must sell a project like anyone else. The problem here is that the "master of the deal" did a lousy job selling his pet project.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you’re an electrician, plumber or carpenter who has been mostly unemployed since GW opened the Southern Border.
> Of course they know shit when it actually comes to the crafts they have deprived Americans of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a home builder and you do not know what you are talking about.  The only people not working right now are those who would rather sit home and complain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I forgot...
> I work with 6 guys who know their stuff and they say most of the actual workers know nothing about what they’re doing.
> It takes more than a hammer and nails to put up a roof or install a window.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live very close to the area hurricane Michael made landfall. We do not have even a quarter of the people needed to rebuild. I look around and do not see this wave of illegal workers allegedly putting us all out of business.
Click to expand...

Of course you don’t have enough people.
Because there are never enough qualified people to fill a high demand for building to code.
So get some of those well trained illegals.


----------



## OKTexas

Sandy Shanks said:


> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> We spend 18.5 billion a year for illegals health care.
> The cost of illegal narcotics such as meth coke and herion and fentanyl is 192 billion a year.
> 
> Add in other cost and lost productivity and jobs to Americans and yoir talking a easy 300 to 350 billion a year..
> 
> Then you have the crime generated by illegals drug dealers and death by overdose.
> I want one democrat here to honestly tell me it not worth reducing these costs.
> 
> Now I know full well that the above issues can not be stopped completely but if a wall reduced this all by say 10 percent to 20 percent your talking about a savings of 40 to 80 billion a year.
> 
> No look at that over 10 to 20 years 1.6 trillion or more in 20 years.
> And your aginst that . your saying were all for illegals crime drug use supporting gangs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think Trump's border wall, an example of Medieval technology, will stop any of that?
> 
> Trump thinks so. He says it all the time. But you are brighter than Trump.
Click to expand...



Our 21st century border patrol says they are 95% effective, they are the experts I count on. FOOL.

.


----------



## Indeependent

candycorn said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If undocumented immigrants represented a net positive for the US economy, would the OP have a change of heart?
> 
> 
> 
> Would will still be paying taxes to house, fees, clothe and educate them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a federal program to buy clothing for illegal aliens?  Who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do they get enough money to buy anything when they’re making $5.00/hour?
> I know a few garbage collectors with damaged spines who are fed up with 5 families living in one apartment.
> But then again, you don’t give a fuck about Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok.
Click to expand...

Do you have any concern for the health of Americans who have to collect garbage cans with over 80lbs of garbage in each can?


----------



## candycorn

Indeependent said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If undocumented immigrants represented a net positive for the US economy, would the OP have a change of heart?
> 
> 
> 
> Would will still be paying taxes to house, fees, clothe and educate them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a federal program to buy clothing for illegal aliens?  Who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do they get enough money to buy anything when they’re making $5.00/hour?
> I know a few garbage collectors with damaged spines who are fed up with 5 families living in one apartment.
> But then again, you don’t give a fuck about Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any concern for the health of Americans who have to collect garbage cans with over 80lbs of garbage in each can?
Click to expand...


----------



## Indeependent

candycorn said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would will still be paying taxes to house, fees, clothe and educate them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a federal program to buy clothing for illegal aliens?  Who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do they get enough money to buy anything when they’re making $5.00/hour?
> I know a few garbage collectors with damaged spines who are fed up with 5 families living in one apartment.
> But then again, you don’t give a fuck about Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any concern for the health of Americans who have to collect garbage cans with over 80lbs of garbage in each can?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Just as most of us here know...fuck Americans.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Indeependent said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If undocumented immigrants represented a net positive for the US economy, would the OP have a change of heart?
> 
> 
> 
> Would will still be paying taxes to house, fees, clothe and educate them?
Click to expand...


Does it matter? I said they represent a net positive.


----------



## Indeependent

LoneLaugher said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If undocumented immigrants represented a net positive for the US economy, would the OP have a change of heart?
> 
> 
> 
> Would will still be paying taxes to house, fees, clothe and educate them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it matter? I said they represent a net positive.
Click to expand...

It matters.
There are Americans who need our help.


----------



## candycorn

[QUOTE="Timmy, post: 21460007, member: 55842”]


Fool.  Where do terrorists come from ?  Bunch of Mid East places ?  Who allows for more Mid East asylum seekers and immigrants ?  Canada .

So yeah ,  the Canada border is a bigger terrorism threat.

As for “drugs “.  They come within .  All these opioids come from big biz .[/QUOTE]

The OP is much along the same lines as saying….if we shut down Burger King, there will be less obesity.  As if the people who used to eat BK will not just start eating more McDonalds or In and Out.  

I do love the $300-$350 billion per year; I didn’t know baby sitting was such a large industry.


----------



## LoneLaugher

OKTexas said:


> Sandy Shanks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> We spend 18.5 billion a year for illegals health care.
> The cost of illegal narcotics such as meth coke and herion and fentanyl is 192 billion a year.
> 
> Add in other cost and lost productivity and jobs to Americans and yoir talking a easy 300 to 350 billion a year..
> 
> Then you have the crime generated by illegals drug dealers and death by overdose.
> I want one democrat here to honestly tell me it not worth reducing these costs.
> 
> Now I know full well that the above issues can not be stopped completely but if a wall reduced this all by say 10 percent to 20 percent your talking about a savings of 40 to 80 billion a year.
> 
> No look at that over 10 to 20 years 1.6 trillion or more in 20 years.
> And your aginst that . your saying were all for illegals crime drug use supporting gangs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think Trump's border wall, an example of Medieval technology, will stop any of that?
> 
> Trump thinks so. He says it all the time. But you are brighter than Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Our 21st century border patrol says they are 95% effective, they are the experts I count on. FOOL.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You will accept the decision of the Border Patrol regarding the need for a wall?


----------



## candycorn

Indeependent said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a federal program to buy clothing for illegal aliens?  Who knew?
> 
> 
> 
> Where do they get enough money to buy anything when they’re making $5.00/hour?
> I know a few garbage collectors with damaged spines who are fed up with 5 families living in one apartment.
> But then again, you don’t give a fuck about Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any concern for the health of Americans who have to collect garbage cans with over 80lbs of garbage in each can?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as most of us here know...fuck Americans.
Click to expand...


----------



## LoneLaugher

Indeependent said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If undocumented immigrants represented a net positive for the US economy, would the OP have a change of heart?
> 
> 
> 
> Would will still be paying taxes to house, fees, clothe and educate them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it matter? I said they represent a net positive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters.
> There are Americans who need our help.
Click to expand...


And if the undocumented immigrants represent a net positive, how does that stop us from helping citizens?


----------



## Indeependent

LoneLaugher said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If undocumented immigrants represented a net positive for the US economy, would the OP have a change of heart?
> 
> 
> 
> Would will still be paying taxes to house, fees, clothe and educate them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it matter? I said they represent a net positive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters.
> There are Americans who need our help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if the undocumented immigrants represent a net positive, how does that stop us from helping citizens?
Click to expand...

They are being used for what Americans did before GW.


----------



## OKTexas

LoneLaugher said:


> If undocumented immigrants represented a net positive for the US economy, would the OP have a change of heart?




Tell me prosecuting these criminals is a net positive for my State along with all the things they cost us on. This is just 7 years of stats.


> According to DHS status indicators, over 273,000 criminal aliens have been booked into local Texas jails between June 1, 2011 and November 30, 2018, of which over 184,000 were classified as illegal aliens by DHS.
> 
> Between June 1, 2011 and November 30, 2018, these 184,000 illegal aliens were charged with more than 288,000 criminal offenses which included arrests for 538 homicide charges; 32,005 assault charges; 5,622 burglary charges; 36,346 drug charges; 392 kidnapping charges; 15,674 theft charges; 23,222 obstructing police charges; 1,634 robbery charges; 3,381 sexual assault charges; 2,124 sexual offense charges; and 2,898 weapon charges. DPS criminal history records reflect those criminal charges have thus far resulted in over 118,000 convictions including 236 homicide convictions; 13,347 assault convictions; 3,111 burglary convictions; 17,618 drug convictions; 169 kidnapping convictions; 6,994 theft convictions; 11,160 obstructing police convictions; 995 robbery convictions; 1,671 sexual assault convictions; 1,134 sexual offense convictions; and 1,259 weapon convictions.
> 
> TxDPS - Texas Criminal Alien Arrest Data



.


----------



## occupied

Indeependent said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with a wall in itself. In certain situations a physical barrier is essential to secure an area. In this case though a wall nothing is more than a vanity project for a man consumed only with feeding his massive ego. There is no obligation by our country to fund whatever the president wants, he must sell a project like anyone else. The problem here is that the "master of the deal" did a lousy job selling his pet project.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you’re an electrician, plumber or carpenter who has been mostly unemployed since GW opened the Southern Border.
> Of course they know shit when it actually comes to the crafts they have deprived Americans of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a home builder and you do not know what you are talking about.  The only people not working right now are those who would rather sit home and complain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I forgot...
> I work with 6 guys who know their stuff and they say most of the actual workers know nothing about what they’re doing.
> It takes more than a hammer and nails to put up a roof or install a window.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live very close to the area hurricane Michael made landfall. We do not have even a quarter of the people needed to rebuild. I look around and do not see this wave of illegal workers allegedly putting us all out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you don’t have enough people.
> Because there are never enough qualified people to fill a high demand for building to code.
> So get some of those well trained illegals.
Click to expand...

I run an aboveboard operation and that is not an option. I would not even know where to start. Perhaps Trump can find some of these job stealers to build his wall for less.


----------



## Lakhota

> *What wrong with a wall*



What right with a wall?


----------



## LoneLaugher

OKTexas said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If undocumented immigrants represented a net positive for the US economy, would the OP have a change of heart?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me prosecuting these criminals is a net positive for my State along with all the things they cost us on. This is just 7 years of stats.
> 
> 
> 
> According to DHS status indicators, over 273,000 criminal aliens have been booked into local Texas jails between June 1, 2011 and November 30, 2018, of which over 184,000 were classified as illegal aliens by DHS.
> 
> Between June 1, 2011 and November 30, 2018, these 184,000 illegal aliens were charged with more than 288,000 criminal offenses which included arrests for 538 homicide charges; 32,005 assault charges; 5,622 burglary charges; 36,346 drug charges; 392 kidnapping charges; 15,674 theft charges; 23,222 obstructing police charges; 1,634 robbery charges; 3,381 sexual assault charges; 2,124 sexual offense charges; and 2,898 weapon charges. DPS criminal history records reflect those criminal charges have thus far resulted in over 118,000 convictions including 236 homicide convictions; 13,347 assault convictions; 3,111 burglary convictions; 17,618 drug convictions; 169 kidnapping convictions; 6,994 theft convictions; 11,160 obstructing police convictions; 995 robbery convictions; 1,671 sexual assault convictions; 1,134 sexual offense convictions; and 1,259 weapon convictions.
> 
> TxDPS - Texas Criminal Alien Arrest Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Ooooh. That looks legit!


----------



## Lakhota

Aponi said:


> We spend 18.5 billion a year for illegals health care.
> The cost of illegal narcotics such as meth coke and herion and fentanyl is 192 billion a year.
> 
> Add in other cost and lost productivity and jobs to Americans and yoir talking a easy 300 to 350 billion a year..
> 
> Then you have the crime generated by illegals drug dealers and death by overdose.
> I want one democrat here to honestly tell me it not worth reducing these costs.
> 
> Now I know full well that the above issues can not be stopped completely but if a wall reduced this all by say 10 percent to 20 percent your talking about a savings of 40 to 80 billion a year.
> 
> No look at that over 10 to 20 years 1.6 trillion or more in 20 years.
> And your aginst that . your saying were all for illegals crime drug use supporting gangs.



Where is your "credible" proof?  Links?


----------



## toobfreak

bripat9643 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taking jobs from Americans and collecting welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> They're taking jobs Americans don't want, you fucking racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Americans don't want them at the wage that Mexicans are willing to accept.
Click to expand...



More so, if we can build robots to explore the outer solar system, brake into orbit, land and drive around another planet testing soil and atmosphere, we can certainly design machines to replace Mexicans to pick oranges and tomatoes.


----------



## Indeependent

occupied said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you’re an electrician, plumber or carpenter who has been mostly unemployed since GW opened the Southern Border.
> Of course they know shit when it actually comes to the crafts they have deprived Americans of.
> 
> 
> 
> I am a home builder and you do not know what you are talking about.  The only people not working right now are those who would rather sit home and complain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I forgot...
> I work with 6 guys who know their stuff and they say most of the actual workers know nothing about what they’re doing.
> It takes more than a hammer and nails to put up a roof or install a window.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live very close to the area hurricane Michael made landfall. We do not have even a quarter of the people needed to rebuild. I look around and do not see this wave of illegal workers allegedly putting us all out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you don’t have enough people.
> Because there are never enough qualified people to fill a high demand for building to code.
> So get some of those well trained illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I run an aboveboard operation and that is not an option. I would not even know where to start. Perhaps Trump can find some of these job stealers to build his wall for less.
Click to expand...

I wish everybody shared your business ethic.


----------



## candycorn

Indeependent said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If undocumented immigrants represented a net positive for the US economy, would the OP have a change of heart?
> 
> 
> 
> Would will still be paying taxes to house, fees, clothe and educate them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it matter? I said they represent a net positive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters.
> There are Americans who need our help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if the undocumented immigrants represent a net positive, how does that stop us from helping citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are being used for what Americans did before GW.
Click to expand...


There were Americans before George Washington?  What exactly were they doing?


----------



## candycorn

LoneLaugher said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If undocumented immigrants represented a net positive for the US economy, would the OP have a change of heart?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me prosecuting these criminals is a net positive for my State along with all the things they cost us on. This is just 7 years of stats.
> 
> 
> 
> According to DHS status indicators, over 273,000 criminal aliens have been booked into local Texas jails between June 1, 2011 and November 30, 2018, of which over 184,000 were classified as illegal aliens by DHS.
> 
> Between June 1, 2011 and November 30, 2018, these 184,000 illegal aliens were charged with more than 288,000 criminal offenses which included arrests for 538 homicide charges; 32,005 assault charges; 5,622 burglary charges; 36,346 drug charges; 392 kidnapping charges; 15,674 theft charges; 23,222 obstructing police charges; 1,634 robbery charges; 3,381 sexual assault charges; 2,124 sexual offense charges; and 2,898 weapon charges. DPS criminal history records reflect those criminal charges have thus far resulted in over 118,000 convictions including 236 homicide convictions; 13,347 assault convictions; 3,111 burglary convictions; 17,618 drug convictions; 169 kidnapping convictions; 6,994 theft convictions; 11,160 obstructing police convictions; 995 robbery convictions; 1,671 sexual assault convictions; 1,134 sexual offense convictions; and 1,259 weapon convictions.
> 
> TxDPS - Texas Criminal Alien Arrest Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ooooh. That looks legit!
Click to expand...


If you took Texas and put it in the middle east (which it basically resembles with it’s pollution, miles of nothingness, terrible politics, religion based policies etc…), Trump ass kissers would ban immigration from there.


----------



## onefour1

Having a wall around Nancy's house will keep the illegal aliens out when they could be sleeping in those nice rooms and eating out of her fridge and sitting on her couch all day watching TV.  Not fair to illegal aliens!  Why should they have to poop on the street when they could be using the multiple toilets in Nancy's house?  It's just inhumane that she has a wall around her house.

http://dcwhispers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/aaa225.jpg


----------



## occupied

Indeependent said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a home builder and you do not know what you are talking about.  The only people not working right now are those who would rather sit home and complain.
> 
> 
> 
> I forgot...
> I work with 6 guys who know their stuff and they say most of the actual workers know nothing about what they’re doing.
> It takes more than a hammer and nails to put up a roof or install a window.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live very close to the area hurricane Michael made landfall. We do not have even a quarter of the people needed to rebuild. I look around and do not see this wave of illegal workers allegedly putting us all out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you don’t have enough people.
> Because there are never enough qualified people to fill a high demand for building to code.
> So get some of those well trained illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I run an aboveboard operation and that is not an option. I would not even know where to start. Perhaps Trump can find some of these job stealers to build his wall for less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wish everybody shared your business ethic.
Click to expand...

Business ethics has little to do with it, the paperwork I have to file and the steep penalties involved makes me wonder how anyone gets away with employing illegals.  It is revealing that discussions on the wall always devolve into problems a wall would do nothing about.


----------



## Indeependent

occupied said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I forgot...
> I work with 6 guys who know their stuff and they say most of the actual workers know nothing about what they’re doing.
> It takes more than a hammer and nails to put up a roof or install a window.
> 
> 
> 
> I live very close to the area hurricane Michael made landfall. We do not have even a quarter of the people needed to rebuild. I look around and do not see this wave of illegal workers allegedly putting us all out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you don’t have enough people.
> Because there are never enough qualified people to fill a high demand for building to code.
> So get some of those well trained illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I run an aboveboard operation and that is not an option. I would not even know where to start. Perhaps Trump can find some of these job stealers to build his wall for less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wish everybody shared your business ethic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Business ethics has little to do with it, the paperwork I have to file and the steep penalties involved makes me wonder how anyone gets away with employing illegals.  It is revealing that discussions on the wall always devolve into problems a wall would do nothing about.
Click to expand...

In NY and Florida you can get away with anything.


----------



## Markle

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, this is a barrier free country, and that's why we have over 20 million illegals here.  If you don't think 20 million people here illegally is an issue, over 70,000 Americans dying from overdoses every year is an issue, Americans losing work and working for lower pay because of foreigners is an issue, Americans getting murdered by these foreigners is an issue, then what is an issue to you?
> 
> I don't like that we spend 70 billion a  year on food stamps either; especially when I see the kind of people using them at my grocery store, but hey......... we keep spending it anyway.
> 
> A wall that we originally wanted is less than half of that, and it's one time only, not an annual thing.
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of those 20 million came in to the country legally, then wound up not reporting to the INS when their visas ran out.  They take jobs Americans don't want.  And you have a bigger chance getting murdered by the alt right, than you do someone whose in the country illegally.
> 
> This is a non-issue.  Only 10% of the most whacked out part of our population wants this wall.
Click to expand...


----------



## Flopper

bear513 said:


> He is another green beard


What is a green beard?


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you never dug dirt?
> 
> You stupid fuck, go pick up a shovel and start digging.. let's see how far you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I grew up in the construction business.  I've spent as much time with shovels as you have with keyboards.  You just aren't making any sense with your cryptic posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you never dug dirt?
> 
> You stupid fuck, go pick up a shovel and start digging.. let's see how far you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I grew up in the construction business.  I've spent as much time with shovels as you have with keyboards.  You just aren't making any sense with your cryptic posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you have any understanding of the construction business you probably understand congress's problem  with the Trump the wall.  Suppose you went to the bank and asked for 5 billion dollars to start building a wall somewhere along the US border with the location not yet determined, the type of wall undetermined, time frame to complete the wall undetermined, environmental impact undetermined, the total cost of the wall undetermined, additional personnel to support the wall undetermined undetermined, and the plan for boarder security where there is no wall undetermined.  Obliviously, you would have no chance of getting funding.  However, this being goverment the president believes he can get his big beautiful wall by just asking for a slush fund for a wall and border security.
> 
> If Trump actually presented congress with a real plan for better border security covering the barrier to used on all 2000 miles of border, the total estimated cost and completion time, then congress could actually evaluate the request.  The total lack of details means any decision will not be based on quality of the plan but on party ideology.  So congress and the nation would be stuck with whatever Trump decides.  That's absolutely unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Total bullshit.  You obviously don't know how government operates if you think it has to borrow money from a bank for an infrastructure project.  The government can simply write checks when the bill comes due.  And you don't seriously believe they had all that in place when they built the interstate system, do you?


----------



## bripat9643

toobfreak said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taking jobs from Americans and collecting welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> They're taking jobs Americans don't want, you fucking racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Americans don't want them at the wage that Mexicans are willing to accept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More so, if we can build robots to explore the outer solar system, brake into orbit, land and drive around another planet testing soil and atmosphere, we can certainly design machines to replace Mexicans to pick oranges and tomatoes.
Click to expand...

They already have.


----------



## playtime

i often wonder if that wall is only to keep people out....


----------



## Flopper

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, this is a barrier free country, and that's why we have over 20 million illegals here.  If you don't think 20 million people here illegally is an issue, over 70,000 Americans dying from overdoses every year is an issue, Americans losing work and working for lower pay because of foreigners is an issue, Americans getting murdered by these foreigners is an issue, then what is an issue to you?
> 
> I don't like that we spend 70 billion a  year on food stamps either; especially when I see the kind of people using them at my grocery store, but hey......... we keep spending it anyway.
> 
> A wall that we originally wanted is less than half of that, and it's one time only, not an annual thing.
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of those 20 million came in to the country legally, then wound up not reporting to the INS when their visas ran out.  They take jobs Americans don't want.  And you have a bigger chance getting murdered by the alt right, than you do someone whose in the country illegally.
> 
> This is a non-issue.  Only 10% of the most whacked out part of our population wants this wall.
Click to expand...

I agree, however the number of undocumented immigrants is likely closer to 8 to 10 million.  Since they are undocumented, there is no way to get an accurate count.
Pew Research, a nonpartisan American fact base and research group does the best job estimating. They report the population is about 10 million.  They don't take any policy position or endorse any candidates.  They simply do research.
Pew Research Center - Wikipedia


----------



## OKTexas

LoneLaugher said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sandy Shanks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> We spend 18.5 billion a year for illegals health care.
> The cost of illegal narcotics such as meth coke and herion and fentanyl is 192 billion a year.
> 
> Add in other cost and lost productivity and jobs to Americans and yoir talking a easy 300 to 350 billion a year..
> 
> Then you have the crime generated by illegals drug dealers and death by overdose.
> I want one democrat here to honestly tell me it not worth reducing these costs.
> 
> Now I know full well that the above issues can not be stopped completely but if a wall reduced this all by say 10 percent to 20 percent your talking about a savings of 40 to 80 billion a year.
> 
> No look at that over 10 to 20 years 1.6 trillion or more in 20 years.
> And your aginst that . your saying were all for illegals crime drug use supporting gangs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think Trump's border wall, an example of Medieval technology, will stop any of that?
> 
> Trump thinks so. He says it all the time. But you are brighter than Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Our 21st century border patrol says they are 95% effective, they are the experts I count on. FOOL.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will accept the decision of the Border Patrol regarding the need for a wall?
Click to expand...



They already been very insistent that they want it. Of course you'll deny that, it doesn't fit your propaganda.

.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you never dug dirt?
> 
> You stupid fuck, go pick up a shovel and start digging.. let's see how far you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I grew up in the construction business.  I've spent as much time with shovels as you have with keyboards.  You just aren't making any sense with your cryptic posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> Walls like fences are only effective if you have guards nearby.  Stores in small border towns stock whatever you need to make it across the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you never dug dirt?
> 
> You stupid fuck, go pick up a shovel and start digging.. let's see how far you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I grew up in the construction business.  I've spent as much time with shovels as you have with keyboards.  You just aren't making any sense with your cryptic posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you have any understanding of the construction business you probably understand congress's problem  with the Trump the wall.  Suppose you went to the bank and asked for 5 billion dollars to start building a wall somewhere along the US border with the location not yet determined, the type of wall undetermined, time frame to complete the wall undetermined, environmental impact undetermined, the total cost of the wall undetermined, additional personnel to support the wall undetermined undetermined, and the plan for boarder security where there is no wall undetermined.  Obliviously, you would have no chance of getting funding.  However, this being goverment the president believes he can get his big beautiful wall by just asking for a slush fund for a wall and border security.
> 
> If Trump actually presented congress with a real plan for better border security covering the barrier to used on all 2000 miles of border, the total estimated cost and completion time, then congress could actually evaluate the request.  The total lack of details means any decision will not be based on quality of the plan but on party ideology.  So congress and the nation would be stuck with whatever Trump decides.  That's absolutely unacceptable.
Click to expand...


More cheap excuses.  You people never seem to run out of them. 

It doesn't matter what Trump does or doesn't do.  As far as the Democrats are concerned, no wall for any reason.  It has nothing to do with blueprints, plans, locations.  It has to do with the Democrats fighting to the death something they can't easily remove or reverse.  That's the problem.  

We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.


----------



## OKTexas

LoneLaugher said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If undocumented immigrants represented a net positive for the US economy, would the OP have a change of heart?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me prosecuting these criminals is a net positive for my State along with all the things they cost us on. This is just 7 years of stats.
> 
> 
> 
> According to DHS status indicators, over 273,000 criminal aliens have been booked into local Texas jails between June 1, 2011 and November 30, 2018, of which over 184,000 were classified as illegal aliens by DHS.
> 
> Between June 1, 2011 and November 30, 2018, these 184,000 illegal aliens were charged with more than 288,000 criminal offenses which included arrests for 538 homicide charges; 32,005 assault charges; 5,622 burglary charges; 36,346 drug charges; 392 kidnapping charges; 15,674 theft charges; 23,222 obstructing police charges; 1,634 robbery charges; 3,381 sexual assault charges; 2,124 sexual offense charges; and 2,898 weapon charges. DPS criminal history records reflect those criminal charges have thus far resulted in over 118,000 convictions including 236 homicide convictions; 13,347 assault convictions; 3,111 burglary convictions; 17,618 drug convictions; 169 kidnapping convictions; 6,994 theft convictions; 11,160 obstructing police convictions; 995 robbery convictions; 1,671 sexual assault convictions; 1,134 sexual offense convictions; and 1,259 weapon convictions.
> 
> TxDPS - Texas Criminal Alien Arrest Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ooooh. That looks legit!
Click to expand...



Wow I bet you had to work hard on that moronic response. It's from the TX Dept Of Public Safety. Of course you don't care about 538 dead Americans.

.


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If undocumented immigrants represented a net positive for the US economy, would the OP have a change of heart?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me prosecuting these criminals is a net positive for my State along with all the things they cost us on. This is just 7 years of stats.
> 
> 
> 
> According to DHS status indicators, over 273,000 criminal aliens have been booked into local Texas jails between June 1, 2011 and November 30, 2018, of which over 184,000 were classified as illegal aliens by DHS.
> 
> Between June 1, 2011 and November 30, 2018, these 184,000 illegal aliens were charged with more than 288,000 criminal offenses which included arrests for 538 homicide charges; 32,005 assault charges; 5,622 burglary charges; 36,346 drug charges; 392 kidnapping charges; 15,674 theft charges; 23,222 obstructing police charges; 1,634 robbery charges; 3,381 sexual assault charges; 2,124 sexual offense charges; and 2,898 weapon charges. DPS criminal history records reflect those criminal charges have thus far resulted in over 118,000 convictions including 236 homicide convictions; 13,347 assault convictions; 3,111 burglary convictions; 17,618 drug convictions; 169 kidnapping convictions; 6,994 theft convictions; 11,160 obstructing police convictions; 995 robbery convictions; 1,671 sexual assault convictions; 1,134 sexual offense convictions; and 1,259 weapon convictions.
> 
> TxDPS - Texas Criminal Alien Arrest Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ooooh. That looks legit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you took Texas and put it in the middle east (which it basically resembles with it’s pollution, miles of nothingness, terrible politics, religion based policies etc…), Trump ass kissers would ban immigration from there.
Click to expand...



You're bigger fucking liar than you claim Trump to be. Go to hell.

.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Based on what, asshole?  Is Austria arresting people without any criminal warrant and sending them to a Gulag?
> 
> 
> 
> Get this through your fucking head, you ain't gettin' no wall!
Click to expand...


Then prepare for a government shutdown until at least 2020.


----------



## Thinker101

Billo_Really said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, some of us should be so lucky to just pay sales taxes....dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> The taxes you pay is not their fault.
Click to expand...


Actually some of the taxes Americans pay is their fault.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant, now the majority of those 20 million are in the country illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> Paying taxes and contributing the local economies where they live.
Click to expand...


Or having babies, going on welfare, attending our ER's and not paying, working under the table paying no taxes, sending their kids to our schools, or out committing crimes.


----------



## Flopper

toobfreak said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> [OMG, at the expense of posting literally walls of text I've answered EVERY question I've been asked.  So that is a lie.  Otherwise, you would have quoted some question that has not been addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except mine.  Once again, tell me where any walls are built that have totally failed in their design goal to either keep people by and large in or others out.  Right now, all it takes to cross the border are two good feet or a pair of wire snips.  How is it that Israel can built a wall that keeps 99% of all but the most extreme, organized and determined out (who eventually get detected and stopped anyway) but the USA can't?
> 
> If walls don't work, why is every jail surrounded by one, every secure facility surrounded by one, the Vatican surrounded by one, every castle surrounded by one, every gated community surrounded by one and every Hollywood actor's home who opposes the wall, SURROUNDED BY ONE?
Click to expand...

Walls do not keep people out.  They simple delay intrusion.  It is those that guard the walls that prevent intrusion.

Israel success is due primarily to several factors that do not exist in the US.  First, the length of border is one fifth that on the US border and intrusion attempts are estimated at 12,000 to 16,000 a year less than a tenth of what we seen in the US.  Israel law requires a 3 year sentence for any one attempting an illegal entry.  In the US, there is no mandatory sentence and in fact few ever spend anytime in jail.  Unlike US border security, the Israel wall was designed to repel terrorists and military invasions, not families seeking a better life which is why guards are authorized to shoot to kill to stop intruders.  Lastly the Israel military works on both sides of the border unlike the US.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, this is a barrier free country, and that's why we have over 20 million illegals here.  If you don't think 20 million people here illegally is an issue, over 70,000 Americans dying from overdoses every year is an issue, Americans losing work and working for lower pay because of foreigners is an issue, Americans getting murdered by these foreigners is an issue, then what is an issue to you?
> 
> I don't like that we spend 70 billion a  year on food stamps either; especially when I see the kind of people using them at my grocery store, but hey......... we keep spending it anyway.
> 
> A wall that we originally wanted is less than half of that, and it's one time only, not an annual thing.
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of those 20 million came in to the country legally, then wound up not reporting to the INS when their visas ran out.  They take jobs Americans don't want.  And you have a bigger chance getting murdered by the alt right, than you do someone whose in the country illegally.
> 
> This is a non-issue.  Only 10% of the most whacked out part of our population wants this wall.
Click to expand...


Sure, if you believe biased polling that wants to convince people of something that's not true.  

Trump won the presidential election because of the wall.  Last midterms broke records for turnouts on both sides.  If nobody wanted the wall, the Republican turnout would have been pathetic.


----------



## candycorn

OKTexas said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If undocumented immigrants represented a net positive for the US economy, would the OP have a change of heart?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me prosecuting these criminals is a net positive for my State along with all the things they cost us on. This is just 7 years of stats.
> 
> 
> 
> According to DHS status indicators, over 273,000 criminal aliens have been booked into local Texas jails between June 1, 2011 and November 30, 2018, of which over 184,000 were classified as illegal aliens by DHS.
> 
> Between June 1, 2011 and November 30, 2018, these 184,000 illegal aliens were charged with more than 288,000 criminal offenses which included arrests for 538 homicide charges; 32,005 assault charges; 5,622 burglary charges; 36,346 drug charges; 392 kidnapping charges; 15,674 theft charges; 23,222 obstructing police charges; 1,634 robbery charges; 3,381 sexual assault charges; 2,124 sexual offense charges; and 2,898 weapon charges. DPS criminal history records reflect those criminal charges have thus far resulted in over 118,000 convictions including 236 homicide convictions; 13,347 assault convictions; 3,111 burglary convictions; 17,618 drug convictions; 169 kidnapping convictions; 6,994 theft convictions; 11,160 obstructing police convictions; 995 robbery convictions; 1,671 sexual assault convictions; 1,134 sexual offense convictions; and 1,259 weapon convictions.
> 
> TxDPS - Texas Criminal Alien Arrest Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ooooh. That looks legit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you took Texas and put it in the middle east (which it basically resembles with it’s pollution, miles of nothingness, terrible politics, religion based policies etc…), Trump ass kissers would ban immigration from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're bigger fucking liar than you claim Trump to be. Go to hell.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You mad bro?


----------



## LoneLaugher

OKTexas said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sandy Shanks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> We spend 18.5 billion a year for illegals health care.
> The cost of illegal narcotics such as meth coke and herion and fentanyl is 192 billion a year.
> 
> Add in other cost and lost productivity and jobs to Americans and yoir talking a easy 300 to 350 billion a year..
> 
> Then you have the crime generated by illegals drug dealers and death by overdose.
> I want one democrat here to honestly tell me it not worth reducing these costs.
> 
> Now I know full well that the above issues can not be stopped completely but if a wall reduced this all by say 10 percent to 20 percent your talking about a savings of 40 to 80 billion a year.
> 
> No look at that over 10 to 20 years 1.6 trillion or more in 20 years.
> And your aginst that . your saying were all for illegals crime drug use supporting gangs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think Trump's border wall, an example of Medieval technology, will stop any of that?
> 
> Trump thinks so. He says it all the time. But you are brighter than Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Our 21st century border patrol says they are 95% effective, they are the experts I count on. FOOL.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will accept the decision of the Border Patrol regarding the need for a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They already been very insistent that they want it. Of course you'll deny that, it doesn't fit your propaganda.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## LoneLaugher

OKTexas said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If undocumented immigrants represented a net positive for the US economy, would the OP have a change of heart?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me prosecuting these criminals is a net positive for my State along with all the things they cost us on. This is just 7 years of stats.
> 
> 
> 
> According to DHS status indicators, over 273,000 criminal aliens have been booked into local Texas jails between June 1, 2011 and November 30, 2018, of which over 184,000 were classified as illegal aliens by DHS.
> 
> Between June 1, 2011 and November 30, 2018, these 184,000 illegal aliens were charged with more than 288,000 criminal offenses which included arrests for 538 homicide charges; 32,005 assault charges; 5,622 burglary charges; 36,346 drug charges; 392 kidnapping charges; 15,674 theft charges; 23,222 obstructing police charges; 1,634 robbery charges; 3,381 sexual assault charges; 2,124 sexual offense charges; and 2,898 weapon charges. DPS criminal history records reflect those criminal charges have thus far resulted in over 118,000 convictions including 236 homicide convictions; 13,347 assault convictions; 3,111 burglary convictions; 17,618 drug convictions; 169 kidnapping convictions; 6,994 theft convictions; 11,160 obstructing police convictions; 995 robbery convictions; 1,671 sexual assault convictions; 1,134 sexual offense convictions; and 1,259 weapon convictions.
> 
> TxDPS - Texas Criminal Alien Arrest Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ooooh. That looks legit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow I bet you had to work hard on that moronic response. It's from the TX Dept Of Public Safety. Of course you don't care about 538 dead Americans.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


What's the corresponding data for US citizens?


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you never dug dirt?
> 
> You stupid fuck, go pick up a shovel and start digging.. let's see how far you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I grew up in the construction business.  I've spent as much time with shovels as you have with keyboards.  You just aren't making any sense with your cryptic posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they can afford all that, they probably ain't looking to escape Mexico for a better life, or can afford to apply for immigration legally.  Meantime the wall will have increased electronic surveillance so patrols know where to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you never dug dirt?
> 
> You stupid fuck, go pick up a shovel and start digging.. let's see how far you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I grew up in the construction business.  I've spent as much time with shovels as you have with keyboards.  You just aren't making any sense with your cryptic posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you have any understanding of the construction business you probably understand congress's problem  with the Trump the wall.  Suppose you went to the bank and asked for 5 billion dollars to start building a wall somewhere along the US border with the location not yet determined, the type of wall undetermined, time frame to complete the wall undetermined, environmental impact undetermined, the total cost of the wall undetermined, additional personnel to support the wall undetermined undetermined, and the plan for boarder security where there is no wall undetermined.  Obliviously, you would have no chance of getting funding.  However, this being goverment the president believes he can get his big beautiful wall by just asking for a slush fund for a wall and border security.
> 
> If Trump actually presented congress with a real plan for better border security covering the barrier to used on all 2000 miles of border, the total estimated cost and completion time, then congress could actually evaluate the request.  The total lack of details means any decision will not be based on quality of the plan but on party ideology.  So congress and the nation would be stuck with whatever Trump decides.  That's absolutely unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More cheap excuses.  You people never seem to run out of them.
> 
> It doesn't matter what Trump does or doesn't do.  As far as the Democrats are concerned, no wall for any reason.  It has nothing to do with blueprints, plans, locations.  It has to do with the Democrats fighting to the death something they can't easily remove or reverse.  That's the problem.
> 
> We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.
Click to expand...

Trump has reduce the wall debate to a ideological battle because he has never presented a detailed plan to congress for border security. Since he has not specified where he will build border wall(s), a real estimate of cost, the design for the wall, border security for segments not protected by a wall,  monitoring, and personnel requirements.  He has simply asked congress for a 5 billion dollars slush fund for a wall and border security which allows him to build whatever he wants wherever he wants.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, this is a barrier free country, and that's why we have over 20 million illegals here.  If you don't think 20 million people here illegally is an issue, over 70,000 Americans dying from overdoses every year is an issue, Americans losing work and working for lower pay because of foreigners is an issue, Americans getting murdered by these foreigners is an issue, then what is an issue to you?
> 
> I don't like that we spend 70 billion a  year on food stamps either; especially when I see the kind of people using them at my grocery store, but hey......... we keep spending it anyway.
> 
> A wall that we originally wanted is less than half of that, and it's one time only, not an annual thing.
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of those 20 million came in to the country legally, then wound up not reporting to the INS when their visas ran out.  They take jobs Americans don't want.  And you have a bigger chance getting murdered by the alt right, than you do someone whose in the country illegally.
> 
> This is a non-issue.  Only 10% of the most whacked out part of our population wants this wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, if you believe biased polling that wants to convince people of something that's not true.
> 
> Trump won the presidential election because of the wall.  Last midterms broke records for turnouts on both sides.  If nobody wanted the wall, the Republican turnout would have been pathetic.
Click to expand...

Of course someone wants a big beautiful wall. However, a lot more people want to know that it will really work, how much will it cost, how long will it take to build it, what parts of the border will have a wall, what is the environmental impact, and what will be done with the rest of the border.  Trump tweets one thing today and something entirely different tomorrow.  That is not a plan.


----------



## Aponi

Timmy said:


> Do you ever put an ounce of thought into your dumb ideas ?
> 
> Walls in the mid of nowhere are not worth the cost.
> 
> Populated areas .  Fine .  Clear across mountains and wasteland ?  Stupid .
> 
> Y’all are falling for typical scapegoating .  Where’s the Canadian wall??  Oh, they are white peoples !


----------



## toobfreak

Ray From Cleveland said:


> More cheap excuses.  You people never seem to run out of them.



Unfortunately, Ray, they run out of them very fast, then like children, go full circle right back to the argument they started with, as if they never made it before or had it clearly proven wrong.


----------



## Aponi

Yes I agree someone posting here is stupid and unaware of the fact.

Many illegals travel in so called waste land as do those who have been deported in the past with criminal records and those carrying narcotics.

Now as for a nothern wall.
At some time we will probally need one.
But as it we dont have a lot of Canadian citizens trying to sneek into America.
Perhaps some. 
Next not a of ms13 or other ganbangers comming from canada .
Next while marajuana is comming across the northern boarders im not aware of any drug cartels producing meth in super labs smuggling it into our northern boarders or of cocaine or herion being produced in canada or Fentanyl labs.

So yes there is a differance between the 2 boarders that any moron can plainly see.
Of course those with a lower Iq than a moron would naturally fail to be able to see the differances sadly.


----------



## Aponi

Timmy said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever put an ounce of thought into your dumb ideas ?
> 
> Walls in the mid of nowhere are not worth the cost.
> 
> Populated areas .  Fine .  Clear across mountains and wasteland ?  Stupid .
> 
> Y’all are falling for typical scapegoating .  Where’s the Canadian wall??  Oh, they are white peoples !
> 
> 
> 
> Who’s the illegal in your family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mine came over legally .
> 
> Just because I don’t want to waste money on a white elephant doesn’t mean I’m against border patrol .
> 
> Have y’all sat down and thought of the logistics of this thing ?  And it’s realky about trumps ego.
Click to expand...


----------



## toobfreak

Flopper said:


> Walls do not keep people out.  They simple delay intrusion.  It is those that guard the walls that prevent intrusion.
> 
> Israel success is due primarily to several factors that do not exist in the US.  First, the length of border is one fifth that on the US border and intrusion attempts are estimated at 12,000 to 16,000 a year less than a tenth of what we seen in the US.  Israel law requires a 3 year sentence for any one attempting an illegal entry.  In the US, there is no mandatory sentence and in fact few ever spend anytime in jail.  Unlike US border security, the Israel wall was designed to repel terrorists and military invasions, not families seeking a better life which is why guards are authorized to shoot to kill to stop intruders.  Lastly the Israel military works on both sides of the border unlike the US.



Oh Flip-Flopper, walls DO keep people out and people in.Just because one cannot be 100% effective and only 99% effective is a BULLSHIT excuse not to build one.  Second, about time we include a 3 year sentence for anyone attempting to come in, why do you think they keep trying?  Lock 'em up, put them to HARD LABOR doing work for us, then throw them out.  Third, we too need to repel terrorists, and any one of these people could be an unknown drug dealer or terrorist.  What are you going to say when we get hit with another 9/11 and it is shown they came up through the border?

Forth, anyone climbing or one the wall, shoot them on sight.  If these people want to come here illegally, they are alien invaders.  We need to make this an avoid-avoid situation.  If they want a better life, run for office or seek it back home where you came from.  I don't need my life made worse just because you don't like how your own country is run.


----------



## Aponi

I forgot to adress your comment that they are white people.

First so you know im not white.

Second when we start having the same problem with the northern boarder I would call for the same action.
It seems your the real racist here as race has nothing to do with it.
I dont care if your white black red brown or yellow if your a ILLEGAL ALIEN YOUR ILLEGAL.

If everyone in south America was white and we were experiencing the same problems with illegals and drugs and related crime I would feel the same way. It seems your the one who has a problem with race not me.


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If undocumented immigrants represented a net positive for the US economy, would the OP have a change of heart?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me prosecuting these criminals is a net positive for my State along with all the things they cost us on. This is just 7 years of stats.
> 
> 
> 
> According to DHS status indicators, over 273,000 criminal aliens have been booked into local Texas jails between June 1, 2011 and November 30, 2018, of which over 184,000 were classified as illegal aliens by DHS.
> 
> Between June 1, 2011 and November 30, 2018, these 184,000 illegal aliens were charged with more than 288,000 criminal offenses which included arrests for 538 homicide charges; 32,005 assault charges; 5,622 burglary charges; 36,346 drug charges; 392 kidnapping charges; 15,674 theft charges; 23,222 obstructing police charges; 1,634 robbery charges; 3,381 sexual assault charges; 2,124 sexual offense charges; and 2,898 weapon charges. DPS criminal history records reflect those criminal charges have thus far resulted in over 118,000 convictions including 236 homicide convictions; 13,347 assault convictions; 3,111 burglary convictions; 17,618 drug convictions; 169 kidnapping convictions; 6,994 theft convictions; 11,160 obstructing police convictions; 995 robbery convictions; 1,671 sexual assault convictions; 1,134 sexual offense convictions; and 1,259 weapon convictions.
> 
> TxDPS - Texas Criminal Alien Arrest Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ooooh. That looks legit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you took Texas and put it in the middle east (which it basically resembles with it’s pollution, miles of nothingness, terrible politics, religion based policies etc…), Trump ass kissers would ban immigration from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're bigger fucking liar than you claim Trump to be. Go to hell.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mad bro?
Click to expand...



Sickened by commies is more like it. I guess you don't care about the people victimized all over this country, by people that shouldn't even be here. Hopefully you'll get a lesson first hand how it feels to lose someone close at the hands of illegal. Then you might understand their reality and won't be so flippant.

.


----------



## Billo_Really

toobfreak said:


> Poor Billy, hundreds of miles have already been put up!  Hundreds more on the way.


Listen prick, you're not going to turn this country into East Berlin.


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> Americans don't want them at the wage that Mexicans are willing to accept. Americans used to do all those jobs, you fucking moron.  My brother used to be a construction contractor until all the low wage Mexican contractors ran him out of business because they hired illegal aliens.


Then bid on prevailing wage projects and he won't have to worry about other contractors using undocumented workers.


----------



## Billo_Really

toobfreak said:


> More so, if we can build robots to explore the outer solar system, brake into orbit, land and drive around another planet testing soil and atmosphere, we can certainly design machines to replace Mexicans to pick oranges and tomatoes.


So you don't really give a shit about keeping American jobs for Americans.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Then prepare for a government shutdown until at least 2020.


So much for putting America first.


----------



## Billo_Really

Thinker101 said:


> Actually some of the taxes Americans pay is their fault.


Oh, you're full of shit.


----------



## candycorn

Aponi said:


> I forgot to adress your comment that they are white people.
> 
> First so you know im not white.
> 
> Second when we start having the same problem with the northern boarder I would call for the same action.
> .



What problem do we have now that we didn't have in 1969 (50 years ago); strictly speaking of the border?


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Or having babies, going on welfare, attending our ER's and not paying, working under the table paying no taxes, sending their kids to our schools, or out committing crimes.


There's that right wing propaganda spewing out.


----------



## candycorn

OKTexas said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me prosecuting these criminals is a net positive for my State along with all the things they cost us on. This is just 7 years of stats.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ooooh. That looks legit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you took Texas and put it in the middle east (which it basically resembles with it’s pollution, miles of nothingness, terrible politics, religion based policies etc…), Trump ass kissers would ban immigration from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're bigger fucking liar than you claim Trump to be. Go to hell.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mad bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sickened by commies is more like it. I guess you don't care about the people victimized all over this country, by people that shouldn't even be here. Hopefully you'll get a lesson first hand how it feels to lose someone close at the hands of illegal. Then you might understand their reality and won't be so flippant.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You hope I lose someone close at the hands of an illegal alien?  Doesn't sound very Christian of you.  Did you celebrate Christmas today?  If so, you're a fucking hypocrite.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Sure, if you believe biased polling that wants to convince people of something that's not true.
> 
> Trump won the presidential election because of the wall.  Last midterms broke records for turnouts on both sides.  If nobody wanted the wall, the Republican turnout would have been pathetic.


That's not even a logical argument.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, if you believe biased polling that wants to convince people of something that's not true.
> 
> Trump won the presidential election because of the wall.  Last midterms broke records for turnouts on both sides.  If nobody wanted the wall, the Republican turnout would have been pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not even a logical argument.
Click to expand...


More logical than only 10% of the people want the wall even though 95% of the country lives nowhere near it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then prepare for a government shutdown until at least 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> So much for putting America first.
Click to expand...


Oh, you mean like the Democrats are?  It's not 50 billion, it's 5.8 billion; less than one-tenth of what we spend on food stamps every single year.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

toobfreak said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> More cheap excuses.  You people never seem to run out of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, Ray, they run out of them very fast, then like children, go full circle right back to the argument they started with, as if they never made it before or had it clearly proven wrong.
Click to expand...


Well so far, we have.........

These people work illegally and pay taxes for programs they won't collect on., 

These people work harder than Americans. 

These people commit less violent crimes than Americans. 

These poor people somehow stimulate the economy. 

A wall won't work even though nobody can produce evidence of that claim. 

They will simply buy tall ladders or dig tunnels, and our border security, military nor engineers figured that out yet. 

These people are taking jobs Americans don't want.  Jobs that pay $2.00 an hour. 

A wall will turn us into Nazi Germany or the USSR.  

The only people wanting a wall are xenophobes and racists.  

Protecting our borders interferes in capitalism.  

Most illegals enter through legal VISA's, therefore nothing should be done about other ways they get in.  

I'm sure I missed some you may have thought of.  But the truth of the matter is they are looking for any excuse to have a borderless country.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, this is a barrier free country, and that's why we have over 20 million illegals here.  If you don't think 20 million people here illegally is an issue, over 70,000 Americans dying from overdoses every year is an issue, Americans losing work and working for lower pay because of foreigners is an issue, Americans getting murdered by these foreigners is an issue, then what is an issue to you?
> 
> I don't like that we spend 70 billion a  year on food stamps either; especially when I see the kind of people using them at my grocery store, but hey......... we keep spending it anyway.
> 
> A wall that we originally wanted is less than half of that, and it's one time only, not an annual thing.
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of those 20 million came in to the country legally, then wound up not reporting to the INS when their visas ran out.  They take jobs Americans don't want.  And you have a bigger chance getting murdered by the alt right, than you do someone whose in the country illegally.
> 
> This is a non-issue.  Only 10% of the most whacked out part of our population wants this wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, if you believe biased polling that wants to convince people of something that's not true.
> 
> Trump won the presidential election because of the wall.  Last midterms broke records for turnouts on both sides.  If nobody wanted the wall, the Republican turnout would have been pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course someone wants a big beautiful wall. However, a lot more people want to know that it will really work, how much will it cost, how long will it take to build it, what parts of the border will have a wall, what is the environmental impact, and what will be done with the rest of the border.  Trump tweets one thing today and something entirely different tomorrow.  That is not a plan.
Click to expand...


It sure is a hell of a lot better plan than closing down the government for a fragment of our federal spending.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you never dug dirt?
> 
> You stupid fuck, go pick up a shovel and start digging.. let's see how far you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I grew up in the construction business.  I've spent as much time with shovels as you have with keyboards.  You just aren't making any sense with your cryptic posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A handful of tools costing under a grand will defeat most any wall.  On a good day, the police here can answer a call within twenty minutes.  Along all those miles of border, that's all the coyotes need to get their human cargo beyond the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you never dug dirt?
> 
> You stupid fuck, go pick up a shovel and start digging.. let's see how far you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I grew up in the construction business.  I've spent as much time with shovels as you have with keyboards.  You just aren't making any sense with your cryptic posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you have any understanding of the construction business you probably understand congress's problem  with the Trump the wall.  Suppose you went to the bank and asked for 5 billion dollars to start building a wall somewhere along the US border with the location not yet determined, the type of wall undetermined, time frame to complete the wall undetermined, environmental impact undetermined, the total cost of the wall undetermined, additional personnel to support the wall undetermined undetermined, and the plan for boarder security where there is no wall undetermined.  Obliviously, you would have no chance of getting funding.  However, this being goverment the president believes he can get his big beautiful wall by just asking for a slush fund for a wall and border security.
> 
> If Trump actually presented congress with a real plan for better border security covering the barrier to used on all 2000 miles of border, the total estimated cost and completion time, then congress could actually evaluate the request.  The total lack of details means any decision will not be based on quality of the plan but on party ideology.  So congress and the nation would be stuck with whatever Trump decides.  That's absolutely unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More cheap excuses.  You people never seem to run out of them.
> 
> It doesn't matter what Trump does or doesn't do.  As far as the Democrats are concerned, no wall for any reason.  It has nothing to do with blueprints, plans, locations.  It has to do with the Democrats fighting to the death something they can't easily remove or reverse.  That's the problem.
> 
> We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has reduce the wall debate to a ideological battle because he has never presented a detailed plan to congress for border security. Since he has not specified where he will build border wall(s), a real estimate of cost, the design for the wall, border security for segments not protected by a wall,  monitoring, and personnel requirements.  He has simply asked congress for a 5 billion dollars slush fund for a wall and border security which allows him to build whatever he wants wherever he wants.
Click to expand...


Do you consider me an idiot or what?  Do you really believe that if Trump did all or any of those things, the Democrats would give him the 5 billion? 

I seriously don't think you understand the anti-white party and what they are really after.  It doesn't matter what Trump does, and nobody in the anti-white party to my knowledge has stated his lack of overt plans are why they voted against it.  

_*House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday there is nothing she would trade for President Donald Trump’s border wall, setting a hard negotiating stance in advance of an expected December showdown over the issue.*_

Pelosi Not Willing to Trade Over Border Wall, Calls It Trump ‘Manhood Issue’


----------



## OKTexas

Billo_Really said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Billy, hundreds of miles have already been put up!  Hundreds more on the way.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen prick, you're not going to turn this country into East Berlin.
Click to expand...



We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.

.


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ooooh. That looks legit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you took Texas and put it in the middle east (which it basically resembles with it’s pollution, miles of nothingness, terrible politics, religion based policies etc…), Trump ass kissers would ban immigration from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're bigger fucking liar than you claim Trump to be. Go to hell.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mad bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sickened by commies is more like it. I guess you don't care about the people victimized all over this country, by people that shouldn't even be here. Hopefully you'll get a lesson first hand how it feels to lose someone close at the hands of illegal. Then you might understand their reality and won't be so flippant.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You hope I lose someone close at the hands of an illegal alien?  Doesn't sound very Christian of you.  Did you celebrate Christmas today?  If so, you're a fucking hypocrite.
Click to expand...



Fuck you, you don't know me, you only know some of my opinions. Sometimes crack heads like you need reality to knock the shit out of you before you see the light, karma says you should be the victim.

.


----------



## candycorn

OKTexas said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you took Texas and put it in the middle east (which it basically resembles with it’s pollution, miles of nothingness, terrible politics, religion based policies etc…), Trump ass kissers would ban immigration from there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're bigger fucking liar than you claim Trump to be. Go to hell.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mad bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sickened by commies is more like it. I guess you don't care about the people victimized all over this country, by people that shouldn't even be here. Hopefully you'll get a lesson first hand how it feels to lose someone close at the hands of illegal. Then you might understand their reality and won't be so flippant.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You hope I lose someone close at the hands of an illegal alien?  Doesn't sound very Christian of you.  Did you celebrate Christmas today?  If so, you're a fucking hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, you don't know me, you only know some of my opinions. Sometimes crack heads like you need reality to knock the shit out of you before you see the light, karma says you should be the victim.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Your opinions are clearly the antithesis to Christian values.  So if you're celebrating Christmas, you are, by virtue of fact, a hypocrite. Don't blame me fuck face; you are indicting yourself.


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you never dug dirt?
> 
> You stupid fuck, go pick up a shovel and start digging.. let's see how far you get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up in the construction business.  I've spent as much time with shovels as you have with keyboards.  You just aren't making any sense with your cryptic posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people that cross illegally for the first time hire someone to help, usually a coyote.  Border towns are filled with them.  What equipment is needed they will have it.
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you never dug dirt?
> 
> You stupid fuck, go pick up a shovel and start digging.. let's see how far you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I grew up in the construction business.  I've spent as much time with shovels as you have with keyboards.  You just aren't making any sense with your cryptic posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you have any understanding of the construction business you probably understand congress's problem  with the Trump the wall.  Suppose you went to the bank and asked for 5 billion dollars to start building a wall somewhere along the US border with the location not yet determined, the type of wall undetermined, time frame to complete the wall undetermined, environmental impact undetermined, the total cost of the wall undetermined, additional personnel to support the wall undetermined undetermined, and the plan for boarder security where there is no wall undetermined.  Obliviously, you would have no chance of getting funding.  However, this being goverment the president believes he can get his big beautiful wall by just asking for a slush fund for a wall and border security.
> 
> If Trump actually presented congress with a real plan for better border security covering the barrier to used on all 2000 miles of border, the total estimated cost and completion time, then congress could actually evaluate the request.  The total lack of details means any decision will not be based on quality of the plan but on party ideology.  So congress and the nation would be stuck with whatever Trump decides.  That's absolutely unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More cheap excuses.  You people never seem to run out of them.
> 
> It doesn't matter what Trump does or doesn't do.  As far as the Democrats are concerned, no wall for any reason.  It has nothing to do with blueprints, plans, locations.  It has to do with the Democrats fighting to the death something they can't easily remove or reverse.  That's the problem.
> 
> We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has reduce the wall debate to a ideological battle because he has never presented a detailed plan to congress for border security. Since he has not specified where he will build border wall(s), a real estimate of cost, the design for the wall, border security for segments not protected by a wall,  monitoring, and personnel requirements.  He has simply asked congress for a 5 billion dollars slush fund for a wall and border security which allows him to build whatever he wants wherever he wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider me an idiot or what?  Do you really believe that if Trump did all or any of those things, the Democrats would give him the 5 billion?
> 
> I seriously don't think you understand the anti-white party and what they are really after.  It doesn't matter what Trump does, and nobody in the anti-white party to my knowledge has stated his lack of overt plans are why they voted against it.
> 
> _*House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday there is nothing she would trade for President Donald Trump’s border wall, setting a hard negotiating stance in advance of an expected December showdown over the issue.*_
> 
> Pelosi Not Willing to Trade Over Border Wall, Calls It Trump ‘Manhood Issue’
Click to expand...


It's called the Art of the Deal.


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're bigger fucking liar than you claim Trump to be. Go to hell.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mad bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sickened by commies is more like it. I guess you don't care about the people victimized all over this country, by people that shouldn't even be here. Hopefully you'll get a lesson first hand how it feels to lose someone close at the hands of illegal. Then you might understand their reality and won't be so flippant.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You hope I lose someone close at the hands of an illegal alien?  Doesn't sound very Christian of you.  Did you celebrate Christmas today?  If so, you're a fucking hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, you don't know me, you only know some of my opinions. Sometimes crack heads like you need reality to knock the shit out of you before you see the light, karma says you should be the victim.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinions are clearly the antithesis to Christian values.  So if you're celebrating Christmas, you are, by virtue of fact, a hypocrite. Don't blame me fuck face; you are indicting yourself.
Click to expand...



Hey bitch, I'm not going to discuss religion with you, you're just trying to deflect form the fact you couldn't care less about the people being victimized by illegals.

.


----------



## munkle

Number one it won't work.  It hits the symptom, not the cause.  As long as employers are hiring they'll keep coming.

Problem won't stop until you jail the employers and punish them as hard.  The illegals aren't stupid they see the remittances coming back for thousands of dollars so they know the money is up here, more than they can make in a year down there in one Western Union transfer.  If they can stand pulling chicken guts for a few years they'll make up what they paid the coyote and much more.  You guys are all full of shit, jail employers, not fines that are slaps on the wrist, and the problem stops.  Right now they are making a show of prosecuting one or two once in a while.  If US employers aren't hiring, where are all those remittances coming from?   A good part of their GDP?  Stop the remittances and it stops the problem.


----------



## candycorn

OKTexas said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mad bro?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sickened by commies is more like it. I guess you don't care about the people victimized all over this country, by people that shouldn't even be here. Hopefully you'll get a lesson first hand how it feels to lose someone close at the hands of illegal. Then you might understand their reality and won't be so flippant.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You hope I lose someone close at the hands of an illegal alien?  Doesn't sound very Christian of you.  Did you celebrate Christmas today?  If so, you're a fucking hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, you don't know me, you only know some of my opinions. Sometimes crack heads like you need reality to knock the shit out of you before you see the light, karma says you should be the victim.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinions are clearly the antithesis to Christian values.  So if you're celebrating Christmas, you are, by virtue of fact, a hypocrite. Don't blame me fuck face; you are indicting yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey bitch, I'm not going to discuss religion with you, you're just trying to deflect form the fact you couldn't care less about the people being victimized by illegals.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You shouldn't discuss religion....you have no idea what your alleged faith is all about.


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sickened by commies is more like it. I guess you don't care about the people victimized all over this country, by people that shouldn't even be here. Hopefully you'll get a lesson first hand how it feels to lose someone close at the hands of illegal. Then you might understand their reality and won't be so flippant.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You hope I lose someone close at the hands of an illegal alien?  Doesn't sound very Christian of you.  Did you celebrate Christmas today?  If so, you're a fucking hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, you don't know me, you only know some of my opinions. Sometimes crack heads like you need reality to knock the shit out of you before you see the light, karma says you should be the victim.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinions are clearly the antithesis to Christian values.  So if you're celebrating Christmas, you are, by virtue of fact, a hypocrite. Don't blame me fuck face; you are indicting yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey bitch, I'm not going to discuss religion with you, you're just trying to deflect form the fact you couldn't care less about the people being victimized by illegals.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You shouldn't discuss religion....you have no idea what your alleged faith is all about.
Click to expand...



I've got you number, that's what counts. Last week a husband and wife were driving home when a drunk illegal lost control, crossed the median, went airborne and speared into the drivers compartment of the oncoming couple, the husband died instantly. The illegal lived, there you can go to bed with a simile on your face, you unfeeling, un-American bitch.

.


----------



## candycorn

OKTexas said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You hope I lose someone close at the hands of an illegal alien?  Doesn't sound very Christian of you.  Did you celebrate Christmas today?  If so, you're a fucking hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, you don't know me, you only know some of my opinions. Sometimes crack heads like you need reality to knock the shit out of you before you see the light, karma says you should be the victim.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinions are clearly the antithesis to Christian values.  So if you're celebrating Christmas, you are, by virtue of fact, a hypocrite. Don't blame me fuck face; you are indicting yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey bitch, I'm not going to discuss religion with you, you're just trying to deflect form the fact you couldn't care less about the people being victimized by illegals.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You shouldn't discuss religion....you have no idea what your alleged faith is all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've got you number, that's what counts. Last week a husband and wife were driving home when a drunk illegal lost control, crossed the median, went airborne and speared into the drivers compartment of the oncoming couple, the husband died instantly. The illegal lived, there you can go to bed with a simile on your face, you unfeeling, un-American bitch.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


And you wouldn't care about it if the other driver were not an illegal.  More of your faux Christianity on display.

And you know what?  I didn't have to say or do a thing; you highlight your hypocrisy very well all by yourself.

As long as you continue to dig your hole...I'll be happy to keep handing you shovels.  Happy Kwanzza.


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, you don't know me, you only know some of my opinions. Sometimes crack heads like you need reality to knock the shit out of you before you see the light, karma says you should be the victim.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinions are clearly the antithesis to Christian values.  So if you're celebrating Christmas, you are, by virtue of fact, a hypocrite. Don't blame me fuck face; you are indicting yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey bitch, I'm not going to discuss religion with you, you're just trying to deflect form the fact you couldn't care less about the people being victimized by illegals.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You shouldn't discuss religion....you have no idea what your alleged faith is all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've got you number, that's what counts. Last week a husband and wife were driving home when a drunk illegal lost control, crossed the median, went airborne and speared into the drivers compartment of the oncoming couple, the husband died instantly. The illegal lived, there you can go to bed with a simile on your face, you unfeeling, un-American bitch.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you wouldn't care about it if the other driver were not an illegal.  More of your faux Christianity on display.
> 
> And you know what?  I didn't have to say or do a thing; you highlight your hypocrisy very well all by yourself.
> 
> As long as you continue to dig your hole...I'll be happy to keep handing you shovels.  Happy Kwanzza.
Click to expand...



Wrong again bitch, anyone drinking, driving and kills someone should be prosecuted for murder, it's not an accident if you drink and drive.

.


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans don't want them at the wage that Mexicans are willing to accept. Americans used to do all those jobs, you fucking moron.  My brother used to be a construction contractor until all the low wage Mexican contractors ran him out of business because they hired illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> Then bid on prevailing wage projects and he won't have to worry about other contractors using undocumented workers.
Click to expand...

You aren't really expecting me to pretend your reply isn't stupid, are you?


----------



## bripat9643

candycorn said:


> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I forgot to adress your comment that they are white people.
> 
> First so you know im not white.
> 
> Second when we start having the same problem with the northern boarder I would call for the same action.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What problem do we have now that we didn't have in 1969 (50 years ago); strictly speaking of the border?
Click to expand...

Stagnating wages, increased crime, drug dealing.


----------



## Slyhunter

munkle said:


> Number one it won't work.  It hits the symptom, not the cause.  As long as employers are hiring they'll keep coming.
> 
> Problem won't stop until you jail the employers and punish them as hard.  The illegals aren't stupid they see the remittances coming back for thousands of dollars so they know the money is up here, more than they can make in a year down there in one Western Union transfer.  If they can stand pulling chicken guts for a few years they'll make up what they paid the coyote and much more.  You guys are all full of shit, jail employers, not fines that are slaps on the wrist, and the problem stops.  Right now they are making a show of prosecuting one or two once in a while.  If US employers aren't hiring, where are all those remittances coming from?   A good part of their GDP?  Stop the remittances and it stops the problem.


Jail employers you lose the jobs they employ. Maybe a 10,000 dollar fine per illegal per day.


----------



## bripat9643

Slyhunter said:


> munkle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Number one it won't work.  It hits the symptom, not the cause.  As long as employers are hiring they'll keep coming.
> 
> Problem won't stop until you jail the employers and punish them as hard.  The illegals aren't stupid they see the remittances coming back for thousands of dollars so they know the money is up here, more than they can make in a year down there in one Western Union transfer.  If they can stand pulling chicken guts for a few years they'll make up what they paid the coyote and much more.  You guys are all full of shit, jail employers, not fines that are slaps on the wrist, and the problem stops.  Right now they are making a show of prosecuting one or two once in a while.  If US employers aren't hiring, where are all those remittances coming from?   A good part of their GDP?  Stop the remittances and it stops the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Jail employers you lose the jobs they employ. Maybe a 10,000 dollar fine per illegal per day.
Click to expand...

They are already subject to a $5,000 fine per illegal.  However, the local leftist politicians don't want to pursue these offenses because that means a lot of illegals will be deported back to Mexico.


----------



## candycorn

OKTexas said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinions are clearly the antithesis to Christian values.  So if you're celebrating Christmas, you are, by virtue of fact, a hypocrite. Don't blame me fuck face; you are indicting yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey bitch, I'm not going to discuss religion with you, you're just trying to deflect form the fact you couldn't care less about the people being victimized by illegals.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You shouldn't discuss religion....you have no idea what your alleged faith is all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've got you number, that's what counts. Last week a husband and wife were driving home when a drunk illegal lost control, crossed the median, went airborne and speared into the drivers compartment of the oncoming couple, the husband died instantly. The illegal lived, there you can go to bed with a simile on your face, you unfeeling, un-American bitch.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you wouldn't care about it if the other driver were not an illegal.  More of your faux Christianity on display.
> 
> And you know what?  I didn't have to say or do a thing; you highlight your hypocrisy very well all by yourself.
> 
> As long as you continue to dig your hole...I'll be happy to keep handing you shovels.  Happy Kwanzza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again bitch, anyone drinking, driving and kills someone should be prosecuted for murder, it's not an accident if you drink and drive.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I agree...but the only reason you're bringing up the tragedy is because an illegal alien is involved.
And that is just another example of your faux Christianity; that and your hoping someone I know dies.  

How sad you are.


----------



## candycorn

bripat9643 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I forgot to adress your comment that they are white people.
> 
> First so you know im not white.
> 
> Second when we start having the same problem with the northern boarder I would call for the same action.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What problem do we have now that we didn't have in 1969 (50 years ago); strictly speaking of the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stagnating wages, increased crime, drug dealing.
Click to expand...


Wages have gone up but so has production; purchasing power is about the same as it was in the 60's
We have actually less violent crime
Drug dealing?  Really?


----------



## candycorn

bripat9643 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans don't want them at the wage that Mexicans are willing to accept. Americans used to do all those jobs, you fucking moron.  My brother used to be a construction contractor until all the low wage Mexican contractors ran him out of business because they hired illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> Then bid on prevailing wage projects and he won't have to worry about other contractors using undocumented workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't really expecting me to pretend your reply isn't stupid, are you?
Click to expand...


I pretend you're not stupid every day.  I'm a pretty good actor.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> And you wouldn't care about it if the other driver were not an illegal. More of your faux Christianity on display.



I think you missed the point that had the illegal not been here in the first place, those Americans would be alive today.  

Usually when people go to another country, they respect the laws and the hospitality of the government and people.  It seems many of these people south of our border have little respect; at least 20 million of them.  They come here uninvited by sneaking in one way or another, do whatever it is they feel like doing, and we do nothing until they end up in serious trouble.  

We provide no deterrent in this country.  That's why we have repeated stories about illegals that get into trouble being deported multiple times but keep coming back.  And why not?  There is no wall to stop them thanks to the anti-white party.


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey bitch, I'm not going to discuss religion with you, you're just trying to deflect form the fact you couldn't care less about the people being victimized by illegals.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't discuss religion....you have no idea what your alleged faith is all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've got you number, that's what counts. Last week a husband and wife were driving home when a drunk illegal lost control, crossed the median, went airborne and speared into the drivers compartment of the oncoming couple, the husband died instantly. The illegal lived, there you can go to bed with a simile on your face, you unfeeling, un-American bitch.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you wouldn't care about it if the other driver were not an illegal.  More of your faux Christianity on display.
> 
> And you know what?  I didn't have to say or do a thing; you highlight your hypocrisy very well all by yourself.
> 
> As long as you continue to dig your hole...I'll be happy to keep handing you shovels.  Happy Kwanzza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again bitch, anyone drinking, driving and kills someone should be prosecuted for murder, it's not an accident if you drink and drive.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree...but the only reason you're bringing up the tragedy is because an illegal alien is involved.
> And that is just another example of your faux Christianity; that and your hoping someone I know dies.
> 
> How sad you are.
Click to expand...



Yeah, it's an on topic example why we need to get illegals out of the country and why we should prevent them from coming. We have illegals from virtually every country in the world, every damned one of them should be sent home with just the shirts on their backs. Any assets they have should be seized as a product of an ongoing criminal enterprise to pay the costs of their deportation.

.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

munkle said:


> Number one it won't work.  It hits the symptom, not the cause.  As long as employers are hiring they'll keep coming.
> 
> Problem won't stop until you jail the employers and punish them as hard.  The illegals aren't stupid they see the remittances coming back for thousands of dollars so they know the money is up here, more than they can make in a year down there in one Western Union transfer.  If they can stand pulling chicken guts for a few years they'll make up what they paid the coyote and much more.  You guys are all full of shit, jail employers, not fines that are slaps on the wrist, and the problem stops.  Right now they are making a show of prosecuting one or two once in a while.  If US employers aren't hiring, where are all those remittances coming from?   A good part of their GDP?  Stop the remittances and it stops the problem.



So your stance is when illegals come here breaking our laws, jail the Americans instead?  

Some do come here for jobs.  Others come here to take advantage of our welfare system when they have children; speaking of which, having a child here makes them an American unfortunately. Then the issue is do we deport parents of an American child? In other words, these immigrants are using our laws and empathy against us.  

*sucker*
[suhk-er]


Informal . a person easily cheated, deceived, or imposed upon.
the definition of sucker


----------



## bripat9643

candycorn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I forgot to adress your comment that they are white people.
> 
> First so you know im not white.
> 
> Second when we start having the same problem with the northern boarder I would call for the same action.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What problem do we have now that we didn't have in 1969 (50 years ago); strictly speaking of the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stagnating wages, increased crime, drug dealing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wages have gone up but so has production; purchasing power is about the same as it was in the 60's
> We have actually less violent crime
> Drug dealing?  Really?
Click to expand...

Which means wages in real terms have not gone up.  We have less total crime, but illegals commit a much larger proportion of it.  The same goes for drug dealing.


----------



## bripat9643

candycorn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans don't want them at the wage that Mexicans are willing to accept. Americans used to do all those jobs, you fucking moron.  My brother used to be a construction contractor until all the low wage Mexican contractors ran him out of business because they hired illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> Then bid on prevailing wage projects and he won't have to worry about other contractors using undocumented workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't really expecting me to pretend your reply isn't stupid, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pretend you're not stupid every day.  I'm a pretty good actor.
Click to expand...

Too bad you are no good at pretending that you're not stupid.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bripat9643 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I forgot to adress your comment that they are white people.
> 
> First so you know im not white.
> 
> Second when we start having the same problem with the northern boarder I would call for the same action.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What problem do we have now that we didn't have in 1969 (50 years ago); strictly speaking of the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stagnating wages, increased crime, drug dealing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wages have gone up but so has production; purchasing power is about the same as it was in the 60's
> We have actually less violent crime
> Drug dealing?  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means wages in real terms have not gone up.  We have less total crime, but illegals commit a much larger proportion of it.  The same goes for drug dealing.
Click to expand...


Illegal Immigrants Accounted for Nearly 37 Percent of Federal Sentences in FY 2014 | Breitbart

Illegal immigrants responsible for almost three-fourths of federal drug possession sentences in 2014


----------



## candycorn

bripat9643 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans don't want them at the wage that Mexicans are willing to accept. Americans used to do all those jobs, you fucking moron.  My brother used to be a construction contractor until all the low wage Mexican contractors ran him out of business because they hired illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> Then bid on prevailing wage projects and he won't have to worry about other contractors using undocumented workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't really expecting me to pretend your reply isn't stupid, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pretend you're not stupid every day.  I'm a pretty good actor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad you are no good at pretending that you're not stupid.
Click to expand...


That was a double negative...dumb ass.  LOL


----------



## candycorn

bripat9643 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I forgot to adress your comment that they are white people.
> 
> First so you know im not white.
> 
> Second when we start having the same problem with the northern boarder I would call for the same action.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What problem do we have now that we didn't have in 1969 (50 years ago); strictly speaking of the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stagnating wages, increased crime, drug dealing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wages have gone up but so has production; purchasing power is about the same as it was in the 60's
> We have actually less violent crime
> Drug dealing?  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means wages in real terms have not gone up.  We have less total crime, but illegals commit a much larger proportion of it.  The same goes for drug dealing.
Click to expand...


Strange;

The statistics are from paychecks like most Americans receive.  What you guys always say is that they are not paying taxes....so the wage stagnation that occurred is due to reports from paychecks...not the under-the-table payments illegals receive.  So they are not part of the equation.  

As for Crime, if Illegals were adding to the crime, we'd have more; not less.

As for drug dealing; you may have a point there...  However, the demand Americans have for drugs ensures that there will always be a supply.  Further, the current real crisis (Opioids) are purchased over the counter by prescription and sold between persons with scripts for the drugs; illegals, legals, martians; doesn't matter.


----------



## LoneLaugher

OKTexas said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me prosecuting these criminals is a net positive for my State along with all the things they cost us on. This is just 7 years of stats.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ooooh. That looks legit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you took Texas and put it in the middle east (which it basically resembles with it’s pollution, miles of nothingness, terrible politics, religion based policies etc…), Trump ass kissers would ban immigration from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're bigger fucking liar than you claim Trump to be. Go to hell.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mad bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sickened by commies is more like it. I guess you don't care about the people victimized all over this country, by people that shouldn't even be here. Hopefully you'll get a lesson first hand how it feels to lose someone close at the hands of illegal. Then you might understand their reality and won't be so flippant.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Merry Christmas! You're so full of joy!


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> More logical than only 10% of the people want the wall even though 95% of the country lives nowhere near it.


_ "If nobody wanted the wall, the Republican turnout would have been pathetic." 
_
That is a completely illogical and irrational thing to say.  The minor bump in republican turnout was more a result of the Kavanaugh hearings than talk about your "Waa Wall".


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Oh, you mean like the Democrats are?  It's not 50 billion, it's 5.8 billion; less than one-tenth of what we spend on food stamps every single year.


You shutdown the government over this bullshit wall.  That's putting America last.


----------



## sealybobo

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


Then we need a Canadian wall.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It sure is a hell of a lot better plan than closing down the government for a fragment of our federal spending.


It's a plan about a made up issue.


----------



## Billo_Really

OKTexas said:


> We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.
> 
> .


I ain't going anywhere and you ain't gettin' no fucking wall.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

Build a wall on the Canadian border first.


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> You aren't really expecting me to pretend your reply isn't stupid, are you?


Then you know nothing about public contracts.


----------



## sealybobo

OKTexas said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Billy, hundreds of miles have already been put up!  Hundreds more on the way.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen prick, you're not going to turn this country into East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

They’ll get around your wall.

Also, will it be considered treasonist if in ten years republicans forget about the wall and it starts looking like Swiss cheese?

A wall is and always will be a waste of money. Patrol the fucking border with or without a wall.

This is how we know you won’t defend the wall after you’ve built it. You won’t even patrol the border now. What makes us think you’ll patrol the wall?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

cutter said:


> All the libs wanted a wall until Trump wanted a wall then no libs want a wall. Perfect example of TDS, it affects all libs.



That fact should be very revealing to you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aponi said:


> Yes I agree someone posting here is stupid and unaware of the fact.
> 
> Many illegals travel in so called waste land as do those who have been deported in the past with criminal records and those carrying narcotics.
> 
> Now as for a nothern wall.
> At some time we will probally need one.
> But as it we dont have a lot of Canadian citizens trying to sneek into America.
> Perhaps some.
> Next not a of ms13 or other ganbangers comming from canada .
> Next while marajuana is comming across the northern boarders im not aware of any drug cartels producing meth in super labs smuggling it into our northern boarders or of cocaine or herion being produced in canada or Fentanyl labs.
> 
> So yes there is a differance between the 2 boarders that any moron can plainly see.
> Of course those with a lower Iq than a moron would naturally fail to be able to see the differances sadly.



MS13 is largely a Salvadoran gang, the bulk of which entered the United States properly and would not be affected by the wall.


----------



## Aponi

Porter Rockwell said:


> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I agree someone posting here is stupid and unaware of the fact.
> 
> Many illegals travel in so called waste land as do those who have been deported in the past with criminal records and those carrying narcotics.
> 
> Now as for a nothern wall.
> At some time we will probally need one.
> But as it we dont have a lot of Canadian citizens trying to sneek into America.
> Perhaps some.
> Next not a of ms13 or other ganbangers comming from canada .
> Next while marajuana is comming across the northern boarders im not aware of any drug cartels producing meth in super labs smuggling it into our northern boarders or of cocaine or herion being produced in canada or Fentanyl labs.
> 
> So yes there is a differance between the 2 boarders that any moron can plainly see.
> Of course those with a lower Iq than a moron would naturally fail to be able to see the differances sadly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MS13 is largely a Salvadoran gang, the bulk of which entered the United States properly and would not be affected by the wall.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you support them


----------



## Aponi

candycorn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I forgot to adress your comment that they are white people.
> 
> First so you know im not white.
> 
> Second when we start having the same problem with the northern boarder I would call for the same action.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What problem do we have now that we didn't have in 1969 (50 years ago); strictly speaking of the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stagnating wages, increased crime, drug dealing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wages have gone up but so has production; purchasing power is about the same as it was in the 60's
> We have actually less violent crime
> Drug dealing?  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means wages in real terms have not gone up.  We have less total crime, but illegals commit a much larger proportion of it.  The same goes for drug dealing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strange;
> 
> The statistics are from paychecks like most Americans receive.  What you guys always say is that they are not paying taxes....so the wage stagnation that occurred is due to reports from paychecks...not the under-the-table payments illegals receive.  So they are not part of the equation.
> 
> As for Crime, if Illegals were adding to the crime, we'd have more; not less.
> 
> As for drug dealing; you may have a point there...  However, the demand Americans have for drugs ensures that there will always be a supply.  Further, the current real crisis (Opioids) are purchased over the counter by prescription and sold between persons with scripts for the drugs; illegals, legals, martians; doesn't matter.
Click to expand...


----------



## Aponi

Prescription drugs are indeed a issue but we canot deny or pretend that meth and cocaine herion and illegally produced Fentanyl are are killers . they all kill and are comming from south America .
They cost untold billions in damages to our nation yearly


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> More cheap excuses.  You people never seem to run out of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, Ray, they run out of them very fast, then like children, go full circle right back to the argument they started with, as if they never made it before or had it clearly proven wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well so far, we have.........
> 
> These people work illegally and pay taxes for programs they won't collect on.,
> 
> These people work harder than Americans.
> 
> These people commit less violent crimes than Americans.
> 
> These poor people somehow stimulate the economy.
> 
> A wall won't work even though nobody can produce evidence of that claim.
> 
> They will simply buy tall ladders or dig tunnels, and our border security, military nor engineers figured that out yet.
> 
> These people are taking jobs Americans don't want.  Jobs that pay $2.00 an hour.
> 
> A wall will turn us into Nazi Germany or the USSR.
> 
> The only people wanting a wall are xenophobes and racists.
> 
> Protecting our borders interferes in capitalism.
> 
> Most illegals enter through legal VISA's, therefore nothing should be done about other ways they get in.
> 
> I'm sure I missed some you may have thought of.  But the truth of the matter is they are looking for any excuse to have a borderless country.
Click to expand...


Although I did not understand what point you were trying to make, I'll give you a few points so that we can clear this up just for you:

1)  Those who want the border wall have been asked WHY they want it.  When those who do not want the wall respond to one PRETEXT, the wall advocates simply change the goal posts.  For example, IIRC when I entered this thread, the pretext for the wall was sovereignty (see post # 951.)  Somebody probably addressed more pretexts, but I think I joined the conversation somewhere along post #951.

Since then the pretexts have ranged from undocumented immigrants stealing jobs to not paying taxes and from SUPPOSED costs of immigrants (welfare, medical costs, etc.)  to the PRETEXT of safety.  At the end of the day, people like Ray have not been able to articulate a reason as to WHY they support a wall idea.  Respond to the PRETEXT of the day and they invent another

2)  WHEN the PRETEXTS are examined and found to be baseless, Ray, and those who support his position, have a hissy fit, wanting us to look at all their supposed evidence that they think supports their position.

The problem for them is that while China does have a wall, China is also ONE people.  98.5 percent of the Chinese are Han Chinese.  To date, the wall supporters have avoided the QUESTION of what the agenda is beyond the wall.  Say you write them a check for umpteen BILLIONS of dollars to build the wall.  Is the long term goal then to rid America of the third worlders and other foreigners, getting rid of not only the poverty stricken, but say people like Muslims (whose religion dictates that they will either convert or kill us)???

The second problem for the wall advocates is that they cannot understand why a wall may be effective for one country, but not the United States.  For whatever reason, the build the wall advocates were never taught that America was founded as a constitutional Republic and THE ONLY NATION ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH WHOSE GOVERNMENT IS GUARANTEEING GOD GIVEN, INHERENT, NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, ABSOLUTE RIGHTS.

You cannot take from one country something you like and then ignore the accompanying things that make their numbers look good.  In other words, if you want to be like the Israelis, then you have to declare a state of war; you have to maintain an atmosphere of distrust, conflict, and chaos so that you can have a PRETEXT to suspend the Rights of the people in order to keep the foreigners out.

We're not engaged in a war and sensible people do NOT want the POLICE STATE which would be a necessity to enforce the nutty wall idea.  The wall don't just magically keep people out.  Whoever guards the wall must HATE the foreigners so that the guards will not be susceptible to turning a blind eye to those who breach the wall. 

Americans will have to be programmed, Pavlovian style, to HATE the people from south of the border because, unlike the Israelis, we are not at war from the people south of our border.  The Israelis are fighting an enemy who, according to the Bible, have their hand against every man and every man's hand against them.   Those Ishmaelites, the people trying to breach Israel's defenses, are doing so in order to KILL a political enemy.

In the United States, the atmosphere is much different.  The people coming here from south of the border are finding WILLING Americans to do business with.  It's a mutually beneficial relationship.  It's not like you have to stand guard at the border and kill or be killed

3)  The aim of political globalists is to con the Americans into giving up their Rights.  Even when it was pointed out to Ray how, when our Second Amendment Rights were protected, the legal principle protected Sanctuary Cities, he chose to ignore the FACT that the laws required to enforce the nutty wall idea will end up costing you the Rights our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure for us.

The pro-wall advocates will call Nancy Pelosi a liar all the way up to the point that she says no wall - no way.  The build the wall advocates are generally working in industries where people are actors and negotiators (lawyers, politicians, and people involved in professional wrestling are good at it.)  So, those build the wall people do not understand that the fix is in.  They will get their silly wall, but the Democrats have already been guaranteed concessions on gun control.

But, like a WWE match, they have to make the "fight" appear real.  One only needs to know where Donald Trump stands, historically, on gun control not to understand that the building of the wall is about to come at an expense of the Second Amendment   And WHEN it fails to make a difference, more private deals will be struck until we have no more Rights under a Republican form of government, but only a Democracy that will be ruled by the "legal" foreigners we're allowing to take over in this country.


----------



## candycorn

Aponi said:


> Prescription drugs are indeed a issue but we canot deny or pretend that meth and cocaine herion and illegally produced Fentanyl are are killers . they all kill and are comming from south America .
> They cost untold billions in damages to our nation yearly



So you think people walking across the border are supplying the drugs?  Really?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aponi said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I agree someone posting here is stupid and unaware of the fact.
> 
> Many illegals travel in so called waste land as do those who have been deported in the past with criminal records and those carrying narcotics.
> 
> Now as for a nothern wall.
> At some time we will probally need one.
> But as it we dont have a lot of Canadian citizens trying to sneek into America.
> Perhaps some.
> Next not a of ms13 or other ganbangers comming from canada .
> Next while marajuana is comming across the northern boarders im not aware of any drug cartels producing meth in super labs smuggling it into our northern boarders or of cocaine or herion being produced in canada or Fentanyl labs.
> 
> So yes there is a differance between the 2 boarders that any moron can plainly see.
> Of course those with a lower Iq than a moron would naturally fail to be able to see the differances sadly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MS13 is largely a Salvadoran gang, the bulk of which entered the United States properly and would not be affected by the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you support them
Click to expand...


Sounds like I support who?  The Salvadoran gang called MS13?


----------



## Wyatt earp

candycorn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey bitch, I'm not going to discuss religion with you, you're just trying to deflect form the fact you couldn't care less about the people being victimized by illegals.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't discuss religion....you have no idea what your alleged faith is all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've got you number, that's what counts. Last week a husband and wife were driving home when a drunk illegal lost control, crossed the median, went airborne and speared into the drivers compartment of the oncoming couple, the husband died instantly. The illegal lived, there you can go to bed with a simile on your face, you unfeeling, un-American bitch.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you wouldn't care about it if the other driver were not an illegal.  More of your faux Christianity on display.
> 
> And you know what?  I didn't have to say or do a thing; you highlight your hypocrisy very well all by yourself.
> 
> As long as you continue to dig your hole...I'll be happy to keep handing you shovels.  Happy Kwanzza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again bitch, anyone drinking, driving and kills someone should be prosecuted for murder, it's not an accident if you drink and drive.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree...but the only reason you're bringing up the tragedy is because an illegal alien is involved.
> And that is just another example of your faux Christianity; that and your hoping someone I know dies.
> 
> How sad you are.
Click to expand...



You dumb bitch if that Illegal wasn't here they would be alive.


.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aponi said:


> Prescription drugs are indeed a issue but we canot deny or pretend that meth and cocaine herion and illegally produced Fentanyl are are killers . they all kill and are comming from south America .
> They cost untold billions in damages to our nation yearly




I have been accused of being a liberal.  But, the real problem in America is drug based.  Immigration is a diversionary tactic.  See posts # 972  and  # 1061 on this thread.  Parents, the government, doctors, mental health officials, and Big Pharma are CREATING the drug class - and ultimately those people become hard core addicts (and usually with a criminal record.)  They get locked out society by the same people advocating for a wall. 

When foreigners fill the void, they become scapegoats for our nation's refusal to address what they are doing wrong - you know turning this nation into the one that uses more drugs than the rest of the world combined!


----------



## bripat9643

candycorn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans don't want them at the wage that Mexicans are willing to accept. Americans used to do all those jobs, you fucking moron.  My brother used to be a construction contractor until all the low wage Mexican contractors ran him out of business because they hired illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> Then bid on prevailing wage projects and he won't have to worry about other contractors using undocumented workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't really expecting me to pretend your reply isn't stupid, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pretend you're not stupid every day.  I'm a pretty good actor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad you are no good at pretending that you're not stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was a double negative...dumb ass.  LOL
Click to expand...

Apparently you believe that makes you look smart.

Wrong, dumbass.


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't discuss religion....you have no idea what your alleged faith is all about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got you number, that's what counts. Last week a husband and wife were driving home when a drunk illegal lost control, crossed the median, went airborne and speared into the drivers compartment of the oncoming couple, the husband died instantly. The illegal lived, there you can go to bed with a simile on your face, you unfeeling, un-American bitch.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you wouldn't care about it if the other driver were not an illegal.  More of your faux Christianity on display.
> 
> And you know what?  I didn't have to say or do a thing; you highlight your hypocrisy very well all by yourself.
> 
> As long as you continue to dig your hole...I'll be happy to keep handing you shovels.  Happy Kwanzza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again bitch, anyone drinking, driving and kills someone should be prosecuted for murder, it's not an accident if you drink and drive.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree...but the only reason you're bringing up the tragedy is because an illegal alien is involved.
> And that is just another example of your faux Christianity; that and your hoping someone I know dies.
> 
> How sad you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You dumb bitch if that Illegal wasn't here they would be alive.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

if we had more well regulated militia, we would have fewer gun deaths.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> More cheap excuses.  You people never seem to run out of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, Ray, they run out of them very fast, then like children, go full circle right back to the argument they started with, as if they never made it before or had it clearly proven wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well so far, we have.........
> 
> These people work illegally and pay taxes for programs they won't collect on.,
> 
> These people work harder than Americans.
> 
> These people commit less violent crimes than Americans.
> 
> These poor people somehow stimulate the economy.
> 
> A wall won't work even though nobody can produce evidence of that claim.
> 
> They will simply buy tall ladders or dig tunnels, and our border security, military nor engineers figured that out yet.
> 
> These people are taking jobs Americans don't want.  Jobs that pay $2.00 an hour.
> 
> A wall will turn us into Nazi Germany or the USSR.
> 
> The only people wanting a wall are xenophobes and racists.
> 
> Protecting our borders interferes in capitalism.
> 
> Most illegals enter through legal VISA's, therefore nothing should be done about other ways they get in.
> 
> I'm sure I missed some you may have thought of.  But the truth of the matter is they are looking for any excuse to have a borderless country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although I did not understand what point you were trying to make, I'll give you a few points so that we can clear this up just for you:
> 
> 1)  Those who want the border wall have been asked WHY they want it.  When those who do not want the wall respond to one PRETEXT, the wall advocates simply change the goal posts.  For example, IIRC when I entered this thread, the pretext for the wall was sovereignty (see post # 951.)  Somebody probably addressed more pretexts, but I think I joined the conversation somewhere along post #951.
> 
> Since then the pretexts have ranged from undocumented immigrants stealing jobs to not paying taxes and from SUPPOSED costs of immigrants (welfare, medical costs, etc.)  to the PRETEXT of safety.  At the end of the day, people like Ray have not been able to articulate a reason as to WHY they support a wall idea.  Respond to the PRETEXT of the day and they invent another
> 
> 2)  WHEN the PRETEXTS are examined and found to be baseless, Ray, and those who support his position, have a hissy fit, wanting us to look at all their supposed evidence that they think supports their position.
> 
> The problem for them is that while China does have a wall, China is also ONE people.  98.5 percent of the Chinese are Han Chinese.  To date, the wall supporters have avoided the QUESTION of what the agenda is beyond the wall.  Say you write them a check for umpteen BILLIONS of dollars to build the wall.  Is the long term goal then to rid America of the third worlders and other foreigners, getting rid of not only the poverty stricken, but say people like Muslims (whose religion dictates that they will either convert or kill us)???
> 
> The second problem for the wall advocates is that they cannot understand why a wall may be effective for one country, but not the United States.  For whatever reason, the build the wall advocates were never taught that America was founded as a constitutional Republic and THE ONLY NATION ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH WHOSE GOVERNMENT IS GUARANTEEING GOD GIVEN, INHERENT, NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, ABSOLUTE RIGHTS.
> 
> You cannot take from one country something you like and then ignore the accompanying things that make their numbers look good.  In other words, if you want to be like the Israelis, then you have to declare a state of war; you have to maintain an atmosphere of distrust, conflict, and chaos so that you can have a PRETEXT to suspend the Rights of the people in order to keep the foreigners out.
> 
> We're not engaged in a war and sensible people do NOT want the POLICE STATE which would be a necessity to enforce the nutty wall idea.  The wall don't just magically keep people out.  Whoever guards the wall must HATE the foreigners so that the guards will not be susceptible to turning a blind eye to those who breach the wall.
> 
> Americans will have to be programmed, Pavlovian style, to HATE the people from south of the border because, unlike the Israelis, we are not at war from the people south of our border.  The Israelis are fighting an enemy who, according to the Bible, have their hand against every man and every man's hand against them.   Those Ishmaelites, the people trying to breach Israel's defenses, are doing so in order to KILL a political enemy.
> 
> In the United States, the atmosphere is much different.  The people coming here from south of the border are finding WILLING Americans to do business with.  It's a mutually beneficial relationship.  It's not like you have to stand guard at the border and kill or be killed
> 
> 3)  The aim of political globalists is to con the Americans into giving up their Rights.  Even when it was pointed out to Ray how, when our Second Amendment Rights were protected, the legal principle protected Sanctuary Cities, he chose to ignore the FACT that the laws required to enforce the nutty wall idea will end up costing you the Rights our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure for us.
> 
> The pro-wall advocates will call Nancy Pelosi a liar all the way up to the point that she says no wall - no way.  The build the wall advocates are generally working in industries where people are actors and negotiators (lawyers, politicians, and people involved in professional wrestling are good at it.)  So, those build the wall people do not understand that the fix is in.  They will get their silly wall, but the Democrats have already been guaranteed concessions on gun control.
> 
> But, like a WWE match, they have to make the "fight" appear real.  One only needs to know where Donald Trump stands, historically, on gun control not to understand that the building of the wall is about to come at an expense of the Second Amendment   And WHEN it fails to make a difference, more private deals will be struck until we have no more Rights under a Republican form of government, but only a Democracy that will be ruled by the "legal" foreigners we're allowing to take over in this country.
Click to expand...


Brevity is no friend of yours I see. 

The subject at hand is a wall.  When asked, we give a list of reasons to have a wall.  They are legitimate reasons and support the position of doing something to help stop a long ongoing problem.  

On the other side of the aisle, you people are arguing for why we should not be trying to solve the problem.  You are telling us to leave the problem alone.  20 million illegals?  let's make it 40 million by 2025.  In other words, do nothing or even enhance the problem.  

It's like arguing with a cop over a speeding ticket.  The officer can give you reasons and statistics why you are getting a ticket for speeding.  And in response, you are trying to tell him all the benefits of having people on the highway driving dangerous speeds.  It's really a stupid argument. 

In other words we are making an argument why something needs to be done, and you are making an argument why we should allow law breakers to continue breaking our laws.  Again, a really stupid argument.  

A wall will not stop all illegal immigration no more than a police officer can stop all speeders on the highway.  But once word gets out that the officer is there, less people will be speeding on that stretch of highway.  This is why the Caravan has not grown.  We are not giving into their demands or simply giving them a free pass to roam our country while they wait 3 years for a court hearing.  They can't get in......period.  And any other people thinking of doing the same thing now realize they will be met with resistance and defeat.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Billy, hundreds of miles have already been put up!  Hundreds more on the way.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen prick, you're not going to turn this country into East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They’ll get around your wall.
> 
> Also, will it be considered treasonist if in ten years republicans forget about the wall and it starts looking like Swiss cheese?
> 
> A wall is and always will be a waste of money. Patrol the fucking border with or without a wall.
> 
> This is how we know you won’t defend the wall after you’ve built it. You won’t even patrol the border now. What makes us think you’ll patrol the wall?
Click to expand...


Our borders and border patrol is similar to all of us being in a boat with a large hole in it. 

Your solution is to keep bailing the water out with a bucket, and ours is plugging the hole and then begin to bail it out.  

Your solution will eventually lead to our demise, and ours will fix the problem.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

vasuderatorrent said:


> Build a wall on the Canadian border first.



Nobody is building a wall simply because it's a fun thing to do, we want to build a wall to stop a problem.  To my knowledge, we don't have much of a problem with Canada to warrant a wall.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sure is a hell of a lot better plan than closing down the government for a fragment of our federal spending.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a plan about a made up issue.
Click to expand...


People invading our country is a made up issue?  20 million people here illegally is not an issue?  Drug problems in this country are not an issue?  70,000 overdose deaths a year is not an issue?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean like the Democrats are?  It's not 50 billion, it's 5.8 billion; less than one-tenth of what we spend on food stamps every single year.
> 
> 
> 
> You shutdown the government over this bullshit wall.  That's putting America last.
Click to expand...


No, allowing these people to come here and destroy our country is putting America last.  Protecting our borders is putting Americans first.  Please read my sig line.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> More logical than only 10% of the people want the wall even though 95% of the country lives nowhere near it.
> 
> 
> 
> _ "If nobody wanted the wall, the Republican turnout would have been pathetic."
> _
> That is a completely illogical and irrational thing to say.  The minor bump in republican turnout was more a result of the Kavanaugh hearings than talk about your "Waa Wall".
Click to expand...


Yet you have no supporting evidence to your made-up claim.  Sure we were pissed about Kavanaugh and what the dirty Democrats tried to do to this honest man, but it's a done issue.  The ongoing issue is the wall.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I forgot to adress your comment that they are white people.
> 
> First so you know im not white.
> 
> Second when we start having the same problem with the northern boarder I would call for the same action.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What problem do we have now that we didn't have in 1969 (50 years ago); strictly speaking of the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stagnating wages, increased crime, drug dealing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wages have gone up but so has production; purchasing power is about the same as it was in the 60's
> We have actually less violent crime
> Drug dealing?  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means wages in real terms have not gone up.  We have less total crime, but illegals commit a much larger proportion of it.  The same goes for drug dealing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strange;
> 
> The statistics are from paychecks like most Americans receive.  What you guys always say is that they are not paying taxes....so the wage stagnation that occurred is due to reports from paychecks...not the under-the-table payments illegals receive.  So they are not part of the equation.
> 
> As for Crime, if Illegals were adding to the crime, we'd have more; not less.
> 
> As for drug dealing; you may have a point there...  However, the demand Americans have for drugs ensures that there will always be a supply.  Further, the current real crisis (Opioids) are purchased over the counter by prescription and sold between persons with scripts for the drugs; illegals, legals, martians; doesn't matter.
Click to expand...


So what you are saying is that illegals are getting prescription drugs and selling them to other people?  How is that so? Did you even read the title of the links I posted just two comments above your post?


----------



## Lesh

Seven friggin posts in a row. 

Kinda invested in this boondoggle huh?

It's stupid. It's wayy too expensive...it won't do what it's supposed to do...and it'll probably never get built even if we really wanted to do it


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> Seven friggin posts in a row.
> 
> Kinda invested in this boondoggle huh?
> 
> It's stupid. It's wayy too expensive...it won't do what it's supposed to do...and it'll probably never get built even if we really wanted to do it



And all that is in the hands of Democrats......isn't it?  

As has been posted here multiple times, walls do work where incorporated.  They've worked here, they've worked in other countries, they work.  If they didn't work, nobody would use them.  

And if your puppet masters really didn't think they'd work, why are they willing to shutdown the government over it?  I mean, if the Democrats wanted a very small amount of money for something we knew would be a failure, the best thing we could do is let them have it.  We would be able to use it as a campaign issue for many elections to come.  

So why are they fighting so hard against the wall?  The truth is, even they know it would work, and that anti-white party wants as many of these people here as they can sneak in.


----------



## Slyhunter

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean like the Democrats are?  It's not 50 billion, it's 5.8 billion; less than one-tenth of what we spend on food stamps every single year.
> 
> 
> 
> You shutdown the government over this bullshit wall.  That's putting America last.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the Democrats who shut down the government.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean like the Democrats are?  It's not 50 billion, it's 5.8 billion; less than one-tenth of what we spend on food stamps every single year.
> 
> 
> 
> You shutdown the government over this bullshit wall.  That's putting America last.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the Democrats who shut down the government.
Click to expand...

there is no express wall building power.


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean like the Democrats are?  It's not 50 billion, it's 5.8 billion; less than one-tenth of what we spend on food stamps every single year.
> 
> 
> 
> You shutdown the government over this bullshit wall.  That's putting America last.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the Democrats who shut down the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no express wall building power.
Click to expand...

Trump was voted in because of the wall, that is building power.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean like the Democrats are?  It's not 50 billion, it's 5.8 billion; less than one-tenth of what we spend on food stamps every single year.
> 
> 
> 
> You shutdown the government over this bullshit wall.  That's putting America last.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the Democrats who shut down the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no express wall building power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump was voted in because of the wall, that is building power.
Click to expand...

We have a Constitution, for a Reason.


----------



## Lesh

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seven friggin posts in a row.
> 
> Kinda invested in this boondoggle huh?
> 
> It's stupid. It's wayy too expensive...it won't do what it's supposed to do...and it'll probably never get built even if we really wanted to do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And all that is in the hands of Democrats......isn't it?
> 
> As has been posted here multiple times, walls do work where incorporated.  They've worked here, they've worked in other countries, they work.  If they didn't work, nobody would use them.
> 
> And if your puppet masters really didn't think they'd work, why are they willing to shutdown the government over it?  I mean, if the Democrats wanted a very small amount of money for something we knew would be a failure, the best thing we could do is let them have it.  We would be able to use it as a campaign issue for many elections to come.
> 
> So why are they fighting so hard against the wall?  The truth is, even they know it would work, and that anti-white party wants as many of these people here as they can sneak in.
Click to expand...

Saying "walls work" is just stupid. Will THIS wall work? Can a 2,000 mile long wall be built  in the first place without disrupting 3 or 4 states?

Can it be monitored in a way that would make it effective?

What's all this gonna cost?


----------



## candycorn

bripat9643 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then bid on prevailing wage projects and he won't have to worry about other contractors using undocumented workers.
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't really expecting me to pretend your reply isn't stupid, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pretend you're not stupid every day.  I'm a pretty good actor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad you are no good at pretending that you're not stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was a double negative...dumb ass.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you believe that makes you look smart.
> 
> Wrong, dumbass.
Click to expand...


Well it makes you look stupid….

Hey…you gotta be yourself I suppose.


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What problem do we have now that we didn't have in 1969 (50 years ago); strictly speaking of the border?
> 
> 
> 
> Stagnating wages, increased crime, drug dealing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wages have gone up but so has production; purchasing power is about the same as it was in the 60's
> We have actually less violent crime
> Drug dealing?  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means wages in real terms have not gone up.  We have less total crime, but illegals commit a much larger proportion of it.  The same goes for drug dealing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strange;
> 
> The statistics are from paychecks like most Americans receive.  What you guys always say is that they are not paying taxes....so the wage stagnation that occurred is due to reports from paychecks...not the under-the-table payments illegals receive.  So they are not part of the equation.
> 
> As for Crime, if Illegals were adding to the crime, we'd have more; not less.
> 
> As for drug dealing; you may have a point there...  However, the demand Americans have for drugs ensures that there will always be a supply.  Further, the current real crisis (Opioids) are purchased over the counter by prescription and sold between persons with scripts for the drugs; illegals, legals, martians; doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that illegals are getting prescription drugs and selling them to other people?  How is that so? Did you even read the title of the links I posted just two comments above your post?
Click to expand...


No.  On both counts.  What I said was that Opioids are being traded between people in what we call the “secondary market”.  I imagine some illegal aliens are part of that market since these are primarily used for pain medication and it’s a human condition to experience pain.  Yes, illegal aliens  are actually human beings despite your fear.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

candycorn said:


> So as an immigration barrier, it’s a bad idea; also in the stark light of the reality that illegal immigration has been largely beneficial to the economy despite the horror stories and cherry picked anecdotes.



Look to the facts from a study, on the cost burdens surrounding illegal immigrants.

“At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion.”

SOURCE:  http://www.irli.org/single-post/201...hdeAVrtNyS40I2pyfBq3-Is6deoEFChMaAmJpEALw_wcB

There is* no data* *that supports* ”*illegal immigrants” in this country as a more cost effective alternative. *than putting money into preventing FURTHER illegals from entering this country ... more specifically stronger border security that would include a wall.

We know the current liberal democrats in Washington DC, need help in following and comparing government costs surrounding the issue of illegal immigrants in this country.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

The should use the same tactic that Democrats were so proud of when the issue was “government health care”.  Only instead of an elderly person on a wheelchair, use an illegal pushing an American citizen off the cliff.  Such “drama” would be proven to be just as statistically accurate we im sure.


----------



## toobfreak

Billo_Really said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Billy, hundreds of miles have already been put up!  Hundreds more on the way.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen prick, you're not going to turn this country into East Berlin.
Click to expand...



Hey Dooshbag, take your strawman argument and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.  The Berlin Wall and border security to keep out mere illegal traffic and potential terrorists have nothing in common except in those scrambled eggs you call a "brain."  We are far closer to East German without the wall held prisoner of your radical far-Left socialist authoritarian ideology telling us what we will never do.

It's not a matter of what we want, it is a matter of federal responsibility to protect and defend our border and we simply don't have enough people to stand arm to arm across the south to try to physically stop every invader.  At least the wall will keep the numbers down to a manageable level.  I guarantee you the wall is happening!


----------



## candycorn

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as an immigration barrier, it’s a bad idea; also in the stark light of the reality that illegal immigration has been largely beneficial to the economy despite the horror stories and cherry picked anecdotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look to the facts from a study, on the cost burdens surrounding illegal immigrants.
> 
> “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion.”
> 
> SOURCE:  http://www.irli.org/single-post/201...hdeAVrtNyS40I2pyfBq3-Is6deoEFChMaAmJpEALw_wcB
> 
> There is* no data* *that supports* ”*illegal immigrants “in this country as more cost effective,* than putting money into preventing FURTHER illegals from entering this country ... more specifically stronger border security that would include a wall.
> 
> We know the current liberal democrats in Washington DC, need help in following and comparing government costs surrounding the issue of illegal immigrants in this country.
Click to expand...


Wow…it’s amazing we were able to grow the largest economy in the history of the known universe, maintain that status for something like 90 years or whatever it is with the border we have.  Incredible.

To think, 4 years ago before the blob triggered you dumbasses into being scared of Mexicans, very few of you ever discussed illegal immigration.  You guys were scared of Obama taking your guns, Michelle trying to get your kids to eat more healthy foods, and were more scared of black lives matter than Mexicans.  

Seriously… below are the pages from around 1/1/2015.  How many threads were being discussed about Mexico and this supposed crisis at the border?  Hardly any….I didn’t curate the pages, they are just screen caps.  




  
 


So either we’re not missing the alleged $115B or you guys weren’t too concerned about it enough to muster the energy to start a message board thread about it or some combination of the two.

We grew the greatest society ever with the border being like it was.  We’ve maintained it for decades if not over a century.  The cheeto shows up and tells you to be afraid and you guys react like you’ve seen a ghost or something.  

Smarten up


----------



## toobfreak

Billo_Really said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> More so, if we can build robots to explore the outer solar system, brake into orbit, land and drive around another planet testing soil and atmosphere, we can certainly design machines to replace Mexicans to pick oranges and tomatoes.
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't really give a shit about keeping American jobs for Americans.
Click to expand...



Certainly.  Good thing for us, building robots to do menial work is an American industry to eliminate any possible need for Mexicans which are NOT Americans.  Never have been, never will. be  Did I go too fast for you?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

candycorn said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as an immigration barrier, it’s a bad idea; also in the stark light of the reality that illegal immigration has been largely beneficial to the economy despite the horror stories and cherry picked anecdotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look to the facts from a study, on the cost burdens surrounding illegal immigrants.
> 
> “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion.”
> 
> SOURCE:  http://www.irli.org/single-post/201...hdeAVrtNyS40I2pyfBq3-Is6deoEFChMaAmJpEALw_wcB
> 
> There is* no data* *that supports* ”*illegal immigrants “in this country as more cost effective,* than putting money into preventing FURTHER illegals from entering this country ... more specifically stronger border security that would include a wall.
> 
> We know the current liberal democrats in Washington DC, need help in following and comparing government costs surrounding the issue of illegal immigrants in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow…it’s amazing we were able to grow the largest economy in the history of the known universe, maintain that status for something like 90 years or whatever it is with the border we have.  Incredible.
> 
> To think, 4 years ago before the blob triggered you dumbasses into being scared of Mexicans, very few of you ever discussed illegal immigration.  You guys were scared of Obama taking your guns, Michelle trying to get your kids to eat more healthy foods, and were more scared of black lives matter than Mexicans.
> 
> Seriously… below are the pages from around 1/1/2015.  How many threads were being discussed about Mexico and this supposed crisis at the border?  Hardly any….I didn’t curate the pages, they are just screen caps.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236918 View attachment 236919
> View attachment 236920
> 
> 
> So either we’re not missing the alleged $115B or you guys weren’t too concerned about it enough to muster the energy to start a message board thread about it or some combination of the two.
> 
> We grew the greatest society ever with the border being like it was.  We’ve maintained it for decades if not over a century.  The cheeto shows up and tells you to be afraid and you guys react like you’ve seen a ghost or something.
> 
> Smarten up
Click to expand...


How about you smarten up, and show some actual government Data, not some blog site as being even more credible evidence. 

Data ... concrete hard government data specifically on illegal immigration and its cost impact on this nation.


----------



## toobfreak

Ray From Cleveland said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> More cheap excuses.  You people never seem to run out of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, Ray, they run out of them very fast, then like children, go full circle right back to the argument they started with, as if they never made it before or had it clearly proven wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well so far, we have.........
> 
> These people work illegally and pay taxes for programs they won't collect on.,
> 
> These people work harder than Americans.
> 
> These people commit less violent crimes than Americans.
> 
> These poor people somehow stimulate the economy.
> 
> A wall won't work even though nobody can produce evidence of that claim.
> 
> They will simply buy tall ladders or dig tunnels, and our border security, military nor engineers figured that out yet.
> 
> These people are taking jobs Americans don't want.  Jobs that pay $2.00 an hour.
> 
> A wall will turn us into Nazi Germany or the USSR.
> 
> The only people wanting a wall are xenophobes and racists.
> 
> Protecting our borders interferes in capitalism.
> 
> Most illegals enter through legal VISA's, therefore nothing should be done about other ways they get in.
> 
> I'm sure I missed some you may have thought of.  But the truth of the matter is they are looking for any excuse to have a borderless country.
Click to expand...



Very good Ray, only thing, as the Left simply comes UNGLUED in a panic at the thought of Trump building the wall, they fail to admit that if it didn't work, it would be abandoned and torn down.  Their abject FEAR isn't because of the 101 claims that it won't work, they are terrified because they know IT WILL.

And once the wall is shown EFFECTIVE and we don't need cheap, illegal labor, there will NEVER EVER be any going back and without these people to vote democrat, the DNC and far Left ARE SCREWED.

Happy New Year, Oh, Mr. President.


----------



## candycorn

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as an immigration barrier, it’s a bad idea; also in the stark light of the reality that illegal immigration has been largely beneficial to the economy despite the horror stories and cherry picked anecdotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look to the facts from a study, on the cost burdens surrounding illegal immigrants.
> 
> “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion.”
> 
> SOURCE:  http://www.irli.org/single-post/201...hdeAVrtNyS40I2pyfBq3-Is6deoEFChMaAmJpEALw_wcB
> 
> There is* no data* *that supports* ”*illegal immigrants “in this country as more cost effective,* than putting money into preventing FURTHER illegals from entering this country ... more specifically stronger border security that would include a wall.
> 
> We know the current liberal democrats in Washington DC, need help in following and comparing government costs surrounding the issue of illegal immigrants in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow…it’s amazing we were able to grow the largest economy in the history of the known universe, maintain that status for something like 90 years or whatever it is with the border we have.  Incredible.
> 
> To think, 4 years ago before the blob triggered you dumbasses into being scared of Mexicans, very few of you ever discussed illegal immigration.  You guys were scared of Obama taking your guns, Michelle trying to get your kids to eat more healthy foods, and were more scared of black lives matter than Mexicans.
> 
> Seriously… below are the pages from around 1/1/2015.  How many threads were being discussed about Mexico and this supposed crisis at the border?  Hardly any….I didn’t curate the pages, they are just screen caps.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236918 View attachment 236919
> View attachment 236920
> 
> 
> So either we’re not missing the alleged $115B or you guys weren’t too concerned about it enough to muster the energy to start a message board thread about it or some combination of the two.
> 
> We grew the greatest society ever with the border being like it was.  We’ve maintained it for decades if not over a century.  The cheeto shows up and tells you to be afraid and you guys react like you’ve seen a ghost or something.
> 
> Smarten up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about you smarten up, and show some actual government Data, not some blog site as being even more credible evidence.
> 
> Data ... concrete hard government data specifically on illegal immigration and its cost impact on this nation.
Click to expand...



If you believe $115B is being sucked out of the economy every year (a trillion plus over 10 years)….there is little hope for you.  

Amazingly nobody cared until the blob told you to care.  That’s all I’m saying.  

PS:  That blog site is the site you’re on right now.  If it was so urgent, perhaps you can show us your frightened posts pre-Trump where you were discussing this “urgent” topic.


----------



## toobfreak

OKTexas said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Billy, hundreds of miles have already been put up!  Hundreds more on the way.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen prick, you're not going to turn this country into East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Yes, while the Berlin wall keep everyone who was out, out, because they were out, and everyone that was in, in, because they were in, no ifs, and, or buts, the southern border wall will merely stop ILLEGAL traffic so that we can at least vet who comes into the country to ensure safety and a better class of people who truly intend to contribute and be Americans.

You could call TRump's wall the anti-Berlin wall.  That assholes like BilloReally can't see that only proves these people are less than idiots.  The Left are a bunch of wind up puppets.


----------



## Geaux4it

I want the wall built. I want it to be HARDER for criminals to invade America

-Geaux


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

For those who say illegals provide a greater cost benefit to this country, how soon we forget figures such as this ... from a well known Democrat.


----------



## Flopper

Aponi said:


> Yes I agree someone posting here is stupid and unaware of the fact.
> 
> Many illegals travel in so called waste land as do those who have been deported in the past with criminal records and those carrying narcotics.
> 
> Now as for a nothern wall.
> At some time we will probally need one.
> But as it we dont have a lot of Canadian citizens trying to sneek into America.
> Perhaps some.
> Next not a of ms13 or other ganbangers comming from canada .
> Next while marajuana is comming across the northern boarders im not aware of any drug cartels producing meth in super labs smuggling it into our northern boarders or of cocaine or herion being produced in canada or Fentanyl labs.
> 
> So yes there is a differance between the 2 boarders that any moron can plainly see.
> Of course those with a lower Iq than a moron would naturally fail to be able to see the differances sadly.


An of course we shouldn't forget our 88,000 miles of shoreline to prevent invasions by sea. 

Maybe we might also want to consider ports of entry as this is where most our illegal immigrant population enters the country.


----------



## Lesh

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seven friggin posts in a row.
> 
> Kinda invested in this boondoggle huh?
> 
> It's stupid. It's wayy too expensive...it won't do what it's supposed to do...and it'll probably never get built even if we really wanted to do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And all that is in the hands of Democrats......isn't it?
> 
> As has been posted here multiple times, walls do work where incorporated.  They've worked here, they've worked in other countries, they work.  If they didn't work, nobody would use them.
> 
> And if your puppet masters really didn't think they'd work, why are they willing to shutdown the government over it?  I mean, if the Democrats wanted a very small amount of money for something we knew would be a failure, the best thing we could do is let them have it.  We would be able to use it as a campaign issue for many elections to come.
> 
> So why are they fighting so hard against the wall?  The truth is, even they know it would work, and that anti-white party wants as many of these people here as they can sneak in.
Click to expand...

Personally I think the funding SHOULD be authorized just to prove what a boondoggle this is.

I've been saying that all along


----------



## Geaux4it

If eh Mexicans continue to invade America, they will become the majority and their way of life will be the new normal. Best start stocking up on your cardboard boxes for future housing.

Success, we will just be like what they left

-Geaux


----------



## Lesh

Slyhunter said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean like the Democrats are?  It's not 50 billion, it's 5.8 billion; less than one-tenth of what we spend on food stamps every single year.
> 
> 
> 
> You shutdown the government over this bullshit wall.  That's putting America last.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the Democrats who shut down the government.
Click to expand...

Oh?

‘I am proud to shut down the government’, Trump tells Schumer – video


----------



## Geaux4it

Lesh said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean like the Democrats are?  It's not 50 billion, it's 5.8 billion; less than one-tenth of what we spend on food stamps every single year.
> 
> 
> 
> You shutdown the government over this bullshit wall.  That's putting America last.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the Democrats who shut down the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh?
> 
> ‘I am proud to shut down the government’, Trump tells Schumer – video
Click to expand...

Oh?

-Geaux


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

candycorn said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as an immigration barrier, it’s a bad idea; also in the stark light of the reality that illegal immigration has been largely beneficial to the economy despite the horror stories and cherry picked anecdotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look to the facts from a study, on the cost burdens surrounding illegal immigrants.
> 
> “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion.”
> 
> SOURCE:  http://www.irli.org/single-post/201...hdeAVrtNyS40I2pyfBq3-Is6deoEFChMaAmJpEALw_wcB
> 
> There is* no data* *that supports* ”*illegal immigrants “in this country as more cost effective,* than putting money into preventing FURTHER illegals from entering this country ... more specifically stronger border security that would include a wall.
> 
> We know the current liberal democrats in Washington DC, need help in following and comparing government costs surrounding the issue of illegal immigrants in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow…it’s amazing we were able to grow the largest economy in the history of the known universe, maintain that status for something like 90 years or whatever it is with the border we have.  Incredible.
> 
> To think, 4 years ago before the blob triggered you dumbasses into being scared of Mexicans, very few of you ever discussed illegal immigration.  You guys were scared of Obama taking your guns, Michelle trying to get your kids to eat more healthy foods, and were more scared of black lives matter than Mexicans.
> 
> Seriously… below are the pages from around 1/1/2015.  How many threads were being discussed about Mexico and this supposed crisis at the border?  Hardly any….I didn’t curate the pages, they are just screen caps.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 236918 View attachment 236919
> View attachment 236920
> 
> 
> So either we’re not missing the alleged $115B or you guys weren’t too concerned about it enough to muster the energy to start a message board thread about it or some combination of the two.
> 
> We grew the greatest society ever with the border being like it was.  We’ve maintained it for decades if not over a century.  The cheeto shows up and tells you to be afraid and you guys react like you’ve seen a ghost or something.
> 
> Smarten up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about you smarten up, and show some actual government Data, not some blog site as being even more credible evidence.
> 
> Data ... concrete hard government data specifically on illegal immigration and its cost impact on this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe $115B is being sucked out of the economy every year (a trillion plus over 10 years)….there is little hope for you.
> 
> Amazingly nobody cared until the blob told you to care.  That’s all I’m saying.
> 
> PS:  That blog site is the site you’re on right now.  If it was so urgent, perhaps you can show us your frightened posts pre-Trump where you were discussing this “urgent” topic.
Click to expand...


Again I ask you to provide actual linked government data to support your view that illegal immigrants are a cost benefit and NOT a burden to taxpayers.  

You can’t.

You will never find a post where I support a flood of more illegal immigrants in this country.   I always supported the enforcement of our nation's Federal immigration laws.  I did not even support DACA under Obama, and provided facts where that executive order was unConstitutional.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> More cheap excuses.  You people never seem to run out of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, Ray, they run out of them very fast, then like children, go full circle right back to the argument they started with, as if they never made it before or had it clearly proven wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well so far, we have.........
> 
> These people work illegally and pay taxes for programs they won't collect on.,
> 
> These people work harder than Americans.
> 
> These people commit less violent crimes than Americans.
> 
> These poor people somehow stimulate the economy.
> 
> A wall won't work even though nobody can produce evidence of that claim.
> 
> They will simply buy tall ladders or dig tunnels, and our border security, military nor engineers figured that out yet.
> 
> These people are taking jobs Americans don't want.  Jobs that pay $2.00 an hour.
> 
> A wall will turn us into Nazi Germany or the USSR.
> 
> The only people wanting a wall are xenophobes and racists.
> 
> Protecting our borders interferes in capitalism.
> 
> Most illegals enter through legal VISA's, therefore nothing should be done about other ways they get in.
> 
> I'm sure I missed some you may have thought of.  But the truth of the matter is they are looking for any excuse to have a borderless country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although I did not understand what point you were trying to make, I'll give you a few points so that we can clear this up just for you:
> 
> 1)  Those who want the border wall have been asked WHY they want it.  When those who do not want the wall respond to one PRETEXT, the wall advocates simply change the goal posts.  For example, IIRC when I entered this thread, the pretext for the wall was sovereignty (see post # 951.)  Somebody probably addressed more pretexts, but I think I joined the conversation somewhere along post #951.
> 
> Since then the pretexts have ranged from undocumented immigrants stealing jobs to not paying taxes and from SUPPOSED costs of immigrants (welfare, medical costs, etc.)  to the PRETEXT of safety.  At the end of the day, people like Ray have not been able to articulate a reason as to WHY they support a wall idea.  Respond to the PRETEXT of the day and they invent another
> 
> 2)  WHEN the PRETEXTS are examined and found to be baseless, Ray, and those who support his position, have a hissy fit, wanting us to look at all their supposed evidence that they think supports their position.
> 
> The problem for them is that while China does have a wall, China is also ONE people.  98.5 percent of the Chinese are Han Chinese.  To date, the wall supporters have avoided the QUESTION of what the agenda is beyond the wall.  Say you write them a check for umpteen BILLIONS of dollars to build the wall.  Is the long term goal then to rid America of the third worlders and other foreigners, getting rid of not only the poverty stricken, but say people like Muslims (whose religion dictates that they will either convert or kill us)???
> 
> The second problem for the wall advocates is that they cannot understand why a wall may be effective for one country, but not the United States.  For whatever reason, the build the wall advocates were never taught that America was founded as a constitutional Republic and THE ONLY NATION ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH WHOSE GOVERNMENT IS GUARANTEEING GOD GIVEN, INHERENT, NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, ABSOLUTE RIGHTS.
> 
> You cannot take from one country something you like and then ignore the accompanying things that make their numbers look good.  In other words, if you want to be like the Israelis, then you have to declare a state of war; you have to maintain an atmosphere of distrust, conflict, and chaos so that you can have a PRETEXT to suspend the Rights of the people in order to keep the foreigners out.
> 
> We're not engaged in a war and sensible people do NOT want the POLICE STATE which would be a necessity to enforce the nutty wall idea.  The wall don't just magically keep people out.  Whoever guards the wall must HATE the foreigners so that the guards will not be susceptible to turning a blind eye to those who breach the wall.
> 
> Americans will have to be programmed, Pavlovian style, to HATE the people from south of the border because, unlike the Israelis, we are not at war from the people south of our border.  The Israelis are fighting an enemy who, according to the Bible, have their hand against every man and every man's hand against them.   Those Ishmaelites, the people trying to breach Israel's defenses, are doing so in order to KILL a political enemy.
> 
> In the United States, the atmosphere is much different.  The people coming here from south of the border are finding WILLING Americans to do business with.  It's a mutually beneficial relationship.  It's not like you have to stand guard at the border and kill or be killed
> 
> 3)  The aim of political globalists is to con the Americans into giving up their Rights.  Even when it was pointed out to Ray how, when our Second Amendment Rights were protected, the legal principle protected Sanctuary Cities, he chose to ignore the FACT that the laws required to enforce the nutty wall idea will end up costing you the Rights our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure for us.
> 
> The pro-wall advocates will call Nancy Pelosi a liar all the way up to the point that she says no wall - no way.  The build the wall advocates are generally working in industries where people are actors and negotiators (lawyers, politicians, and people involved in professional wrestling are good at it.)  So, those build the wall people do not understand that the fix is in.  They will get their silly wall, but the Democrats have already been guaranteed concessions on gun control.
> 
> But, like a WWE match, they have to make the "fight" appear real.  One only needs to know where Donald Trump stands, historically, on gun control not to understand that the building of the wall is about to come at an expense of the Second Amendment   And WHEN it fails to make a difference, more private deals will be struck until we have no more Rights under a Republican form of government, but only a Democracy that will be ruled by the "legal" foreigners we're allowing to take over in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brevity is no friend of yours I see.
> 
> The subject at hand is a wall.  When asked, we give a list of reasons to have a wall.  They are legitimate reasons and support the position of doing something to help stop a long ongoing problem.
> 
> On the other side of the aisle, you people are arguing for why we should not be trying to solve the problem.  You are telling us to leave the problem alone.  20 million illegals?  let's make it 40 million by 2025.  In other words, do nothing or even enhance the problem.
> 
> It's like arguing with a cop over a speeding ticket.  The officer can give you reasons and statistics why you are getting a ticket for speeding.  And in response, you are trying to tell him all the benefits of having people on the highway driving dangerous speeds.  It's really a stupid argument.
> 
> In other words we are making an argument why something needs to be done, and you are making an argument why we should allow law breakers to continue breaking our laws.  Again, a really stupid argument.
> 
> A wall will not stop all illegal immigration no more than a police officer can stop all speeders on the highway.  But once word gets out that the officer is there, less people will be speeding on that stretch of highway.  This is why the Caravan has not grown.  We are not giving into their demands or simply giving them a free pass to roam our country while they wait 3 years for a court hearing.  They can't get in......period.  And any other people thinking of doing the same thing now realize they will be met with resistance and defeat.
Click to expand...


Sir, you did not like brevity and I don't know if you are just a regular troll or don't understand the way the legal and political system works.

Maybe, if you would quit lying, we could have a civil conversation.  So let me tell you straight up:  If you will find one sentence where I advocated "doing nothing," I will ask the mods to take all my posts down and I will leave you to say whatever you want. I will permanently EXIT this board.  If you reread this thread and come up with nothing, you will be given an opportunity to apologize for that blatant lie.  OR you can continue to lie and discredit your own position.

What I've said is that you need a solution that covers BOTH those from south of the border as well as the* 60 percent of undocumented foreigners your ideas ignore*.  IF you ever had a plan, you have never mentioned it.

What I've said is that the plan must be a PERMANENT solution, not some fly by the seat of your pants idea to build a silly wall with no future idea of how to handle the new set of problems it will bring OR what the agenda is once you figure out YOU WILL STILL HAVE AN IMMIGRATION ISSUE.  And, if the Democrats don't want a wall, they will dismantle it the moment they get another liberal in the White House... but, they won't.  It was their idea first - and even Donald Trump acknowledged that.

If you want brevity, don't expect thirty years of experience in five sentences or less.  If you want brevity, quit lying and if you still doubt a set of facts, ASK questions instead of making baseless allegations.  You and I both realize that you are not stupid enough to believe I'm on the left.  It's been explained to you.  You can try to filibuster from now on, but the PRETEXTS will be dismantled.  I could keep the overwhelming majority of those people "on their side of the fence" without a wall and *without* blowing BILLIONS of tax dollars, not to mention screwing my fellow Americans by taking a giant dump on their Rights.  Face it - you will accept socialism, a repeal of the Bill of Rights, or anything else for that precious wall.


----------



## dblack

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Look to the facts from a study, on the cost burdens surrounding illegal immigrants.
> 
> “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion.”


So let's fix that. And let's do it without indulging the shackles of big government.

The problems we have are the welfare state and birth-right citizenship. Neither of those requires the Berlin wall.


----------



## Aponi

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seven friggin posts in a row.
> 
> Kinda invested in this boondoggle huh?
> 
> It's stupid. It's wayy too expensive...it won't do what it's supposed to do...and it'll probably never get built even if we really wanted to do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And all that is in the hands of Democrats......isn't it?
> 
> As has been posted here multiple times, walls do work where incorporated.  They've worked here, they've worked in other countries, they work.  If they didn't work, nobody would use them.
> 
> And if your puppet masters really didn't think they'd work, why are they willing to shutdown the government over it?  I mean, if the Democrats wanted a very small amount of money for something we knew would be a failure, the best thing we could do is let them have it.  We would be able to use it as a campaign issue for many elections to come.
> 
> So why are they fighting so hard against the wall?  The truth is, even they know it would work, and that anti-white party wants as many of these people here as they can sneak in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Personally I think the funding SHOULD be authorized just to prove what a boondoggle this is.
> 
> I've been saying that all along
Click to expand...


----------



## Aponi

Wall do work the wall in germany worked for decades as is the wall in Isreal.

Reducing the flow of illegals and drugs is a good think over time it could save us a ton of money.


----------



## Lesh

Aponi said:


> Wall do work the wall in germany worked for decades as is the wall in Isreal.
> 
> Reducing the flow of illegals and drugs is a good think over time it could save us a ton of money.


translator fail


----------



## cutter

candycorn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey bitch, I'm not going to discuss religion with you, you're just trying to deflect form the fact you couldn't care less about the people being victimized by illegals.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't discuss religion....you have no idea what your alleged faith is all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've got you number, that's what counts. Last week a husband and wife were driving home when a drunk illegal lost control, crossed the median, went airborne and speared into the drivers compartment of the oncoming couple, the husband died instantly. The illegal lived, there you can go to bed with a simile on your face, you unfeeling, un-American bitch.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you wouldn't care about it if the other driver were not an illegal.  More of your faux Christianity on display.
> 
> And you know what?  I didn't have to say or do a thing; you highlight your hypocrisy very well all by yourself.
> 
> As long as you continue to dig your hole...I'll be happy to keep handing you shovels.  Happy Kwanzza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again bitch, anyone drinking, driving and kills someone should be prosecuted for murder, it's not an accident if you drink and drive.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree...but the only reason you're bringing up the tragedy is because an illegal alien is involved.
> And that is just another example of your faux Christianity; that and your hoping someone I know dies.
> 
> How sad you are.
Click to expand...

If that illegal had been had not been here illegally, coddled by democrats, that American would still be alive. Simple as that. Your precious illegal killed that man, not some drunk American. Take out that illegal, that American would still be alive. Take out all illegals ane a lot of Americans will not die unnecessarily.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seven friggin posts in a row.
> 
> Kinda invested in this boondoggle huh?
> 
> It's stupid. It's wayy too expensive...it won't do what it's supposed to do...and it'll probably never get built even if we really wanted to do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And all that is in the hands of Democrats......isn't it?
> 
> As has been posted here multiple times, walls do work where incorporated.  They've worked here, they've worked in other countries, they work.  If they didn't work, nobody would use them.
> 
> And if your puppet masters really didn't think they'd work, why are they willing to shutdown the government over it?  I mean, if the Democrats wanted a very small amount of money for something we knew would be a failure, the best thing we could do is let them have it.  We would be able to use it as a campaign issue for many elections to come.
> 
> So why are they fighting so hard against the wall?  The truth is, even they know it would work, and that anti-white party wants as many of these people here as they can sneak in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying "walls work" is just stupid. Will THIS wall work? Can a 2,000 mile long wall be built  in the first place without disrupting 3 or 4 states?
> 
> Can it be monitored in a way that would make it effective?
> 
> What's all this gonna cost?
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter what it would cost because the Democrats won't even allow us to use 5.8 billion.  They are gong to cry like babies when we stop funding to some of their cherished programs, so right now its the beginning of a war.  

Of course the more funding, the more effectiveness.  If we could build what we wanted at an estimated cost of 32 billion, it would solve many border problems we have today when it comes to illegals and drugs.  

Trump himself said he would not build a solid wall across the entire border, only in places where it's porous and passible.  But the bottom line is, the more wall we have and the more funding for it, the less problems we will have.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

dblack said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look to the facts from a study, on the cost burdens surrounding illegal immigrants.
> 
> “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion.”
> 
> 
> 
> So let's fix that. And let's do it without indulging the shackles of big government.
> 
> The problems we have are the welfare state and birth-right citizenship. Neither of those requires the Berlin wall.
Click to expand...


China / Hong Kong (early 1960s) - 32 km
Botswana / Zimbabwe 2003 - 500 km
Bulgaria / Turkey 2014 - 30 km
Chinese / Korean border fence (under construction) - 1,416 km
Macedonia / Greece barrier  2015 - 30 km
India / Myanmar barrier (under construction) - 1,624 km

Just the facts, and this is to name but a few. However, we are called to follow after other nations on how government faces health care?  Yet a wall is immoral and racist, despite other nations around the globe seeing fit to do so against illegal immigration.

Explain that one to me.  Anyone?

Even Harry Reid saw the burden of illegals on our nation, and that was 1993.  Look, liberals lost the cost argument on illegal immigration and now they are to lose on the nation’s border barrier argument.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

toobfreak said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> More cheap excuses.  You people never seem to run out of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, Ray, they run out of them very fast, then like children, go full circle right back to the argument they started with, as if they never made it before or had it clearly proven wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well so far, we have.........
> 
> These people work illegally and pay taxes for programs they won't collect on.,
> 
> These people work harder than Americans.
> 
> These people commit less violent crimes than Americans.
> 
> These poor people somehow stimulate the economy.
> 
> A wall won't work even though nobody can produce evidence of that claim.
> 
> They will simply buy tall ladders or dig tunnels, and our border security, military nor engineers figured that out yet.
> 
> These people are taking jobs Americans don't want.  Jobs that pay $2.00 an hour.
> 
> A wall will turn us into Nazi Germany or the USSR.
> 
> The only people wanting a wall are xenophobes and racists.
> 
> Protecting our borders interferes in capitalism.
> 
> Most illegals enter through legal VISA's, therefore nothing should be done about other ways they get in.
> 
> I'm sure I missed some you may have thought of.  But the truth of the matter is they are looking for any excuse to have a borderless country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Very good Ray, only thing, as the Left simply comes UNGLUED in a panic at the thought of Trump building the wall, they fail to admit that if it didn't work, it would be abandoned and torn down.  Their abject FEAR isn't because of the 101 claims that it won't work, they are terrified because they know IT WILL.
> 
> And once the wall is shown EFFECTIVE and we don't need cheap, illegal labor, there will NEVER EVER be any going back and without these people to vote democrat, the DNC and far Left ARE SCREWED.
> 
> Happy New Year, Oh, Mr. President.
> 
> 
> View attachment 236924
Click to expand...


The real problem and stubbornness of the anti-white party is they have to lie to their sheep, otherwise their sheep have no argument in the future.  

What the anti-white party does now is lie and say they are doing this or doing that to stop this invasion.  When it's not stopped, they just put their hands in their pockets and shrug their shoulders.  They can't be honest with the puppets and tell them they always wanted these people here.  The have to make it look like they are against this invasion when they are for more of it. 

If a wall is built, they have to find a new strategy because the problem of border crossers will be solved.  They will no longer be able to lie to their followers saying they are doing what they can to stop this problem while not really wanting it stopped at all.  Trump will stop the problem, and that creates a problem for the anti-white party.


----------



## OKTexas

LoneLaugher said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ooooh. That looks legit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you took Texas and put it in the middle east (which it basically resembles with it’s pollution, miles of nothingness, terrible politics, religion based policies etc…), Trump ass kissers would ban immigration from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're bigger fucking liar than you claim Trump to be. Go to hell.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mad bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sickened by commies is more like it. I guess you don't care about the people victimized all over this country, by people that shouldn't even be here. Hopefully you'll get a lesson first hand how it feels to lose someone close at the hands of illegal. Then you might understand their reality and won't be so flippant.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Merry Christmas! You're so full of joy!
Click to expand...



Thanks, same to you.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I ain't going anywhere and you ain't gettin' no fucking wall.
Click to expand...



Really, a 100 mile section will be beginning the end of Jan. The President said he'll be there for the ground breaking. Puff on that commie.

.


----------



## Lesh

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The real problem and stubbornness of the anti-white party is they have to lie to their sheep



So you are admitting that the whole wall thing is just a racist symbol


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> More cheap excuses.  You people never seem to run out of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, Ray, they run out of them very fast, then like children, go full circle right back to the argument they started with, as if they never made it before or had it clearly proven wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well so far, we have.........
> 
> These people work illegally and pay taxes for programs they won't collect on.,
> 
> These people work harder than Americans.
> 
> These people commit less violent crimes than Americans.
> 
> These poor people somehow stimulate the economy.
> 
> A wall won't work even though nobody can produce evidence of that claim.
> 
> They will simply buy tall ladders or dig tunnels, and our border security, military nor engineers figured that out yet.
> 
> These people are taking jobs Americans don't want.  Jobs that pay $2.00 an hour.
> 
> A wall will turn us into Nazi Germany or the USSR.
> 
> The only people wanting a wall are xenophobes and racists.
> 
> Protecting our borders interferes in capitalism.
> 
> Most illegals enter through legal VISA's, therefore nothing should be done about other ways they get in.
> 
> I'm sure I missed some you may have thought of.  But the truth of the matter is they are looking for any excuse to have a borderless country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although I did not understand what point you were trying to make, I'll give you a few points so that we can clear this up just for you:
> 
> 1)  Those who want the border wall have been asked WHY they want it.  When those who do not want the wall respond to one PRETEXT, the wall advocates simply change the goal posts.  For example, IIRC when I entered this thread, the pretext for the wall was sovereignty (see post # 951.)  Somebody probably addressed more pretexts, but I think I joined the conversation somewhere along post #951.
> 
> Since then the pretexts have ranged from undocumented immigrants stealing jobs to not paying taxes and from SUPPOSED costs of immigrants (welfare, medical costs, etc.)  to the PRETEXT of safety.  At the end of the day, people like Ray have not been able to articulate a reason as to WHY they support a wall idea.  Respond to the PRETEXT of the day and they invent another
> 
> 2)  WHEN the PRETEXTS are examined and found to be baseless, Ray, and those who support his position, have a hissy fit, wanting us to look at all their supposed evidence that they think supports their position.
> 
> The problem for them is that while China does have a wall, China is also ONE people.  98.5 percent of the Chinese are Han Chinese.  To date, the wall supporters have avoided the QUESTION of what the agenda is beyond the wall.  Say you write them a check for umpteen BILLIONS of dollars to build the wall.  Is the long term goal then to rid America of the third worlders and other foreigners, getting rid of not only the poverty stricken, but say people like Muslims (whose religion dictates that they will either convert or kill us)???
> 
> The second problem for the wall advocates is that they cannot understand why a wall may be effective for one country, but not the United States.  For whatever reason, the build the wall advocates were never taught that America was founded as a constitutional Republic and THE ONLY NATION ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH WHOSE GOVERNMENT IS GUARANTEEING GOD GIVEN, INHERENT, NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, ABSOLUTE RIGHTS.
> 
> You cannot take from one country something you like and then ignore the accompanying things that make their numbers look good.  In other words, if you want to be like the Israelis, then you have to declare a state of war; you have to maintain an atmosphere of distrust, conflict, and chaos so that you can have a PRETEXT to suspend the Rights of the people in order to keep the foreigners out.
> 
> We're not engaged in a war and sensible people do NOT want the POLICE STATE which would be a necessity to enforce the nutty wall idea.  The wall don't just magically keep people out.  Whoever guards the wall must HATE the foreigners so that the guards will not be susceptible to turning a blind eye to those who breach the wall.
> 
> Americans will have to be programmed, Pavlovian style, to HATE the people from south of the border because, unlike the Israelis, we are not at war from the people south of our border.  The Israelis are fighting an enemy who, according to the Bible, have their hand against every man and every man's hand against them.   Those Ishmaelites, the people trying to breach Israel's defenses, are doing so in order to KILL a political enemy.
> 
> In the United States, the atmosphere is much different.  The people coming here from south of the border are finding WILLING Americans to do business with.  It's a mutually beneficial relationship.  It's not like you have to stand guard at the border and kill or be killed
> 
> 3)  The aim of political globalists is to con the Americans into giving up their Rights.  Even when it was pointed out to Ray how, when our Second Amendment Rights were protected, the legal principle protected Sanctuary Cities, he chose to ignore the FACT that the laws required to enforce the nutty wall idea will end up costing you the Rights our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure for us.
> 
> The pro-wall advocates will call Nancy Pelosi a liar all the way up to the point that she says no wall - no way.  The build the wall advocates are generally working in industries where people are actors and negotiators (lawyers, politicians, and people involved in professional wrestling are good at it.)  So, those build the wall people do not understand that the fix is in.  They will get their silly wall, but the Democrats have already been guaranteed concessions on gun control.
> 
> But, like a WWE match, they have to make the "fight" appear real.  One only needs to know where Donald Trump stands, historically, on gun control not to understand that the building of the wall is about to come at an expense of the Second Amendment   And WHEN it fails to make a difference, more private deals will be struck until we have no more Rights under a Republican form of government, but only a Democracy that will be ruled by the "legal" foreigners we're allowing to take over in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brevity is no friend of yours I see.
> 
> The subject at hand is a wall.  When asked, we give a list of reasons to have a wall.  They are legitimate reasons and support the position of doing something to help stop a long ongoing problem.
> 
> On the other side of the aisle, you people are arguing for why we should not be trying to solve the problem.  You are telling us to leave the problem alone.  20 million illegals?  let's make it 40 million by 2025.  In other words, do nothing or even enhance the problem.
> 
> It's like arguing with a cop over a speeding ticket.  The officer can give you reasons and statistics why you are getting a ticket for speeding.  And in response, you are trying to tell him all the benefits of having people on the highway driving dangerous speeds.  It's really a stupid argument.
> 
> In other words we are making an argument why something needs to be done, and you are making an argument why we should allow law breakers to continue breaking our laws.  Again, a really stupid argument.
> 
> A wall will not stop all illegal immigration no more than a police officer can stop all speeders on the highway.  But once word gets out that the officer is there, less people will be speeding on that stretch of highway.  This is why the Caravan has not grown.  We are not giving into their demands or simply giving them a free pass to roam our country while they wait 3 years for a court hearing.  They can't get in......period.  And any other people thinking of doing the same thing now realize they will be met with resistance and defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sir, you did not like brevity and I don't know if you are just a regular troll or don't understand the way the legal and political system works.
> 
> Maybe, if you would quit lying, we could have a civil conversation.  So let me tell you straight up:  If you will find one sentence where I advocated "doing nothing," I will ask the mods to take all my posts down and I will leave you to say whatever you want. I will permanently EXIT this board.  If you reread this thread and come up with nothing, you will be given an opportunity to apologize for that blatant lie.  OR you can continue to lie and discredit your own position.
> 
> What I've said is that you need a solution that covers BOTH those from south of the border as well as the* 60 percent of undocumented foreigners your ideas ignore*.  IF you ever had a plan, you have never mentioned it.
> 
> What I've said is that the plan must be a PERMANENT solution, not some fly by the seat of your pants idea to build a silly wall with no future idea of how to handle the new set of problems it will bring OR what the agenda is once you figure out YOU WILL STILL HAVE AN IMMIGRATION ISSUE.  And, if the Democrats don't want a wall, they will dismantle it the moment they get another liberal in the White House... but, they won't.  It was their idea first - and even Donald Trump acknowledged that.
> 
> If you want brevity, don't expect thirty years of experience in five sentences or less.  If you want brevity, quit lying and if you still doubt a set of facts, ASK questions instead of making baseless allegations.  You and I both realize that you are not stupid enough to believe I'm on the left.  It's been explained to you.  You can try to filibuster from now on, but the PRETEXTS will be dismantled.  I could keep the overwhelming majority of those people "on their side of the fence" without a wall and *without* blowing BILLIONS of tax dollars, not to mention screwing my fellow Americans by taking a giant dump on their Rights.  Face it - you will accept socialism, a repeal of the Bill of Rights, or anything else for that precious wall.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but I fail to subscribe to this idiocy of All or Nothing. To say we shouldn't be doing anything on our southern border  because of the other ways they get here is as ridiculous of an argument as one could make.  It's like saying I'm not going to fence off my property to stop intruders because I can't afford an alarm system in my house right now.  

If the anti-white party wants to take down a wall; a wall that taxpayers just spent X billions on, it would reveal to the country their real intentions which is not to stop illegal immigration and show the world they are for open borders.  So they will never do that.  They want to keep their dog and pony show of saying they want to do things and not really do them.  

And as we asked repeatedly, how does a wall have anything to do with freedom, the Bill of Rights, Socialism, or any American rights?  You are just making crap up.  You have zero evidence to support your claims.  It's paranoia delusion.


----------



## OKTexas

sealybobo said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Billy, hundreds of miles have already been put up!  Hundreds more on the way.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen prick, you're not going to turn this country into East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They’ll get around your wall.
> 
> Also, will it be considered treasonist if in ten years republicans forget about the wall and it starts looking like Swiss cheese?
> 
> A wall is and always will be a waste of money. Patrol the fucking border with or without a wall.
> 
> This is how we know you won’t defend the wall after you’ve built it. You won’t even patrol the border now. What makes us think you’ll patrol the wall?
Click to expand...



You're just not paying attention, the border patrol says they are 95% effective, that just makes you look ignorant. After all, they are the experts. The point is to prevent them for reaching US soil, it costs almost $11,000 each to deport them.

.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real problem and stubbornness of the anti-white party is they have to lie to their sheep
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are admitting that the whole wall thing is just a racist symbol
Click to expand...


Making up crap I never said again.  You leftists do this all the time.


----------



## sealybobo

OKTexas said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Billy, hundreds of miles have already been put up!  Hundreds more on the way.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen prick, you're not going to turn this country into East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They’ll get around your wall.
> 
> Also, will it be considered treasonist if in ten years republicans forget about the wall and it starts looking like Swiss cheese?
> 
> A wall is and always will be a waste of money. Patrol the fucking border with or without a wall.
> 
> This is how we know you won’t defend the wall after you’ve built it. You won’t even patrol the border now. What makes us think you’ll patrol the wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're just not paying attention, the border patrol says they are 95% effective, that just makes you look ignorant. After all, they are the experts.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I say that I am 95% effective at my job too.  That doesn't make it so.


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prescription drugs are indeed a issue but we canot deny or pretend that meth and cocaine herion and illegally produced Fentanyl are are killers . they all kill and are comming from south America .
> They cost untold billions in damages to our nation yearly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think people walking across the border are supplying the drugs?  Really?
Click to expand...


Hard line policy works.



 

As feds focused on detaining kids, border drug prosecutions plummeted


----------



## ph3iron

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we have to educate you yet AGAIN?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a real self-convinced pretentious narcissist, aren't ya?  You need to educate people?   Oh Lord, look fellow USMB members, we have a teacher now that knows more than any of us and willing to bless us with his presence.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The market is not being flooded with cheap labor per se. It is being filled with people whose American counterparts you have no use for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea WTF that's even supposed to mean.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back to post # 971. You were informed, with accurate figures, that about 11 million people have been diagnosed with ADD / ADHD YOUR claim is that you have it, but don't take your meds. YOU claim it is a real and legitimate condition. You have made much ado about the public having a right to know the private business of individuals, so you just knocked 11 million people out of the job market. Who wants an employee with a mental health condition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who keeps dwelling on this mental health thing.  I never said a word about it.  You keep inserting things I've never even brought up yet alone discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Between drug addicts and people with a criminal history, you have more than 17 million people that, for all intents and purposes, are UNEMPLOYABLE. And you don't want them to get a second chance and go back to work!
> 
> When I brought up the mental health issue as a relevant factor, you wanted a debate on it.  You lost that side argument - but that is where it came from.  I explained how it comes down to Americans getting locked out of the system through no initial fault of their own.  So, refresh your memory.  Reread posts # 946 through # 979.  You posting a hundred and fifty posts a day to hide what has already been established won't hide the truth.
> 
> You are all over the board. Before you think about keeping people out and putting up a wall, you should be thinking about who is going to fill the empty positions when your agenda would prohibit Americans from getting those jobs as they are at this very moment, due to a criminal history and / or mental problems that do not affect an individual's ability, BUT are used against them. AND they can NEVER rise above their past given your idea of utopia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off I never said nobody should have a second chance.  I said it's up to employers to make that decision.  And since it's a concern of yours, don't you think that perhaps, if employers get so desperate for workers because we rid our country of foreigners, that maybe those employers WILL take a chance at hiring some of these Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting defensive aren't you?  You shouldn't ask questions if you don't want answers.  Since you are getting the beat down by multiple posters, you are slinging skeet, hoping the shotgun approach will work.  It isn't.
> 
> Of course, you said people should not have a second chance.  You said that when you wanted to open peoples personal lives up to the rest of the world.  Americans don't forget and they do not forgive.  Employers HAVE made that decision.  Millions of Americans are permanently locked out of the job market over petty beefs that are years old.
> 
> There is a thing in the world to keep employers from hiring Americans who have been disenfranchised.  Your job is driving a truck.  My job is helping those who are locked out to get back on their feet and get a second chance.
> 
> There is a world of difference between listening to a truck driver try to convince us he has ALL the answers versus someone who spends their days trying to help people get back into the workforce, get a place to live, and become productive citizens.  Hell, I got one guy in the mix that was convicted of a felony, but served only three months of his sentence.  And, although he's been clean for a couple of years he can't even get a job at McDonalds.  NOBODY will give him a second chance.
> 
> You keep parroting a lie, so the only thing we can do is keep showing you that you are full of crap.  Your wall does not address at least 60 percent of the people who come here and don't have human registration papers.  You worry about laborers.
> 
> I see colleges full of foreign students, foreigners taking BIG DOLLAR jobs like scientists, doctors, technology engineers, lawyers, and government employees.  Now, that should concern you.  A pissant fruit picker from Mexico is not near the threat you have as you do from the Muslims now in the U.S. Congress.  But, don't let the facts get in your way.
Click to expand...


Who reads cut and pastes?
1 st gen immigrants cost.
After that it's all gravy.
What garbage. My science relatives had no prob getting big paying jobs


----------



## ph3iron

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are asking taxpayers to pay more than $25 billion for something that doesn’t work and that Trump promised Mexico would pay for.  Furthermore, Trump is putting tens of thousands of people into custody in tent cities at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.
> 
> Trump is spending millions and millions and just making the situation worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If walls don't work, why have there been so many walls throughout history; why are there so many gated communities and resorts all over the rest of the world with walls; why do gated communities in the US have walls; why do the Vatican and Israel have walls; why do so many wealthy and/or famous US residents have walls around their homes; why do prisons have walls, why do military installations have walls; why are there walls or high fences around electrical installations, missile silos and panoply of other places?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> As far as ladders go, how is a would-be illegal immigrant going to trek all the way to our border carrying a 30-foot ladder? (Oh, I forgot, you wackos are going to aid and abet.) Do you opponents of the wall know how clumsy and heavy a 30-foot ladder is or how much one costs? Have any of you ever tried to pull one up to the top of a tall wall with razorwire or barbed wire on its top, get the ladder and yourself over the top of such a barrier, then lower the ladder down the other side and climb down? Then, how does one get that ladder back over thesaid wall and down the other side for someone else to use? Haveany of you ever carried one, erected one, and used one? Even with climbing gear, if would-be illegal immigrants could get it to the border, it would still be a feat to get over and down the other side of such a wall. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that some incredibly fit, determined, equipped, and experiencedperson could get over such a wall with his belongings, how manymight that be out of say 5,000 people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are wall opponents so blinded by their ulterior motives that they refuse to or can't see that walls always have and still do deter the movement of people? Have they lost all sense of historical perspective, common sense,powers of observation, and reality? If they are delusional or in a state of deep denial, I hope they get help for Heaven’s sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO.  By that kind of logic, how come that every empire in history ceased to exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> China still exists, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For now, but China is also 98.5 percent Han Chinese.  Tell me the truth, since you want to argue about this, will you advocate shipping blacks to Africa once you get rid of the little brown people you hate so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right on queue, out comes the accusations of racism.  I thought you didn't insult people?  Nah, you just call them Stalinists and racists if they want to defend their border.  You are a disgusting piece of shit
Click to expand...

Nice 
Foul mouth.
Happy new year to you darlin.
Double up on your bile Meds


----------



## LoneLaugher

OKTexas said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I ain't going anywhere and you ain't gettin' no fucking wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really, a 100 mile section will be beginning the end of Jan. The President said he'll be there for the ground breaking. Puff on that commie.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You will believe anything.


----------



## toobfreak

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> For those who say illegals provide a greater cost benefit to this country, how soon we forget figures such as this ... from a well known Democrat.




WOW, Shackles!  YOU JUST KNOCKED IT OUT OF THE BALLPARK!  And what Lefty worth his salt would argue with Mr. Reid.  Can't wait to hear that horse's ass, Porter Rockhead come up with his 73rd defense for illegals!


----------



## OKTexas

sealybobo said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Billy, hundreds of miles have already been put up!  Hundreds more on the way.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen prick, you're not going to turn this country into East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They’ll get around your wall.
> 
> Also, will it be considered treasonist if in ten years republicans forget about the wall and it starts looking like Swiss cheese?
> 
> A wall is and always will be a waste of money. Patrol the fucking border with or without a wall.
> 
> This is how we know you won’t defend the wall after you’ve built it. You won’t even patrol the border now. What makes us think you’ll patrol the wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're just not paying attention, the border patrol says they are 95% effective, that just makes you look ignorant. After all, they are the experts.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I say that I am 95% effective at my job too.  That doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...



They = walls. The border patrol says crossing are reduced by 95% in areas a wall is in place. Does that clear the picture for your infantile brain?

.


----------



## otto105

Right now drumpf's glorious wall is a 5K bunch of hanging beads on a string.


----------



## OKTexas

LoneLaugher said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I ain't going anywhere and you ain't gettin' no fucking wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really, a 100 mile section will be beginning the end of Jan. The President said he'll be there for the ground breaking. Puff on that commie.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will believe anything.
Click to expand...




Trump Says Contract Awarded to Build 115 Miles of Border Wall in Texas

.


----------



## dblack

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look to the facts from a study, on the cost burdens surrounding illegal immigrants.
> 
> “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion.”
> 
> 
> 
> So let's fix that. And let's do it without indulging the shackles of big government.
> 
> The problems we have are the welfare state and birth-right citizenship. Neither of those requires the Berlin wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China / Hong Kong (early 1960s) - 32 km
> Botswana / Zimbabwe 2003 - 500 km
> Bulgaria / Turkey 2014 - 30 km
> Chinese / Korean border fence (under construction) - 1,416 km
> Macedonia / Greece barrier  2015 - 30 km
> India / Myanmar barrier (under construction) - 1,624 km
> 
> Just the facts, and this is to name but a few. However, we are called to follow after other nations on how government faces health care?  Yet a wall is immoral and racist, despite other nations around the globe seeing fit to do so against illegal immigration.
> 
> Explain that one to me.  Anyone?
Click to expand...


What is it you don't understand? Other nations have overbearing governments, bad laws and policies that violate individual liberty? Are you suggesting we follow their example?



> Even Harry Reid saw the burden of illegals on our nation, and that was 1993.  Look, liberals lost the cost argument on illegal immigration and now they are to lose on the nation’s border barrier argument.



I have no interest in the opinions of liberals, nor Harry Reid.


----------



## Slyhunter

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seven friggin posts in a row.
> 
> Kinda invested in this boondoggle huh?
> 
> It's stupid. It's wayy too expensive...it won't do what it's supposed to do...and it'll probably never get built even if we really wanted to do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And all that is in the hands of Democrats......isn't it?
> 
> As has been posted here multiple times, walls do work where incorporated.  They've worked here, they've worked in other countries, they work.  If they didn't work, nobody would use them.
> 
> And if your puppet masters really didn't think they'd work, why are they willing to shutdown the government over it?  I mean, if the Democrats wanted a very small amount of money for something we knew would be a failure, the best thing we could do is let them have it.  We would be able to use it as a campaign issue for many elections to come.
> 
> So why are they fighting so hard against the wall?  The truth is, even they know it would work, and that anti-white party wants as many of these people here as they can sneak in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying "walls work" is just stupid. Will THIS wall work? Can a 2,000 mile long wall be built  in the first place without disrupting 3 or 4 states?
> 
> Can it be monitored in a way that would make it effective?
> 
> What's all this gonna cost?
Click to expand...

Nobody is going to build a 2,000 mile wall. They are going to build a wall where and when it will work and not build it where it would be pointless.


----------



## Slyhunter

toobfreak said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> More so, if we can build robots to explore the outer solar system, brake into orbit, land and drive around another planet testing soil and atmosphere, we can certainly design machines to replace Mexicans to pick oranges and tomatoes.
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't really give a shit about keeping American jobs for Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly.  Good thing for us, building robots to do menial work is an American industry to eliminate any possible need for Mexicans which are NOT Americans.  Never have been, never will. be  Did I go too fast for you?
Click to expand...

What will we do with the poor Americans who can't find work? Let them starve in the streets?


----------



## LoneLaugher

OKTexas said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I ain't going anywhere and you ain't gettin' no fucking wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really, a 100 mile section will be beginning the end of Jan. The President said he'll be there for the ground breaking. Puff on that commie.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will believe anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump Says Contract Awarded to Build 115 Miles of Border Wall in Texas
> 
> .
Click to expand...


He didn't award shit. You're a dupe.

AP FACT CHECK: Trump confuses, misleads on border wall


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, Ray, they run out of them very fast, then like children, go full circle right back to the argument they started with, as if they never made it before or had it clearly proven wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well so far, we have.........
> 
> These people work illegally and pay taxes for programs they won't collect on.,
> 
> These people work harder than Americans.
> 
> These people commit less violent crimes than Americans.
> 
> These poor people somehow stimulate the economy.
> 
> A wall won't work even though nobody can produce evidence of that claim.
> 
> They will simply buy tall ladders or dig tunnels, and our border security, military nor engineers figured that out yet.
> 
> These people are taking jobs Americans don't want.  Jobs that pay $2.00 an hour.
> 
> A wall will turn us into Nazi Germany or the USSR.
> 
> The only people wanting a wall are xenophobes and racists.
> 
> Protecting our borders interferes in capitalism.
> 
> Most illegals enter through legal VISA's, therefore nothing should be done about other ways they get in.
> 
> I'm sure I missed some you may have thought of.  But the truth of the matter is they are looking for any excuse to have a borderless country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although I did not understand what point you were trying to make, I'll give you a few points so that we can clear this up just for you:
> 
> 1)  Those who want the border wall have been asked WHY they want it.  When those who do not want the wall respond to one PRETEXT, the wall advocates simply change the goal posts.  For example, IIRC when I entered this thread, the pretext for the wall was sovereignty (see post # 951.)  Somebody probably addressed more pretexts, but I think I joined the conversation somewhere along post #951.
> 
> Since then the pretexts have ranged from undocumented immigrants stealing jobs to not paying taxes and from SUPPOSED costs of immigrants (welfare, medical costs, etc.)  to the PRETEXT of safety.  At the end of the day, people like Ray have not been able to articulate a reason as to WHY they support a wall idea.  Respond to the PRETEXT of the day and they invent another
> 
> 2)  WHEN the PRETEXTS are examined and found to be baseless, Ray, and those who support his position, have a hissy fit, wanting us to look at all their supposed evidence that they think supports their position.
> 
> The problem for them is that while China does have a wall, China is also ONE people.  98.5 percent of the Chinese are Han Chinese.  To date, the wall supporters have avoided the QUESTION of what the agenda is beyond the wall.  Say you write them a check for umpteen BILLIONS of dollars to build the wall.  Is the long term goal then to rid America of the third worlders and other foreigners, getting rid of not only the poverty stricken, but say people like Muslims (whose religion dictates that they will either convert or kill us)???
> 
> The second problem for the wall advocates is that they cannot understand why a wall may be effective for one country, but not the United States.  For whatever reason, the build the wall advocates were never taught that America was founded as a constitutional Republic and THE ONLY NATION ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH WHOSE GOVERNMENT IS GUARANTEEING GOD GIVEN, INHERENT, NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, ABSOLUTE RIGHTS.
> 
> You cannot take from one country something you like and then ignore the accompanying things that make their numbers look good.  In other words, if you want to be like the Israelis, then you have to declare a state of war; you have to maintain an atmosphere of distrust, conflict, and chaos so that you can have a PRETEXT to suspend the Rights of the people in order to keep the foreigners out.
> 
> We're not engaged in a war and sensible people do NOT want the POLICE STATE which would be a necessity to enforce the nutty wall idea.  The wall don't just magically keep people out.  Whoever guards the wall must HATE the foreigners so that the guards will not be susceptible to turning a blind eye to those who breach the wall.
> 
> Americans will have to be programmed, Pavlovian style, to HATE the people from south of the border because, unlike the Israelis, we are not at war from the people south of our border.  The Israelis are fighting an enemy who, according to the Bible, have their hand against every man and every man's hand against them.   Those Ishmaelites, the people trying to breach Israel's defenses, are doing so in order to KILL a political enemy.
> 
> In the United States, the atmosphere is much different.  The people coming here from south of the border are finding WILLING Americans to do business with.  It's a mutually beneficial relationship.  It's not like you have to stand guard at the border and kill or be killed
> 
> 3)  The aim of political globalists is to con the Americans into giving up their Rights.  Even when it was pointed out to Ray how, when our Second Amendment Rights were protected, the legal principle protected Sanctuary Cities, he chose to ignore the FACT that the laws required to enforce the nutty wall idea will end up costing you the Rights our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure for us.
> 
> The pro-wall advocates will call Nancy Pelosi a liar all the way up to the point that she says no wall - no way.  The build the wall advocates are generally working in industries where people are actors and negotiators (lawyers, politicians, and people involved in professional wrestling are good at it.)  So, those build the wall people do not understand that the fix is in.  They will get their silly wall, but the Democrats have already been guaranteed concessions on gun control.
> 
> But, like a WWE match, they have to make the "fight" appear real.  One only needs to know where Donald Trump stands, historically, on gun control not to understand that the building of the wall is about to come at an expense of the Second Amendment   And WHEN it fails to make a difference, more private deals will be struck until we have no more Rights under a Republican form of government, but only a Democracy that will be ruled by the "legal" foreigners we're allowing to take over in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brevity is no friend of yours I see.
> 
> The subject at hand is a wall.  When asked, we give a list of reasons to have a wall.  They are legitimate reasons and support the position of doing something to help stop a long ongoing problem.
> 
> On the other side of the aisle, you people are arguing for why we should not be trying to solve the problem.  You are telling us to leave the problem alone.  20 million illegals?  let's make it 40 million by 2025.  In other words, do nothing or even enhance the problem.
> 
> It's like arguing with a cop over a speeding ticket.  The officer can give you reasons and statistics why you are getting a ticket for speeding.  And in response, you are trying to tell him all the benefits of having people on the highway driving dangerous speeds.  It's really a stupid argument.
> 
> In other words we are making an argument why something needs to be done, and you are making an argument why we should allow law breakers to continue breaking our laws.  Again, a really stupid argument.
> 
> A wall will not stop all illegal immigration no more than a police officer can stop all speeders on the highway.  But once word gets out that the officer is there, less people will be speeding on that stretch of highway.  This is why the Caravan has not grown.  We are not giving into their demands or simply giving them a free pass to roam our country while they wait 3 years for a court hearing.  They can't get in......period.  And any other people thinking of doing the same thing now realize they will be met with resistance and defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sir, you did not like brevity and I don't know if you are just a regular troll or don't understand the way the legal and political system works.
> 
> Maybe, if you would quit lying, we could have a civil conversation.  So let me tell you straight up:  If you will find one sentence where I advocated "doing nothing," I will ask the mods to take all my posts down and I will leave you to say whatever you want. I will permanently EXIT this board.  If you reread this thread and come up with nothing, you will be given an opportunity to apologize for that blatant lie.  OR you can continue to lie and discredit your own position.
> 
> What I've said is that you need a solution that covers BOTH those from south of the border as well as the* 60 percent of undocumented foreigners your ideas ignore*.  IF you ever had a plan, you have never mentioned it.
> 
> What I've said is that the plan must be a PERMANENT solution, not some fly by the seat of your pants idea to build a silly wall with no future idea of how to handle the new set of problems it will bring OR what the agenda is once you figure out YOU WILL STILL HAVE AN IMMIGRATION ISSUE.  And, if the Democrats don't want a wall, they will dismantle it the moment they get another liberal in the White House... but, they won't.  It was their idea first - and even Donald Trump acknowledged that.
> 
> If you want brevity, don't expect thirty years of experience in five sentences or less.  If you want brevity, quit lying and if you still doubt a set of facts, ASK questions instead of making baseless allegations.  You and I both realize that you are not stupid enough to believe I'm on the left.  It's been explained to you.  You can try to filibuster from now on, but the PRETEXTS will be dismantled.  I could keep the overwhelming majority of those people "on their side of the fence" without a wall and *without* blowing BILLIONS of tax dollars, not to mention screwing my fellow Americans by taking a giant dump on their Rights.  Face it - you will accept socialism, a repeal of the Bill of Rights, or anything else for that precious wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I fail to subscribe to this idiocy of All or Nothing. To say we shouldn't be doing anything on our southern border  because of the other ways they get here is as ridiculous of an argument as one could make.  It's like saying I'm not going to fence off my property to stop intruders because I can't afford an alarm system in my house right now.
> 
> If the anti-white party wants to take down a wall; a wall that taxpayers just spent X billions on, it would reveal to the country their real intentions which is not to stop illegal immigration and show the world they are for open borders.  So they will never do that.  They want to keep their dog and pony show of saying they want to do things and not really do them.
> 
> And as we asked repeatedly, how does a wall have anything to do with freedom, the Bill of Rights, Socialism, or any American rights?  You are just making crap up.  You have zero evidence to support your claims.  It's paranoia delusion.
Click to expand...


Do you bother paying attention?  What makes you lie like a New York politician?  You most assuredly HAVE BEEN  shown how the enforcement of laws related to immigration affect your Rights.  Are you going to force me to repeat the Printz decision (a pro-gun ruling) being used to justify Sanctuary Cities?  Do I have to repeat that to you?  Do you see why my posts to you cannot be brief?  I'll help you out.  Read what I read this morning:

Trump was right.

See posts 5 through 8.  Maybe they can explain this so you get the picture.

Insofar as the all or nothing comment, I'll say this:

It would be easier and more prudent; cheaper and more likely to pass an idea to Congress a bill that both sides would sign.  The thing of it is, some folks done figured it out.  You've been had and that link above shows that you are about to be in a world of skeet... or how did they put it in the movie Full Metal Jacket?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well so far, we have.........
> 
> These people work illegally and pay taxes for programs they won't collect on.,
> 
> These people work harder than Americans.
> 
> These people commit less violent crimes than Americans.
> 
> These poor people somehow stimulate the economy.
> 
> A wall won't work even though nobody can produce evidence of that claim.
> 
> They will simply buy tall ladders or dig tunnels, and our border security, military nor engineers figured that out yet.
> 
> These people are taking jobs Americans don't want.  Jobs that pay $2.00 an hour.
> 
> A wall will turn us into Nazi Germany or the USSR.
> 
> The only people wanting a wall are xenophobes and racists.
> 
> Protecting our borders interferes in capitalism.
> 
> Most illegals enter through legal VISA's, therefore nothing should be done about other ways they get in.
> 
> I'm sure I missed some you may have thought of.  But the truth of the matter is they are looking for any excuse to have a borderless country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I did not understand what point you were trying to make, I'll give you a few points so that we can clear this up just for you:
> 
> 1)  Those who want the border wall have been asked WHY they want it.  When those who do not want the wall respond to one PRETEXT, the wall advocates simply change the goal posts.  For example, IIRC when I entered this thread, the pretext for the wall was sovereignty (see post # 951.)  Somebody probably addressed more pretexts, but I think I joined the conversation somewhere along post #951.
> 
> Since then the pretexts have ranged from undocumented immigrants stealing jobs to not paying taxes and from SUPPOSED costs of immigrants (welfare, medical costs, etc.)  to the PRETEXT of safety.  At the end of the day, people like Ray have not been able to articulate a reason as to WHY they support a wall idea.  Respond to the PRETEXT of the day and they invent another
> 
> 2)  WHEN the PRETEXTS are examined and found to be baseless, Ray, and those who support his position, have a hissy fit, wanting us to look at all their supposed evidence that they think supports their position.
> 
> The problem for them is that while China does have a wall, China is also ONE people.  98.5 percent of the Chinese are Han Chinese.  To date, the wall supporters have avoided the QUESTION of what the agenda is beyond the wall.  Say you write them a check for umpteen BILLIONS of dollars to build the wall.  Is the long term goal then to rid America of the third worlders and other foreigners, getting rid of not only the poverty stricken, but say people like Muslims (whose religion dictates that they will either convert or kill us)???
> 
> The second problem for the wall advocates is that they cannot understand why a wall may be effective for one country, but not the United States.  For whatever reason, the build the wall advocates were never taught that America was founded as a constitutional Republic and THE ONLY NATION ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH WHOSE GOVERNMENT IS GUARANTEEING GOD GIVEN, INHERENT, NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, ABSOLUTE RIGHTS.
> 
> You cannot take from one country something you like and then ignore the accompanying things that make their numbers look good.  In other words, if you want to be like the Israelis, then you have to declare a state of war; you have to maintain an atmosphere of distrust, conflict, and chaos so that you can have a PRETEXT to suspend the Rights of the people in order to keep the foreigners out.
> 
> We're not engaged in a war and sensible people do NOT want the POLICE STATE which would be a necessity to enforce the nutty wall idea.  The wall don't just magically keep people out.  Whoever guards the wall must HATE the foreigners so that the guards will not be susceptible to turning a blind eye to those who breach the wall.
> 
> Americans will have to be programmed, Pavlovian style, to HATE the people from south of the border because, unlike the Israelis, we are not at war from the people south of our border.  The Israelis are fighting an enemy who, according to the Bible, have their hand against every man and every man's hand against them.   Those Ishmaelites, the people trying to breach Israel's defenses, are doing so in order to KILL a political enemy.
> 
> In the United States, the atmosphere is much different.  The people coming here from south of the border are finding WILLING Americans to do business with.  It's a mutually beneficial relationship.  It's not like you have to stand guard at the border and kill or be killed
> 
> 3)  The aim of political globalists is to con the Americans into giving up their Rights.  Even when it was pointed out to Ray how, when our Second Amendment Rights were protected, the legal principle protected Sanctuary Cities, he chose to ignore the FACT that the laws required to enforce the nutty wall idea will end up costing you the Rights our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure for us.
> 
> The pro-wall advocates will call Nancy Pelosi a liar all the way up to the point that she says no wall - no way.  The build the wall advocates are generally working in industries where people are actors and negotiators (lawyers, politicians, and people involved in professional wrestling are good at it.)  So, those build the wall people do not understand that the fix is in.  They will get their silly wall, but the Democrats have already been guaranteed concessions on gun control.
> 
> But, like a WWE match, they have to make the "fight" appear real.  One only needs to know where Donald Trump stands, historically, on gun control not to understand that the building of the wall is about to come at an expense of the Second Amendment   And WHEN it fails to make a difference, more private deals will be struck until we have no more Rights under a Republican form of government, but only a Democracy that will be ruled by the "legal" foreigners we're allowing to take over in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brevity is no friend of yours I see.
> 
> The subject at hand is a wall.  When asked, we give a list of reasons to have a wall.  They are legitimate reasons and support the position of doing something to help stop a long ongoing problem.
> 
> On the other side of the aisle, you people are arguing for why we should not be trying to solve the problem.  You are telling us to leave the problem alone.  20 million illegals?  let's make it 40 million by 2025.  In other words, do nothing or even enhance the problem.
> 
> It's like arguing with a cop over a speeding ticket.  The officer can give you reasons and statistics why you are getting a ticket for speeding.  And in response, you are trying to tell him all the benefits of having people on the highway driving dangerous speeds.  It's really a stupid argument.
> 
> In other words we are making an argument why something needs to be done, and you are making an argument why we should allow law breakers to continue breaking our laws.  Again, a really stupid argument.
> 
> A wall will not stop all illegal immigration no more than a police officer can stop all speeders on the highway.  But once word gets out that the officer is there, less people will be speeding on that stretch of highway.  This is why the Caravan has not grown.  We are not giving into their demands or simply giving them a free pass to roam our country while they wait 3 years for a court hearing.  They can't get in......period.  And any other people thinking of doing the same thing now realize they will be met with resistance and defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sir, you did not like brevity and I don't know if you are just a regular troll or don't understand the way the legal and political system works.
> 
> Maybe, if you would quit lying, we could have a civil conversation.  So let me tell you straight up:  If you will find one sentence where I advocated "doing nothing," I will ask the mods to take all my posts down and I will leave you to say whatever you want. I will permanently EXIT this board.  If you reread this thread and come up with nothing, you will be given an opportunity to apologize for that blatant lie.  OR you can continue to lie and discredit your own position.
> 
> What I've said is that you need a solution that covers BOTH those from south of the border as well as the* 60 percent of undocumented foreigners your ideas ignore*.  IF you ever had a plan, you have never mentioned it.
> 
> What I've said is that the plan must be a PERMANENT solution, not some fly by the seat of your pants idea to build a silly wall with no future idea of how to handle the new set of problems it will bring OR what the agenda is once you figure out YOU WILL STILL HAVE AN IMMIGRATION ISSUE.  And, if the Democrats don't want a wall, they will dismantle it the moment they get another liberal in the White House... but, they won't.  It was their idea first - and even Donald Trump acknowledged that.
> 
> If you want brevity, don't expect thirty years of experience in five sentences or less.  If you want brevity, quit lying and if you still doubt a set of facts, ASK questions instead of making baseless allegations.  You and I both realize that you are not stupid enough to believe I'm on the left.  It's been explained to you.  You can try to filibuster from now on, but the PRETEXTS will be dismantled.  I could keep the overwhelming majority of those people "on their side of the fence" without a wall and *without* blowing BILLIONS of tax dollars, not to mention screwing my fellow Americans by taking a giant dump on their Rights.  Face it - you will accept socialism, a repeal of the Bill of Rights, or anything else for that precious wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I fail to subscribe to this idiocy of All or Nothing. To say we shouldn't be doing anything on our southern border  because of the other ways they get here is as ridiculous of an argument as one could make.  It's like saying I'm not going to fence off my property to stop intruders because I can't afford an alarm system in my house right now.
> 
> If the anti-white party wants to take down a wall; a wall that taxpayers just spent X billions on, it would reveal to the country their real intentions which is not to stop illegal immigration and show the world they are for open borders.  So they will never do that.  They want to keep their dog and pony show of saying they want to do things and not really do them.
> 
> And as we asked repeatedly, how does a wall have anything to do with freedom, the Bill of Rights, Socialism, or any American rights?  You are just making crap up.  You have zero evidence to support your claims.  It's paranoia delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you bother paying attention?  What makes you lie like a New York politician?  You most assuredly HAVE BEEN  shown how the enforcement of laws related to immigration affect your Rights.  Are you going to force me to repeat the Printz decision (a pro-gun ruling) being used to justify Sanctuary Cities?  Do I have to repeat that to you?  Do you see why my posts to you cannot be brief?  I'll help you out.  Read what I read this morning:
> 
> Trump was right.
> 
> See posts 5 through 8.  Maybe they can explain this so you get the picture.
> 
> Insofar as the all or nothing comment, I'll say this:
> 
> It would be easier and more prudent; cheaper and more likely to pass an idea to Congress a bill that both sides would sign.  The thing of it is, some folks done figured it out.  You've been had and that link above shows that you are about to be in a world of skeet... or how did they put it in the movie Full Metal Jacket?
Click to expand...


I have no idea what that outdoors blog has to do with this conversation.  As for the link that started it, it only explained how Trump was talking about closing down the border if Mexico wasn't going to help.  What does that prove?  The article talked about how gang members were planning to use our systems to enter the country illegally, and thankfully since we DO HAVE border agents, they busted them. 

The border has nothing to do with my rights or yours.  It didn't have anything to do with my rights last year, the year before, ten years before, or even twenty, and extending the border wall won't change that either.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ph3iron said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we have to educate you yet AGAIN?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a real self-convinced pretentious narcissist, aren't ya?  You need to educate people?   Oh Lord, look fellow USMB members, we have a teacher now that knows more than any of us and willing to bless us with his presence.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The market is not being flooded with cheap labor per se. It is being filled with people whose American counterparts you have no use for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea WTF that's even supposed to mean.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back to post # 971. You were informed, with accurate figures, that about 11 million people have been diagnosed with ADD / ADHD YOUR claim is that you have it, but don't take your meds. YOU claim it is a real and legitimate condition. You have made much ado about the public having a right to know the private business of individuals, so you just knocked 11 million people out of the job market. Who wants an employee with a mental health condition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who keeps dwelling on this mental health thing.  I never said a word about it.  You keep inserting things I've never even brought up yet alone discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Between drug addicts and people with a criminal history, you have more than 17 million people that, for all intents and purposes, are UNEMPLOYABLE. And you don't want them to get a second chance and go back to work!
> 
> When I brought up the mental health issue as a relevant factor, you wanted a debate on it.  You lost that side argument - but that is where it came from.  I explained how it comes down to Americans getting locked out of the system through no initial fault of their own.  So, refresh your memory.  Reread posts # 946 through # 979.  You posting a hundred and fifty posts a day to hide what has already been established won't hide the truth.
> 
> You are all over the board. Before you think about keeping people out and putting up a wall, you should be thinking about who is going to fill the empty positions when your agenda would prohibit Americans from getting those jobs as they are at this very moment, due to a criminal history and / or mental problems that do not affect an individual's ability, BUT are used against them. AND they can NEVER rise above their past given your idea of utopia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off I never said nobody should have a second chance.  I said it's up to employers to make that decision.  And since it's a concern of yours, don't you think that perhaps, if employers get so desperate for workers because we rid our country of foreigners, that maybe those employers WILL take a chance at hiring some of these Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting defensive aren't you?  You shouldn't ask questions if you don't want answers.  Since you are getting the beat down by multiple posters, you are slinging skeet, hoping the shotgun approach will work.  It isn't.
> 
> Of course, you said people should not have a second chance.  You said that when you wanted to open peoples personal lives up to the rest of the world.  Americans don't forget and they do not forgive.  Employers HAVE made that decision.  Millions of Americans are permanently locked out of the job market over petty beefs that are years old.
> 
> There is a thing in the world to keep employers from hiring Americans who have been disenfranchised.  Your job is driving a truck.  My job is helping those who are locked out to get back on their feet and get a second chance.
> 
> There is a world of difference between listening to a truck driver try to convince us he has ALL the answers versus someone who spends their days trying to help people get back into the workforce, get a place to live, and become productive citizens.  Hell, I got one guy in the mix that was convicted of a felony, but served only three months of his sentence.  And, although he's been clean for a couple of years he can't even get a job at McDonalds.  NOBODY will give him a second chance.
> 
> You keep parroting a lie, so the only thing we can do is keep showing you that you are full of crap.  Your wall does not address at least 60 percent of the people who come here and don't have human registration papers.  You worry about laborers.
> 
> I see colleges full of foreign students, foreigners taking BIG DOLLAR jobs like scientists, doctors, technology engineers, lawyers, and government employees.  Now, that should concern you.  A pissant fruit picker from Mexico is not near the threat you have as you do from the Muslims now in the U.S. Congress.  But, don't let the facts get in your way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who reads cut and pastes?
> 1 st gen immigrants cost.
> After that it's all gravy.
> What garbage. My science relatives had no prob getting big paying jobs
Click to expand...


If people want the FACTS, they will read them.  Those who dispute the cut and pastes will continue to talk out their ass while those in the fight present factual cases.


----------



## OKTexas

LoneLaugher said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I ain't going anywhere and you ain't gettin' no fucking wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really, a 100 mile section will be beginning the end of Jan. The President said he'll be there for the ground breaking. Puff on that commie.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will believe anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump Says Contract Awarded to Build 115 Miles of Border Wall in Texas
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't award shit. You're a dupe.
> 
> AP FACT CHECK: Trump confuses, misleads on border wall
Click to expand...



Fact, new wall is being built and improvements are being made. You can play semantics all day, that doesn't change the facts.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I did not understand what point you were trying to make, I'll give you a few points so that we can clear this up just for you:
> 
> 1)  Those who want the border wall have been asked WHY they want it.  When those who do not want the wall respond to one PRETEXT, the wall advocates simply change the goal posts.  For example, IIRC when I entered this thread, the pretext for the wall was sovereignty (see post # 951.)  Somebody probably addressed more pretexts, but I think I joined the conversation somewhere along post #951.
> 
> Since then the pretexts have ranged from undocumented immigrants stealing jobs to not paying taxes and from SUPPOSED costs of immigrants (welfare, medical costs, etc.)  to the PRETEXT of safety.  At the end of the day, people like Ray have not been able to articulate a reason as to WHY they support a wall idea.  Respond to the PRETEXT of the day and they invent another
> 
> 2)  WHEN the PRETEXTS are examined and found to be baseless, Ray, and those who support his position, have a hissy fit, wanting us to look at all their supposed evidence that they think supports their position.
> 
> The problem for them is that while China does have a wall, China is also ONE people.  98.5 percent of the Chinese are Han Chinese.  To date, the wall supporters have avoided the QUESTION of what the agenda is beyond the wall.  Say you write them a check for umpteen BILLIONS of dollars to build the wall.  Is the long term goal then to rid America of the third worlders and other foreigners, getting rid of not only the poverty stricken, but say people like Muslims (whose religion dictates that they will either convert or kill us)???
> 
> The second problem for the wall advocates is that they cannot understand why a wall may be effective for one country, but not the United States.  For whatever reason, the build the wall advocates were never taught that America was founded as a constitutional Republic and THE ONLY NATION ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH WHOSE GOVERNMENT IS GUARANTEEING GOD GIVEN, INHERENT, NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, ABSOLUTE RIGHTS.
> 
> You cannot take from one country something you like and then ignore the accompanying things that make their numbers look good.  In other words, if you want to be like the Israelis, then you have to declare a state of war; you have to maintain an atmosphere of distrust, conflict, and chaos so that you can have a PRETEXT to suspend the Rights of the people in order to keep the foreigners out.
> 
> We're not engaged in a war and sensible people do NOT want the POLICE STATE which would be a necessity to enforce the nutty wall idea.  The wall don't just magically keep people out.  Whoever guards the wall must HATE the foreigners so that the guards will not be susceptible to turning a blind eye to those who breach the wall.
> 
> Americans will have to be programmed, Pavlovian style, to HATE the people from south of the border because, unlike the Israelis, we are not at war from the people south of our border.  The Israelis are fighting an enemy who, according to the Bible, have their hand against every man and every man's hand against them.   Those Ishmaelites, the people trying to breach Israel's defenses, are doing so in order to KILL a political enemy.
> 
> In the United States, the atmosphere is much different.  The people coming here from south of the border are finding WILLING Americans to do business with.  It's a mutually beneficial relationship.  It's not like you have to stand guard at the border and kill or be killed
> 
> 3)  The aim of political globalists is to con the Americans into giving up their Rights.  Even when it was pointed out to Ray how, when our Second Amendment Rights were protected, the legal principle protected Sanctuary Cities, he chose to ignore the FACT that the laws required to enforce the nutty wall idea will end up costing you the Rights our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure for us.
> 
> The pro-wall advocates will call Nancy Pelosi a liar all the way up to the point that she says no wall - no way.  The build the wall advocates are generally working in industries where people are actors and negotiators (lawyers, politicians, and people involved in professional wrestling are good at it.)  So, those build the wall people do not understand that the fix is in.  They will get their silly wall, but the Democrats have already been guaranteed concessions on gun control.
> 
> But, like a WWE match, they have to make the "fight" appear real.  One only needs to know where Donald Trump stands, historically, on gun control not to understand that the building of the wall is about to come at an expense of the Second Amendment   And WHEN it fails to make a difference, more private deals will be struck until we have no more Rights under a Republican form of government, but only a Democracy that will be ruled by the "legal" foreigners we're allowing to take over in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brevity is no friend of yours I see.
> 
> The subject at hand is a wall.  When asked, we give a list of reasons to have a wall.  They are legitimate reasons and support the position of doing something to help stop a long ongoing problem.
> 
> On the other side of the aisle, you people are arguing for why we should not be trying to solve the problem.  You are telling us to leave the problem alone.  20 million illegals?  let's make it 40 million by 2025.  In other words, do nothing or even enhance the problem.
> 
> It's like arguing with a cop over a speeding ticket.  The officer can give you reasons and statistics why you are getting a ticket for speeding.  And in response, you are trying to tell him all the benefits of having people on the highway driving dangerous speeds.  It's really a stupid argument.
> 
> In other words we are making an argument why something needs to be done, and you are making an argument why we should allow law breakers to continue breaking our laws.  Again, a really stupid argument.
> 
> A wall will not stop all illegal immigration no more than a police officer can stop all speeders on the highway.  But once word gets out that the officer is there, less people will be speeding on that stretch of highway.  This is why the Caravan has not grown.  We are not giving into their demands or simply giving them a free pass to roam our country while they wait 3 years for a court hearing.  They can't get in......period.  And any other people thinking of doing the same thing now realize they will be met with resistance and defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sir, you did not like brevity and I don't know if you are just a regular troll or don't understand the way the legal and political system works.
> 
> Maybe, if you would quit lying, we could have a civil conversation.  So let me tell you straight up:  If you will find one sentence where I advocated "doing nothing," I will ask the mods to take all my posts down and I will leave you to say whatever you want. I will permanently EXIT this board.  If you reread this thread and come up with nothing, you will be given an opportunity to apologize for that blatant lie.  OR you can continue to lie and discredit your own position.
> 
> What I've said is that you need a solution that covers BOTH those from south of the border as well as the* 60 percent of undocumented foreigners your ideas ignore*.  IF you ever had a plan, you have never mentioned it.
> 
> What I've said is that the plan must be a PERMANENT solution, not some fly by the seat of your pants idea to build a silly wall with no future idea of how to handle the new set of problems it will bring OR what the agenda is once you figure out YOU WILL STILL HAVE AN IMMIGRATION ISSUE.  And, if the Democrats don't want a wall, they will dismantle it the moment they get another liberal in the White House... but, they won't.  It was their idea first - and even Donald Trump acknowledged that.
> 
> If you want brevity, don't expect thirty years of experience in five sentences or less.  If you want brevity, quit lying and if you still doubt a set of facts, ASK questions instead of making baseless allegations.  You and I both realize that you are not stupid enough to believe I'm on the left.  It's been explained to you.  You can try to filibuster from now on, but the PRETEXTS will be dismantled.  I could keep the overwhelming majority of those people "on their side of the fence" without a wall and *without* blowing BILLIONS of tax dollars, not to mention screwing my fellow Americans by taking a giant dump on their Rights.  Face it - you will accept socialism, a repeal of the Bill of Rights, or anything else for that precious wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I fail to subscribe to this idiocy of All or Nothing. To say we shouldn't be doing anything on our southern border  because of the other ways they get here is as ridiculous of an argument as one could make.  It's like saying I'm not going to fence off my property to stop intruders because I can't afford an alarm system in my house right now.
> 
> If the anti-white party wants to take down a wall; a wall that taxpayers just spent X billions on, it would reveal to the country their real intentions which is not to stop illegal immigration and show the world they are for open borders.  So they will never do that.  They want to keep their dog and pony show of saying they want to do things and not really do them.
> 
> And as we asked repeatedly, how does a wall have anything to do with freedom, the Bill of Rights, Socialism, or any American rights?  You are just making crap up.  You have zero evidence to support your claims.  It's paranoia delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you bother paying attention?  What makes you lie like a New York politician?  You most assuredly HAVE BEEN  shown how the enforcement of laws related to immigration affect your Rights.  Are you going to force me to repeat the Printz decision (a pro-gun ruling) being used to justify Sanctuary Cities?  Do I have to repeat that to you?  Do you see why my posts to you cannot be brief?  I'll help you out.  Read what I read this morning:
> 
> Trump was right.
> 
> See posts 5 through 8.  Maybe they can explain this so you get the picture.
> 
> Insofar as the all or nothing comment, I'll say this:
> 
> It would be easier and more prudent; cheaper and more likely to pass an idea to Congress a bill that both sides would sign.  The thing of it is, some folks done figured it out.  You've been had and that link above shows that you are about to be in a world of skeet... or how did they put it in the movie Full Metal Jacket?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what that outdoors blog has to do with this conversation.  As for the link that started it, it only explained how Trump was talking about closing down the border if Mexico wasn't going to help.  What does that prove?  The article talked about how gang members were planning to use our systems to enter the country illegally, and thankfully since we DO HAVE border agents, they busted them.
> 
> The border has nothing to do with my rights or yours.  It didn't have anything to do with my rights last year, the year before, ten years before, or even twenty, and extending the border wall won't change that either.
Click to expand...


You live in a state of denial.  WHEN Nancy Pelosi sticks that gun up your arse, you are welcome to come back here and make the idiotic, irrelevant, stupid, and moronic statements you've become noted for.

Everything associated with that wall will have a cost - and I agree, it WILL be built.  It will be built at a cost to your constitutional Liberties just as that link is also predicting.   If you don't understand the correlation, you should read a few civics books and give it a rest on the posting.  Those posts talked about a HELL of a lot more than what you claim.  You must think that those who agree with you are total idiots and won't check it out for themselves.  You may or may not be right, but if even one of them checks it out, they will begin thinking about the real costs of forfeiting their Liberty for a stupid wall.


----------



## LoneLaugher

OKTexas said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ain't going anywhere and you ain't gettin' no fucking wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, a 100 mile section will be beginning the end of Jan. The President said he'll be there for the ground breaking. Puff on that commie.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will believe anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump Says Contract Awarded to Build 115 Miles of Border Wall in Texas
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't award shit. You're a dupe.
> 
> AP FACT CHECK: Trump confuses, misleads on border wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fact, new wall is being built and improvements are being made. You can play semantics all day, that doesn't change the facts.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I'm not playing semantics. You were lied to about the liar in chief awarding a contract for 115 miles of border wall. He lied to your face and you love it. 

The shit that is being built or renovated today was ordered long before the liar happened upon the "build a wall" campaign gimmick. 

Moron.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

dblack said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look to the facts from a study, on the cost burdens surrounding illegal immigrants.
> 
> “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion.”
> 
> 
> 
> So let's fix that. And let's do it without indulging the shackles of big government.
> 
> The problems we have are the welfare state and birth-right citizenship. Neither of those requires the Berlin wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China / Hong Kong (early 1960s) - 32 km
> Botswana / Zimbabwe 2003 - 500 km
> Bulgaria / Turkey 2014 - 30 km
> Chinese / Korean border fence (under construction) - 1,416 km
> Macedonia / Greece barrier  2015 - 30 km
> India / Myanmar barrier (under construction) - 1,624 km
> 
> Just the facts, and this is to name but a few. However, we are called to follow after other nations on how government faces health care?  Yet a wall is immoral and racist, despite other nations around the globe seeing fit to do so against illegal immigration.
> 
> Explain that one to me.  Anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it you don't understand? Other nations have overbearing governments, bad laws and policies that violate individual liberty? Are you suggesting we follow their example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Harry Reid saw the burden of illegals on our nation, and that was 1993.  Look, liberals lost the cost argument on illegal immigration and now they are to lose on the nation’s border barrier argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no interest in the opinions of liberals, nor Harry Reid.
Click to expand...


It's hilarious that you read the mental midgetry of some of these build the wall guys and they are ALWAYS quoting liberals and promoting communist nations in support of their talking points... All the while calling others lefties.  You can't make this stuff up.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brevity is no friend of yours I see.
> 
> The subject at hand is a wall.  When asked, we give a list of reasons to have a wall.  They are legitimate reasons and support the position of doing something to help stop a long ongoing problem.
> 
> On the other side of the aisle, you people are arguing for why we should not be trying to solve the problem.  You are telling us to leave the problem alone.  20 million illegals?  let's make it 40 million by 2025.  In other words, do nothing or even enhance the problem.
> 
> It's like arguing with a cop over a speeding ticket.  The officer can give you reasons and statistics why you are getting a ticket for speeding.  And in response, you are trying to tell him all the benefits of having people on the highway driving dangerous speeds.  It's really a stupid argument.
> 
> In other words we are making an argument why something needs to be done, and you are making an argument why we should allow law breakers to continue breaking our laws.  Again, a really stupid argument.
> 
> A wall will not stop all illegal immigration no more than a police officer can stop all speeders on the highway.  But once word gets out that the officer is there, less people will be speeding on that stretch of highway.  This is why the Caravan has not grown.  We are not giving into their demands or simply giving them a free pass to roam our country while they wait 3 years for a court hearing.  They can't get in......period.  And any other people thinking of doing the same thing now realize they will be met with resistance and defeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sir, you did not like brevity and I don't know if you are just a regular troll or don't understand the way the legal and political system works.
> 
> Maybe, if you would quit lying, we could have a civil conversation.  So let me tell you straight up:  If you will find one sentence where I advocated "doing nothing," I will ask the mods to take all my posts down and I will leave you to say whatever you want. I will permanently EXIT this board.  If you reread this thread and come up with nothing, you will be given an opportunity to apologize for that blatant lie.  OR you can continue to lie and discredit your own position.
> 
> What I've said is that you need a solution that covers BOTH those from south of the border as well as the* 60 percent of undocumented foreigners your ideas ignore*.  IF you ever had a plan, you have never mentioned it.
> 
> What I've said is that the plan must be a PERMANENT solution, not some fly by the seat of your pants idea to build a silly wall with no future idea of how to handle the new set of problems it will bring OR what the agenda is once you figure out YOU WILL STILL HAVE AN IMMIGRATION ISSUE.  And, if the Democrats don't want a wall, they will dismantle it the moment they get another liberal in the White House... but, they won't.  It was their idea first - and even Donald Trump acknowledged that.
> 
> If you want brevity, don't expect thirty years of experience in five sentences or less.  If you want brevity, quit lying and if you still doubt a set of facts, ASK questions instead of making baseless allegations.  You and I both realize that you are not stupid enough to believe I'm on the left.  It's been explained to you.  You can try to filibuster from now on, but the PRETEXTS will be dismantled.  I could keep the overwhelming majority of those people "on their side of the fence" without a wall and *without* blowing BILLIONS of tax dollars, not to mention screwing my fellow Americans by taking a giant dump on their Rights.  Face it - you will accept socialism, a repeal of the Bill of Rights, or anything else for that precious wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I fail to subscribe to this idiocy of All or Nothing. To say we shouldn't be doing anything on our southern border  because of the other ways they get here is as ridiculous of an argument as one could make.  It's like saying I'm not going to fence off my property to stop intruders because I can't afford an alarm system in my house right now.
> 
> If the anti-white party wants to take down a wall; a wall that taxpayers just spent X billions on, it would reveal to the country their real intentions which is not to stop illegal immigration and show the world they are for open borders.  So they will never do that.  They want to keep their dog and pony show of saying they want to do things and not really do them.
> 
> And as we asked repeatedly, how does a wall have anything to do with freedom, the Bill of Rights, Socialism, or any American rights?  You are just making crap up.  You have zero evidence to support your claims.  It's paranoia delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you bother paying attention?  What makes you lie like a New York politician?  You most assuredly HAVE BEEN  shown how the enforcement of laws related to immigration affect your Rights.  Are you going to force me to repeat the Printz decision (a pro-gun ruling) being used to justify Sanctuary Cities?  Do I have to repeat that to you?  Do you see why my posts to you cannot be brief?  I'll help you out.  Read what I read this morning:
> 
> Trump was right.
> 
> See posts 5 through 8.  Maybe they can explain this so you get the picture.
> 
> Insofar as the all or nothing comment, I'll say this:
> 
> It would be easier and more prudent; cheaper and more likely to pass an idea to Congress a bill that both sides would sign.  The thing of it is, some folks done figured it out.  You've been had and that link above shows that you are about to be in a world of skeet... or how did they put it in the movie Full Metal Jacket?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what that outdoors blog has to do with this conversation.  As for the link that started it, it only explained how Trump was talking about closing down the border if Mexico wasn't going to help.  What does that prove?  The article talked about how gang members were planning to use our systems to enter the country illegally, and thankfully since we DO HAVE border agents, they busted them.
> 
> The border has nothing to do with my rights or yours.  It didn't have anything to do with my rights last year, the year before, ten years before, or even twenty, and extending the border wall won't change that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You live in a state of denial.  WHEN Nancy Pelosi sticks that gun up your arse, you are welcome to come back here and make the idiotic, irrelevant, stupid, and moronic statements you've become noted for.
> 
> Everything associated with that wall will have a cost - and I agree, it WILL be built.  It will be built at a cost to your constitutional Liberties just as that link is also predicting.   If you don't understand the correlation, you should read a few civics books and give it a rest on the posting.  Those posts talked about a HELL of a lot more than what you claim.  You must think that those who agree with you are total idiots and won't check it out for themselves.  You may or may not be right, but if even one of them checks it out, they will begin thinking about the real costs of forfeiting their Liberty for a stupid wall.
Click to expand...


Well I'll tell you what, if the wall is built and you lose some sort of liberty, start a topic on it and I'll be glad to be one of the first posters to tell you that you're right.  

The Democrats have been trying to disarm America for as long as I remember.  A wall won't change that pro or con.  What secures our rights is not a wall, but an American unbiased Supreme Court which has already stopped Democrats from trying to make it more difficult and costly to secure our Second Amendment rights.   

What you are trying to do is convince us that your predictions are set in stone.  There is no truth to that.  You can speculate all you want, but until you have some sort of evidence of your claim, it's moot just like anybody else's claims are here.  When it comes to politics, you're not the only soothsayer in the bunch.  Just read the topics on this service.


----------



## OKTexas

LoneLaugher said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, a 100 mile section will be beginning the end of Jan. The President said he'll be there for the ground breaking. Puff on that commie.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will believe anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump Says Contract Awarded to Build 115 Miles of Border Wall in Texas
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't award shit. You're a dupe.
> 
> AP FACT CHECK: Trump confuses, misleads on border wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fact, new wall is being built and improvements are being made. You can play semantics all day, that doesn't change the facts.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not playing semantics. You were lied to about the liar in chief awarding a contract for 115 miles of border wall. He lied to your face and you love it.
> 
> The shit that is being built or renovated today was ordered long before the liar happened upon the "build a wall" campaign gimmick.
> 
> Moron.
Click to expand...



Wow, your own link proves you're lying. The contracts discussed in the article weren't let more than 2 years ago.

.


----------



## LoneLaugher

OKTexas said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will believe anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump Says Contract Awarded to Build 115 Miles of Border Wall in Texas
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't award shit. You're a dupe.
> 
> AP FACT CHECK: Trump confuses, misleads on border wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fact, new wall is being built and improvements are being made. You can play semantics all day, that doesn't change the facts.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not playing semantics. You were lied to about the liar in chief awarding a contract for 115 miles of border wall. He lied to your face and you love it.
> 
> The shit that is being built or renovated today was ordered long before the liar happened upon the "build a wall" campaign gimmick.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, your own link proves you're lying. The contracts discussed in the article weren't let more than 2 years ago.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


They were part of the Secyre Fence Act. They have nothing to do with Trump and he awarded nothing. 

He lied to you. You ask for more. 

BTW, in future History texts, morons like you who supported the idea of a wall will be mocked and ridiculed. The chapter will be entitled "What Were They Thinking?". Subtitle: "Were They Thinking?"


----------



## OKTexas

LoneLaugher said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump Says Contract Awarded to Build 115 Miles of Border Wall in Texas
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't award shit. You're a dupe.
> 
> AP FACT CHECK: Trump confuses, misleads on border wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fact, new wall is being built and improvements are being made. You can play semantics all day, that doesn't change the facts.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not playing semantics. You were lied to about the liar in chief awarding a contract for 115 miles of border wall. He lied to your face and you love it.
> 
> The shit that is being built or renovated today was ordered long before the liar happened upon the "build a wall" campaign gimmick.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, your own link proves you're lying. The contracts discussed in the article weren't let more than 2 years ago.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were part of the Secyre Fence Act. They have nothing to do with Trump and he awarded nothing.
> 
> He lied to you. You ask for more.
> 
> BTW, in future History texts, morons like you who supported the idea of a wall will be mocked and ridiculed. The chapter will be entitled "What Were They Thinking?". Subtitle: "Were They Thinking?"
Click to expand...



Poor little child, this one paragraph from your link proves that's a lie.



> *In March, Congress approved funding for 33 miles* (53 kilometers) of construction in South Texas’ Rio Grande Valley, the busiest corridor for illegal border crossings.
> 
> AP FACT CHECK: Trump confuses, misleads on border wall


Secure Fence Act indeed. LMAO

.


----------



## LoneLaugher

OKTexas said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't award shit. You're a dupe.
> 
> AP FACT CHECK: Trump confuses, misleads on border wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact, new wall is being built and improvements are being made. You can play semantics all day, that doesn't change the facts.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not playing semantics. You were lied to about the liar in chief awarding a contract for 115 miles of border wall. He lied to your face and you love it.
> 
> The shit that is being built or renovated today was ordered long before the liar happened upon the "build a wall" campaign gimmick.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, your own link proves you're lying. The contracts discussed in the article weren't let more than 2 years ago.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were part of the Secyre Fence Act. They have nothing to do with Trump and he awarded nothing.
> 
> He lied to you. You ask for more.
> 
> BTW, in future History texts, morons like you who supported the idea of a wall will be mocked and ridiculed. The chapter will be entitled "What Were They Thinking?". Subtitle: "Were They Thinking?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor little child, this one paragraph from your link proves that's a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In March, Congress approved funding for 33 miles* (53 kilometers) of construction in South Texas’ Rio Grande Valley, the busiest corridor for illegal border crossings.
> 
> AP FACT CHECK: Trump confuses, misleads on border wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Secure Fence Act indeed. LMAO
> 
> .
Click to expand...



In MARCH!!!


This is not March. 

Moron. 

Go look at which legislation prompted the MARCH approval of funds. 

Moron.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> People invading our country is a made up issue?  20 million people here illegally is not an issue?  Drug problems in this country are not an issue?  70,000 overdose deaths a year is not an issue?


You are a disgusting, scapegoating racist.

How many more children do you want to die in US custody?


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> No, allowing these people to come here and destroy our country is putting America last.  Protecting our borders is putting Americans first.  Please read my sig line.


This country is being destroyed by right wing lunatics who are throwing out facts and the rule of law.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yet you have no supporting evidence to your made-up claim.  Sure we were pissed about Kavanaugh and what the dirty Democrats tried to do to this honest man, but it's a done issue.  The ongoing issue is the wall.


Kavanaugh is a liar, drunk and attempted rapist.  The fact that you think he's honest, shows your own lack of a moral compass.  Which explains why you're so willing to sell out the country for this bullshit wall that ain't ever getting built.


----------



## Billo_Really

Slyhunter said:


> Tell that to the Democrats who shut down the government.


Spoken like a true piece of shit who can't take responsibility for their own actions.


----------



## OKTexas

LoneLaugher said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact, new wall is being built and improvements are being made. You can play semantics all day, that doesn't change the facts.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not playing semantics. You were lied to about the liar in chief awarding a contract for 115 miles of border wall. He lied to your face and you love it.
> 
> The shit that is being built or renovated today was ordered long before the liar happened upon the "build a wall" campaign gimmick.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, your own link proves you're lying. The contracts discussed in the article weren't let more than 2 years ago.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were part of the Secyre Fence Act. They have nothing to do with Trump and he awarded nothing.
> 
> He lied to you. You ask for more.
> 
> BTW, in future History texts, morons like you who supported the idea of a wall will be mocked and ridiculed. The chapter will be entitled "What Were They Thinking?". Subtitle: "Were They Thinking?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor little child, this one paragraph from your link proves that's a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In March, Congress approved funding for 33 miles* (53 kilometers) of construction in South Texas’ Rio Grande Valley, the busiest corridor for illegal border crossings.
> 
> AP FACT CHECK: Trump confuses, misleads on border wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Secure Fence Act indeed. LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In MARCH!!!
> 
> 
> This is not March.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Go look at which legislation prompted the MARCH approval of funds.
> 
> Moron.
Click to expand...



Move the goal posts much?


LoneLaugher said:


> They were part of the Secyre Fence Act.


Congressional appropriations in March were not part of the Secure Fence Act. Reading is fundamental.

.


----------



## Lakhota

Trump admitted that we don't need a wall.


----------



## Billo_Really

Slyhunter said:


> Trump was voted in because of the wall, that is building power.


Not from the majority of Americans.


----------



## OKTexas

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> People invading our country is a made up issue?  20 million people here illegally is not an issue?  Drug problems in this country are not an issue?  70,000 overdose deaths a year is not an issue?
> 
> 
> 
> You are a disgusting, scapegoating racist.
> 
> How many more children do you want to die in US custody?
Click to expand...



Fuck the children and their criminal parents that are responsible for their deaths. The border patrol did everything they could to save those kids. How many are dying in the desert that you'll never hear about?

.


----------



## Billo_Really

toobfreak said:


> Hey Dooshbag, take your strawman argument and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.  The Berlin Wall and border security to keep out mere illegal traffic and potential terrorists have nothing in common except in those scrambled eggs you call a "brain."  We are far closer to East German without the wall held prisoner of your radical far-Left socialist authoritarian ideology telling us what we will never do.
> 
> It's not a matter of what we want, it is a matter of federal responsibility to protect and defend our border and we simply don't have enough people to stand arm to arm across the south to try to physically stop every invader.  At least the wall will keep the numbers down to a manageable level.  I guarantee you the wall is happening!


Crime has gone down fuckface.  And you're full of shit; you didn't stop anyone from Saudi Arabia from coming in to the country.  You don't stop AIPAC from coming in and poisoning our government.  You don't give a shit about the real problems this country is facing.


----------



## Billo_Really

toobfreak said:


> Certainly.  Good thing for us, building robots to do menial work is an American industry to eliminate any possible need for Mexicans which are NOT Americans.  Never have been, never will. be  Did I go too fast for you?


Tell that to the Americans who build cars in Detroit you prick.


----------



## Billo_Really

OKTexas said:


> Really, a 100 mile section will be beginning the end of Jan. The President said he'll be there for the ground breaking. Puff on that commie.
> 
> .


It would be a lot cheaper to give Texas back to Mexico.


----------



## Billo_Really

OKTexas said:


> You're just not paying attention, the border patrol says they are 95% effective, that just makes you look ignorant. After all, they are the experts. The point is to prevent them for reaching US soil, it costs almost $11,000 each to deport them.
> 
> .


Wouldn't it be cheaper to kill'em in US custody?


----------



## ColonelAngus

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just not paying attention, the border patrol says they are 95% effective, that just makes you look ignorant. After all, they are the experts. The point is to prevent them for reaching US soil, it costs almost $11,000 each to deport them.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be cheaper to kill'em in US custody?
Click to expand...


It would be cheaper if they didn’t bring an 8 year old on a 2000 trek with no food or water.


----------



## Billo_Really

OKTexas said:


> They = walls. The border patrol says crossing are reduced by 95% in areas a wall is in place. Does that clear the picture for your infantile brain?
> 
> .


Prove it, you punk ass bitch!


----------



## OKTexas

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, a 100 mile section will be beginning the end of Jan. The President said he'll be there for the ground breaking. Puff on that commie.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a lot cheaper to give Texas back to Mexico.
Click to expand...



Try it, we'd just have to kick their ass, AGAIN!

.


----------



## Billo_Really

OKTexas said:


> Trump Says Contract Awarded to Build 115 Miles of Border Wall in Texas
> 
> .


Are they going to do the work for free?


----------



## Geaux4it

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, a 100 mile section will be beginning the end of Jan. The President said he'll be there for the ground breaking. Puff on that commie.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a lot cheaper to give Texas back to Mexico.
Click to expand...

California, yes..... it would be a blessing to mankind. However, don't mees with Texas

-Geaux


----------



## ColonelAngus

This is what my grandfather escaped from Latvia thanks to Uncle Joe Stalin and FDR didn’t think it was enough oppsession to allow him refugee status. Canada did, and I thank them.

Is this what these people are fleeing in Mexico?

Rumbula massacre - Wikipedia


----------



## Billo_Really

Slyhunter said:


> What will we do with the poor Americans who can't find work? Let them starve in the streets?


You don't give a shit about Americans, so why ask the question?


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> People invading our country is a made up issue?  20 million people here illegally is not an issue?  Drug problems in this country are not an issue?  70,000 overdose deaths a year is not an issue?
> 
> 
> 
> You are a disgusting, scapegoating racist.
> 
> How many more children do you want to die in US custody?
Click to expand...

Of the ones here illegally?  ALL of them.  Then deport the parents.


----------



## Billo_Really

OKTexas said:


> Fuck the children and their criminal parents that are responsible for their deaths. The border patrol did everything they could to save those kids. How many are dying in the desert that you'll never hear about?
> 
> .


People like you, give all Americans a bad name.  

People like you, are the reason others want to fly planes into our buildings.


----------



## OKTexas

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just not paying attention, the border patrol says they are 95% effective, that just makes you look ignorant. After all, they are the experts. The point is to prevent them for reaching US soil, it costs almost $11,000 each to deport them.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be cheaper to kill'em in US custody?
Click to expand...



No, it would be cheaper to kill'em before they cross, better yet why not prevent them form crossing with a wall.

.


----------



## Billo_Really

ColonelAngus said:


> It would be cheaper if they didn’t bring an 8 year old on a 2000 trek with no food or water.


Who does a 2000 mile trek if it wasn't a matter of life and death.  People have a right to request asylum.  You have no right to take it from them.


----------



## Billo_Really

OKTexas said:


> Try it, we'd just have to kick their ass, AGAIN!
> 
> .


Like you did at World Cup?


----------



## OKTexas

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump Says Contract Awarded to Build 115 Miles of Border Wall in Texas
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Are they going to do the work for free?
Click to expand...



Ya never know, TX has some patriotic contractors.

.


----------



## Billo_Really

Geaux4it said:


> California, yes..... it would be a blessing to mankind. However, don't mees with Texas
> 
> -Geaux


The only good thing to ever come out of Texas, was SRV.


----------



## Billo_Really

Tipsycatlover said:


> Of the ones here illegally?  ALL of them.  Then deport the parents.


But keep the 19 from Saudi Arabia?


----------



## ColonelAngus

Billo_Really said:


> ColonelAngus said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be cheaper if they didn’t bring an 8 year old on a 2000 trek with no food or water.
> 
> 
> 
> Who does a 2000 mile trek if it wasn't a matter of life and death.  People have a right to request asylum.  You have no right to take it from them.
Click to expand...


Refer to my Previous post about my grandfather trying to flee Latvia under Stalin.

FDR and Stalin were pals.

For political reasons, my grandfather was not allowed asylum from FUCKING STALIN.

I don’t think these situations are commensurate. My grandfather did not say he would go back to Latvia if the US gave him $50,000....or whatever the 1941 equivalent to that would be.


----------



## Geaux4it

Hey, I just heard stores are no longer going to lock their doors and back yard fences are going to be banned and banks will leave their vaults open for those 'in need'. No more barriers

-Geaux


----------



## sartre play

Should be about planning, pros cons, where when how, cost effectiveness. & what about what we are not addressing while focused on a wall.


----------



## OKTexas

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck the children and their criminal parents that are responsible for their deaths. The border patrol did everything they could to save those kids. How many are dying in the desert that you'll never hear about?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> People like you, give all Americans a bad name.
> 
> People like you, are the reason others want to fly planes into our buildings.
Click to expand...



Here's a prime example of your projection.


Billo_Really said:


> You don't give a shit about Americans


538 Texans have been killed by illegals in the last 7 years, you don't seem to give a shit about Americans. And you're crying about 2 that were killed by their parents by dragging them 2000 miles with uncertain food, water and medical attention to sustain them. So feel free to FOAD.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Billo_Really said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of the ones here illegally?  ALL of them.  Then deport the parents.
> 
> 
> 
> But keep the 19 from Saudi Arabia?
Click to expand...



Thank you Bill Clinton.

.


----------



## Billo_Really

ColonelAngus said:


> Refer to my Previous post about my grandfather trying to flee Latvia under Stalin.
> 
> FDR and Stalin were pals.
> 
> For political reasons, my grandfather was not allowed asylum from FUCKING STALIN.
> 
> I don’t think these situations are commensurate. My grandfather did not say he would go back to Latvia if the US gave him $50,000....or whatever the 1941 equivalent to that would be.


Have you seen that movie on cable called, _*"The death of Stalin"?
*_
That movie is fucking funny!


----------



## candycorn

cutter said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't discuss religion....you have no idea what your alleged faith is all about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got you number, that's what counts. Last week a husband and wife were driving home when a drunk illegal lost control, crossed the median, went airborne and speared into the drivers compartment of the oncoming couple, the husband died instantly. The illegal lived, there you can go to bed with a simile on your face, you unfeeling, un-American bitch.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you wouldn't care about it if the other driver were not an illegal.  More of your faux Christianity on display.
> 
> And you know what?  I didn't have to say or do a thing; you highlight your hypocrisy very well all by yourself.
> 
> As long as you continue to dig your hole...I'll be happy to keep handing you shovels.  Happy Kwanzza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again bitch, anyone drinking, driving and kills someone should be prosecuted for murder, it's not an accident if you drink and drive.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree...but the only reason you're bringing up the tragedy is because an illegal alien is involved.
> And that is just another example of your faux Christianity; that and your hoping someone I know dies.
> 
> How sad you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that illegal had been had not been here illegally, coddled by democrats, that American would still be alive. Simple as that. Your precious illegal killed that man, not some drunk American. Take out that illegal, that American would still be alive. Take out all illegals ane a lot of Americans will not die unnecessarily.
Click to expand...


So if what you guys are saying is true—that you care about the death and not that it happened to be an illegal alien; likely by the time you finish reading this sentence, there will be an American who dies in a traffic accident.  Are you going to update us every time it happens since you care so much about the tragic loss of life?  

I’m guessing no.  

It is a tragedy and there are some bad apples who cross our border.


----------



## Billo_Really

OKTexas said:


> Thank you Bill Clinton.
> 
> .


Don't be dissin' Slick Willie!


----------



## ColonelAngus

If you guys really want to know about Communism, watch that video.

Their methodology has not changed.


----------



## candycorn

toobfreak said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Billy, hundreds of miles have already been put up!  Hundreds more on the way.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen prick, you're not going to turn this country into East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, while the Berlin wall keep everyone who was out, out, because they were out, and everyone that was in, in, because they were in, no ifs, and, or buts, the southern border wall will merely stop ILLEGAL traffic so that we can at least vet who comes into the country to ensure safety and a better class of people who truly intend to contribute and be Americans.
> 
> You could call TRump's wall the anti-Berlin wall.  That assholes like BilloReally can't see that only proves these people are less than idiots.  The Left are a bunch of wind up puppets.
Click to expand...


Great…so we put up a wall, have soldiers walking sentry duty across the top with automatic weapons.  

Make America Great by making it look like East Berlin.


----------



## candycorn

LoneLaugher said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact, new wall is being built and improvements are being made. You can play semantics all day, that doesn't change the facts.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not playing semantics. You were lied to about the liar in chief awarding a contract for 115 miles of border wall. He lied to your face and you love it.
> 
> The shit that is being built or renovated today was ordered long before the liar happened upon the "build a wall" campaign gimmick.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, your own link proves you're lying. The contracts discussed in the article weren't let more than 2 years ago.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were part of the Secyre Fence Act. They have nothing to do with Trump and he awarded nothing.
> 
> He lied to you. You ask for more.
> 
> BTW, in future History texts, morons like you who supported the idea of a wall will be mocked and ridiculed. The chapter will be entitled "What Were They Thinking?". Subtitle: "Were They Thinking?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor little child, this one paragraph from your link proves that's a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In March, Congress approved funding for 33 miles* (53 kilometers) of construction in South Texas’ Rio Grande Valley, the busiest corridor for illegal border crossings.
> 
> AP FACT CHECK: Trump confuses, misleads on border wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Secure Fence Act indeed. LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In MARCH!!!
> 
> 
> This is not March.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Go look at which legislation prompted the MARCH approval of funds.
> 
> Moron.
Click to expand...


Mexico didn’t pay for it in March either; did they?  LOL


----------



## Flopper

Geaux4it said:


> If eh Mexicans continue to invade America, they will become the majority and their way of life will be the new normal. Best start stocking up on your cardboard boxes for future housing.
> 
> Success, we will just be like what they left
> 
> -Geaux


With or without illegal immigration, the number of Hispanics in America will continue to grow due to a higher birth rate and legal immigration.  By mid century, our minorities with be the majority.


----------



## Karl Rand

candycorn said:


> Make America Great by making it look like East Berlin.


Just wait till the drug cartels realise how much money they can make taking passengers on their home made, highly unseaworthy submarines. 
One aspect of this discussion that puzzles me is the significant number of rich, right wing arseholes who hire illegal immigrants as low paid servants whilst screaming about them coming into the US. Something doesn’t add up.


----------



## Karl Rand

Flopper said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> If eh Mexicans continue to invade America, they will become the majority and their way of life will be the new normal. Best start stocking up on your cardboard boxes for future housing.
> 
> Success, we will just be like what they left
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> With or without illegal immigration, the number of Hispanics in America will continue to grow due to a higher birth rate and legal immigration.  By mid century, our minorities with be the majority.
Click to expand...

Just be thankful they aren’t all muslim.


----------



## Flopper

candycorn said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Billy, hundreds of miles have already been put up!  Hundreds more on the way.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen prick, you're not going to turn this country into East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, while the Berlin wall keep everyone who was out, out, because they were out, and everyone that was in, in, because they were in, no ifs, and, or buts, the southern border wall will merely stop ILLEGAL traffic so that we can at least vet who comes into the country to ensure safety and a better class of people who truly intend to contribute and be Americans.
> 
> You could call TRump's wall the anti-Berlin wall.  That assholes like BilloReally can't see that only proves these people are less than idiots.  The Left are a bunch of wind up puppets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great…so we put up a wall, have soldiers walking sentry duty across the top with automatic weapons.
> 
> Make America Great by making it look like East Berlin.
Click to expand...

It would be cheaper to pay them to stay home


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> cutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've got you number, that's what counts. Last week a husband and wife were driving home when a drunk illegal lost control, crossed the median, went airborne and speared into the drivers compartment of the oncoming couple, the husband died instantly. The illegal lived, there you can go to bed with a simile on your face, you unfeeling, un-American bitch.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you wouldn't care about it if the other driver were not an illegal.  More of your faux Christianity on display.
> 
> And you know what?  I didn't have to say or do a thing; you highlight your hypocrisy very well all by yourself.
> 
> As long as you continue to dig your hole...I'll be happy to keep handing you shovels.  Happy Kwanzza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again bitch, anyone drinking, driving and kills someone should be prosecuted for murder, it's not an accident if you drink and drive.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree...but the only reason you're bringing up the tragedy is because an illegal alien is involved.
> And that is just another example of your faux Christianity; that and your hoping someone I know dies.
> 
> How sad you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that illegal had been had not been here illegally, coddled by democrats, that American would still be alive. Simple as that. Your precious illegal killed that man, not some drunk American. Take out that illegal, that American would still be alive. Take out all illegals ane a lot of Americans will not die unnecessarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if what you guys are saying is true—that you care about the death and not that it happened to be an illegal alien; likely by the time you finish reading this sentence, there will be an American who dies in a traffic accident.  Are you going to update us every time it happens since you care so much about the tragic loss of life?
> 
> I’m guessing no.
> 
> It is a tragedy and there are some bad apples who cross our border.
Click to expand...



Go back and read the stats form TX, just one State and tell me it's just some bad apples. It's 10s of thousands bad apples, that why we need to know who is coming.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Bill Clinton.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be dissin' Slick Willie!
Click to expand...



His administration was responsible for the Saudis, both letting them in and not making sure they left when they were suppose to. You were bitching about them, put the blame where it belongs.

.


----------



## Geaux4it

Karl Rand said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> If eh Mexicans continue to invade America, they will become the majority and their way of life will be the new normal. Best start stocking up on your cardboard boxes for future housing.
> 
> Success, we will just be like what they left
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> With or without illegal immigration, the number of Hispanics in America will continue to grow due to a higher birth rate and legal immigration.  By mid century, our minorities with be the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just be thankful they aren’t all muslim.
Click to expand...

I agree. For the record, the Hispanic employees (legal kind) I had would outwork my black employees routinely. 

-Geaux


----------



## LoneLaugher

OKTexas said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not playing semantics. You were lied to about the liar in chief awarding a contract for 115 miles of border wall. He lied to your face and you love it.
> 
> The shit that is being built or renovated today was ordered long before the liar happened upon the "build a wall" campaign gimmick.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, your own link proves you're lying. The contracts discussed in the article weren't let more than 2 years ago.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were part of the Secyre Fence Act. They have nothing to do with Trump and he awarded nothing.
> 
> He lied to you. You ask for more.
> 
> BTW, in future History texts, morons like you who supported the idea of a wall will be mocked and ridiculed. The chapter will be entitled "What Were They Thinking?". Subtitle: "Were They Thinking?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor little child, this one paragraph from your link proves that's a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In March, Congress approved funding for 33 miles* (53 kilometers) of construction in South Texas’ Rio Grande Valley, the busiest corridor for illegal border crossings.
> 
> AP FACT CHECK: Trump confuses, misleads on border wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Secure Fence Act indeed. LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In MARCH!!!
> 
> 
> This is not March.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Go look at which legislation prompted the MARCH approval of funds.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Move the goal posts much?
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were part of the Secyre Fence Act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congressional appropriations in March were not part of the Secure Fence Act. Reading is fundamental.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Sure they were. Did you check?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> cutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've got you number, that's what counts. Last week a husband and wife were driving home when a drunk illegal lost control, crossed the median, went airborne and speared into the drivers compartment of the oncoming couple, the husband died instantly. The illegal lived, there you can go to bed with a simile on your face, you unfeeling, un-American bitch.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you wouldn't care about it if the other driver were not an illegal.  More of your faux Christianity on display.
> 
> And you know what?  I didn't have to say or do a thing; you highlight your hypocrisy very well all by yourself.
> 
> As long as you continue to dig your hole...I'll be happy to keep handing you shovels.  Happy Kwanzza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again bitch, anyone drinking, driving and kills someone should be prosecuted for murder, it's not an accident if you drink and drive.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree...but the only reason you're bringing up the tragedy is because an illegal alien is involved.
> And that is just another example of your faux Christianity; that and your hoping someone I know dies.
> 
> How sad you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that illegal had been had not been here illegally, coddled by democrats, that American would still be alive. Simple as that. Your precious illegal killed that man, not some drunk American. Take out that illegal, that American would still be alive. Take out all illegals ane a lot of Americans will not die unnecessarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if what you guys are saying is true—that you care about the death and not that it happened to be an illegal alien; likely by the time you finish reading this sentence, there will be an American who dies in a traffic accident.  Are you going to update us every time it happens since you care so much about the tragic loss of life?
> 
> I’m guessing no.
> 
> It is a tragedy and there are some bad apples who cross our border.
Click to expand...


We try to control our own people from traffic deaths particularly DUI's.  To some degree it's worked.  To be honest, I know few people that celebrate New Years Eve anymore.  Most just stay home.  

However it's different because these are our people who belong in this country and we will work together to find solutions.  That's in contrast to those who don't belong here and break our laws killing Americans.  

I think with sudden tragic deaths, human nature dictates we question how such a death could have been avoided?  Smoke alarms in the house?  Quicker death penalties?  Harsher sentencing for DUI offenders?  OSHA regulations that should have been followed?  A tougher stance on recreational narcotics?  A trip to the Emergency room?  

In some cases, we try to take measures to have things changed so the next death can be avoided.  But when you're talking about illegals and a group of people politically motivated to bring them here, it's almost like you feel helpless about being able to do something.  After all, if it's a loved one of yours who gets killed, the answer to how this could have been avoided is if the person that killed him or her was never in this country in the first place.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> If eh Mexicans continue to invade America, they will become the majority and their way of life will be the new normal. Best start stocking up on your cardboard boxes for future housing.
> 
> Success, we will just be like what they left
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> With or without illegal immigration, the number of Hispanics in America will continue to grow due to a higher birth rate and legal immigration.  By mid century, our minorities with be the majority.
Click to expand...

What you're forgetting is that as Hispanics are in the country longer, they grow more affluent and their birth rate declines.  Only the constant influx from the border keeps their birthrate up.  Once that spigot is shut off, Hispanic will come to resemble typical Americans more and more.  They will also grow more conservative as they age.

There goes the end of your majority.


----------



## Geaux4it

Like Mulvaney said, Democrats like Smuckener, Obamy and Her Thighness Clinton voted for a barrier in 2006. A fence or wall or whatever you want to call it to keep illegals on the Mexico side of the border

-Geaux


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Billy, hundreds of miles have already been put up!  Hundreds more on the way.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen prick, you're not going to turn this country into East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, while the Berlin wall keep everyone who was out, out, because they were out, and everyone that was in, in, because they were in, no ifs, and, or buts, the southern border wall will merely stop ILLEGAL traffic so that we can at least vet who comes into the country to ensure safety and a better class of people who truly intend to contribute and be Americans.
> 
> You could call TRump's wall the anti-Berlin wall.  That assholes like BilloReally can't see that only proves these people are less than idiots.  The Left are a bunch of wind up puppets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great…so we put up a wall, have soldiers walking sentry duty across the top with automatic weapons.
> 
> Make America Great by making it look like East Berlin.
Click to expand...



So for you it's all about appearances and not what works?

.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just not paying attention, the border patrol says they are 95% effective, that just makes you look ignorant. After all, they are the experts. The point is to prevent them for reaching US soil, it costs almost $11,000 each to deport them.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be cheaper to kill'em in US custody?
Click to expand...


The cheapest way is to create a strong enough deterrent so they don't come here in the first place.  Lead by example.  If you put out a welcome mat on our border, people are going to take that literally.  Same holds true for a Not Welcome mat.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Dooshbag, take your strawman argument and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.  The Berlin Wall and border security to keep out mere illegal traffic and potential terrorists have nothing in common except in those scrambled eggs you call a "brain."  We are far closer to East German without the wall held prisoner of your radical far-Left socialist authoritarian ideology telling us what we will never do.
> 
> It's not a matter of what we want, it is a matter of federal responsibility to protect and defend our border and we simply don't have enough people to stand arm to arm across the south to try to physically stop every invader.  At least the wall will keep the numbers down to a manageable level.  I guarantee you the wall is happening!
> 
> 
> 
> Crime has gone down fuckface.  And you're full of shit; you didn't stop anyone from Saudi Arabia from coming in to the country.  You don't stop AIPAC from coming in and poisoning our government.  You don't give a shit about the real problems this country is facing.
Click to expand...


So what happened the last time we tried to stop people from the middle-east from coming here?  Oh, that's right, an activist Obama appointed judge stopped Trump.


----------



## Flopper

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look to the facts from a study, on the cost burdens surrounding illegal immigrants.
> 
> “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion.”
> 
> 
> 
> So let's fix that. And let's do it without indulging the shackles of big government.
> 
> The problems we have are the welfare state and birth-right citizenship. Neither of those requires the Berlin wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China / Hong Kong (early 1960s) - 32 km
> Botswana / Zimbabwe 2003 - 500 km
> Bulgaria / Turkey 2014 - 30 km
> Chinese / Korean border fence (under construction) - 1,416 km
> Macedonia / Greece barrier  2015 - 30 km
> India / Myanmar barrier (under construction) - 1,624 km
> 
> Just the facts, and this is to name but a few. However, we are called to follow after other nations on how government faces health care?  Yet a wall is immoral and racist, despite other nations around the globe seeing fit to do so against illegal immigration.
> 
> Explain that one to me.  Anyone?
> 
> Even Harry Reid saw the burden of illegals on our nation, and that was 1993.  Look, liberals lost the cost argument on illegal immigration and now they are to lose on the nation’s border barrier argument.
Click to expand...

The studies of immigration, legal or illegal seem to always focuses 1st generation immigrants since they differ the most from the general population. Second generation immigrants are much closer to the general population.  For example, in 2008 2nd generation immigrants earned and average of $42,297, 32% higher than their parents.  There educational level was higher than national average.  Their use of social programs like their parents was less than than than the national average and their violent crime rate was well below the national average.

Third generation immigrants are statistically about the same as the general population since most American identify themselves as third generation immigrants.  For Hispanic immigrants only 7% of third generation consider themselves Hispanic, Africans 13%, and Asians 15%.
Majority of Americans Identify Themselves as Third Generation Americans


----------



## ColonelAngus

If you ever get your real dose of socialism, you won’t know what hit you and you will be like, “Oh fuck, I can’t make fun of those in power, because I’ll get a bullet in the head?”

You’ll be wishing it all was an SNL skit of Baldwin blasting Trump.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you have no supporting evidence to your made-up claim.  Sure we were pissed about Kavanaugh and what the dirty Democrats tried to do to this honest man, but it's a done issue.  The ongoing issue is the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Kavanaugh is a liar, drunk and attempted rapist.  The fact that you think he's honest, shows your own lack of a moral compass.  Which explains why you're so willing to sell out the country for this bullshit wall that ain't ever getting built.
Click to expand...


Do you buy anything another leftist tells you or are you just making it up to have some sort of point? 

Kavanaugh did drink.  So what?  I drink too, but that doesn't mean I'm a rapist.  The man led a stellar life and not even so much as an outstanding parking ticket.  Then some known leftist activist comes out and tries to make a rape claim from over 30 years ago and you believe her.  None of her story checked out, none of her leads checked out, none of her so-called witnesses checked out, but because you hate Kavanaugh, believe her in spite of her terrible acting.  

She erased any posts she made on FaceBook, you can't find one video of her teaching a class in college or talking to anybody.  She digitally fell of the face of the planet before making this claim.


----------



## candycorn

OKTexas said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Billy, hundreds of miles have already been put up!  Hundreds more on the way.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen prick, you're not going to turn this country into East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, while the Berlin wall keep everyone who was out, out, because they were out, and everyone that was in, in, because they were in, no ifs, and, or buts, the southern border wall will merely stop ILLEGAL traffic so that we can at least vet who comes into the country to ensure safety and a better class of people who truly intend to contribute and be Americans.
> 
> You could call TRump's wall the anti-Berlin wall.  That assholes like BilloReally can't see that only proves these people are less than idiots.  The Left are a bunch of wind up puppets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great…so we put up a wall, have soldiers walking sentry duty across the top with automatic weapons.
> 
> Make America Great by making it look like East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So for you it's all about appearances and not what works?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


In the case of the wall, the appearance of an armed encampment is important and, oh yeah, it will not significantly quell illegal immigration.  So it’s a lose-lose.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> People invading our country is a made up issue?  20 million people here illegally is not an issue?  Drug problems in this country are not an issue?  70,000 overdose deaths a year is not an issue?
> 
> 
> 
> You are a disgusting, scapegoating racist.
> 
> How many more children do you want to die in US custody?
Click to expand...


None.  That's why any of these so-called asylum seekers should have accepted Mexico's asylum offer.  They declined. 

That's why what Trump is doing today will aid in avoiding the deaths of those children.  They won't be coming here in the first place.


----------



## candycorn

bripat9643 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> If eh Mexicans continue to invade America, they will become the majority and their way of life will be the new normal. Best start stocking up on your cardboard boxes for future housing.
> 
> Success, we will just be like what they left
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> With or without illegal immigration, the number of Hispanics in America will continue to grow due to a higher birth rate and legal immigration.  By mid century, our minorities with be the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you're forgetting is that as Hispanics are in the country longer, they grow more affluent and their birth rate declines.  Only the constant influx from the border keeps their birthrate up.  Once that spigot is shut off, Hispanic will come to resemble typical Americans more and more.  They will also grow more conservative as they age.
> 
> There goes the end of your majority.
Click to expand...


Over 1 in 4 Americans born since 2007 are of Hispanic descent.  The birth rate can be zero and it’s going to be a problem for the Republcants.  This is why you guys are working 24/7 to suppress the vote.


----------



## Geaux4it

candycorn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> If eh Mexicans continue to invade America, they will become the majority and their way of life will be the new normal. Best start stocking up on your cardboard boxes for future housing.
> 
> Success, we will just be like what they left
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> With or without illegal immigration, the number of Hispanics in America will continue to grow due to a higher birth rate and legal immigration.  By mid century, our minorities with be the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you're forgetting is that as Hispanics are in the country longer, they grow more affluent and their birth rate declines.  Only the constant influx from the border keeps their birthrate up.  Once that spigot is shut off, Hispanic will come to resemble typical Americans more and more.  They will also grow more conservative as they age.
> 
> There goes the end of your majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over 1 in 4 Americans born since 2007 are of Hispanic descent.  The birth rate can be zero and it’s going to be a problem for the Republcants.  This is why you guys are working 24/7 to suppress the vote.
Click to expand...

Not just a problem for republicans, but for America in general

-Geaux


----------



## candycorn

Geaux4it said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> If eh Mexicans continue to invade America, they will become the majority and their way of life will be the new normal. Best start stocking up on your cardboard boxes for future housing.
> 
> Success, we will just be like what they left
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> With or without illegal immigration, the number of Hispanics in America will continue to grow due to a higher birth rate and legal immigration.  By mid century, our minorities with be the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you're forgetting is that as Hispanics are in the country longer, they grow more affluent and their birth rate declines.  Only the constant influx from the border keeps their birthrate up.  Once that spigot is shut off, Hispanic will come to resemble typical Americans more and more.  They will also grow more conservative as they age.
> 
> There goes the end of your majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over 1 in 4 Americans born since 2007 are of Hispanic descent.  The birth rate can be zero and it’s going to be a problem for the Republcants.  This is why you guys are working 24/7 to suppress the vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not just a problem for republicans, but for America in general
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

no


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just not paying attention, the border patrol says they are 95% effective, that just makes you look ignorant. After all, they are the experts. The point is to prevent them for reaching US soil, it costs almost $11,000 each to deport them.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be cheaper to kill'em in US custody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cheapest way is to create a strong enough deterrent so they don't come here in the first place.  Lead by example.  If you put out a welcome mat on our border, people are going to take that literally.  Same holds true for a Not Welcome mat.
Click to expand...

We know most illegal immigrants are in the country to work so just issue more work permits to those without criminal records.  Secondly, the big surge in illegal immigration is coming from central america's northern triangle, which is ruled by the cartels and gangs.  Spending only a fraction of the cost of a border wall to make this area safe would dramatically reduce illegal immigration as well the drug trade.  Change the asylum law so these people have to apply for asylum through their local US embassy or consulate and the caravans would disappear.
Concentrate on ports of entry since this how most of the illegal immigrant population gets into the US.  Lastly change the immigration law to make it easier for people with expiring visas to stay in the US and enforce visa overstays.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just not paying attention, the border patrol says they are 95% effective, that just makes you look ignorant. After all, they are the experts. The point is to prevent them for reaching US soil, it costs almost $11,000 each to deport them.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be cheaper to kill'em in US custody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cheapest way is to create a strong enough deterrent so they don't come here in the first place.  Lead by example.  If you put out a welcome mat on our border, people are going to take that literally.  Same holds true for a Not Welcome mat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know most illegal immigrants are in the country to work so just issue more work permits to those without criminal records.  Secondly, the big surge in illegal immigration is coming from central america's northern triangle, which is ruled by the cartels and gangs.  Spending only a fraction of the cost of a border wall to make this area safe would dramatically reduce illegal immigration as well the drug trade.  Change the asylum law so these people have to apply for asylum through their local US embassy or consulate and the caravans would disappear.
> Concentrate on ports of entry since this how most of the illegal immigrant population gets into the US.  Lastly change the immigration law to make it easier for people with expiring visas to stay in the US and enforce visa overstays.
Click to expand...


All that is nice, but try to get anybody in Congress to do any of these things.  But even if you could, it would be fruitless without a wall.  The wall is the foundation to tackling this problem.


----------



## Flopper

Geaux4it said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> If eh Mexicans continue to invade America, they will become the majority and their way of life will be the new normal. Best start stocking up on your cardboard boxes for future housing.
> 
> Success, we will just be like what they left
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> With or without illegal immigration, the number of Hispanics in America will continue to grow due to a higher birth rate and legal immigration.  By mid century, our minorities with be the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you're forgetting is that as Hispanics are in the country longer, they grow more affluent and their birth rate declines.  Only the constant influx from the border keeps their birthrate up.  Once that spigot is shut off, Hispanic will come to resemble typical Americans more and more.  They will also grow more conservative as they age.
> 
> There goes the end of your majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over 1 in 4 Americans born since 2007 are of Hispanic descent.  The birth rate can be zero and it’s going to be a problem for the Republcants.  This is why you guys are working 24/7 to suppress the vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not just a problem for republicans, but for America in general
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

I totally disagree.  People with Hispanic descent are not a problem.  Third generation Hispanic immigrants contribute just as much to the nation as the native population, probably more.


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen prick, you're not going to turn this country into East Berlin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, while the Berlin wall keep everyone who was out, out, because they were out, and everyone that was in, in, because they were in, no ifs, and, or buts, the southern border wall will merely stop ILLEGAL traffic so that we can at least vet who comes into the country to ensure safety and a better class of people who truly intend to contribute and be Americans.
> 
> You could call TRump's wall the anti-Berlin wall.  That assholes like BilloReally can't see that only proves these people are less than idiots.  The Left are a bunch of wind up puppets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great…so we put up a wall, have soldiers walking sentry duty across the top with automatic weapons.
> 
> Make America Great by making it look like East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So for you it's all about appearances and not what works?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the case of the wall, the appearance of an armed encampment is important and, oh yeah, it will not significantly quell illegal immigration.  So it’s a lose-lose.
Click to expand...



The border patrol disagrees, I'll happily take their word over yours.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> If eh Mexicans continue to invade America, they will become the majority and their way of life will be the new normal. Best start stocking up on your cardboard boxes for future housing.
> 
> Success, we will just be like what they left
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> With or without illegal immigration, the number of Hispanics in America will continue to grow due to a higher birth rate and legal immigration.  By mid century, our minorities with be the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you're forgetting is that as Hispanics are in the country longer, they grow more affluent and their birth rate declines.  Only the constant influx from the border keeps their birthrate up.  Once that spigot is shut off, Hispanic will come to resemble typical Americans more and more.  They will also grow more conservative as they age.
> 
> There goes the end of your majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over 1 in 4 Americans born since 2007 are of Hispanic descent.  The birth rate can be zero and it’s going to be a problem for the Republcants.  This is why you guys are working 24/7 to suppress the vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not just a problem for republicans, but for America in general
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I totally disagree.  People with Hispanic descent are not a problem.  Third generation Hispanic immigrants contribute just as much to the nation as the native population, probably more.
Click to expand...



So how long does it take to recoup the trillion plus spent on the first two generations over 10 years?

.


----------



## candycorn

OKTexas said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, while the Berlin wall keep everyone who was out, out, because they were out, and everyone that was in, in, because they were in, no ifs, and, or buts, the southern border wall will merely stop ILLEGAL traffic so that we can at least vet who comes into the country to ensure safety and a better class of people who truly intend to contribute and be Americans.
> 
> You could call TRump's wall the anti-Berlin wall.  That assholes like BilloReally can't see that only proves these people are less than idiots.  The Left are a bunch of wind up puppets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great…so we put up a wall, have soldiers walking sentry duty across the top with automatic weapons.
> 
> Make America Great by making it look like East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So for you it's all about appearances and not what works?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the case of the wall, the appearance of an armed encampment is important and, oh yeah, it will not significantly quell illegal immigration.  So it’s a lose-lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The border patrol disagrees, I'll happily take their word over yours.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


ok


----------



## toobfreak

candycorn said:


> Make America Great by making it look like East Berlin.




EXCEPT, Candycornhole, East Berlin had its guns aimed at its own people as a prison.  Our guns are aimed outside merely trying to protect our sovereign integrity from illegal invasion.  Big, BIG difference that anyone with an IQ over 43 could see.  Thanks for proving yours isn't.

PUT ANOTHER WAY for the doting Left,* if it's OK for an illegal to invade us simply because we have a better way of life here for them against all our laws, then it is just as OK for me to break into some rich guys home and steal all his jewelry because they have a better life there for me.*


----------



## toobfreak

OKTexas said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Billy, hundreds of miles have already been put up!  Hundreds more on the way.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen prick, you're not going to turn this country into East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, while the Berlin wall keep everyone who was out, out, because they were out, and everyone that was in, in, because they were in, no ifs, and, or buts, the southern border wall will merely stop ILLEGAL traffic so that we can at least vet who comes into the country to ensure safety and a better class of people who truly intend to contribute and be Americans.
> 
> You could call TRump's wall the anti-Berlin wall.  That assholes like BilloReally can't see that only proves these people are less than idiots.  The Left are a bunch of wind up puppets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great…so we put up a wall, have soldiers walking sentry duty across the top with automatic weapons.
> 
> Make America Great by making it look like East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So for you it's all about appearances and not what works?
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Tex, EVERYTHING with the Left is about appearances, because nothing they do ever works.


----------



## candycorn

OKTexas said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> With or without illegal immigration, the number of Hispanics in America will continue to grow due to a higher birth rate and legal immigration.  By mid century, our minorities with be the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> What you're forgetting is that as Hispanics are in the country longer, they grow more affluent and their birth rate declines.  Only the constant influx from the border keeps their birthrate up.  Once that spigot is shut off, Hispanic will come to resemble typical Americans more and more.  They will also grow more conservative as they age.
> 
> There goes the end of your majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over 1 in 4 Americans born since 2007 are of Hispanic descent.  The birth rate can be zero and it’s going to be a problem for the Republcants.  This is why you guys are working 24/7 to suppress the vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not just a problem for republicans, but for America in general
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I totally disagree.  People with Hispanic descent are not a problem.  Third generation Hispanic immigrants contribute just as much to the nation as the native population, probably more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So how long does it take to recoup the trillion plus spent on the first two generations over 10 years?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You guys are comical.


----------



## Aponi

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> More cheap excuses.  You people never seem to run out of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, Ray, they run out of them very fast, then like children, go full circle right back to the argument they started with, as if they never made it before or had it clearly proven wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well so far, we have.........
> 
> These people work illegally and pay taxes for programs they won't collect on.,
> 
> These people work harder than Americans.
> 
> These people commit less violent crimes than Americans.
> 
> These poor people somehow stimulate the economy.
> 
> A wall won't work even though nobody can produce evidence of that claim.
> 
> They will simply buy tall ladders or dig tunnels, and our border security, military nor engineers figured that out yet.
> 
> These people are taking jobs Americans don't want.  Jobs that pay $2.00 an hour.
> 
> A wall will turn us into Nazi Germany or the USSR.
> 
> The only people wanting a wall are xenophobes and racists.
> 
> Protecting our borders interferes in capitalism.
> 
> Most illegals enter through legal VISA's, therefore nothing should be done about other ways they get in.
> 
> I'm sure I missed some you may have thought of.  But the truth of the matter is they are looking for any excuse to have a borderless country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although I did not understand what point you were trying to make, I'll give you a few points so that we can clear this up just for you:
> 
> 1)  Those who want the border wall have been asked WHY they want it.  When those who do not want the wall respond to one PRETEXT, the wall advocates simply change the goal posts.  For example, IIRC when I entered this thread, the pretext for the wall was sovereignty (see post # 951.)  Somebody probably addressed more pretexts, but I think I joined the conversation somewhere along post #951.
> 
> Since then the pretexts have ranged from undocumented immigrants stealing jobs to not paying taxes and from SUPPOSED costs of immigrants (welfare, medical costs, etc.)  to the PRETEXT of safety.  At the end of the day, people like Ray have not been able to articulate a reason as to WHY they support a wall idea.  Respond to the PRETEXT of the day and they invent another
> 
> 2)  WHEN the PRETEXTS are examined and found to be baseless, Ray, and those who support his position, have a hissy fit, wanting us to look at all their supposed evidence that they think supports their position.
> 
> The problem for them is that while China does have a wall, China is also ONE people.  98.5 percent of the Chinese are Han Chinese.  To date, the wall supporters have avoided the QUESTION of what the agenda is beyond the wall.  Say you write them a check for umpteen BILLIONS of dollars to build the wall.  Is the long term goal then to rid America of the third worlders and other foreigners, getting rid of not only the poverty stricken, but say people like Muslims (whose religion dictates that they will either convert or kill us)???
> 
> The second problem for the wall advocates is that they cannot understand why a wall may be effective for one country, but not the United States.  For whatever reason, the build the wall advocates were never taught that America was founded as a constitutional Republic and THE ONLY NATION ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH WHOSE GOVERNMENT IS GUARANTEEING GOD GIVEN, INHERENT, NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, ABSOLUTE RIGHTS.
> 
> You cannot take from one country something you like and then ignore the accompanying things that make their numbers look good.  In other words, if you want to be like the Israelis, then you have to declare a state of war; you have to maintain an atmosphere of distrust, conflict, and chaos so that you can have a PRETEXT to suspend the Rights of the people in order to keep the foreigners out.
> 
> We're not engaged in a war and sensible people do NOT want the POLICE STATE which would be a necessity to enforce the nutty wall idea.  The wall don't just magically keep people out.  Whoever guards the wall must HATE the foreigners so that the guards will not be susceptible to turning a blind eye to those who breach the wall.
> 
> Americans will have to be programmed, Pavlovian style, to HATE the people from south of the border because, unlike the Israelis, we are not at war from the people south of our border.  The Israelis are fighting an enemy who, according to the Bible, have their hand against every man and every man's hand against them.   Those Ishmaelites, the people trying to breach Israel's defenses, are doing so in order to KILL a political enemy.
> 
> In the United States, the atmosphere is much different.  The people coming here from south of the border are finding WILLING Americans to do business with.  It's a mutually beneficial relationship.  It's not like you have to stand guard at the border and kill or be killed
> 
> 3)  The aim of political globalists is to con the Americans into giving up their Rights.  Even when it was pointed out to Ray how, when our Second Amendment Rights were protected, the legal principle protected Sanctuary Cities, he chose to ignore the FACT that the laws required to enforce the nutty wall idea will end up costing you the Rights our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure for us.
> 
> The pro-wall advocates will call Nancy Pelosi a liar all the way up to the point that she says no wall - no way.  The build the wall advocates are generally working in industries where people are actors and negotiators (lawyers, politicians, and people involved in professional wrestling are good at it.)  So, those build the wall people do not understand that the fix is in.  They will get their silly wall, but the Democrats have already been guaranteed concessions on gun control.
> 
> But, like a WWE match, they have to make the "fight" appear real.  One only needs to know where Donald Trump stands, historically, on gun control not to understand that the building of the wall is about to come at an expense of the Second Amendment   And WHEN it fails to make a difference, more private deals will be struck until we have no more Rights under a Republican form of government, but only a Democracy that will be ruled by the "legal" foreigners we're allowing to take over in this country.
Click to expand...


----------



## toobfreak

candycorn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen prick, you're not going to turn this country into East Berlin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, while the Berlin wall keep everyone who was out, out, because they were out, and everyone that was in, in, because they were in, no ifs, and, or buts, the southern border wall will merely stop ILLEGAL traffic so that we can at least vet who comes into the country to ensure safety and a better class of people who truly intend to contribute and be Americans.
> 
> You could call TRump's wall the anti-Berlin wall.  That assholes like BilloReally can't see that only proves these people are less than idiots.  The Left are a bunch of wind up puppets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great…so we put up a wall, have soldiers walking sentry duty across the top with automatic weapons.
> 
> Make America Great by making it look like East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So for you it's all about appearances and not what works?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the case of the wall, the appearance of an armed encampment is important and, oh yeah, it will not significantly quell illegal immigration.  So it’s a lose-lose.
Click to expand...



Just Trump getting elected with his pro-wall stance was enough to seriously quell illegals for a very long time.  Just imagine what the wall would do.  You think invite them?????????


----------



## candycorn

toobfreak said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make America Great by making it look like East Berlin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCEPT, Candycornhole, East Berlin had its guns aimed at its own people as a prison.  Our guns are aimed outside merely trying to protect our sovereign integrity from illegal invasion.  Big, BIG difference that anyone with an IQ over 43 could see.  Thanks for proving yours isn't.
> 
> PUT ANOTHER WAY for the doting Left,* if it's OK for an illegal to invade us simply because we have a better way of life here for them against all our laws, then it is just as OK for me to break into some rich guys home and steal all his jewelry because they have a better life there for me.*
Click to expand...


Yeah…makes a huge difference; the specter of this wall with armed troops carrying automatic weapons looking left is much more attractive than them looking to the right.


----------



## Aponi

No one said a wall would magically keep people out but it would seriously slow illegals down if it was build right and it would slow the flow of drugs .
Again a 20 percent reduction in illegals and drugs would safe 7s7s billions a year.yyear.you just cant handle the truth


----------



## Slyhunter

Geaux4it said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> If eh Mexicans continue to invade America, they will become the majority and their way of life will be the new normal. Best start stocking up on your cardboard boxes for future housing.
> 
> Success, we will just be like what they left
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> With or without illegal immigration, the number of Hispanics in America will continue to grow due to a higher birth rate and legal immigration.  By mid century, our minorities with be the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you're forgetting is that as Hispanics are in the country longer, they grow more affluent and their birth rate declines.  Only the constant influx from the border keeps their birthrate up.  Once that spigot is shut off, Hispanic will come to resemble typical Americans more and more.  They will also grow more conservative as they age.
> 
> There goes the end of your majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over 1 in 4 Americans born since 2007 are of Hispanic descent.  The birth rate can be zero and it’s going to be a problem for the Republcants.  This is why you guys are working 24/7 to suppress the vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not just a problem for republicans, but for America in general
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

Hispanic Americans are Republicans too. It's racist to automatically assume they'll be Progressives.


----------



## toobfreak

candycorn said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make America Great by making it look like East Berlin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCEPT, Candycornhole, East Berlin had its guns aimed at its own people as a prison.  Our guns are aimed outside merely trying to protect our sovereign integrity from illegal invasion.  Big, BIG difference that anyone with an IQ over 43 could see.  Thanks for proving yours isn't.
> 
> PUT ANOTHER WAY for the doting Left,* if it's OK for an illegal to invade us simply because we have a better way of life here for them against all our laws, then it is just as OK for me to break into some rich guys home and steal all his jewelry because they have a better life there for me.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah…makes a huge difference; the specter of this wall with armed troops carrying automatic weapons looking left is much more attractive than them looking to the right.
Click to expand...



Yeah, corndog, that's like claiming that the specter of having stealth bombers flying overhead in your defense is no different than them coming aimed at you.  Just why aren't you out protesting every federal prison where armed men patrol in towers behind locked gates, barbed wire and a high wall?  After all, aren't these people infringing on YOUR liberties and sensibilities just as much as the Border Patrol turning our nation into an East Berlin?

According to you, Corncob, we should have open prisons where people voluntarily come and go.  Maybe you'll check yourself in.  You know, for a better way of life.


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just not paying attention, the border patrol says they are 95% effective, that just makes you look ignorant. After all, they are the experts. The point is to prevent them for reaching US soil, it costs almost $11,000 each to deport them.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be cheaper to kill'em in US custody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cheapest way is to create a strong enough deterrent so they don't come here in the first place.  Lead by example.  If you put out a welcome mat on our border, people are going to take that literally.  Same holds true for a Not Welcome mat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know most illegal immigrants are in the country to work so just issue more work permits to those without criminal records.  Secondly, the big surge in illegal immigration is coming from central america's northern triangle, which is ruled by the cartels and gangs.  Spending only a fraction of the cost of a border wall to make this area safe would dramatically reduce illegal immigration as well the drug trade.  Change the asylum law so these people have to apply for asylum through their local US embassy or consulate and the caravans would disappear.
> Concentrate on ports of entry since this how most of the illegal immigrant population gets into the US.  Lastly change the immigration law to make it easier for people with expiring visas to stay in the US and enforce visa overstays.
Click to expand...

what about america's working poor? They are already eeking out a living, how are they supposed to make it when jobs are sucked up by your migrants working for pennies on the dollar?


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're forgetting is that as Hispanics are in the country longer, they grow more affluent and their birth rate declines.  Only the constant influx from the border keeps their birthrate up.  Once that spigot is shut off, Hispanic will come to resemble typical Americans more and more.  They will also grow more conservative as they age.
> 
> There goes the end of your majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over 1 in 4 Americans born since 2007 are of Hispanic descent.  The birth rate can be zero and it’s going to be a problem for the Republcants.  This is why you guys are working 24/7 to suppress the vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not just a problem for republicans, but for America in general
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I totally disagree.  People with Hispanic descent are not a problem.  Third generation Hispanic immigrants contribute just as much to the nation as the native population, probably more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So how long does it take to recoup the trillion plus spent on the first two generations over 10 years?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys are comical.
Click to expand...



So tell the class genius, what does 10 X 100 billion total? We spend more than 100 billion annually on illegals. Some estimates go as high as 140 billion annually. The wall is cheap in comparison. BTW so are guards with machine guns.

.


----------



## Flopper

OKTexas said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, while the Berlin wall keep everyone who was out, out, because they were out, and everyone that was in, in, because they were in, no ifs, and, or buts, the southern border wall will merely stop ILLEGAL traffic so that we can at least vet who comes into the country to ensure safety and a better class of people who truly intend to contribute and be Americans.
> 
> You could call TRump's wall the anti-Berlin wall.  That assholes like BilloReally can't see that only proves these people are less than idiots.  The Left are a bunch of wind up puppets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great…so we put up a wall, have soldiers walking sentry duty across the top with automatic weapons.
> 
> Make America Great by making it look like East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So for you it's all about appearances and not what works?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the case of the wall, the appearance of an armed encampment is important and, oh yeah, it will not significantly quell illegal immigration.  So it’s a lose-lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The border patrol disagrees, I'll happily take their word over yours.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

You really think the border patrol would disagree with the boss.  Not going to happen.


----------



## candycorn

toobfreak said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make America Great by making it look like East Berlin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCEPT, Candycornhole, East Berlin had its guns aimed at its own people as a prison.  Our guns are aimed outside merely trying to protect our sovereign integrity from illegal invasion.  Big, BIG difference that anyone with an IQ over 43 could see.  Thanks for proving yours isn't.
> 
> PUT ANOTHER WAY for the doting Left,* if it's OK for an illegal to invade us simply because we have a better way of life here for them against all our laws, then it is just as OK for me to break into some rich guys home and steal all his jewelry because they have a better life there for me.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah…makes a huge difference; the specter of this wall with armed troops carrying automatic weapons looking left is much more attractive than them looking to the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, corndog, that's like claiming that the specter of having stealth bombers flying overhead in your defense is no different than them coming aimed at you.  Just why aren't you out protesting every federal prison where armed men patrol in towers behind locked gates, barbed wire and a high wall?  After all, aren't these people infringing on YOUR liberties and sensibilities just as much as the Border Patrol turning our nation into an East Berlin?
> 
> According to you, Corncob, we should have open prisons where people voluntarily come and go.  Maybe you'll check yourself in.  You know, for a better way of life.
Click to expand...




 

Strangely appropriate scene from the Trump desire to make us into Conservistan.


----------



## candycorn

OKTexas said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over 1 in 4 Americans born since 2007 are of Hispanic descent.  The birth rate can be zero and it’s going to be a problem for the Republcants.  This is why you guys are working 24/7 to suppress the vote.
> 
> 
> 
> Not just a problem for republicans, but for America in general
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I totally disagree.  People with Hispanic descent are not a problem.  Third generation Hispanic immigrants contribute just as much to the nation as the native population, probably more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So how long does it take to recoup the trillion plus spent on the first two generations over 10 years?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys are comical.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So tell the class genius, what does 10 X 100 billion total? We spend more than 100 billion annually on illegals. Some estimates go as high as 140 billion annually. The wall is cheap in comparison. BTW so are guards with machine guns.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


If you believe $100B (sometimes its $143 Billion, sometimes it’s 80 billion; I wish you guys could agree on a fable) is being sucked out of the economy and has been for some time…you’re all day stupid.


----------



## candycorn

toobfreak said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make America Great by making it look like East Berlin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCEPT, Candycornhole, East Berlin had its guns aimed at its own people as a prison.  Our guns are aimed outside merely trying to protect our sovereign integrity from illegal invasion.  Big, BIG difference that anyone with an IQ over 43 could see.  Thanks for proving yours isn't.
> 
> PUT ANOTHER WAY for the doting Left,* if it's OK for an illegal to invade us simply because we have a better way of life here for them against all our laws, then it is just as OK for me to break into some rich guys home and steal all his jewelry because they have a better life there for me.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah…makes a huge difference; the specter of this wall with armed troops carrying automatic weapons looking left is much more attractive than them looking to the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, corndog, that's like claiming that the specter of having stealth bombers flying overhead in your defense is no different than them coming aimed at you.  Just why aren't you out protesting every federal prison where armed men patrol in towers behind locked gates, barbed wire and a high wall?  After all, aren't these people infringing on YOUR liberties and sensibilities just as much as the Border Patrol turning our nation into an East Berlin?
> 
> According to you, Corncob, we should have open prisons where people voluntarily come and go.  Maybe you'll check yourself in.  You know, for a better way of life.
Click to expand...


Possibly the lamest analogy ever.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

toobfreak said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen prick, you're not going to turn this country into East Berlin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, while the Berlin wall keep everyone who was out, out, because they were out, and everyone that was in, in, because they were in, no ifs, and, or buts, the southern border wall will merely stop ILLEGAL traffic so that we can at least vet who comes into the country to ensure safety and a better class of people who truly intend to contribute and be Americans.
> 
> You could call TRump's wall the anti-Berlin wall.  That assholes like BilloReally can't see that only proves these people are less than idiots.  The Left are a bunch of wind up puppets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great…so we put up a wall, have soldiers walking sentry duty across the top with automatic weapons.
> 
> Make America Great by making it look like East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So for you it's all about appearances and not what works?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tex, EVERYTHING with the Left is about appearances, because nothing they do ever works.
Click to expand...


_*"Folks, liberals measure success by intent.  Conservatives measure success by results."*_
Rush Limbaugh


----------



## Flopper

Aponi said:


> No one said a wall would magically keep people out but it would seriously slow illegals down if it was build right and it would slow the flow of drugs .
> Again a 20 percent reduction in illegals and drugs would safe 7s7s billions a year.yyear.you just cant handle the truth


With half the illegals in the country coming in legally and only a 20% drop in illegal entry it wouldn't be worth 25 or 30 billion dollars, particular when you consider that whenever democrats get control, they're going to reform immigration and the wall will be joke.


----------



## candycorn

Ray From Cleveland said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, while the Berlin wall keep everyone who was out, out, because they were out, and everyone that was in, in, because they were in, no ifs, and, or buts, the southern border wall will merely stop ILLEGAL traffic so that we can at least vet who comes into the country to ensure safety and a better class of people who truly intend to contribute and be Americans.
> 
> You could call TRump's wall the anti-Berlin wall.  That assholes like BilloReally can't see that only proves these people are less than idiots.  The Left are a bunch of wind up puppets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great…so we put up a wall, have soldiers walking sentry duty across the top with automatic weapons.
> 
> Make America Great by making it look like East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So for you it's all about appearances and not what works?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tex, EVERYTHING with the Left is about appearances, because nothing they do ever works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*"Folks, liberals measure success by intent.  Conservatives measure success by results."*_
> Rush Limbaugh
Click to expand...


This should be fun to bring up the next time you blame the Democrats for Trump’s failures.   Because if he’s not successful, that means he’s a failure, right?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> If eh Mexicans continue to invade America, they will become the majority and their way of life will be the new normal. Best start stocking up on your cardboard boxes for future housing.
> 
> Success, we will just be like what they left
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> With or without illegal immigration, the number of Hispanics in America will continue to grow due to a higher birth rate and legal immigration.  By mid century, our minorities with be the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you're forgetting is that as Hispanics are in the country longer, they grow more affluent and their birth rate declines.  Only the constant influx from the border keeps their birthrate up.  Once that spigot is shut off, Hispanic will come to resemble typical Americans more and more.  They will also grow more conservative as they age.
> 
> There goes the end of your majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over 1 in 4 Americans born since 2007 are of Hispanic descent.  The birth rate can be zero and it’s going to be a problem for the Republcants.  This is why you guys are working 24/7 to suppress the vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not just a problem for republicans, but for America in general
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I totally disagree.  People with Hispanic descent are not a problem.  Third generation Hispanic immigrants contribute just as much to the nation as the native population, probably more.
Click to expand...


I think you'd probably find that with any group of people.  However it's unfair to others wanting to come here that we don't do anything about people from C/SA.   Just because they border our country doesn't mean they should be able to cut in line which cuts other people out.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sir, you did not like brevity and I don't know if you are just a regular troll or don't understand the way the legal and political system works.
> 
> Maybe, if you would quit lying, we could have a civil conversation.  So let me tell you straight up:  If you will find one sentence where I advocated "doing nothing," I will ask the mods to take all my posts down and I will leave you to say whatever you want. I will permanently EXIT this board.  If you reread this thread and come up with nothing, you will be given an opportunity to apologize for that blatant lie.  OR you can continue to lie and discredit your own position.
> 
> What I've said is that you need a solution that covers BOTH those from south of the border as well as the* 60 percent of undocumented foreigners your ideas ignore*.  IF you ever had a plan, you have never mentioned it.
> 
> What I've said is that the plan must be a PERMANENT solution, not some fly by the seat of your pants idea to build a silly wall with no future idea of how to handle the new set of problems it will bring OR what the agenda is once you figure out YOU WILL STILL HAVE AN IMMIGRATION ISSUE.  And, if the Democrats don't want a wall, they will dismantle it the moment they get another liberal in the White House... but, they won't.  It was their idea first - and even Donald Trump acknowledged that.
> 
> If you want brevity, don't expect thirty years of experience in five sentences or less.  If you want brevity, quit lying and if you still doubt a set of facts, ASK questions instead of making baseless allegations.  You and I both realize that you are not stupid enough to believe I'm on the left.  It's been explained to you.  You can try to filibuster from now on, but the PRETEXTS will be dismantled.  I could keep the overwhelming majority of those people "on their side of the fence" without a wall and *without* blowing BILLIONS of tax dollars, not to mention screwing my fellow Americans by taking a giant dump on their Rights.  Face it - you will accept socialism, a repeal of the Bill of Rights, or anything else for that precious wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I fail to subscribe to this idiocy of All or Nothing. To say we shouldn't be doing anything on our southern border  because of the other ways they get here is as ridiculous of an argument as one could make.  It's like saying I'm not going to fence off my property to stop intruders because I can't afford an alarm system in my house right now.
> 
> If the anti-white party wants to take down a wall; a wall that taxpayers just spent X billions on, it would reveal to the country their real intentions which is not to stop illegal immigration and show the world they are for open borders.  So they will never do that.  They want to keep their dog and pony show of saying they want to do things and not really do them.
> 
> And as we asked repeatedly, how does a wall have anything to do with freedom, the Bill of Rights, Socialism, or any American rights?  You are just making crap up.  You have zero evidence to support your claims.  It's paranoia delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you bother paying attention?  What makes you lie like a New York politician?  You most assuredly HAVE BEEN  shown how the enforcement of laws related to immigration affect your Rights.  Are you going to force me to repeat the Printz decision (a pro-gun ruling) being used to justify Sanctuary Cities?  Do I have to repeat that to you?  Do you see why my posts to you cannot be brief?  I'll help you out.  Read what I read this morning:
> 
> Trump was right.
> 
> See posts 5 through 8.  Maybe they can explain this so you get the picture.
> 
> Insofar as the all or nothing comment, I'll say this:
> 
> It would be easier and more prudent; cheaper and more likely to pass an idea to Congress a bill that both sides would sign.  The thing of it is, some folks done figured it out.  You've been had and that link above shows that you are about to be in a world of skeet... or how did they put it in the movie Full Metal Jacket?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what that outdoors blog has to do with this conversation.  As for the link that started it, it only explained how Trump was talking about closing down the border if Mexico wasn't going to help.  What does that prove?  The article talked about how gang members were planning to use our systems to enter the country illegally, and thankfully since we DO HAVE border agents, they busted them.
> 
> The border has nothing to do with my rights or yours.  It didn't have anything to do with my rights last year, the year before, ten years before, or even twenty, and extending the border wall won't change that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You live in a state of denial.  WHEN Nancy Pelosi sticks that gun up your arse, you are welcome to come back here and make the idiotic, irrelevant, stupid, and moronic statements you've become noted for.
> 
> Everything associated with that wall will have a cost - and I agree, it WILL be built.  It will be built at a cost to your constitutional Liberties just as that link is also predicting.   If you don't understand the correlation, you should read a few civics books and give it a rest on the posting.  Those posts talked about a HELL of a lot more than what you claim.  You must think that those who agree with you are total idiots and won't check it out for themselves.  You may or may not be right, but if even one of them checks it out, they will begin thinking about the real costs of forfeiting their Liberty for a stupid wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I'll tell you what, if the wall is built and you lose some sort of liberty, start a topic on it and I'll be glad to be one of the first posters to tell you that you're right.
> 
> The Democrats have been trying to disarm America for as long as I remember.  A wall won't change that pro or con.  What secures our rights is not a wall, but an American unbiased Supreme Court which has already stopped Democrats from trying to make it more difficult and costly to secure our Second Amendment rights.
> 
> What you are trying to do is convince us that your predictions are set in stone.  There is no truth to that.  You can speculate all you want, but until you have some sort of evidence of your claim, it's moot just like anybody else's claims are here.  When it comes to politics, you're not the only soothsayer in the bunch.  Just read the topics on this service.
Click to expand...


1)  What you are giving up in order to get the wall is pretty much common sense.  I realize that you have not grown up beyond believing in Santa Claus, but in order to get the wall passed, you have to give up something.  That is simply reality Ray

2)  We've discussed before how the draconian enforcement of the existing laws have eviscerated the Fourth Amendment when the Constitution Free Zone is being enforced against Americans:





3)  Political strategists think like chess players - a game you and I know damn well you don't know squat about.  You're more like the wrestler who allows his opponent to get behind him and outmaneuver you because you do not have the capability to think about what the opponent's next move is in advance.

But, since the build the wall guys don't understand basic legal principles, they are the same people that supported the Printz case in the United States Supreme Court (Hell some of the original Plaintiffs are today build the wall supporters.)    Then, the legal principle followed that local and state LEOs do not have to enforce federal laws which led to the feds not being able to shut down Sanctuary Cities.

In the instant case, since the border will also impose on private property, the LEO community can do a warrant less search on your property on the pretext of maintaining their precious wall.  There goes your private property Rights

4)  Many people still don't realize that this obsession with pursuing undocumented foreigners from south of the border caused the first supporters of their cause to lose in court AND the judge ruled that the civilian border patrol violated the civil rights of the undocumented foreigners who trespassed over private property and entered the U.S. improperly.

The decision in that ruling ended the question of whether or not undocumented foreigners had constitutional rights in the United States.  THAT, like the way the  Printz case was decided in favor of the foreigners, is simply because people like Ray could not think and anticipate:  SSN based National ID, profiling, warrant less searches, undocumented foreigners having constitutional rights, the end of innocent until proven guilty were all confirmed by the courts because people just like Ray want what they want and refuse to be told to think ahead

5)  Finally, in this response, the build the wall guys have argued this is a legal issue (as differentiated from a military / National Security issue.)  NOBODY could talk them out of it.  While Ray is trying to be a smart ass with his comment about my alleged "predictions."  In EVERY case cited above, people on the same side that Ray is on (like the link he tries to belittle) have tried to warn about the consequences predicated on a knowledge of legal precedents.  Ray's kind cannot grasp the fact that they have LOST every single, solitary case regarding undocumented foreigners

6)  With respect to Ray's uneducated and misinformed ideas about the United States Supreme Court and guns, the gun owners LOST EVERY TIME the United States Supreme Court has ruled in Ray's life.

One such case was Heller v DC wherein the Court RULED:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

That ruling is 180 degrees OPPOSITE of EVERY state court's FIRST interpretation of the Second Amendment and fully contradicts the United States Supreme Court's FIRST interpretation of the Second Amendment.  By legislating from the bench, even conservatives have invalidated the Constitution and spit on that document.  But, Ray, is so brainwashed and single minded, he cannot see the truth.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one said a wall would magically keep people out but it would seriously slow illegals down if it was build right and it would slow the flow of drugs .
> Again a 20 percent reduction in illegals and drugs would safe 7s7s billions a year.yyear.you just cant handle the truth
> 
> 
> 
> With half the illegals in the country coming in legally and only a 20% drop in illegal entry it wouldn't be worth 25 or 30 billion dollars, particular when you consider that whenever democrats get control, they're going to reform immigration and the wall will be joke.
Click to expand...


You mean like they reformed it all these years? 

The Democrats are not going to do anything that doesn't benefit them.  And whatever benefits the Democrats is a disadvantage to citizens.


----------



## Vandalshandle

I have bad news for Trumpettes. Mexicans have discovered trucks. They roll a 16 wheeler up to the wall, and put a ladder on it. At the top of the wall, they drop a knotted rope down the other side. In so doing, they have demonstrated that they not only have more intelligence than Donald, but his supporters as well.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> With or without illegal immigration, the number of Hispanics in America will continue to grow due to a higher birth rate and legal immigration.  By mid century, our minorities with be the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> What you're forgetting is that as Hispanics are in the country longer, they grow more affluent and their birth rate declines.  Only the constant influx from the border keeps their birthrate up.  Once that spigot is shut off, Hispanic will come to resemble typical Americans more and more.  They will also grow more conservative as they age.
> 
> There goes the end of your majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over 1 in 4 Americans born since 2007 are of Hispanic descent.  The birth rate can be zero and it’s going to be a problem for the Republcants.  This is why you guys are working 24/7 to suppress the vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not just a problem for republicans, but for America in general
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I totally disagree.  People with Hispanic descent are not a problem.  Third generation Hispanic immigrants contribute just as much to the nation as the native population, probably more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you'd probably find that with any group of people.  However it's unfair to others wanting to come here that we don't do anything about people from C/SA.   Just because they border our country doesn't mean they should be able to cut in line which cuts other people out.
Click to expand...

The number coming  in illegal has no effect on legal immigration numbers.  The rules that lead to the number allowed to enter from a country is set down in immigration law and is independent of illegal entries so no, illegal entries do not cut out legal immigrants.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't possibly want to, we want you assholes to be able to leave anytime you want.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, while the Berlin wall keep everyone who was out, out, because they were out, and everyone that was in, in, because they were in, no ifs, and, or buts, the southern border wall will merely stop ILLEGAL traffic so that we can at least vet who comes into the country to ensure safety and a better class of people who truly intend to contribute and be Americans.
> 
> You could call TRump's wall the anti-Berlin wall.  That assholes like BilloReally can't see that only proves these people are less than idiots.  The Left are a bunch of wind up puppets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great…so we put up a wall, have soldiers walking sentry duty across the top with automatic weapons.
> 
> Make America Great by making it look like East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So for you it's all about appearances and not what works?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tex, EVERYTHING with the Left is about appearances, because nothing they do ever works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*"Folks, liberals measure success by intent.  Conservatives measure success by results."*_
> Rush Limbaugh
Click to expand...


You just defined yourself as a liberal.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're forgetting is that as Hispanics are in the country longer, they grow more affluent and their birth rate declines.  Only the constant influx from the border keeps their birthrate up.  Once that spigot is shut off, Hispanic will come to resemble typical Americans more and more.  They will also grow more conservative as they age.
> 
> There goes the end of your majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over 1 in 4 Americans born since 2007 are of Hispanic descent.  The birth rate can be zero and it’s going to be a problem for the Republcants.  This is why you guys are working 24/7 to suppress the vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not just a problem for republicans, but for America in general
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I totally disagree.  People with Hispanic descent are not a problem.  Third generation Hispanic immigrants contribute just as much to the nation as the native population, probably more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you'd probably find that with any group of people.  However it's unfair to others wanting to come here that we don't do anything about people from C/SA.   Just because they border our country doesn't mean they should be able to cut in line which cuts other people out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The number coming  in illegal has no effect on legal immigration numbers.
Click to expand...


It does if those illegals are taking jobs the legals could have.  After all, if you have all the illegals you want, why would you hire more expensive legals who are governed by our wage and safety laws?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aponi said:


> Prescription drugs are indeed a issue but we canot deny or pretend that meth and cocaine herion and illegally produced Fentanyl are are killers . they all kill and are comming from south America .
> They cost untold billions in damages to our nation yearly



If that was directed at me, you really missed the mark.  I have to keep repeating the same points over and over. Here is an excerpt from a recent sermon (used with permission):

The average American starts their journey with having been prescribed *Adderall* or* Ritalin* for the non-existent condition of ADD / ADHD as a child. By high school they advance to *opioids *(whether legal or illegal.) Some of them will end up on *SSRIs* and mild to hard core drugs from *marijuana* to *heroin*. Many will become alcoholics. By their teens they have twenty tattoos on their bodies and a lot of body piercings; they have acquired a drug habit and a criminal record; they don't have a driver's license nor a high school diploma.

The United States represents 4.4 percent of the world's population and *22 percent of the world's prison population*. Americans consume over *80 percent* of the world's opioid supply. For every drug addict that is in a mental health facility, you have more than *TEN drug addicts serving their time in prison*. We have more people in prison than any nation on the planet.

And so, we have those who will swear up and down that these so - called "_illegal_" aliens somehow manage to wait in long lines all day and break the welfare system *and* steal (sic) your jobs at the same time. They cannot stand the reality that the undocumented workers, by and large, get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number and pay the SS taxes. They pay *$12 BILLION DOLLARS per year* into Socialist Security and will never be able to take one thin dime out in retirement.

The reality is, drug cartels exist due to America's insatiable appetite for drugs. Furthermore, with the bulk of our citizenry being drug addicts, alcoholics, and people with a criminal history with no job skills, no coping skills, no education and an inability to focus they are *unqualified* to be in today's job market. Most of them spend their time in mommy's basement or maybe in government housing, pecking on their keyboards all day long, blaming so - called "_illegal aliens._" While they are suggesting that I join them in taking drugs and drowning myself in booze, I'm more likely to be searching the patches of woods in my neighborhood for the homeless. I'm trying to take those people to shelters, get them into rehab programs, and give them a reason to clean up their act and become productive.

As Americans, the parents turned the rearing of their children over to the doctors and the government. Those people used Big Pharma instead of dealing with dysfunctional homes. Now we have an entire generation of misfits that cannot function. T

Even if we could force the so - called "_illegal aliens_" out and build a wall around America, it could only minimize the numbers of people here. What it *cannot do* is to rehabilitate those who are on drugs and alcohol. It cannot educate those people or do something that would lead to the expungement of their criminal records. It won't get rid of the tattoos and body piercings that make people look like circus freaks. It won't help them to be able to read ten paragraphs and have a civil conversation. It won't help them with problem solving skills.

As long as the government is paying people *NOT* to work - and I have family members (just as *ALL *of you do and some of you doing it yourselves) that accept a government check in lieu of working a job, the real issue continues. It's easier to take that $1200 to $1500 a month (depending upon where you live) and blame those who are merely filling the void you leave behind than it is to clean up your act and become a *productive* citizen. If we get our own cleaned up, rehabilitated, educated, and able to hold a conversation and read a newspaper, the immigration issue would solve itself. So, when people are urging me to join them in the drug and booze culture, you pretty much see what the *REAL *problem is. I started a ministry to address this need to get the downtrodden back on their feet. At this point, we could use a little help and a lot less attitude from snowflakes and welfare recipients Hell bent on blaming everyone but themselves for their own shortcomings. (end of sermon quote)

The build the walls don't want those people to get a second chance; they don't want them rehabilitated.  The build the wall guys want those people to carry around a scarlet letter on their head (the modern version is an inaccurate record of a person's life freely given by Uncle Scam as a background check.)   They want to the foreigners out and then they don't want employers to hire the Americans.  Their position is consistent only with inconsistency.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aponi said:


> No one said a wall would magically keep people out but it would seriously slow illegals down if it was build right and it would slow the flow of drugs .
> Again a 20 percent reduction in illegals and drugs would safe 7s7s billions a year.yyear.you just cant handle the truth



When those against a militarized wall make such claims, they are said to be predictions and simply a guess.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one said a wall would magically keep people out but it would seriously slow illegals down if it was build right and it would slow the flow of drugs .
> Again a 20 percent reduction in illegals and drugs would safe 7s7s billions a year.yyear.you just cant handle the truth
> 
> 
> 
> With half the illegals in the country coming in legally and only a 20% drop in illegal entry it wouldn't be worth 25 or 30 billion dollars, particular when you consider that whenever democrats get control, they're going to reform immigration and the wall will be joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like they reformed it all these years?
> 
> The Democrats are not going to do anything that doesn't benefit them.  And whatever benefits the Democrats is a disadvantage to citizens.
Click to expand...

*The only reason democrats did not reform immigration law when they had the chance was because it was a low priority item with the public.  The only people really interested in immigration were racists whose goal was the supremacy of the white majority.  

Trump of course has created an immigration crisis where none exist.  So when democrats get the opportunity, they are going to have to go after immigration law.*


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Billo_Really said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was voted in because of the wall, that is building power.
> 
> 
> 
> Not from the majority of Americans.
Click to expand...



You shouldn't try to educate the Trump is God supporters.  Trump won because he got the most electoral votes.  He lost the popular vote.

In 2020 the liberals get to change the federal Congressional districts.  By pushing B.S. laws that offend the masses, the Republicans are absolutely guaranteeing they will be in the minority in just about every district in America after 2020.

I'm not a liberal, but once these arrogant build the wall guys get knocked on their ass, they can decide to fight or die.  They are not strategists.  2020 won't come none too soon.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one said a wall would magically keep people out but it would seriously slow illegals down if it was build right and it would slow the flow of drugs .
> Again a 20 percent reduction in illegals and drugs would safe 7s7s billions a year.yyear.you just cant handle the truth
> 
> 
> 
> With half the illegals in the country coming in legally and only a 20% drop in illegal entry it wouldn't be worth 25 or 30 billion dollars, particular when you consider that whenever democrats get control, they're going to reform immigration and the wall will be joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like they reformed it all these years?
> 
> The Democrats are not going to do anything that doesn't benefit them.  And whatever benefits the Democrats is a disadvantage to citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The only reason democrats did not reform immigration law when they had the chance was because it was a low priority item with the public.  The only people really interested in immigration were racists whose goal was the supremacy of the white majority.
> 
> Trump of course has created an immigration crisis where none exist.  So when democrats get the opportunity, they are going to have to go after immigration law.*
Click to expand...


They didn't do anything because it was going in their favor.  Young male men who could fight for their country, kids, pregnant women all came here and got in under Catch and Release.  So the Democrats are going to have to do something (if they ever gain full power again) because Trump is doing what he can to solve this problem.  The anti-white party doesn't want the problem solved, they want it to grow.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, while the Berlin wall keep everyone who was out, out, because they were out, and everyone that was in, in, because they were in, no ifs, and, or buts, the southern border wall will merely stop ILLEGAL traffic so that we can at least vet who comes into the country to ensure safety and a better class of people who truly intend to contribute and be Americans.
> 
> You could call TRump's wall the anti-Berlin wall.  That assholes like BilloReally can't see that only proves these people are less than idiots.  The Left are a bunch of wind up puppets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great…so we put up a wall, have soldiers walking sentry duty across the top with automatic weapons.
> 
> Make America Great by making it look like East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So for you it's all about appearances and not what works?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the case of the wall, the appearance of an armed encampment is important and, oh yeah, it will not significantly quell illegal immigration.  So it’s a lose-lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The border patrol disagrees, I'll happily take their word over yours.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really think the border patrol would disagree with the boss.  Not going to happen.
Click to expand...



Run along child, they've been saying it before Trump and will be saying long after he leaves if you commies have your way.

.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> You shouldn't try to educate the Trump is God supporters. Trump won because he got the most electoral votes. He lost the popular vote.



That leftist argument doesn't fly.  It's like saying because football team A got more yards than football team B, football team A was the better team even though they lost. 

We didn't have a race for the popular vote so nobody planned their strategy that way.  Trump didn't waste time in highly populated liberal areas because it would have been a waste of time, and Hillary stuck to those areas because the others would have been a waste of time for her. 

You can't claim victory over something that accidentally happened.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over 1 in 4 Americans born since 2007 are of Hispanic descent.  The birth rate can be zero and it’s going to be a problem for the Republcants.  This is why you guys are working 24/7 to suppress the vote.
> 
> 
> 
> Not just a problem for republicans, but for America in general
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I totally disagree.  People with Hispanic descent are not a problem.  Third generation Hispanic immigrants contribute just as much to the nation as the native population, probably more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you'd probably find that with any group of people.  However it's unfair to others wanting to come here that we don't do anything about people from C/SA.   Just because they border our country doesn't mean they should be able to cut in line which cuts other people out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The number coming  in illegal has no effect on legal immigration numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does if those illegals are taking jobs the legals could have.  After all, if you have all the illegals you want, why would you hire more expensive legals who are governed by our wage and safety laws?
Click to expand...

Legal immigrants can work anywhere in the country because they have documentation and they will pass verification.

Illegal immigrants are no threat to employment. Adult illegal immigrants are only about 3% of the workforce.  Lack of language skills, documentation, and verifiable previous employment restricts most illegal immigrants to agriculture, housekeeping and manual labor often temp jobs, part time, and seasonal work.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not just a problem for republicans, but for America in general
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I totally disagree.  People with Hispanic descent are not a problem.  Third generation Hispanic immigrants contribute just as much to the nation as the native population, probably more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you'd probably find that with any group of people.  However it's unfair to others wanting to come here that we don't do anything about people from C/SA.   Just because they border our country doesn't mean they should be able to cut in line which cuts other people out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The number coming  in illegal has no effect on legal immigration numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does if those illegals are taking jobs the legals could have.  After all, if you have all the illegals you want, why would you hire more expensive legals who are governed by our wage and safety laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legal immigrants can work anywhere in the country because they have documentation and they will pass verification.
> 
> Illegal immigrants are no threat to employment. Adult illegal immigrants are only about 4% of the workforce.  Lack of language skills, documentation, verifiable previous employment restricts most illegal immigrants to agriculture, housekeeping and manual labor often temp jobs and seasonal work.
Click to expand...


So that makes it fair to the people that did it legally and the right way?  

Hispanic Voters Favor Strong Border: Poll


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look to the facts from a study, on the cost burdens surrounding illegal immigrants.
> 
> “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion.”
> 
> 
> 
> So let's fix that. And let's do it without indulging the shackles of big government.
> 
> The problems we have are the welfare state and birth-right citizenship. Neither of those requires the Berlin wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China / Hong Kong (early 1960s) - 32 km
> Botswana / Zimbabwe 2003 - 500 km
> Bulgaria / Turkey 2014 - 30 km
> Chinese / Korean border fence (under construction) - 1,416 km
> Macedonia / Greece barrier  2015 - 30 km
> India / Myanmar barrier (under construction) - 1,624 km
> 
> Just the facts, and this is to name but a few. However, we are called to follow after other nations on how government faces health care?  Yet a wall is immoral and racist, despite other nations around the globe seeing fit to do so against illegal immigration.
> 
> Explain that one to me.  Anyone?
> 
> Even Harry Reid saw the burden of illegals on our nation, and that was 1993.  Look, liberals lost the cost argument on illegal immigration and now they are to lose on the nation’s border barrier argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The studies of immigration, legal or illegal seem to always focuses 1st generation immigrants since they differ the most from the general population. Second generation immigrants are much closer to the general population.  For example, in 2008 2nd generation immigrants earned and average of $42,297, 32% higher than their parents.  There educational level was higher than national average.  Their use of social programs like their parents was less than than than the national average and their violent crime rate was well below the national average.
> 
> Third generation immigrants are statistically about the same as the general population since most American identify themselves as third generation immigrants.  For Hispanic immigrants only 7% of third generation consider themselves Hispanic, Africans 13%, and Asians 15%.
> Majority of Americans Identify Themselves as Third Generation Americans
Click to expand...

We aren't discussing "immigrants."  We're discussing illegal aliens.  Douchebags like you always like to blur the distinction between the two.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> If eh Mexicans continue to invade America, they will become the majority and their way of life will be the new normal. Best start stocking up on your cardboard boxes for future housing.
> 
> Success, we will just be like what they left
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> With or without illegal immigration, the number of Hispanics in America will continue to grow due to a higher birth rate and legal immigration.  By mid century, our minorities with be the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you're forgetting is that as Hispanics are in the country longer, they grow more affluent and their birth rate declines.  Only the constant influx from the border keeps their birthrate up.  Once that spigot is shut off, Hispanic will come to resemble typical Americans more and more.  They will also grow more conservative as they age.
> 
> There goes the end of your majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over 1 in 4 Americans born since 2007 are of Hispanic descent.  The birth rate can be zero and it’s going to be a problem for the Republcants.  This is why you guys are working 24/7 to suppress the vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not just a problem for republicans, but for America in general
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I totally disagree.  People with Hispanic descent are not a problem.  Third generation Hispanic immigrants contribute just as much to the nation as the native population, probably more.
Click to expand...

In the mean time, they are driving down American wages for 40 years.  You actually only made the case for controlling the border even stronger.  Also, once again, you fail to make the distinction between "immigrants" and illegal aliens.  That's because you're a douche bag open borders propagandist.


----------



## bripat9643

Aponi said:


> No one said a wall would magically keep people out but it would seriously slow illegals down if it was build right and it would slow the flow of drugs .
> Again a 20 percent reduction in illegals and drugs would safe 7s7s billions a year.yyear.you just cant handle the truth


The wall will cut the number of aliens crossing our border illegally by 100%


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I fail to subscribe to this idiocy of All or Nothing. To say we shouldn't be doing anything on our southern border  because of the other ways they get here is as ridiculous of an argument as one could make.  It's like saying I'm not going to fence off my property to stop intruders because I can't afford an alarm system in my house right now.
> 
> If the anti-white party wants to take down a wall; a wall that taxpayers just spent X billions on, it would reveal to the country their real intentions which is not to stop illegal immigration and show the world they are for open borders.  So they will never do that.  They want to keep their dog and pony show of saying they want to do things and not really do them.
> 
> And as we asked repeatedly, how does a wall have anything to do with freedom, the Bill of Rights, Socialism, or any American rights?  You are just making crap up.  You have zero evidence to support your claims.  It's paranoia delusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you bother paying attention?  What makes you lie like a New York politician?  You most assuredly HAVE BEEN  shown how the enforcement of laws related to immigration affect your Rights.  Are you going to force me to repeat the Printz decision (a pro-gun ruling) being used to justify Sanctuary Cities?  Do I have to repeat that to you?  Do you see why my posts to you cannot be brief?  I'll help you out.  Read what I read this morning:
> 
> Trump was right.
> 
> See posts 5 through 8.  Maybe they can explain this so you get the picture.
> 
> Insofar as the all or nothing comment, I'll say this:
> 
> It would be easier and more prudent; cheaper and more likely to pass an idea to Congress a bill that both sides would sign.  The thing of it is, some folks done figured it out.  You've been had and that link above shows that you are about to be in a world of skeet... or how did they put it in the movie Full Metal Jacket?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what that outdoors blog has to do with this conversation.  As for the link that started it, it only explained how Trump was talking about closing down the border if Mexico wasn't going to help.  What does that prove?  The article talked about how gang members were planning to use our systems to enter the country illegally, and thankfully since we DO HAVE border agents, they busted them.
> 
> The border has nothing to do with my rights or yours.  It didn't have anything to do with my rights last year, the year before, ten years before, or even twenty, and extending the border wall won't change that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You live in a state of denial.  WHEN Nancy Pelosi sticks that gun up your arse, you are welcome to come back here and make the idiotic, irrelevant, stupid, and moronic statements you've become noted for.
> 
> Everything associated with that wall will have a cost - and I agree, it WILL be built.  It will be built at a cost to your constitutional Liberties just as that link is also predicting.   If you don't understand the correlation, you should read a few civics books and give it a rest on the posting.  Those posts talked about a HELL of a lot more than what you claim.  You must think that those who agree with you are total idiots and won't check it out for themselves.  You may or may not be right, but if even one of them checks it out, they will begin thinking about the real costs of forfeiting their Liberty for a stupid wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I'll tell you what, if the wall is built and you lose some sort of liberty, start a topic on it and I'll be glad to be one of the first posters to tell you that you're right.
> 
> The Democrats have been trying to disarm America for as long as I remember.  A wall won't change that pro or con.  What secures our rights is not a wall, but an American unbiased Supreme Court which has already stopped Democrats from trying to make it more difficult and costly to secure our Second Amendment rights.
> 
> What you are trying to do is convince us that your predictions are set in stone.  There is no truth to that.  You can speculate all you want, but until you have some sort of evidence of your claim, it's moot just like anybody else's claims are here.  When it comes to politics, you're not the only soothsayer in the bunch.  Just read the topics on this service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  What you are giving up in order to get the wall is pretty much common sense.  I realize that you have not grown up beyond believing in Santa Claus, but in order to get the wall passed, you have to give up something.  That is simply reality Ray
> 
> 2)  We've discussed before how the draconian enforcement of the existing laws have eviscerated the Fourth Amendment when the Constitution Free Zone is being enforced against Americans:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3)  Political strategists think like chess players - a game you and I know damn well you don't know squat about.  You're more like the wrestler who allows his opponent to get behind him and outmaneuver you because you do not have the capability to think about what the opponent's next move is in advance.
> 
> But, since the build the wall guys don't understand basic legal principles, they are the same people that supported the Printz case in the United States Supreme Court (Hell some of the original Plaintiffs are today build the wall supporters.)    Then, the legal principle followed that local and state LEOs do not have to enforce federal laws which led to the feds not being able to shut down Sanctuary Cities.
> 
> In the instant case, since the border will also impose on private property, the LEO community can do a warrant less search on your property on the pretext of maintaining their precious wall.  There goes your private property Rights
> 
> 4)  Many people still don't realize that this obsession with pursuing undocumented foreigners from south of the border caused the first supporters of their cause to lose in court AND the judge ruled that the civilian border patrol violated the civil rights of the undocumented foreigners who trespassed over private property and entered the U.S. improperly.
> 
> The decision in that ruling ended the question of whether or not undocumented foreigners had constitutional rights in the United States.  THAT, like the way the  Printz case was decided in favor of the foreigners, is simply because people like Ray could not think and anticipate:  SSN based National ID, profiling, warrant less searches, undocumented foreigners having constitutional rights, the end of innocent until proven guilty were all confirmed by the courts because people just like Ray want what they want and refuse to be told to think ahead
> 
> 5)  Finally, in this response, the build the wall guys have argued this is a legal issue (as differentiated from a military / National Security issue.)  NOBODY could talk them out of it.  While Ray is trying to be a smart ass with his comment about my alleged "predictions."  In EVERY case cited above, people on the same side that Ray is on (like the link he tries to belittle) have tried to warn about the consequences predicated on a knowledge of legal precedents.  Ray's kind cannot grasp the fact that they have LOST every single, solitary case regarding undocumented foreigners
> 
> 6)  With respect to Ray's uneducated and misinformed ideas about the United States Supreme Court and guns, the gun owners LOST EVERY TIME the United States Supreme Court has ruled in Ray's life.
> 
> One such case was Heller v DC wherein the Court RULED:
> 
> "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."
> 
> That ruling is 180 degrees OPPOSITE of EVERY state court's FIRST interpretation of the Second Amendment and fully contradicts the United States Supreme Court's FIRST interpretation of the Second Amendment.  By legislating from the bench, even conservatives have invalidated the Constitution and spit on that document.  But, Ray, is so brainwashed and single minded, he cannot see the truth.
Click to expand...



The supreme court has always been the largest impediment to liberty of our three branches. Because of the highly politicized cases they hear, there is no effective check on the power they assume. You might want to read Men in Black by Mark Levin, it demonstrates and analyzes case after case where the court has exceeded its constitutional authority. It is a bit of a tedious read though, because of the legal jargon.

.


----------



## bripat9643

Vandalshandle said:


> I have bad news for Trumpettes. Mexicans have discovered trucks. They roll a 16 wheeler up to the wall, and put a ladder on it. At the top of the wall, they drop a knotted rope down the other side. In so doing, they have demonstrated that they not only have more intelligence than Donald, but his supporters as well.


I doubt they are going to do that more than once since the border patrol will expropriate their truck the first time they try it.  See, the wall isn't going to be built right on top of the border.  It's going to be set back a ways, which means that truck will be subject to US law.

When you're making your excuses for not defending the border, you open-borders douchebags keep assuming that no one is going to be guarding the wall.  That's why you all come off as such flaming morons.


----------



## bripat9643

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't try to educate the Trump is God supporters. Trump won because he got the most electoral votes. He lost the popular vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That leftist argument doesn't fly.  It's like saying because football team A got more yards than football team B, football team A was the better team even though they lost.
> 
> We didn't have a race for the popular vote so nobody planned their strategy that way.  Trump didn't waste time in highly populated liberal areas because it would have been a waste of time, and Hillary stuck to those areas because the others would have been a waste of time for her.
> 
> You can't claim victory over something that accidentally happened.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, Trump had more legal votes than Hillary.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was voted in because of the wall, that is building power.
> 
> 
> 
> Not from the majority of Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't try to educate the Trump is God supporters.  Trump won because he got the most electoral votes.  He lost the popular vote.
> 
> In 2020 the liberals get to change the federal Congressional districts.  By pushing B.S. laws that offend the masses, the Republicans are absolutely guaranteeing they will be in the minority in just about every district in America after 2020.
> 
> I'm not a liberal, but once these arrogant build the wall guys get knocked on their ass, they can decide to fight or die.  They are not strategists.  2020 won't come none too soon.
Click to expand...



Your stupidity is showing now, the States do the redistricting not congress and the majority of the State legislatures aren't liberal. In fact liberal States will be losing seats to more conservative States.

.


----------



## dudmuck

bripat9643 said:


> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one said a wall would magically keep people out but it would seriously slow illegals down if it was build right and it would slow the flow of drugs .
> Again a 20 percent reduction in illegals and drugs would safe 7s7s billions a year.yyear.you just cant handle the truth
> 
> 
> 
> The wall will cut the number of aliens crossing our border illegally by 100%
Click to expand...

no where near 100 percent.


----------



## OKTexas

dudmuck said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one said a wall would magically keep people out but it would seriously slow illegals down if it was build right and it would slow the flow of drugs .
> Again a 20 percent reduction in illegals and drugs would safe 7s7s billions a year.yyear.you just cant handle the truth
> 
> 
> 
> The wall will cut the number of aliens crossing our border illegally by 100%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no where near 100 percent.
Click to expand...



Wrong again commie, 95% is near. But I love your mindless meme.

.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dudmuck said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one said a wall would magically keep people out but it would seriously slow illegals down if it was build right and it would slow the flow of drugs .
> Again a 20 percent reduction in illegals and drugs would safe 7s7s billions a year.yyear.you just cant handle the truth
> 
> 
> 
> The wall will cut the number of aliens crossing our border illegally by 100%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no where near 100 percent.
Click to expand...


----------



## Vandalshandle

OKTexas said:


> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one said a wall would magically keep people out but it would seriously slow illegals down if it was build right and it would slow the flow of drugs .
> Again a 20 percent reduction in illegals and drugs would safe 7s7s billions a year.yyear.you just cant handle the truth
> 
> 
> 
> The wall will cut the number of aliens crossing our border illegally by 100%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no where near 100 percent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again commie, 95% is near. But I love your mindless meme.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Commie? That is SO 1991. You seriously need to update your act....


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Vandalshandle said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one said a wall would magically keep people out but it would seriously slow illegals down if it was build right and it would slow the flow of drugs .
> Again a 20 percent reduction in illegals and drugs would safe 7s7s billions a year.yyear.you just cant handle the truth
> 
> 
> 
> The wall will cut the number of aliens crossing our border illegally by 100%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no where near 100 percent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again commie, 95% is near. But I love your mindless meme.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Commie? That is SO 1991. You seriously need to update your act....
Click to expand...


Do you really think so?  The US Communist party supported the last three presidential Democrat nominees, and special love for Bernie Sanders.  I mean........if you can't trust a Communist, who can you trust?


----------



## OKTexas

Vandalshandle said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one said a wall would magically keep people out but it would seriously slow illegals down if it was build right and it would slow the flow of drugs .
> Again a 20 percent reduction in illegals and drugs would safe 7s7s billions a year.yyear.you just cant handle the truth
> 
> 
> 
> The wall will cut the number of aliens crossing our border illegally by 100%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no where near 100 percent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again commie, 95% is near. But I love your mindless meme.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Commie? That is SO 1991. You seriously need to update your act....
Click to expand...



I'm good, thanks. BTW your dear leader said it was the 1980s.

.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, this is a barrier free country, and that's why we have over 20 million illegals here.  If you don't think 20 million people here illegally is an issue, over 70,000 Americans dying from overdoses every year is an issue, Americans losing work and working for lower pay because of foreigners is an issue, Americans getting murdered by these foreigners is an issue, then what is an issue to you?
> 
> I don't like that we spend 70 billion a  year on food stamps either; especially when I see the kind of people using them at my grocery store, but hey......... we keep spending it anyway.
> 
> A wall that we originally wanted is less than half of that, and it's one time only, not an annual thing.
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of those 20 million came in to the country legally, then wound up not reporting to the INS when their visas ran out.  They take jobs Americans don't want.  And you have a bigger chance getting murdered by the alt right, than you do someone whose in the country illegally.
> 
> This is a non-issue.  Only 10% of the most whacked out part of our population wants this wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, if you believe biased polling that wants to convince people of something that's not true.
> 
> Trump won the presidential election because of the wall.  Last midterms broke records for turnouts on both sides.  If nobody wanted the wall, the Republican turnout would have been pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course someone wants a big beautiful wall. However, a lot more people want to know that it will really work, how much will it cost, how long will it take to build it, what parts of the border will have a wall, what is the environmental impact, and what will be done with the rest of the border.  Trump tweets one thing today and something entirely different tomorrow.  That is not a plan.
Click to expand...



So walls are a new concept to people??


What kind of post is that, did they just hear of locks also?


.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Billo_Really said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Billy, hundreds of miles have already been put up!  Hundreds more on the way.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen prick, you're not going to turn this country into East Berlin.
Click to expand...



So Trump going to take away passports?



You are such a propaganda tool and a pussy to boot..

.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Vandalshandle said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one said a wall would magically keep people out but it would seriously slow illegals down if it was build right and it would slow the flow of drugs .
> Again a 20 percent reduction in illegals and drugs would safe 7s7s billions a year.yyear.you just cant handle the truth
> 
> 
> 
> The wall will cut the number of aliens crossing our border illegally by 100%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no where near 100 percent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again commie, 95% is near. But I love your mindless meme.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Commie? That is SO 1991. You seriously need to update your act....
Click to expand...


I've got a copy of the first edition of Mao"s little red book that I can sell cheap!


----------



## Wyatt earp

candycorn said:


> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I forgot to adress your comment that they are white people.
> 
> First so you know im not white.
> 
> Second when we start having the same problem with the northern boarder I would call for the same action.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What problem do we have now that we didn't have in 1969 (50 years ago); strictly speaking of the border?
Click to expand...



200 million people in 1969, 320 million 2018..


.


----------



## Wyatt earp

sealybobo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> Then we need a Canadian wall.
Click to expand...


Why we have a huge flow of Canadian's come here?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> They = walls. The border patrol says crossing are reduced by 95% in areas a wall is in place. Does that clear the picture for your infantile brain?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it, you punk ass bitch!
Click to expand...



So you live in a tent? That's still a fucking wall, live on the streets and when you wake up some Illegal Mexican steals your shoes..


.


----------



## OKTexas

Vandalshandle said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one said a wall would magically keep people out but it would seriously slow illegals down if it was build right and it would slow the flow of drugs .
> Again a 20 percent reduction in illegals and drugs would safe 7s7s billions a year.yyear.you just cant handle the truth
> 
> 
> 
> The wall will cut the number of aliens crossing our border illegally by 100%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no where near 100 percent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again commie, 95% is near. But I love your mindless meme.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Commie? That is SO 1991. You seriously need to update your act....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've got a copy of the first edition of Mao"s little red book that I can sell cheap!
Click to expand...



I rest my case, commie. LMAO I checked one out from the library once, but I wouldn't want to own one, got to know what you sneaky commies are up to.

.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The cheapest way is to create a strong enough deterrent so they don't come here in the first place.  Lead by example.  If you put out a welcome mat on our border, people are going to take that literally.  Same holds true for a Not Welcome mat.


If your life and the life of your family is threatened in your own country and you come here seeking asylum as a last resort, inhuman pieces of shit like yourself have no right to stop them.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So what happened the last time we tried to stop people from the middle-east from coming here?  Oh, that's right, an activist Obama appointed judge stopped Trump.


That's because it was a racist law, you racist asshole.  

I remember when the incoming Bush Administration was warned about people coming in here to do us harm by the outgoing Clinton Administration and he did nothing for 8 months.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> None.  That's why any of these so-called asylum seekers should have accepted Mexico's asylum offer.  They declined.
> 
> That's why what Trump is doing today will aid in avoiding the deaths of those children.  They won't be coming here in the first place.


You're a fucked up, inhuman piece of shit!  I'd rather have them in this country than you.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> All that is nice, but try to get anybody in Congress to do any of these things.  But even if you could, it would be fruitless without a wall.  The wall is the foundation to tackling this problem.


The majority of the country doesn't want a wall.  You ain't gettin' no wall.  Period!


----------



## Billo_Really

toobfreak said:


> Just Trump getting elected with his pro-wall stance was enough to seriously quell illegals for a very long time.  Just imagine what the wall would do.  You think invite them?????????


There is no such thing as an illegal person.


----------



## Karl Rand

Following this I’m made aware of a problem. Those who hate everything Trump stands for just because they hate him, ( and believe me I detest the man) are blind to the few sane ideas the brat in the Whitehouse has that actually make sense. Instance, his stance against China’s theft of intellectual property and the mounting objection to state owned companies such as *Huawei* operating in the US  are positive moves. It may be he’s actually listening to one of his advisors for a change. Let’s hope he doesn’t fire them like all the others.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-...-huawei-and-zte-entirely-20181227-p50ohd.html


----------



## Billo_Really

OKTexas said:


> Your stupidity is showing now, the States do the redistricting not congress and the majority of the State legislatures aren't liberal. In fact liberal States will be losing seats to more conservative States.
> 
> .


Due to republican voter fraud like in North Carolina?


----------



## Billo_Really

Hey dickwad, questions and rhetorical statements don't promote anything!


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cheapest way is to create a strong enough deterrent so they don't come here in the first place.  Lead by example.  If you put out a welcome mat on our border, people are going to take that literally.  Same holds true for a Not Welcome mat.
> 
> 
> 
> If your life and the life of your family is threatened in your own country and you come here seeking asylum as a last resort, inhuman pieces of shit like yourself have no right to stop them.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, douchebag.  Every native born American has a right to stop them.  Furthermore, their lives aren't threatened, only their standard of living.


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just Trump getting elected with his pro-wall stance was enough to seriously quell illegals for a very long time.  Just imagine what the wall would do.  You think invite them?????????
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an illegal person.
Click to expand...

Lame.  This semantic word twisting has already been dealt with.


----------



## Karl Rand

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is showing now, the States do the redistricting not congress and the majority of the State legislatures aren't liberal. In fact liberal States will be losing seats to more conservative States.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Due to republican voter fraud like in North Carolina?
Click to expand...

Something both sides of politics in the US haven’t woken up to yet. Putin is laughing himself stupid since he’s managed to make American politics into a mindless cat fight whilst using his Trump puppet to achieve his own ends. Just about every move Trump has made in foreign policy is from the Kremlin guide book.


----------



## Karl Rand

bripat9643 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cheapest way is to create a strong enough deterrent so they don't come here in the first place.  Lead by example.  If you put out a welcome mat on our border, people are going to take that literally.  Same holds true for a Not Welcome mat.
> 
> 
> 
> If your life and the life of your family is threatened in your own country and you come here seeking asylum as a last resort, inhuman pieces of shit like yourself have no right to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again, douchebag.  Every native born American has a right to stop them.  Furthermore, their lives aren't threatened, only their standard of living.
Click to expand...

If American hadn’t supported corrupt thuggish governments in Sth America for decades and given meaningful aid instead the economic and political nightmare those countries have become wouldn’t have as many wanting to escape.What goes around, comes around.


----------



## WheelieAddict

Why hasn't Mexico paid for that limited amount of new fences yet?


----------



## Billo_Really

bear513 said:


> So you live in a tent? That's still a fucking wall, live on the streets and when you wake up some Illegal Mexican steals your shoes..
> 
> 
> .


There's no such thing as illegal people, fuck-face.


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> Wrong again, douchebag.  Every native born American has a right to stop them.  Furthermore, their lives aren't threatened, only their standard of living.


You're such a fuckin' liar.  As well as a bad American.


----------



## Billo_Really

Karl Rand said:


> If American hadn’t supported corrupt thuggish governments in Sth America for decades and given meaningful aid instead the economic and political nightmare those countries have become wouldn’t have as many wanting to escape.What goes around, comes around.


Ask any Chilean what they think about our CIA?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Billo_Really said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you live in a tent? That's still a fucking wall, live on the streets and when you wake up some Illegal Mexican steals your shoes..
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as illegal people, fuck-face.
Click to expand...


Uhm so you don't know the laws Illegal?


.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, douchebag.  Every native born American has a right to stop them.  Furthermore, their lives aren't threatened, only their standard of living.
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a fuckin' liar.  As well as a bad American.
Click to expand...



A bad American like you who wants millions of Illegal rapist killer Mexicans in this country?

.


----------



## Wyatt earp

WheelieAddict said:


> Why hasn't Mexico paid for that limited amount of new fences yet?




Uhm trump is not a fascist dictator like the Messiah was?


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> We aren't discussing "immigrants."  We're discussing illegal aliens.  Douchebags like you always like to blur the distinction between the two.



Sure we are. We're discussing immigrants and guest workers. The reason there are so many "illegals" here is because the laws limiting entry are too restrictive. If we changed that, if we made it easier for immigrants and workers to enter the country legally, we could focus on the remaining "illegals" knowing that they were up to no good. 

As it is, you have little sympathy for the crackdown on "illegals" because people know that most of them are just trying to feed their families.


----------



## dblack

bear513 said:


> A bad American like you who wants *millions of Illegal rapist killer Mexicans* in this country?



I smell a new band name!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't try to educate the Trump is God supporters. Trump won because he got the most electoral votes. He lost the popular vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That leftist argument doesn't fly.  It's like saying because football team A got more yards than football team B, football team A was the better team even though they lost.
> 
> We didn't have a race for the popular vote so nobody planned their strategy that way.  Trump didn't waste time in highly populated liberal areas because it would have been a waste of time, and Hillary stuck to those areas because the others would have been a waste of time for her.
> 
> You can't claim victory over something that accidentally happened.
Click to expand...


I suppose that if I had a leftist argument to make, you might be right.  You have two problems:

It has been explained to you by more than one person on this thread that I am not a liberal.  So, you don't have a clue as to what is going on in the world around you.

Secondly, whether Trump planned his campaign around right wing congressional districts or not, as it stands TODAY, there are far more people on the left than on the right with the Democrats holding the House of Representatives.  In 2020 Congress redraws the congressional districts.  That is the normal course of business once the Census has been taken.  WHEN that happens, the Democrats will draw the lines to favor the left.

If I were a lefty, i wouldn't be trying to explain the way the world works.  I'd just sit here and let you finish off this country.  So, what has to happen is that you NEED to find solutions that both sides can live with; that the laws you pass will not get overturned to avenge the arrogant and pushy way the right has chosen to use.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you bother paying attention?  What makes you lie like a New York politician?  You most assuredly HAVE BEEN  shown how the enforcement of laws related to immigration affect your Rights.  Are you going to force me to repeat the Printz decision (a pro-gun ruling) being used to justify Sanctuary Cities?  Do I have to repeat that to you?  Do you see why my posts to you cannot be brief?  I'll help you out.  Read what I read this morning:
> 
> Trump was right.
> 
> See posts 5 through 8.  Maybe they can explain this so you get the picture.
> 
> Insofar as the all or nothing comment, I'll say this:
> 
> It would be easier and more prudent; cheaper and more likely to pass an idea to Congress a bill that both sides would sign.  The thing of it is, some folks done figured it out.  You've been had and that link above shows that you are about to be in a world of skeet... or how did they put it in the movie Full Metal Jacket?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what that outdoors blog has to do with this conversation.  As for the link that started it, it only explained how Trump was talking about closing down the border if Mexico wasn't going to help.  What does that prove?  The article talked about how gang members were planning to use our systems to enter the country illegally, and thankfully since we DO HAVE border agents, they busted them.
> 
> The border has nothing to do with my rights or yours.  It didn't have anything to do with my rights last year, the year before, ten years before, or even twenty, and extending the border wall won't change that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You live in a state of denial.  WHEN Nancy Pelosi sticks that gun up your arse, you are welcome to come back here and make the idiotic, irrelevant, stupid, and moronic statements you've become noted for.
> 
> Everything associated with that wall will have a cost - and I agree, it WILL be built.  It will be built at a cost to your constitutional Liberties just as that link is also predicting.   If you don't understand the correlation, you should read a few civics books and give it a rest on the posting.  Those posts talked about a HELL of a lot more than what you claim.  You must think that those who agree with you are total idiots and won't check it out for themselves.  You may or may not be right, but if even one of them checks it out, they will begin thinking about the real costs of forfeiting their Liberty for a stupid wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I'll tell you what, if the wall is built and you lose some sort of liberty, start a topic on it and I'll be glad to be one of the first posters to tell you that you're right.
> 
> The Democrats have been trying to disarm America for as long as I remember.  A wall won't change that pro or con.  What secures our rights is not a wall, but an American unbiased Supreme Court which has already stopped Democrats from trying to make it more difficult and costly to secure our Second Amendment rights.
> 
> What you are trying to do is convince us that your predictions are set in stone.  There is no truth to that.  You can speculate all you want, but until you have some sort of evidence of your claim, it's moot just like anybody else's claims are here.  When it comes to politics, you're not the only soothsayer in the bunch.  Just read the topics on this service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  What you are giving up in order to get the wall is pretty much common sense.  I realize that you have not grown up beyond believing in Santa Claus, but in order to get the wall passed, you have to give up something.  That is simply reality Ray
> 
> 2)  We've discussed before how the draconian enforcement of the existing laws have eviscerated the Fourth Amendment when the Constitution Free Zone is being enforced against Americans:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3)  Political strategists think like chess players - a game you and I know damn well you don't know squat about.  You're more like the wrestler who allows his opponent to get behind him and outmaneuver you because you do not have the capability to think about what the opponent's next move is in advance.
> 
> But, since the build the wall guys don't understand basic legal principles, they are the same people that supported the Printz case in the United States Supreme Court (Hell some of the original Plaintiffs are today build the wall supporters.)    Then, the legal principle followed that local and state LEOs do not have to enforce federal laws which led to the feds not being able to shut down Sanctuary Cities.
> 
> In the instant case, since the border will also impose on private property, the LEO community can do a warrant less search on your property on the pretext of maintaining their precious wall.  There goes your private property Rights
> 
> 4)  Many people still don't realize that this obsession with pursuing undocumented foreigners from south of the border caused the first supporters of their cause to lose in court AND the judge ruled that the civilian border patrol violated the civil rights of the undocumented foreigners who trespassed over private property and entered the U.S. improperly.
> 
> The decision in that ruling ended the question of whether or not undocumented foreigners had constitutional rights in the United States.  THAT, like the way the  Printz case was decided in favor of the foreigners, is simply because people like Ray could not think and anticipate:  SSN based National ID, profiling, warrant less searches, undocumented foreigners having constitutional rights, the end of innocent until proven guilty were all confirmed by the courts because people just like Ray want what they want and refuse to be told to think ahead
> 
> 5)  Finally, in this response, the build the wall guys have argued this is a legal issue (as differentiated from a military / National Security issue.)  NOBODY could talk them out of it.  While Ray is trying to be a smart ass with his comment about my alleged "predictions."  In EVERY case cited above, people on the same side that Ray is on (like the link he tries to belittle) have tried to warn about the consequences predicated on a knowledge of legal precedents.  Ray's kind cannot grasp the fact that they have LOST every single, solitary case regarding undocumented foreigners
> 
> 6)  With respect to Ray's uneducated and misinformed ideas about the United States Supreme Court and guns, the gun owners LOST EVERY TIME the United States Supreme Court has ruled in Ray's life.
> 
> One such case was Heller v DC wherein the Court RULED:
> 
> "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."
> 
> That ruling is 180 degrees OPPOSITE of EVERY state court's FIRST interpretation of the Second Amendment and fully contradicts the United States Supreme Court's FIRST interpretation of the Second Amendment.  By legislating from the bench, even conservatives have invalidated the Constitution and spit on that document.  But, Ray, is so brainwashed and single minded, he cannot see the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme court has always been the largest impediment to liberty of our three branches. Because of the highly politicized cases they hear, there is no effective check on the power they assume. You might want to read Men in Black by Mark Levin, it demonstrates and analyzes case after case where the court has exceeded its constitutional authority. It is a bit of a tedious read though, because of the legal jargon.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I've read it.  It's the point I'm trying to make with the build the wall guys.  As John Adams put it:

"But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”   

We have but one hope with respect to SCOTUS.  It comes in the form of something else Adams said:

“It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights; the principle of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave” –John Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, November 20, 1772


----------



## ColonelAngus

ColonelAngus said:


> If you guys really want to know about Communism, watch that video.
> 
> Their methodology has not changed.



To you cute little Bernie Supporters.  This is your future.  It never fails.

There is no dissent.  Fall in line.  The give in to the state, or die.  It’s pretty simple.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was voted in because of the wall, that is building power.
> 
> 
> 
> Not from the majority of Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't try to educate the Trump is God supporters.  Trump won because he got the most electoral votes.  He lost the popular vote.
> 
> In 2020 the liberals get to change the federal Congressional districts.  By pushing B.S. laws that offend the masses, the Republicans are absolutely guaranteeing they will be in the minority in just about every district in America after 2020.
> 
> I'm not a liberal, but once these arrogant build the wall guys get knocked on their ass, they can decide to fight or die.  They are not strategists.  2020 won't come none too soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is showing now, the States do the redistricting not congress and the majority of the State legislatures aren't liberal. In fact liberal States will be losing seats to more conservative States.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Redistricting is subject to Congressional approval.  And I hate to bust your bubble son, but it is not liberals have been gaining so much ground, but in states where it REALLY matters - places where there are a lot of electoral college votes, the liberals have been taking over districts AND areas near red districts so as to be able to dilute the Republican votes in the future.


----------



## Bonzi

Why is anything wrong?  And who gets to decide?  Please don't tell me majority rules.... how many times has the majority been wrong....?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not just a problem for republicans, but for America in general
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> I totally disagree.  People with Hispanic descent are not a problem.  Third generation Hispanic immigrants contribute just as much to the nation as the native population, probably more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you'd probably find that with any group of people.  However it's unfair to others wanting to come here that we don't do anything about people from C/SA.   Just because they border our country doesn't mean they should be able to cut in line which cuts other people out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The number coming  in illegal has no effect on legal immigration numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does if those illegals are taking jobs the legals could have.  After all, if you have all the illegals you want, why would you hire more expensive legals who are governed by our wage and safety laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legal immigrants can work anywhere in the country because they have documentation and they will pass verification.
> 
> Illegal immigrants are no threat to employment. Adult illegal immigrants are only about 3% of the workforce.  Lack of language skills, documentation, and verifiable previous employment restricts most illegal immigrants to agriculture, housekeeping and manual labor often temp jobs, part time, and seasonal work.
Click to expand...


Ray knows that the undocumented foreigners don't really threaten the job market.  He works in an industry that is woefully lacking in people to fill the many positions available.  There was a tv show on a few days ago showing a sikh that began driving a truck and he was being interviewed.  He said he started driving a few years ago, having borrowed money to buy his first truck.  Now he owns four trucks and a truck stop.

Opportunities are out there.  While Ray wants to do something good for his race - and I dare not condemn him for that, this strategy of making undocumented foreigners the scapegoats for the white man's inability to get his fellow whites off their butts and back into the work force will end in inevitable defeat for him and those following that path to destruction.


----------



## toobfreak

candycorn said:


> Possibly the lamest analogy ever.



Right, candyhead.  You're 100% against the wall as ruining your way of life until I provide many examples where the very same thing is being done all the time all over the place to good effect that you were totally OK with.  Only thing lame here is arguing with you.


----------



## toobfreak

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't try to educate the Trump is God supporters. Trump won because he got the most electoral votes. He lost the popular vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That leftist argument doesn't fly.
Click to expand...


*That argument doesn't fly, Ray, because it is a bullshit argument, used here over and over again (because it is all they have).*  The popular vote only counts or decides anything at the STATE level.  Take away a couple of square miles of area around LA and NYC and Hillary lost the popular vote as well.  Once you win a county or a state by two votes, it doesn't matter if you add 200,000 more----  you've already won.  The democrats have wet dreams about someday making the USA a pure democracy (the popular vote a la mob rule) because they want to be the mob, but the founders were wise and realized that to be president, you should represent the people, so they created the Electoral College so that by winning, a far wider swath of people and states would be represented that never would have any voice in their government otherwise.

In the Left's world, winning would become very easy.  Just win California (LA and SanFran) and New York (City) and every time you've won!  Screw all the deplorables everywhere else.  Why else do you think they are so adamant on filling up states with illegal Latino democrat voters?!  I happen to know a lot of people both in California and New York who DON'T live in those areas (the Valley and upstate NY) and they HATE how these small city areas decide everything against their wishes.


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> Karl Rand said:
> 
> 
> 
> If American hadn’t supported corrupt thuggish governments in Sth America for decades and given meaningful aid instead the economic and political nightmare those countries have become wouldn’t have as many wanting to escape.What goes around, comes around.
> 
> 
> 
> Ask any Chilean what they think about our CIA?
Click to expand...

The CIA played no part in overthrowing the government, asshole.  If they aren't communists, Chileans love the CIA.


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, douchebag.  Every native born American has a right to stop them.  Furthermore, their lives aren't threatened, only their standard of living.
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a fuckin' liar.  As well as a bad American.
Click to expand...

It isn't possible for that to be a lie, moron.  It's an opinion, and it's far more credible than yours.  The theory that foreigners have a right to emigrate here couldn't be more idiotic.


----------



## bripat9643

Karl Rand said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cheapest way is to create a strong enough deterrent so they don't come here in the first place.  Lead by example.  If you put out a welcome mat on our border, people are going to take that literally.  Same holds true for a Not Welcome mat.
> 
> 
> 
> If your life and the life of your family is threatened in your own country and you come here seeking asylum as a last resort, inhuman pieces of shit like yourself have no right to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again, douchebag.  Every native born American has a right to stop them.  Furthermore, their lives aren't threatened, only their standard of living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If American hadn’t supported corrupt thuggish governments in Sth America for decades and given meaningful aid instead the economic and political nightmare those countries have become wouldn’t have as many wanting to escape.What goes around, comes around.
Click to expand...


That's obvious horseshit.  The alternative would have been communism, and we've all seen how that turns out.  What government could be more corrupt or thuggish than Venezuela or Cuba?


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't discussing "immigrants."  We're discussing illegal aliens.  Douchebags like you always like to blur the distinction between the two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we are. We're discussing immigrants and guest workers. The reason there are so many "illegals" here is because the laws limiting entry are too restrictive. If we changed that, if we made it easier for immigrants and workers to enter the country legally, we could focus on the remaining "illegals" knowing that they were up to no good.
> 
> As it is, you have little sympathy for the crackdown on "illegals" because people know that most of them are just trying to feed their families.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  The reason is that both Democrat and Republican presidents have refused to enforce the law.  We don't need to loosen the laws.  We need to tighten them.  

Every person in the world is trying to feed his family.  That doesn't give him the right to do it here.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't discussing "immigrants."  We're discussing illegal aliens.  Douchebags like you always like to blur the distinction between the two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we are. We're discussing immigrants and guest workers. The reason there are so many "illegals" here is because the laws limiting entry are too restrictive. If we changed that, if we made it easier for immigrants and workers to enter the country legally, we could focus on the remaining "illegals" knowing that they were up to no good.
> 
> As it is, you have little sympathy for the crackdown on "illegals" because people know that most of them are just trying to feed their families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The reason is that both Democrat and Republican presidents have refused to enforce the law.  We don't need to loosen the laws.  We need to tighten them.
> 
> Every person in the world is trying to feed his family.  That doesn't give him the right to do it here.
Click to expand...

the law is to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, not immigration. only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## toobfreak

Billo_Really said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just Trump getting elected with his pro-wall stance was enough to seriously quell illegals for a very long time.  Just imagine what the wall would do.  You think invite them?????????
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an illegal person.
Click to expand...




 


*Thanks for proving once and for all times* that you are a total idiot not worth my spit.  Right BR.  Now there is no such thing as a law breaker.    ALL people have some inalienable right to do whatever they please.  Please send me your address;  I want to come there and rob you of everything you have (if you have anything worth taking).  It's my inalienable right.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

toobfreak said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't try to educate the Trump is God supporters. Trump won because he got the most electoral votes. He lost the popular vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That leftist argument doesn't fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That argument doesn't fly, Ray, because it is a bullshit argument, used here over and over again (because it is all they have).*  The popular vote only counts or decides anything at the STATE level.  Take away a couple of square miles of area around LA and NYC and Hillary lost the popular vote as well.  Once you win a county or a state by two votes, it doesn't matter if you add 200,000 more----  you've already won.  The democrats have wet dreams about someday making the USA a pure democracy (the popular vote a la mob rule) because they want to be the mob, but the founders were wise and realized that to be president, you should represent the people, so they created the Electoral College so that by winning, a far wider swath of people and states would be represented that never would have any voice in their government otherwise.
> 
> In the Left's world, winning would become very easy.  Just win California (LA and SanFran) and New York (City) and every time you've won!  Screw all the deplorables everywhere else.  Why else do you think they are so adamant on filling up states with illegal Latino democrat voters?!  I happen to know a lot of people both in California and New York who DON'T live in those areas (the Valley and upstate NY) and they HATE how these small city areas decide everything against their wishes.
Click to expand...


For decades, the anti-white party has been telling their people that Republicans are a thing of the past.  Old white men that are dying off.  People who are stuck in the 1940's.  A party losing political ground every year.  

When Republicans do win, they must have cheated somehow because it just isn't possible.  I'm a liberal, all my friends are liberals, most of my family is liberal, all the people at Starbucks are liberals, and everybody in my state is liberal.  Sure, there are Republicans; here and there; in flyover country, some on yachts, in pickup trucks with gun racks.  But the rest of the country is like me.....liberal.  

The Democrat party cannot tell their constituents the truth, otherwise many would lose faith and might quit voting.  So they need to lie to them.  

Donald Trump:  James Comey, Russian collusion, the Electoral College, third party candidate, unequal campaign coverage, subservient white women who take voting orders from their Republican husbands. 

2010 Republican victory in Congress:  Voter-ID, voter suppression, gerrymandering. 

George Bush reelection:  Diebold machines, gerrymandering. 

George Bush election: hanging chads, selected not elected, brother is the Governor, voter purging.  

Brainwashing dictates they tell their constituents they never lost, they won, it's just the Republicans found a way to cheat them somehow.  Liberals are way too closed minded to see a pattern like I listed above.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, douchebag.  Every native born American has a right to stop them.  Furthermore, their lives aren't threatened, only their standard of living.
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a fuckin' liar.  As well as a bad American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't possible for that to be a lie, moron.  It's an opinion, and it's far more credible than yours.  The theory that foreigners have a right to emigrate here couldn't be more idiotic.
Click to expand...


1)  Despite the irrefutable FACT that this question was answered in court - in a case wherein a civilian border patrol got into a spat with undocumented foreigners trying to trespass over private property and effect an improper entry, you make that blatantly false claim???

Those who were brought into court even refused sound counsel to appeal the ruling

2)  The Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Do you know what the meaning of the word unalienable is?  Can you explain how our Creator (whoever your God is) only gave citizens unalienable Rights? 

It would appear to me that you are historically and legally ignorant on this point.  So, your contention is, only citizens have rights and the government doles them out on the basis of your citizenship?   If that is the case, you could stand on the border and pop the foreigner the moment they set foot on U.S. soil, right? 

I mean, our county government allows us to kill squirrels when they come on our property.  The squirrels are trespassing and have no rights.  So, if the foreigners have no rights, how come you suppose it's against the law to use force against them if they come across your property?  It's because they DO have Rights and it was people that support you who brought that ruling about.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I totally disagree.  People with Hispanic descent are not a problem.  Third generation Hispanic immigrants contribute just as much to the nation as the native population, probably more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you'd probably find that with any group of people.  However it's unfair to others wanting to come here that we don't do anything about people from C/SA.   Just because they border our country doesn't mean they should be able to cut in line which cuts other people out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The number coming  in illegal has no effect on legal immigration numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does if those illegals are taking jobs the legals could have.  After all, if you have all the illegals you want, why would you hire more expensive legals who are governed by our wage and safety laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legal immigrants can work anywhere in the country because they have documentation and they will pass verification.
> 
> Illegal immigrants are no threat to employment. Adult illegal immigrants are only about 3% of the workforce.  Lack of language skills, documentation, and verifiable previous employment restricts most illegal immigrants to agriculture, housekeeping and manual labor often temp jobs, part time, and seasonal work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ray knows that the undocumented foreigners don't really threaten the job market.  He works in an industry that is woefully lacking in people to fill the many positions available.  There was a tv show on a few days ago showing a sikh that began driving a truck and he was being interviewed.  He said he started driving a few years ago, having borrowed money to buy his first truck.  Now he owns four trucks and a truck stop.
> 
> Opportunities are out there.  While Ray wants to do something good for his race - and I dare not condemn him for that, this strategy of making undocumented foreigners the scapegoats for the white man's inability to get his fellow whites off their butts and back into the work force will end in inevitable defeat for him and those following that path to destruction.
Click to expand...


Actually it's liberalism responsible for that.  Giving people the option to work instead of making it a necessity of survival.  

Prior to the election of Donald Trump and Republican Governors who instituted regulations on receiving food stamps, one out of every seven Americans were using them.  That means if you were in a room with 14 other Americans, 13 of you were feeding the other two.  

You are not slick enough to notice what's really going on, but we on the right are.  Making people dependent on the government promotes laziness and irresponsibility.  It's not just white people, but Americans in general that fall into this trap.  If we could ever rid this country of victims and government dependents, the only time you'd hear of the Democrat party would be in history books.  

So when Democrats have any kind of power, it makes sense for them to create more government dependents.  The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters.  DumBama created 20 million new government dependents on Commie Care.  He created another 20 million more new dependents on food stamps.  So during his 8 years in office, he managed to create 40 million more new government dependents on those two programs alone, and it was far from an accident or circumstantial.  

_*"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't"*_ 
Rush Limbaugh


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't try to educate the Trump is God supporters. Trump won because he got the most electoral votes. He lost the popular vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That leftist argument doesn't fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That argument doesn't fly, Ray, because it is a bullshit argument, used here over and over again (because it is all they have).*  The popular vote only counts or decides anything at the STATE level.  Take away a couple of square miles of area around LA and NYC and Hillary lost the popular vote as well.  Once you win a county or a state by two votes, it doesn't matter if you add 200,000 more----  you've already won.  The democrats have wet dreams about someday making the USA a pure democracy (the popular vote a la mob rule) because they want to be the mob, but the founders were wise and realized that to be president, you should represent the people, so they created the Electoral College so that by winning, a far wider swath of people and states would be represented that never would have any voice in their government otherwise.
> 
> In the Left's world, winning would become very easy.  Just win California (LA and SanFran) and New York (City) and every time you've won!  Screw all the deplorables everywhere else.  Why else do you think they are so adamant on filling up states with illegal Latino democrat voters?!  I happen to know a lot of people both in California and New York who DON'T live in those areas (the Valley and upstate NY) and they HATE how these small city areas decide everything against their wishes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For decades, the anti-white party has been telling their people that Republicans are a thing of the past.  Old white men that are dying off.  People who are stuck in the 1940's.  A party losing political ground every year.
> 
> When Republicans do win, they must have cheated somehow because it just isn't possible.  I'm a liberal, all my friends are liberals, most of my family is liberal, all the people at Starbucks are liberals, and everybody in my state is liberal.  Sure, there are Republicans; here and there; in flyover country, some on yachts, in pickup trucks with gun racks.  But the rest of the country is like me.....liberal.
> 
> The Democrat party cannot tell their constituents the truth, otherwise many would lose faith and might quit voting.  So they need to lie to them.
> 
> Donald Trump:  James Comey, Russian collusion, the Electoral College, third party candidate, unequal campaign coverage, subservient white women who take voting orders from their Republican husbands.
> 
> 2010 Republican victory in Congress:  Voter-ID, voter suppression, gerrymandering.
> 
> George Bush reelection:  Diebold machines, gerrymandering.
> 
> George Bush election: hanging chads, selected not elected, brother is the Governor, voter purging.
> 
> Brainwashing dictates they tell their constituents they never lost, they won, it's just the Republicans found a way to cheat them somehow.  Liberals are way too closed minded to see a pattern like I listed above.
Click to expand...


IF America were still white and IF Americans still respected the basics of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution,and founding principles then they could count on being re-elected.  The reality is, when the economy was improving, the Democrats took the House.  In Georgia where a lot of precincts are up to 87 percent white Republicans, a fraction of 1 percent of the votes separated the candidates for governor and the race for Secretary of State had to have a second run-off, neither major candidate getting 50 percent of the vote.  A LOT of races here were decided by less than one percent of the vote.  

I think that when America swings left again, they are going to make you sorry that you had such a cocky attitude.  You should win with grace and style and NOT give your political opponents a reason to hate you.  It only guarantees that they will show up on election day.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you'd probably find that with any group of people.  However it's unfair to others wanting to come here that we don't do anything about people from C/SA.   Just because they border our country doesn't mean they should be able to cut in line which cuts other people out.
> 
> 
> 
> The number coming  in illegal has no effect on legal immigration numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does if those illegals are taking jobs the legals could have.  After all, if you have all the illegals you want, why would you hire more expensive legals who are governed by our wage and safety laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legal immigrants can work anywhere in the country because they have documentation and they will pass verification.
> 
> Illegal immigrants are no threat to employment. Adult illegal immigrants are only about 3% of the workforce.  Lack of language skills, documentation, and verifiable previous employment restricts most illegal immigrants to agriculture, housekeeping and manual labor often temp jobs, part time, and seasonal work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ray knows that the undocumented foreigners don't really threaten the job market.  He works in an industry that is woefully lacking in people to fill the many positions available.  There was a tv show on a few days ago showing a sikh that began driving a truck and he was being interviewed.  He said he started driving a few years ago, having borrowed money to buy his first truck.  Now he owns four trucks and a truck stop.
> 
> Opportunities are out there.  While Ray wants to do something good for his race - and I dare not condemn him for that, this strategy of making undocumented foreigners the scapegoats for the white man's inability to get his fellow whites off their butts and back into the work force will end in inevitable defeat for him and those following that path to destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it's liberalism responsible for that.  Giving people the option to work instead of making it a necessity of survival.
> 
> Prior to the election of Donald Trump and Republican Governors who instituted regulations on receiving food stamps, one out of every seven Americans were using them.  That means if you were in a room with 14 other Americans, 13 of you were feeding the other two.
> 
> You are not slick enough to notice what's really going on, but we on the right are.  Making people dependent on the government promotes laziness and irresponsibility.  It's not just white people, but Americans in general that fall into this trap.  If we could ever rid this country of victims and government dependents, the only time you'd hear of the Democrat party would be in history books.
> 
> So when Democrats have any kind of power, it makes sense for them to create more government dependents.  The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters.  DumBama created 20 million new government dependents on Commie Care.  He created another 20 million more new dependents on food stamps.  So during his 8 years in office, he managed to create 40 million more new government dependents on those two programs alone, and it was far from an accident or circumstantial.
> 
> _*"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't"*_
> Rush Limbaugh
Click to expand...


Ray, you are the most disrespectful and ignorant person posting on this thread.  You've been told, repeatedly, I'm not a liberal.  Yet you continue to knowingly and deliberately lie.

The fact is, when those who want to shut down our borders LOST in court over that question as to whether or not undocumented foreigners have rights, I was on the side that urged those people to appeal that decision.  Where were you at back then Ray?  Which side did you support?  I think that's pretty well obvious.

BEFORE the non-thinking dolts that refuse to engage in a civil conversation came along, judging people by whether or not they support a wall as the only solution, the patriots and the constitutionalists had this issue well under control.  The fact is, if you took all the build the wall guys and put them together, then turned their brains into dynamite, you couldn't get enough charge to blow one's nose.

Collectively, they are too stupid to see that there are a lot of people willing to acknowledge that there is an immigration issue, but disagree with them on their proposed solution.  When they do REALLY stupid stuff, they begin to see that when someone's mind is changed, it is changed to the benefit of the left.  It's not because others don't care about the changing demographics of America; people are changing their views because the build the wall guys are arrogant and power hungry, letting you know that merely disagreeing with the solution will get you killed in their Utopian nightmare.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't try to educate the Trump is God supporters. Trump won because he got the most electoral votes. He lost the popular vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That leftist argument doesn't fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That argument doesn't fly, Ray, because it is a bullshit argument, used here over and over again (because it is all they have).*  The popular vote only counts or decides anything at the STATE level.  Take away a couple of square miles of area around LA and NYC and Hillary lost the popular vote as well.  Once you win a county or a state by two votes, it doesn't matter if you add 200,000 more----  you've already won.  The democrats have wet dreams about someday making the USA a pure democracy (the popular vote a la mob rule) because they want to be the mob, but the founders were wise and realized that to be president, you should represent the people, so they created the Electoral College so that by winning, a far wider swath of people and states would be represented that never would have any voice in their government otherwise.
> 
> In the Left's world, winning would become very easy.  Just win California (LA and SanFran) and New York (City) and every time you've won!  Screw all the deplorables everywhere else.  Why else do you think they are so adamant on filling up states with illegal Latino democrat voters?!  I happen to know a lot of people both in California and New York who DON'T live in those areas (the Valley and upstate NY) and they HATE how these small city areas decide everything against their wishes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For decades, the anti-white party has been telling their people that Republicans are a thing of the past.  Old white men that are dying off.  People who are stuck in the 1940's.  A party losing political ground every year.
> 
> When Republicans do win, they must have cheated somehow because it just isn't possible.  I'm a liberal, all my friends are liberals, most of my family is liberal, all the people at Starbucks are liberals, and everybody in my state is liberal.  Sure, there are Republicans; here and there; in flyover country, some on yachts, in pickup trucks with gun racks.  But the rest of the country is like me.....liberal.
> 
> The Democrat party cannot tell their constituents the truth, otherwise many would lose faith and might quit voting.  So they need to lie to them.
> 
> Donald Trump:  James Comey, Russian collusion, the Electoral College, third party candidate, unequal campaign coverage, subservient white women who take voting orders from their Republican husbands.
> 
> 2010 Republican victory in Congress:  Voter-ID, voter suppression, gerrymandering.
> 
> George Bush reelection:  Diebold machines, gerrymandering.
> 
> George Bush election: hanging chads, selected not elected, brother is the Governor, voter purging.
> 
> Brainwashing dictates they tell their constituents they never lost, they won, it's just the Republicans found a way to cheat them somehow.  Liberals are way too closed minded to see a pattern like I listed above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF America were still white and IF Americans still respected the basics of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution,and founding principles then they could count on being re-elected.  The reality is, when the economy was improving, the Democrats took the House.  In Georgia where a lot of precincts are up to 87 percent white Republicans, a fraction of 1 percent of the votes separated the candidates for governor and the race for Secretary of State had to have a second run-off, neither major candidate getting 50 percent of the vote.  A LOT of races here were decided by less than one percent of the vote.
> 
> I think that when America swings left again, they are going to make you sorry that you had such a cocky attitude.  You should win with grace and style and NOT give your political opponents a reason to hate you.  It only guarantees that they will show up on election day.
Click to expand...


Lots of leftists are fleeing their high taxed states and polluting lower taxed red states.  So unfortunately, you are seeing changes.  

However a large part of change comes from liberalism.  If you look at statistics, less people are claiming to be religious or believe in God.  More people believe in Socialism.  This is especially true of younger people and college kids.  This is the era of "gimme."  

So evil is spreading as planned and we on the right are trying to fight the will of Satan. People are becoming less and less responsible every year.  More and more people want government to handle all their personal and financial affairs.  

I don't know what will happen in 50 years from now, but I"m glad I'll be off this earth by then.  Because the great experiment is coming to an end.  Once Democrats wipe out white people and make us a minority, we will have a single-party government forever.  Socialism will then be the new government quickly followed by Communism.  The only hope I have is that they don't destroy history books like they are with statues and religious items today so people in the future can figure out where we went wrong and how we failed them.


----------



## toobfreak

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Brainwashing dictates they tell their constituents they never lost, they won, it's just the Republicans found a way to cheat them somehow.  Liberals are way too closed minded to see a pattern like I listed above.



Whatever the case, the one sure thing is that the DNC paints the story then their followers carry the water to places like this.  It's like they all read off the same card, sometimes word for word.  As to liberals, I use that word a lot, but I'm careful to understand that a real liberal, libertarian, is not always a real bad thing.  I really prefer to try to keep them distinct from the actual LEFTARD LEFTIST HARD-LEFT, even though many liberals are Leftist too.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't discussing "immigrants."  We're discussing illegal aliens.  Douchebags like you always like to blur the distinction between the two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we are. We're discussing immigrants and guest workers. The reason there are so many "illegals" here is because the laws limiting entry are too restrictive. If we changed that, if we made it easier for immigrants and workers to enter the country legally, we could focus on the remaining "illegals" knowing that they were up to no good.
> 
> As it is, you have little sympathy for the crackdown on "illegals" because people know that most of them are just trying to feed their families.
Click to expand...


Then let them feed their families at home.  Surrendering is never a winning strategy.  It's an admission of failure.  

Having people come here to make money and take it back home might not be devastating now, but this economy won't last forever.  Democrats will be in charge of Congress next week and then we may see harsh changes.  

So what about these people wanting to feed their families when our people want to feed theirs?  Isn't it bad enough we've lowered pay scales by allowing these people to come here?  Now we are going to give them priority over our own people?


----------



## danielpalos

They have Home Depot in Mexico which is our third largest trading partner.

Insist they buy American!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

toobfreak said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brainwashing dictates they tell their constituents they never lost, they won, it's just the Republicans found a way to cheat them somehow.  Liberals are way too closed minded to see a pattern like I listed above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever the case, the one sure thing is that the DNC paints the story then their followers carry the water to places like this.  It's like they all read off the same card, sometimes word for word.  As to liberals, I use that word a lot, but I'm careful to understand that a real liberal, libertarian, is not always a real bad thing.  I really prefer to try to keep them distinct from the actual LEFTARD LEFTIST HARD-LEFT, even though many liberals are Leftist too.
Click to expand...


LOL, they've changed it so many times it's hard to keep up.  

Brainwashing works for the left.  It's why they use it.  It's why when you turn on any MSM channel, they are all repeating the same thing and even to the point of the exact same phrases and words.  Limbaugh plays this on his show constantly.  If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be hysterical.  Here, take a listen:


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Karl Rand said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is showing now, the States do the redistricting not congress and the majority of the State legislatures aren't liberal. In fact liberal States will be losing seats to more conservative States.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Due to republican voter fraud like in North Carolina?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Something both sides of politics in the US haven’t woken up to yet. Putin is laughing himself stupid since he’s managed to make American politics into a mindless cat fight whilst using his Trump puppet to achieve his own ends. Just about every move Trump has made in foreign policy is from the Kremlin guide book.
Click to expand...


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> <snip> IF America were still white ~~~ then they could count on being re-elected.  I think that when America swings left again, they are going to make you sorry that you had such a cocky attitude.  You should win with grace and style.



Dear Porterhouse, *as someone who hasn't any idea if the wall is steel, wood, concrete, Play-Doh or bubblegum,* you sure have a lot to say.  But then, so does a Talking Kathie doll.  But you're sure you could torch, saw, hammer or chew and blow your way through while US Border Patrol just slept away.  Your idiot racist views that you think whites only vote for whites and need a majority of whites for a white to win-----  I vote for the best candidate, and sometimes that might have been a black guy (Alan Keyes) or a woman (Carly Fiorina) if it had come down to them vs. a democrat.

What you're thinking is every non-white:  if a black runs for office, you can be sure 88% of the blacks will vote for them purely on skin color.  Much the same can be said for young women.  It wasn't blacks though that put Obama in office, it was WHITES.

It is almost with disbelief I read shamelessly from you about cocky attitudes and winning with grace and style after the way Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and democrats in general like Rachael Maddow (which NBC has now blocked all the video) acted after losing to GW, and being sure Hillary totally had it in the bag.  You are a buffoon sans pareil.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that is nice, but try to get anybody in Congress to do any of these things.  But even if you could, it would be fruitless without a wall.  The wall is the foundation to tackling this problem.
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of the country doesn't want a wall.  You ain't gettin' no wall.  Period!
Click to expand...


Fine with me.  Keep the government closed down.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> None.  That's why any of these so-called asylum seekers should have accepted Mexico's asylum offer.  They declined.
> 
> That's why what Trump is doing today will aid in avoiding the deaths of those children.  They won't be coming here in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucked up, inhuman piece of shit!  I'd rather have them in this country than you.
Click to expand...


Oh trust me, that I can whole heartedly believe.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what happened the last time we tried to stop people from the middle-east from coming here?  Oh, that's right, an activist Obama appointed judge stopped Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> That's because it was a racist law, you racist asshole.
> 
> I remember when the incoming Bush Administration was warned about people coming in here to do us harm by the outgoing Clinton Administration and he did nothing for 8 months.
Click to expand...


What did you want him to do?

What Bush Knew Before Sept. 11

Now tell me page and paragraph where anything in the travel ban referred to race.  

You know, you have to quit letting MSM tell you how to think.  Try it yourself sometime.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cheapest way is to create a strong enough deterrent so they don't come here in the first place.  Lead by example.  If you put out a welcome mat on our border, people are going to take that literally.  Same holds true for a Not Welcome mat.
> 
> 
> 
> If your life and the life of your family is threatened in your own country and you come here seeking asylum as a last resort, inhuman pieces of shit like yourself have no right to stop them.
Click to expand...


So you're saying this country doesn't belong to us, it belongs to the entire world?  When did that happen? 

The world population is 7.5 billion people.  Excluding our population, that's about 7.2 billion.  Given the fact that many people on the planet live like those in S/C America, how many of those 7.2 billion do you want to let in?


----------



## ColonelAngus

To be clear, millennials screaming that Trump is a Nazi have no idea about what true totalitarianism is all about.

There are no safe spaces.


----------



## candycorn

toobfreak said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly the lamest analogy ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, candyhead.  You're 100% against the wall as ruining your way of life until I provide many examples where the very same thing is being done all the time all over the place to good effect that you were totally OK with.  Only thing lame here is arguing with you.
Click to expand...


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, douchebag.  Every native born American has a right to stop them.  Furthermore, their lives aren't threatened, only their standard of living.
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a fuckin' liar.  As well as a bad American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't possible for that to be a lie, moron.  It's an opinion, and it's far more credible than yours.  The theory that foreigners have a right to emigrate here couldn't be more idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Despite the irrefutable FACT that this question was answered in court - in a case wherein a civilian border patrol got into a spat with undocumented foreigners trying to trespass over private property and effect an improper entry, you make that blatantly false claim???
> 
> Those who were brought into court even refused sound counsel to appeal the ruling
> 
> 2)  The Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> Do you know what the meaning of the word unalienable is?  Can you explain how our Creator (whoever your God is) only gave citizens unalienable Rights?
> 
> It would appear to me that you are historically and legally ignorant on this point.  So, your contention is, only citizens have rights and the government doles them out on the basis of your citizenship?   If that is the case, you could stand on the border and pop the foreigner the moment they set foot on U.S. soil, right?
> 
> I mean, our county government allows us to kill squirrels when they come on our property.  The squirrels are trespassing and have no rights.  So, if the foreigners have no rights, how come you suppose it's against the law to use force against them if they come across your property?  It's because they DO have Rights and it was people that support you who brought that ruling about.
Click to expand...

You're an idiot.  It's been legal to use force against trespassers for 250 years.


----------



## OKTexas

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is showing now, the States do the redistricting not congress and the majority of the State legislatures aren't liberal. In fact liberal States will be losing seats to more conservative States.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Due to republican voter fraud like in North Carolina?
Click to expand...



Tissue? Funny how you commies claim fraud when everyone is required to play by the same rules.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't try to educate the Trump is God supporters. Trump won because he got the most electoral votes. He lost the popular vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That leftist argument doesn't fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That argument doesn't fly, Ray, because it is a bullshit argument, used here over and over again (because it is all they have).*  The popular vote only counts or decides anything at the STATE level.  Take away a couple of square miles of area around LA and NYC and Hillary lost the popular vote as well.  Once you win a county or a state by two votes, it doesn't matter if you add 200,000 more----  you've already won.  The democrats have wet dreams about someday making the USA a pure democracy (the popular vote a la mob rule) because they want to be the mob, but the founders were wise and realized that to be president, you should represent the people, so they created the Electoral College so that by winning, a far wider swath of people and states would be represented that never would have any voice in their government otherwise.
> 
> In the Left's world, winning would become very easy.  Just win California (LA and SanFran) and New York (City) and every time you've won!  Screw all the deplorables everywhere else.  Why else do you think they are so adamant on filling up states with illegal Latino democrat voters?!  I happen to know a lot of people both in California and New York who DON'T live in those areas (the Valley and upstate NY) and they HATE how these small city areas decide everything against their wishes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For decades, the anti-white party has been telling their people that Republicans are a thing of the past.  Old white men that are dying off.  People who are stuck in the 1940's.  A party losing political ground every year.
> 
> When Republicans do win, they must have cheated somehow because it just isn't possible.  I'm a liberal, all my friends are liberals, most of my family is liberal, all the people at Starbucks are liberals, and everybody in my state is liberal.  Sure, there are Republicans; here and there; in flyover country, some on yachts, in pickup trucks with gun racks.  But the rest of the country is like me.....liberal.
> 
> The Democrat party cannot tell their constituents the truth, otherwise many would lose faith and might quit voting.  So they need to lie to them.
> 
> Donald Trump:  James Comey, Russian collusion, the Electoral College, third party candidate, unequal campaign coverage, subservient white women who take voting orders from their Republican husbands.
> 
> 2010 Republican victory in Congress:  Voter-ID, voter suppression, gerrymandering.
> 
> George Bush reelection:  Diebold machines, gerrymandering.
> 
> George Bush election: hanging chads, selected not elected, brother is the Governor, voter purging.
> 
> Brainwashing dictates they tell their constituents they never lost, they won, it's just the Republicans found a way to cheat them somehow.  Liberals are way too closed minded to see a pattern like I listed above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF America were still white and IF Americans still respected the basics of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution,and founding principles then they could count on being re-elected.  The reality is, when the economy was improving, the Democrats took the House.  In Georgia where a lot of precincts are up to 87 percent white Republicans, a fraction of 1 percent of the votes separated the candidates for governor and the race for Secretary of State had to have a second run-off, neither major candidate getting 50 percent of the vote.  A LOT of races here were decided by less than one percent of the vote.
> 
> I think that when America swings left again, they are going to make you sorry that you had such a cocky attitude.  You should win with grace and style and NOT give your political opponents a reason to hate you.  It only guarantees that they will show up on election day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of leftists are fleeing their high taxed states and polluting lower taxed red states.  So unfortunately, you are seeing changes.
> 
> However a large part of change comes from liberalism.  If you look at statistics, less people are claiming to be religious or believe in God.  More people believe in Socialism.  This is especially true of younger people and college kids.  This is the era of "gimme."
> 
> So evil is spreading as planned and we on the right are trying to fight the will of Satan. People are becoming less and less responsible every year.  More and more people want government to handle all their personal and financial affairs.
> 
> I don't know what will happen in 50 years from now, but I"m glad I'll be off this earth by then.  Because the great experiment is coming to an end.  Once Democrats wipe out white people and make us a minority, we will have a single-party government forever.  Socialism will then be the new government quickly followed by Communism.  The only hope I have is that they don't destroy history books like they are with statues and religious items today so people in the future can figure out where we went wrong and how we failed them.
Click to expand...


And so, Ray, we failed as a nation for turning our backs against God.  America became the greatest nation in the annals of history when we were keeping the Commandments of God.  I belong to the Anglo-Israelite Christian Church.  Among our tenets of faith is that we believe America is the New Jerusalem of the Bible and that the Anglo Saxon, Scandinavian, Germanic, Teutonic and kindred people are those that are Christ's servants and those destined to bless the world - which we have.  Our race has provided the bulk of soldiers to die in foreign wars in the name of Liberty; we've provided more than 90 percent of the world's missionaries;  created the bulk of the world's wealth; stopped slavery; poured more money into research to cure diseases, etc., etc.

The immigration issue is a diversionary tactic and a byproduct of what is known as the Hegelian Principle:  Thesis + Anti-Thesis = Synthesis.  The globalists play the political game very well.  Create the problem (Thesis.)  Create the opposition, hysteria and the chaos while advocating that something be done (Anti-Thesis.)  Then produce a list of solutions and allow the sheeple pick from those pre-planned solutions (Synthesis.)

As it turns out, the solutions the globalists gave the sheeple to work with is predicated upon lies that, if you could understand their ultimate destination, end in slavery, oppression and inevitable genocide for the posterity of the founders of America.  You are an unwitting pawn in a very sick game.  What you fret over are symptoms of much larger problem in this world.  Since you only see what the puppetmasters want you to see, you suffer from what is known as BIAS CONFIRMATION. 

Bias confirmation happens when you are only interested in facts and information that lead credence to your point of view.  As a result of this bias, you reject all knowledge that does not prove your point.  Then you assume that everyone that disagrees with your opinions, certainly must be liberals.  Well, I have opinions too.  And my solutions are just like those from the left and the right: my own ideas have flaws.  But I am not affected by bias confirmation so if the left points out the truth I can accept it; if the right slings skeet and lies, I can condemn it.

What I can tell you is that the left hates the Constitution; they hate the posterity of the founding fathers and every principle they stood for.  They hate your race; they have an issue with Christianity; they oppose the foundational principles upon which this country was founded.  Unfortunately, many of the people on the right have joined them and little separates them.  When you stoop to their level in trying to articulate your points and refuse to understand that all sides have facts on their side, you lose those that are on the sidelines looking in.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was voted in because of the wall, that is building power.
> 
> 
> 
> Not from the majority of Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't try to educate the Trump is God supporters.  Trump won because he got the most electoral votes.  He lost the popular vote.
> 
> In 2020 the liberals get to change the federal Congressional districts.  By pushing B.S. laws that offend the masses, the Republicans are absolutely guaranteeing they will be in the minority in just about every district in America after 2020.
> 
> I'm not a liberal, but once these arrogant build the wall guys get knocked on their ass, they can decide to fight or die.  They are not strategists.  2020 won't come none too soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is showing now, the States do the redistricting not congress and the majority of the State legislatures aren't liberal. In fact liberal States will be losing seats to more conservative States.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Redistricting is subject to Congressional approval.  And I hate to bust your bubble son, but it is not liberals have been gaining so much ground, but in states where it REALLY matters - places where there are a lot of electoral college votes, the liberals have been taking over districts AND areas near red districts so as to be able to dilute the Republican votes in the future.
Click to expand...



Wrong again, congress has nothing to do with it. The courts sometimes gets involved but never congress.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, douchebag.  Every native born American has a right to stop them.  Furthermore, their lives aren't threatened, only their standard of living.
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a fuckin' liar.  As well as a bad American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't possible for that to be a lie, moron.  It's an opinion, and it's far more credible than yours.  The theory that foreigners have a right to emigrate here couldn't be more idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Despite the irrefutable FACT that this question was answered in court - in a case wherein a civilian border patrol got into a spat with undocumented foreigners trying to trespass over private property and effect an improper entry, you make that blatantly false claim???
> 
> Those who were brought into court even refused sound counsel to appeal the ruling
> 
> 2)  The Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> Do you know what the meaning of the word unalienable is?  Can you explain how our Creator (whoever your God is) only gave citizens unalienable Rights?
> 
> It would appear to me that you are historically and legally ignorant on this point.  So, your contention is, only citizens have rights and the government doles them out on the basis of your citizenship?   If that is the case, you could stand on the border and pop the foreigner the moment they set foot on U.S. soil, right?
> 
> I mean, our county government allows us to kill squirrels when they come on our property.  The squirrels are trespassing and have no rights.  So, if the foreigners have no rights, how come you suppose it's against the law to use force against them if they come across your property?  It's because they DO have Rights and it was people that support you who brought that ruling about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an idiot.  It's been legal to use force against trespassers for 250 years.
Click to expand...



Ray is the most disrespectful person on this board.  You are the most ignorant.  Calling people names is a testament to your character.

The fact is, it is YOUR fault that the courts put people just like you in prison and then declared that undocumented have civil rights - and those civil rights trumped those who think just like you. 

If people had a Right to protect private property, all private property along the border would be being protected by civilian militias.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


Because bigotry and hate are wrong.


----------



## Geaux4it

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> Because bigotry and hate are wrong.
Click to expand...

And your point?

-Geaux


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, douchebag.  Every native born American has a right to stop them.  Furthermore, their lives aren't threatened, only their standard of living.
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a fuckin' liar.  As well as a bad American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't possible for that to be a lie, moron.  It's an opinion, and it's far more credible than yours.  The theory that foreigners have a right to emigrate here couldn't be more idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Despite the irrefutable FACT that this question was answered in court - in a case wherein a civilian border patrol got into a spat with undocumented foreigners trying to trespass over private property and effect an improper entry, you make that blatantly false claim???
> 
> Those who were brought into court even refused sound counsel to appeal the ruling
> 
> 2)  The Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> Do you know what the meaning of the word unalienable is?  Can you explain how our Creator (whoever your God is) only gave citizens unalienable Rights?
> 
> It would appear to me that you are historically and legally ignorant on this point.  So, your contention is, only citizens have rights and the government doles them out on the basis of your citizenship?   If that is the case, you could stand on the border and pop the foreigner the moment they set foot on U.S. soil, right?
> 
> I mean, our county government allows us to kill squirrels when they come on our property.  The squirrels are trespassing and have no rights.  So, if the foreigners have no rights, how come you suppose it's against the law to use force against them if they come across your property?  It's because they DO have Rights and it was people that support you who brought that ruling about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an idiot.  It's been legal to use force against trespassers for 250 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ray is the most disrespectful person on this board.  You are the most ignorant.  Calling people names is a testament to your character.
> 
> The fact is, it is YOUR fault that the courts put people just like you in prison and then declared that undocumented have civil rights - and those civil rights trumped those who think just like you.
> 
> If people had a Right to protect private property, all private property along the border would be being protected by civilian militias.
Click to expand...

You're a certifiable idiot.  People have a right to use force to protect their property.  The fact is irrefutable.  I have personally had a shotgun pointed in my direction by a rancher because we were on his land.

Debating you is a waste of time because so much of what you believe just isn't true.


----------



## bripat9643

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> Because bigotry and hate are wrong.
Click to expand...

What you are really saying is that wisdom and prudence are wrong.  People aren't required to turn off their brains to serve your idiotic ideals that say people are all the same.  They aren't, and some are far worse than others.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a fuckin' liar.  As well as a bad American.
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't possible for that to be a lie, moron.  It's an opinion, and it's far more credible than yours.  The theory that foreigners have a right to emigrate here couldn't be more idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Despite the irrefutable FACT that this question was answered in court - in a case wherein a civilian border patrol got into a spat with undocumented foreigners trying to trespass over private property and effect an improper entry, you make that blatantly false claim???
> 
> Those who were brought into court even refused sound counsel to appeal the ruling
> 
> 2)  The Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> Do you know what the meaning of the word unalienable is?  Can you explain how our Creator (whoever your God is) only gave citizens unalienable Rights?
> 
> It would appear to me that you are historically and legally ignorant on this point.  So, your contention is, only citizens have rights and the government doles them out on the basis of your citizenship?   If that is the case, you could stand on the border and pop the foreigner the moment they set foot on U.S. soil, right?
> 
> I mean, our county government allows us to kill squirrels when they come on our property.  The squirrels are trespassing and have no rights.  So, if the foreigners have no rights, how come you suppose it's against the law to use force against them if they come across your property?  It's because they DO have Rights and it was people that support you who brought that ruling about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an idiot.  It's been legal to use force against trespassers for 250 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ray is the most disrespectful person on this board.  You are the most ignorant.  Calling people names is a testament to your character.
> 
> The fact is, it is YOUR fault that the courts put people just like you in prison and then declared that undocumented have civil rights - and those civil rights trumped those who think just like you.
> 
> If people had a Right to protect private property, all private property along the border would be being protected by civilian militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a certifiable idiot.  People have a right to use force to protect their property.  The fact is irrefutable.  I have personally had a shotgun pointed in my direction by a rancher because we were on his land.
> 
> Debating you is a waste of time because so much of what you believe just isn't true.
Click to expand...


You are an aggravating blowhard that don't have an IQ that is equivalent to his shoe size.

The bottom line is that the lie you just told would make even an idiot look like a freaking Einstein.  Enough of this lying mental midgetry.  Let's get down and dirty and tell the people the truth.  I'd bet dollars against doughnuts that your dumb ass was, most likely, among those that caused this sh!+storm to begin in the first place.

Back in 2003 some Salvadorans were attempting to cross the border and enter the United States improperly.  Unfortunately (later fortunately for them), it was private property and it was posted.  In addition, the property was being guarded by Ranch Rescue, a civilian border patrol watch group.

The trespassing foreigners attempting an improper entry got into a tiff with Ranch Rescue whereupon Ranch Rescue ending up winning that altercation.  The matter ended up in court.  Ranch Rescue members were sent to prison; the land owner lost his property and his home to the undocumented foreigners.The ACLU went home, laughing all the way to the bank.

Both Ranch Rescue AND Jack Foote (the property owner) rejected the advice to appeal the decision.  In the court's RULING, he said that Ranch Rescue "violated the civil rights" of the foreigners who were tryig to come into the U.S. improperly.  Any way you slice it and any way you dice it, the facts are unequivocal:

*  The undocumented foreigners not only have rights, but rights that trump those of American property owners

*  Jack Foote did NOT have the right to protect his own private property.  He lost it for trying.

AFTER that event, civilian militias gave up on saving America and allowed themselves to be recruited by neo nazis in some lame ass scheme to pretend to be an extension of Homeland (IN) Security and adopt David Duke's Border Watch scheme (Duke being a former neo nazi turned KKK leader.)  It's been a pissing match ever since with the constitutionalists and patriots of the period (pre 2003) being ignored by the mainstream media as bripat9643 and his ilk serve as useful idiots, working to institute Bill Clinton's silliness as the gold standard by which the rest of America would be judged.

That is why, for a fact, the build the wall guys are asking you why we can't be like Mexico and reminding us every day about communist China's wall.  They want to be at war like the Israelis and they want us to have the same kind of atmosphere the people had while maintaining the Berlin Wall.  EVERY reference to their utopia is related to communist, socialist and tyrannical regimes and / or nations at war.  The bulk of their news is what they get from media owned by a board of director on the Council on Foreign Relations. 

People like  bripat9643 are little more than change agents for the NEW WORLD ORDER.  But, you have the facts and any of you that want to check it out can research it for yourselves.  bripat9643 may think that name calling and using controversial language will be enough to hide what he is and what it he is doing.  I don't think it is.  That is why he is constantly trying to tell you I'm an idiot.  He's projecting what he realizes what he is.  But, people like Rupert Murdoch own him and those who waste their ever waking moment worrying about that damn wall.  NEVER do they talk about what they want to do for their fellow Anmericans.  I have and do.  NEVER will you hear them extol the virtues of Liberty.  I have and do.  NEVER do they interject the Constitution into their phony "debate."  I have and do. 

The moment bripat9643 began calling people names, he lost any "debate" that might have been going on.  ALL that troll has is name calling and trying to disrupt any chance of the different sides being able to have a productive conversation because, even being the most ignorant individual on this thread, he realizes his side LOST any pretend debate.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> Because bigotry and hate are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are really saying is that wisdom and prudence are wrong.  People aren't required to turn off their brains to serve your idiotic ideals that say people are all the same.  They aren't, and some are far worse than others.
Click to expand...


Sounds like more of your paranoid projection.  Wisdom and prudence are not your strong suit.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't possible for that to be a lie, moron.  It's an opinion, and it's far more credible than yours.  The theory that foreigners have a right to emigrate here couldn't be more idiotic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Despite the irrefutable FACT that this question was answered in court - in a case wherein a civilian border patrol got into a spat with undocumented foreigners trying to trespass over private property and effect an improper entry, you make that blatantly false claim???
> 
> Those who were brought into court even refused sound counsel to appeal the ruling
> 
> 2)  The Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> Do you know what the meaning of the word unalienable is?  Can you explain how our Creator (whoever your God is) only gave citizens unalienable Rights?
> 
> It would appear to me that you are historically and legally ignorant on this point.  So, your contention is, only citizens have rights and the government doles them out on the basis of your citizenship?   If that is the case, you could stand on the border and pop the foreigner the moment they set foot on U.S. soil, right?
> 
> I mean, our county government allows us to kill squirrels when they come on our property.  The squirrels are trespassing and have no rights.  So, if the foreigners have no rights, how come you suppose it's against the law to use force against them if they come across your property?  It's because they DO have Rights and it was people that support you who brought that ruling about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an idiot.  It's been legal to use force against trespassers for 250 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ray is the most disrespectful person on this board.  You are the most ignorant.  Calling people names is a testament to your character.
> 
> The fact is, it is YOUR fault that the courts put people just like you in prison and then declared that undocumented have civil rights - and those civil rights trumped those who think just like you.
> 
> If people had a Right to protect private property, all private property along the border would be being protected by civilian militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a certifiable idiot.  People have a right to use force to protect their property.  The fact is irrefutable.  I have personally had a shotgun pointed in my direction by a rancher because we were on his land.
> 
> Debating you is a waste of time because so much of what you believe just isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an aggravating blowhard that don't have an IQ that is equivalent to his shoe size.
> 
> The bottom line is that the lie you just told would make even an idiot look like a freaking Einstein.  Enough of this lying mental midgetry.  Let's get down and dirty and tell the people the truth.  I'd bet dollars against doughnuts that your dumb ass was, most likely, among those that caused this sh!+storm to begin in the first place.
> 
> Back in 2003 some Salvadorans were attempting to cross the border and enter the United States improperly.  Unfortunately (later fortunately for them), it was private property and it was posted.  In addition, the property was being guarded by Ranch Rescue, a civilian border patrol watch group.
> 
> The trespassing foreigners attempting an improper entry got into a tiff with Ranch Rescue whereupon Ranch Rescue ending up winning that altercation.  The matter ended up in court.  Ranch Rescue members were sent to prison; the land owner lost his property and his home to the undocumented foreigners.The ACLU went home, laughing all the way to the bank.
> 
> Both Ranch Rescue AND Jack Foote (the property owner) rejected the advice to appeal the decision.  In the court's RULING, he said that Ranch Rescue "violated the civil rights" of the foreigners who were tryig to come into the U.S. improperly.  Any way you slice it and any way you dice it, the facts are unequivocal:
> 
> *  The undocumented foreigners not only have rights, but rights that trump those of American property owners
> 
> *  Jack Foote did NOT have the right to protect his own private property.  He lost it for trying.
> 
> AFTER that event, civilian militias gave up on saving America and allowed themselves to be recruited by neo nazis in some lame ass scheme to pretend to be an extension of Homeland (IN) Security and adopt David Duke's Border Watch scheme (Duke being a former neo nazi turned KKK leader.)  It's been a pissing match ever since with the constitutionalists and patriots of the period (pre 2003) being ignored by the mainstream media as bripat9643 and his ilk serve as useful idiots, working to institute Bill Clinton's silliness as the gold standard by which the rest of America would be judged.
> 
> That is why, for a fact, the build the wall guys are asking you why we can't be like Mexico and reminding us every day about communist China's wall.  They want to be at war like the Israelis and they want us to have the same kind of atmosphere the people had while maintaining the Berlin Wall.  EVERY reference to their utopia is related to communist, socialist and tyrannical regimes and / or nations at war.  The bulk of their news is what they get from media owned by a board of director on the Council on Foreign Relations.
> 
> People like  bripat9643 are little more than change agents for the NEW WORLD ORDER.  But, you have the facts and any of you that want to check it out can research it for yourselves.  bripat9643 may think that name calling and using controversial language will be enough to hide what he is and what it he is doing.  I don't think it is.  That is why he is constantly trying to tell you I'm an idiot.  He's projecting what he realizes what he is.  But, people like Rupert Murdoch own him and those who waste their ever waking moment worrying about that damn wall.  NEVER do they talk about what they want to do for their fellow Anmericans.  I have and do.  NEVER will you hear them extol the virtues of Liberty.  I have and do.  NEVER do they interject the Constitution into their phony "debate."  I have and do.
> 
> The moment bripat9643 began calling people names, he lost any "debate" that might have been going on.  ALL that troll has is name calling and trying to disrupt any chance of the different sides being able to have a productive conversation because, even being the most ignorant individual on this thread, he realizes his side LOST any pretend debate.
Click to expand...

When it comes to posting stupid shit, you're right up their with danielpalos.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> Because bigotry and hate are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are really saying is that wisdom and prudence are wrong.  People aren't required to turn off their brains to serve your idiotic ideals that say people are all the same.  They aren't, and some are far worse than others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like more of your paranoid projection.  Wisdom and prudence are not your strong suit.
Click to expand...

So you are contesting my position that people are not all the same?  Really?


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a fuckin' liar.  As well as a bad American.
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't possible for that to be a lie, moron.  It's an opinion, and it's far more credible than yours.  The theory that foreigners have a right to emigrate here couldn't be more idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Despite the irrefutable FACT that this question was answered in court - in a case wherein a civilian border patrol got into a spat with undocumented foreigners trying to trespass over private property and effect an improper entry, you make that blatantly false claim???
> 
> Those who were brought into court even refused sound counsel to appeal the ruling
> 
> 2)  The Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> Do you know what the meaning of the word unalienable is?  Can you explain how our Creator (whoever your God is) only gave citizens unalienable Rights?
> 
> It would appear to me that you are historically and legally ignorant on this point.  So, your contention is, only citizens have rights and the government doles them out on the basis of your citizenship?   If that is the case, you could stand on the border and pop the foreigner the moment they set foot on U.S. soil, right?
> 
> I mean, our county government allows us to kill squirrels when they come on our property.  The squirrels are trespassing and have no rights.  So, if the foreigners have no rights, how come you suppose it's against the law to use force against them if they come across your property?  It's because they DO have Rights and it was people that support you who brought that ruling about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an idiot.  It's been legal to use force against trespassers for 250 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ray is the most disrespectful person on this board.  You are the most ignorant.  Calling people names is a testament to your character.
> 
> The fact is, it is YOUR fault that the courts put people just like you in prison and then declared that undocumented have civil rights - and those civil rights trumped those who think just like you.
> 
> If people had a Right to protect private property, all private property along the border would be being protected by civilian militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a certifiable idiot.  People have a right to use force to protect their property.  The fact is irrefutable.  I have personally had a shotgun pointed in my direction by a rancher because we were on his land.
> 
> Debating you is a waste of time because so much of what you believe just isn't true.
Click to expand...


Most states don't recognize the use of lethal force for mere trespassing. Deadly force in the defense of one's life is permitted. Deadly force in defense of property alone generally isn't. Most uses of lethal force must be in response to reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm to oneself or others


----------



## danielpalos

Building new Cities is better.


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't possible for that to be a lie, moron.  It's an opinion, and it's far more credible than yours.  The theory that foreigners have a right to emigrate here couldn't be more idiotic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Despite the irrefutable FACT that this question was answered in court - in a case wherein a civilian border patrol got into a spat with undocumented foreigners trying to trespass over private property and effect an improper entry, you make that blatantly false claim???
> 
> Those who were brought into court even refused sound counsel to appeal the ruling
> 
> 2)  The Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> Do you know what the meaning of the word unalienable is?  Can you explain how our Creator (whoever your God is) only gave citizens unalienable Rights?
> 
> It would appear to me that you are historically and legally ignorant on this point.  So, your contention is, only citizens have rights and the government doles them out on the basis of your citizenship?   If that is the case, you could stand on the border and pop the foreigner the moment they set foot on U.S. soil, right?
> 
> I mean, our county government allows us to kill squirrels when they come on our property.  The squirrels are trespassing and have no rights.  So, if the foreigners have no rights, how come you suppose it's against the law to use force against them if they come across your property?  It's because they DO have Rights and it was people that support you who brought that ruling about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an idiot.  It's been legal to use force against trespassers for 250 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ray is the most disrespectful person on this board.  You are the most ignorant.  Calling people names is a testament to your character.
> 
> The fact is, it is YOUR fault that the courts put people just like you in prison and then declared that undocumented have civil rights - and those civil rights trumped those who think just like you.
> 
> If people had a Right to protect private property, all private property along the border would be being protected by civilian militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a certifiable idiot.  People have a right to use force to protect their property.  The fact is irrefutable.  I have personally had a shotgun pointed in my direction by a rancher because we were on his land.
> 
> Debating you is a waste of time because so much of what you believe just isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most states don't recognize the use of lethal force for mere trespassing. Deadly force in the defense of one's life is permitted. Deadly force in defense of property alone generally isn't. Most uses of lethal force must be in response to reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm to oneself or others
Click to expand...

I didn't use the term "lethal force."  However, in many states, if someone breaks into your home, you are allowed to blow them away.  You are allowed to use force against trespassers.


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Despite the irrefutable FACT that this question was answered in court - in a case wherein a civilian border patrol got into a spat with undocumented foreigners trying to trespass over private property and effect an improper entry, you make that blatantly false claim???
> 
> Those who were brought into court even refused sound counsel to appeal the ruling
> 
> 2)  The Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> Do you know what the meaning of the word unalienable is?  Can you explain how our Creator (whoever your God is) only gave citizens unalienable Rights?
> 
> It would appear to me that you are historically and legally ignorant on this point.  So, your contention is, only citizens have rights and the government doles them out on the basis of your citizenship?   If that is the case, you could stand on the border and pop the foreigner the moment they set foot on U.S. soil, right?
> 
> I mean, our county government allows us to kill squirrels when they come on our property.  The squirrels are trespassing and have no rights.  So, if the foreigners have no rights, how come you suppose it's against the law to use force against them if they come across your property?  It's because they DO have Rights and it was people that support you who brought that ruling about.
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.  It's been legal to use force against trespassers for 250 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ray is the most disrespectful person on this board.  You are the most ignorant.  Calling people names is a testament to your character.
> 
> The fact is, it is YOUR fault that the courts put people just like you in prison and then declared that undocumented have civil rights - and those civil rights trumped those who think just like you.
> 
> If people had a Right to protect private property, all private property along the border would be being protected by civilian militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a certifiable idiot.  People have a right to use force to protect their property.  The fact is irrefutable.  I have personally had a shotgun pointed in my direction by a rancher because we were on his land.
> 
> Debating you is a waste of time because so much of what you believe just isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most states don't recognize the use of lethal force for mere trespassing. Deadly force in the defense of one's life is permitted. Deadly force in defense of property alone generally isn't. Most uses of lethal force must be in response to reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm to oneself or others
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't use the term "lethal force."  However, in many states, if someone breaks into your home, you are allowed to blow them away.  You are allowed to use force against trespassers.
Click to expand...


Not 'any place'. But one's home specifically. You couldn't, for example, shoot someone on your lawn without a reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm to one's self or others.

Trying to shift that to the use of deadly force on the border when someone is trying to enter the country.....would be poorly supported legally.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.  It's been legal to use force against trespassers for 250 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray is the most disrespectful person on this board.  You are the most ignorant.  Calling people names is a testament to your character.
> 
> The fact is, it is YOUR fault that the courts put people just like you in prison and then declared that undocumented have civil rights - and those civil rights trumped those who think just like you.
> 
> If people had a Right to protect private property, all private property along the border would be being protected by civilian militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a certifiable idiot.  People have a right to use force to protect their property.  The fact is irrefutable.  I have personally had a shotgun pointed in my direction by a rancher because we were on his land.
> 
> Debating you is a waste of time because so much of what you believe just isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most states don't recognize the use of lethal force for mere trespassing. Deadly force in the defense of one's life is permitted. Deadly force in defense of property alone generally isn't. Most uses of lethal force must be in response to reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm to oneself or others
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't use the term "lethal force."  However, in many states, if someone breaks into your home, you are allowed to blow them away.  You are allowed to use force against trespassers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not 'any place'. But one's home specifically. You couldn't, for example, shoot someone on your lawn without a reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm to one's self or others.
> 
> Trying to shift that to the use of deadly force on the border when someone is trying to enter the country.....would be poorly supported legally.
Click to expand...


And that's too bad.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't possible for that to be a lie, moron.  It's an opinion, and it's far more credible than yours.  The theory that foreigners have a right to emigrate here couldn't be more idiotic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Despite the irrefutable FACT that this question was answered in court - in a case wherein a civilian border patrol got into a spat with undocumented foreigners trying to trespass over private property and effect an improper entry, you make that blatantly false claim???
> 
> Those who were brought into court even refused sound counsel to appeal the ruling
> 
> 2)  The Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> Do you know what the meaning of the word unalienable is?  Can you explain how our Creator (whoever your God is) only gave citizens unalienable Rights?
> 
> It would appear to me that you are historically and legally ignorant on this point.  So, your contention is, only citizens have rights and the government doles them out on the basis of your citizenship?   If that is the case, you could stand on the border and pop the foreigner the moment they set foot on U.S. soil, right?
> 
> I mean, our county government allows us to kill squirrels when they come on our property.  The squirrels are trespassing and have no rights.  So, if the foreigners have no rights, how come you suppose it's against the law to use force against them if they come across your property?  It's because they DO have Rights and it was people that support you who brought that ruling about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an idiot.  It's been legal to use force against trespassers for 250 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ray is the most disrespectful person on this board.  You are the most ignorant.  Calling people names is a testament to your character.
> 
> The fact is, it is YOUR fault that the courts put people just like you in prison and then declared that undocumented have civil rights - and those civil rights trumped those who think just like you.
> 
> If people had a Right to protect private property, all private property along the border would be being protected by civilian militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a certifiable idiot.  People have a right to use force to protect their property.  The fact is irrefutable.  I have personally had a shotgun pointed in my direction by a rancher because we were on his land.
> 
> Debating you is a waste of time because so much of what you believe just isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most states don't recognize the use of lethal force for mere trespassing. Deadly force in the defense of one's life is permitted. Deadly force in defense of property alone generally isn't. Most uses of lethal force must be in response to reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm to oneself or others
Click to expand...


That's the law we have except for your home or car.  If somebody breaks into my home or car while I'm armed, I have the legal right to use deadly force.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't possible for that to be a lie, moron.  It's an opinion, and it's far more credible than yours.  The theory that foreigners have a right to emigrate here couldn't be more idiotic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Despite the irrefutable FACT that this question was answered in court - in a case wherein a civilian border patrol got into a spat with undocumented foreigners trying to trespass over private property and effect an improper entry, you make that blatantly false claim???
> 
> Those who were brought into court even refused sound counsel to appeal the ruling
> 
> 2)  The Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> Do you know what the meaning of the word unalienable is?  Can you explain how our Creator (whoever your God is) only gave citizens unalienable Rights?
> 
> It would appear to me that you are historically and legally ignorant on this point.  So, your contention is, only citizens have rights and the government doles them out on the basis of your citizenship?   If that is the case, you could stand on the border and pop the foreigner the moment they set foot on U.S. soil, right?
> 
> I mean, our county government allows us to kill squirrels when they come on our property.  The squirrels are trespassing and have no rights.  So, if the foreigners have no rights, how come you suppose it's against the law to use force against them if they come across your property?  It's because they DO have Rights and it was people that support you who brought that ruling about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an idiot.  It's been legal to use force against trespassers for 250 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ray is the most disrespectful person on this board.  You are the most ignorant.  Calling people names is a testament to your character.
> 
> The fact is, it is YOUR fault that the courts put people just like you in prison and then declared that undocumented have civil rights - and those civil rights trumped those who think just like you.
> 
> If people had a Right to protect private property, all private property along the border would be being protected by civilian militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a certifiable idiot.  People have a right to use force to protect their property.  The fact is irrefutable.  I have personally had a shotgun pointed in my direction by a rancher because we were on his land.
> 
> Debating you is a waste of time because so much of what you believe just isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an aggravating blowhard that don't have an IQ that is equivalent to his shoe size.
> 
> The bottom line is that the lie you just told would make even an idiot look like a freaking Einstein.  Enough of this lying mental midgetry.  Let's get down and dirty and tell the people the truth.  I'd bet dollars against doughnuts that your dumb ass was, most likely, among those that caused this sh!+storm to begin in the first place.
> 
> Back in 2003 some Salvadorans were attempting to cross the border and enter the United States improperly.  Unfortunately (later fortunately for them), it was private property and it was posted.  In addition, the property was being guarded by Ranch Rescue, a civilian border patrol watch group.
> 
> The trespassing foreigners attempting an improper entry got into a tiff with Ranch Rescue whereupon Ranch Rescue ending up winning that altercation.  The matter ended up in court.  Ranch Rescue members were sent to prison; the land owner lost his property and his home to the undocumented foreigners.The ACLU went home, laughing all the way to the bank.
> 
> Both Ranch Rescue AND Jack Foote (the property owner) rejected the advice to appeal the decision.  In the court's RULING, he said that Ranch Rescue "violated the civil rights" of the foreigners who were tryig to come into the U.S. improperly.  Any way you slice it and any way you dice it, the facts are unequivocal:
> 
> *  The undocumented foreigners not only have rights, but rights that trump those of American property owners
> 
> *  Jack Foote did NOT have the right to protect his own private property.  He lost it for trying.
> 
> AFTER that event, civilian militias gave up on saving America and allowed themselves to be recruited by neo nazis in some lame ass scheme to pretend to be an extension of Homeland (IN) Security and adopt David Duke's Border Watch scheme (Duke being a former neo nazi turned KKK leader.)  It's been a pissing match ever since with the constitutionalists and patriots of the period (pre 2003) being ignored by the mainstream media as bripat9643 and his ilk serve as useful idiots, working to institute Bill Clinton's silliness as the gold standard by which the rest of America would be judged.
> 
> That is why, for a fact, the build the wall guys are asking you why we can't be like Mexico and reminding us every day about communist China's wall.  They want to be at war like the Israelis and they want us to have the same kind of atmosphere the people had while maintaining the Berlin Wall.  EVERY reference to their utopia is related to communist, socialist and tyrannical regimes and / or nations at war.  The bulk of their news is what they get from media owned by a board of director on the Council on Foreign Relations.
> 
> People like  bripat9643 are little more than change agents for the NEW WORLD ORDER.  But, you have the facts and any of you that want to check it out can research it for yourselves.  bripat9643 may think that name calling and using controversial language will be enough to hide what he is and what it he is doing.  I don't think it is.  That is why he is constantly trying to tell you I'm an idiot.  He's projecting what he realizes what he is.  But, people like Rupert Murdoch own him and those who waste their ever waking moment worrying about that damn wall.  NEVER do they talk about what they want to do for their fellow Anmericans.  I have and do.  NEVER will you hear them extol the virtues of Liberty.  I have and do.  NEVER do they interject the Constitution into their phony "debate."  I have and do.
> 
> The moment bripat9643 began calling people names, he lost any "debate" that might have been going on.  ALL that troll has is name calling and trying to disrupt any chance of the different sides being able to have a productive conversation because, even being the most ignorant individual on this thread, he realizes his side LOST any pretend debate.
Click to expand...

<YAWN!>


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.  It's been legal to use force against trespassers for 250 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray is the most disrespectful person on this board.  You are the most ignorant.  Calling people names is a testament to your character.
> 
> The fact is, it is YOUR fault that the courts put people just like you in prison and then declared that undocumented have civil rights - and those civil rights trumped those who think just like you.
> 
> If people had a Right to protect private property, all private property along the border would be being protected by civilian militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a certifiable idiot.  People have a right to use force to protect their property.  The fact is irrefutable.  I have personally had a shotgun pointed in my direction by a rancher because we were on his land.
> 
> Debating you is a waste of time because so much of what you believe just isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most states don't recognize the use of lethal force for mere trespassing. Deadly force in the defense of one's life is permitted. Deadly force in defense of property alone generally isn't. Most uses of lethal force must be in response to reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm to oneself or others
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't use the term "lethal force."  However, in many states, if someone breaks into your home, you are allowed to blow them away.  You are allowed to use force against trespassers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not 'any place'. But one's home specifically. You couldn't, for example, shoot someone on your lawn without a reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm to one's self or others.
> 
> Trying to shift that to the use of deadly force on the border when someone is trying to enter the country.....would be poorly supported legally.
Click to expand...

You're the one who keeps using the term "deadly force," dumbass.  I haven't used it.  However, your claims are still bullshit.  If you had a wall or fence around your property and some thief climbed over it, you would be entitled to shoot him in some states.  Furthermore, many businesses have private security, and they are able to use deadly force in many cases.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That leftist argument doesn't fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That argument doesn't fly, Ray, because it is a bullshit argument, used here over and over again (because it is all they have).*  The popular vote only counts or decides anything at the STATE level.  Take away a couple of square miles of area around LA and NYC and Hillary lost the popular vote as well.  Once you win a county or a state by two votes, it doesn't matter if you add 200,000 more----  you've already won.  The democrats have wet dreams about someday making the USA a pure democracy (the popular vote a la mob rule) because they want to be the mob, but the founders were wise and realized that to be president, you should represent the people, so they created the Electoral College so that by winning, a far wider swath of people and states would be represented that never would have any voice in their government otherwise.
> 
> In the Left's world, winning would become very easy.  Just win California (LA and SanFran) and New York (City) and every time you've won!  Screw all the deplorables everywhere else.  Why else do you think they are so adamant on filling up states with illegal Latino democrat voters?!  I happen to know a lot of people both in California and New York who DON'T live in those areas (the Valley and upstate NY) and they HATE how these small city areas decide everything against their wishes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For decades, the anti-white party has been telling their people that Republicans are a thing of the past.  Old white men that are dying off.  People who are stuck in the 1940's.  A party losing political ground every year.
> 
> When Republicans do win, they must have cheated somehow because it just isn't possible.  I'm a liberal, all my friends are liberals, most of my family is liberal, all the people at Starbucks are liberals, and everybody in my state is liberal.  Sure, there are Republicans; here and there; in flyover country, some on yachts, in pickup trucks with gun racks.  But the rest of the country is like me.....liberal.
> 
> The Democrat party cannot tell their constituents the truth, otherwise many would lose faith and might quit voting.  So they need to lie to them.
> 
> Donald Trump:  James Comey, Russian collusion, the Electoral College, third party candidate, unequal campaign coverage, subservient white women who take voting orders from their Republican husbands.
> 
> 2010 Republican victory in Congress:  Voter-ID, voter suppression, gerrymandering.
> 
> George Bush reelection:  Diebold machines, gerrymandering.
> 
> George Bush election: hanging chads, selected not elected, brother is the Governor, voter purging.
> 
> Brainwashing dictates they tell their constituents they never lost, they won, it's just the Republicans found a way to cheat them somehow.  Liberals are way too closed minded to see a pattern like I listed above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF America were still white and IF Americans still respected the basics of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution,and founding principles then they could count on being re-elected.  The reality is, when the economy was improving, the Democrats took the House.  In Georgia where a lot of precincts are up to 87 percent white Republicans, a fraction of 1 percent of the votes separated the candidates for governor and the race for Secretary of State had to have a second run-off, neither major candidate getting 50 percent of the vote.  A LOT of races here were decided by less than one percent of the vote.
> 
> I think that when America swings left again, they are going to make you sorry that you had such a cocky attitude.  You should win with grace and style and NOT give your political opponents a reason to hate you.  It only guarantees that they will show up on election day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of leftists are fleeing their high taxed states and polluting lower taxed red states.  So unfortunately, you are seeing changes.
> 
> However a large part of change comes from liberalism.  If you look at statistics, less people are claiming to be religious or believe in God.  More people believe in Socialism.  This is especially true of younger people and college kids.  This is the era of "gimme."
> 
> So evil is spreading as planned and we on the right are trying to fight the will of Satan. People are becoming less and less responsible every year.  More and more people want government to handle all their personal and financial affairs.
> 
> I don't know what will happen in 50 years from now, but I"m glad I'll be off this earth by then.  Because the great experiment is coming to an end.  Once Democrats wipe out white people and make us a minority, we will have a single-party government forever.  Socialism will then be the new government quickly followed by Communism.  The only hope I have is that they don't destroy history books like they are with statues and religious items today so people in the future can figure out where we went wrong and how we failed them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so, Ray, we failed as a nation for turning our backs against God.  America became the greatest nation in the annals of history when we were keeping the Commandments of God.  I belong to the Anglo-Israelite Christian Church.  Among our tenets of faith is that we believe America is the New Jerusalem of the Bible and that the Anglo Saxon, Scandinavian, Germanic, Teutonic and kindred people are those that are Christ's servants and those destined to bless the world - which we have.  Our race has provided the bulk of soldiers to die in foreign wars in the name of Liberty; we've provided more than 90 percent of the world's missionaries;  created the bulk of the world's wealth; stopped slavery; poured more money into research to cure diseases, etc., etc.
> 
> The immigration issue is a diversionary tactic and a byproduct of what is known as the Hegelian Principle:  Thesis + Anti-Thesis = Synthesis.  The globalists play the political game very well.  Create the problem (Thesis.)  Create the opposition, hysteria and the chaos while advocating that something be done (Anti-Thesis.)  Then produce a list of solutions and allow the sheeple pick from those pre-planned solutions (Synthesis.)
> 
> As it turns out, the solutions the globalists gave the sheeple to work with is predicated upon lies that, if you could understand their ultimate destination, end in slavery, oppression and inevitable genocide for the posterity of the founders of America.  You are an unwitting pawn in a very sick game.  What you fret over are symptoms of much larger problem in this world.  Since you only see what the puppetmasters want you to see, you suffer from what is known as BIAS CONFIRMATION.
> 
> Bias confirmation happens when you are only interested in facts and information that lead credence to your point of view.  As a result of this bias, you reject all knowledge that does not prove your point.  Then you assume that everyone that disagrees with your opinions, certainly must be liberals.  Well, I have opinions too.  And my solutions are just like those from the left and the right: my own ideas have flaws.  But I am not affected by bias confirmation so if the left points out the truth I can accept it; if the right slings skeet and lies, I can condemn it.
> 
> What I can tell you is that the left hates the Constitution; they hate the posterity of the founding fathers and every principle they stood for.  They hate your race; they have an issue with Christianity; they oppose the foundational principles upon which this country was founded.  Unfortunately, many of the people on the right have joined them and little separates them.  When you stoop to their level in trying to articulate your points and refuse to understand that all sides have facts on their side, you lose those that are on the sidelines looking in.
Click to expand...


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one said a wall would magically keep people out but it would seriously slow illegals down if it was build right and it would slow the flow of drugs .
> Again a 20 percent reduction in illegals and drugs would safe 7s7s billions a year.yyear.you just cant handle the truth
> 
> 
> 
> With half the illegals in the country coming in legally and only a 20% drop in illegal entry it wouldn't be worth 25 or 30 billion dollars, particular when you consider that whenever democrats get control, they're going to reform immigration and the wall will be joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like they reformed it all these years?
> 
> The Democrats are not going to do anything that doesn't benefit them.  And whatever benefits the Democrats is a disadvantage to citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The only reason democrats did not reform immigration law when they had the chance was because it was a low priority item with the public.  The only people really interested in immigration were racists whose goal was the supremacy of the white majority.
> 
> Trump of course has created an immigration crisis where none exist.  So when democrats get the opportunity, they are going to have to go after immigration law.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't do anything because it was going in their favor.  Young male men who could fight for their country, kids, pregnant women all came here and got in under Catch and Release.  So the Democrats are going to have to do something (if they ever gain full power again) because Trump is doing what he can to solve this problem.  The anti-white party doesn't want the problem solved, they want it to grow.
Click to expand...

When democrats took control of goverment in 2008, immigration was a non-issue for most Americans.  It was healthcare and the economy and that is what democrats focused on.

Thanks to Donald Trump he has created a crisis in immigration where none exist.  If democrats have sufficient control of government in 2020, there will be real immigration reform.  It could come in the next two years with a democratic House.  Both democrats and republicans in congress agree on a number immigration issues and Donald's only real interest in immigration is building a wall.  Democrats will be willing to give Trump his wall for the right kind of immigration bill.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Despite the irrefutable FACT that this question was answered in court - in a case wherein a civilian border patrol got into a spat with undocumented foreigners trying to trespass over private property and effect an improper entry, you make that blatantly false claim???
> 
> Those who were brought into court even refused sound counsel to appeal the ruling
> 
> 2)  The Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> Do you know what the meaning of the word unalienable is?  Can you explain how our Creator (whoever your God is) only gave citizens unalienable Rights?
> 
> It would appear to me that you are historically and legally ignorant on this point.  So, your contention is, only citizens have rights and the government doles them out on the basis of your citizenship?   If that is the case, you could stand on the border and pop the foreigner the moment they set foot on U.S. soil, right?
> 
> I mean, our county government allows us to kill squirrels when they come on our property.  The squirrels are trespassing and have no rights.  So, if the foreigners have no rights, how come you suppose it's against the law to use force against them if they come across your property?  It's because they DO have Rights and it was people that support you who brought that ruling about.
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.  It's been legal to use force against trespassers for 250 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ray is the most disrespectful person on this board.  You are the most ignorant.  Calling people names is a testament to your character.
> 
> The fact is, it is YOUR fault that the courts put people just like you in prison and then declared that undocumented have civil rights - and those civil rights trumped those who think just like you.
> 
> If people had a Right to protect private property, all private property along the border would be being protected by civilian militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a certifiable idiot.  People have a right to use force to protect their property.  The fact is irrefutable.  I have personally had a shotgun pointed in my direction by a rancher because we were on his land.
> 
> Debating you is a waste of time because so much of what you believe just isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an aggravating blowhard that don't have an IQ that is equivalent to his shoe size.
> 
> The bottom line is that the lie you just told would make even an idiot look like a freaking Einstein.  Enough of this lying mental midgetry.  Let's get down and dirty and tell the people the truth.  I'd bet dollars against doughnuts that your dumb ass was, most likely, among those that caused this sh!+storm to begin in the first place.
> 
> Back in 2003 some Salvadorans were attempting to cross the border and enter the United States improperly.  Unfortunately (later fortunately for them), it was private property and it was posted.  In addition, the property was being guarded by Ranch Rescue, a civilian border patrol watch group.
> 
> The trespassing foreigners attempting an improper entry got into a tiff with Ranch Rescue whereupon Ranch Rescue ending up winning that altercation.  The matter ended up in court.  Ranch Rescue members were sent to prison; the land owner lost his property and his home to the undocumented foreigners.The ACLU went home, laughing all the way to the bank.
> 
> Both Ranch Rescue AND Jack Foote (the property owner) rejected the advice to appeal the decision.  In the court's RULING, he said that Ranch Rescue "violated the civil rights" of the foreigners who were tryig to come into the U.S. improperly.  Any way you slice it and any way you dice it, the facts are unequivocal:
> 
> *  The undocumented foreigners not only have rights, but rights that trump those of American property owners
> 
> *  Jack Foote did NOT have the right to protect his own private property.  He lost it for trying.
> 
> AFTER that event, civilian militias gave up on saving America and allowed themselves to be recruited by neo nazis in some lame ass scheme to pretend to be an extension of Homeland (IN) Security and adopt David Duke's Border Watch scheme (Duke being a former neo nazi turned KKK leader.)  It's been a pissing match ever since with the constitutionalists and patriots of the period (pre 2003) being ignored by the mainstream media as bripat9643 and his ilk serve as useful idiots, working to institute Bill Clinton's silliness as the gold standard by which the rest of America would be judged.
> 
> That is why, for a fact, the build the wall guys are asking you why we can't be like Mexico and reminding us every day about communist China's wall.  They want to be at war like the Israelis and they want us to have the same kind of atmosphere the people had while maintaining the Berlin Wall.  EVERY reference to their utopia is related to communist, socialist and tyrannical regimes and / or nations at war.  The bulk of their news is what they get from media owned by a board of director on the Council on Foreign Relations.
> 
> People like  bripat9643 are little more than change agents for the NEW WORLD ORDER.  But, you have the facts and any of you that want to check it out can research it for yourselves.  bripat9643 may think that name calling and using controversial language will be enough to hide what he is and what it he is doing.  I don't think it is.  That is why he is constantly trying to tell you I'm an idiot.  He's projecting what he realizes what he is.  But, people like Rupert Murdoch own him and those who waste their ever waking moment worrying about that damn wall.  NEVER do they talk about what they want to do for their fellow Anmericans.  I have and do.  NEVER will you hear them extol the virtues of Liberty.  I have and do.  NEVER do they interject the Constitution into their phony "debate."  I have and do.
> 
> The moment bripat9643 began calling people names, he lost any "debate" that might have been going on.  ALL that troll has is name calling and trying to disrupt any chance of the different sides being able to have a productive conversation because, even being the most ignorant individual on this thread, he realizes his side LOST any pretend debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it comes to posting stupid shit, you're right up their with danielpalos.
Click to expand...


I've been thinking that you were danielpalos under another name


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> Because bigotry and hate are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are really saying is that wisdom and prudence are wrong.  People aren't required to turn off their brains to serve your idiotic ideals that say people are all the same.  They aren't, and some are far worse than others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like more of your paranoid projection.  Wisdom and prudence are not your strong suit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are contesting my position that people are not all the same?  Really?
Click to expand...


Sober up and ask me about something I actually said.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray is the most disrespectful person on this board.  You are the most ignorant.  Calling people names is a testament to your character.
> 
> The fact is, it is YOUR fault that the courts put people just like you in prison and then declared that undocumented have civil rights - and those civil rights trumped those who think just like you.
> 
> If people had a Right to protect private property, all private property along the border would be being protected by civilian militias.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a certifiable idiot.  People have a right to use force to protect their property.  The fact is irrefutable.  I have personally had a shotgun pointed in my direction by a rancher because we were on his land.
> 
> Debating you is a waste of time because so much of what you believe just isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most states don't recognize the use of lethal force for mere trespassing. Deadly force in the defense of one's life is permitted. Deadly force in defense of property alone generally isn't. Most uses of lethal force must be in response to reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm to oneself or others
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't use the term "lethal force."  However, in many states, if someone breaks into your home, you are allowed to blow them away.  You are allowed to use force against trespassers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not 'any place'. But one's home specifically. You couldn't, for example, shoot someone on your lawn without a reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm to one's self or others.
> 
> Trying to shift that to the use of deadly force on the border when someone is trying to enter the country.....would be poorly supported legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one who keeps using the term "deadly force," dumbass.  I haven't used it.  However, your claims are still bullshit.  If you had a wall or fence around your property and some thief climbed over it, you would be entitled to shoot him in some states.  Furthermore, many businesses have private security, and they are able to use deadly force in many cases.
Click to expand...


Yawn


----------



## Skylar

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Despite the irrefutable FACT that this question was answered in court - in a case wherein a civilian border patrol got into a spat with undocumented foreigners trying to trespass over private property and effect an improper entry, you make that blatantly false claim???
> 
> Those who were brought into court even refused sound counsel to appeal the ruling
> 
> 2)  The Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> Do you know what the meaning of the word unalienable is?  Can you explain how our Creator (whoever your God is) only gave citizens unalienable Rights?
> 
> It would appear to me that you are historically and legally ignorant on this point.  So, your contention is, only citizens have rights and the government doles them out on the basis of your citizenship?   If that is the case, you could stand on the border and pop the foreigner the moment they set foot on U.S. soil, right?
> 
> I mean, our county government allows us to kill squirrels when they come on our property.  The squirrels are trespassing and have no rights.  So, if the foreigners have no rights, how come you suppose it's against the law to use force against them if they come across your property?  It's because they DO have Rights and it was people that support you who brought that ruling about.
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.  It's been legal to use force against trespassers for 250 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ray is the most disrespectful person on this board.  You are the most ignorant.  Calling people names is a testament to your character.
> 
> The fact is, it is YOUR fault that the courts put people just like you in prison and then declared that undocumented have civil rights - and those civil rights trumped those who think just like you.
> 
> If people had a Right to protect private property, all private property along the border would be being protected by civilian militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a certifiable idiot.  People have a right to use force to protect their property.  The fact is irrefutable.  I have personally had a shotgun pointed in my direction by a rancher because we were on his land.
> 
> Debating you is a waste of time because so much of what you believe just isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most states don't recognize the use of lethal force for mere trespassing. Deadly force in the defense of one's life is permitted. Deadly force in defense of property alone generally isn't. Most uses of lethal force must be in response to reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm to oneself or others
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the law we have except for your home or car.  If somebody breaks into my home or car while I'm armed, I have the legal right to use deadly force.
Click to expand...


Depends on the state and depends on if you have a reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm to oneself or others. You wouldn't be able to kill someone say....walking across your lawn.

And since we're talking about legal allegories to lethal force against illegals as they cross the border.......the United States is neither a 'house' nor a 'car'.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That argument doesn't fly, Ray, because it is a bullshit argument, used here over and over again (because it is all they have).*  The popular vote only counts or decides anything at the STATE level.  Take away a couple of square miles of area around LA and NYC and Hillary lost the popular vote as well.  Once you win a county or a state by two votes, it doesn't matter if you add 200,000 more----  you've already won.  The democrats have wet dreams about someday making the USA a pure democracy (the popular vote a la mob rule) because they want to be the mob, but the founders were wise and realized that to be president, you should represent the people, so they created the Electoral College so that by winning, a far wider swath of people and states would be represented that never would have any voice in their government otherwise.
> 
> In the Left's world, winning would become very easy.  Just win California (LA and SanFran) and New York (City) and every time you've won!  Screw all the deplorables everywhere else.  Why else do you think they are so adamant on filling up states with illegal Latino democrat voters?!  I happen to know a lot of people both in California and New York who DON'T live in those areas (the Valley and upstate NY) and they HATE how these small city areas decide everything against their wishes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For decades, the anti-white party has been telling their people that Republicans are a thing of the past.  Old white men that are dying off.  People who are stuck in the 1940's.  A party losing political ground every year.
> 
> When Republicans do win, they must have cheated somehow because it just isn't possible.  I'm a liberal, all my friends are liberals, most of my family is liberal, all the people at Starbucks are liberals, and everybody in my state is liberal.  Sure, there are Republicans; here and there; in flyover country, some on yachts, in pickup trucks with gun racks.  But the rest of the country is like me.....liberal.
> 
> The Democrat party cannot tell their constituents the truth, otherwise many would lose faith and might quit voting.  So they need to lie to them.
> 
> Donald Trump:  James Comey, Russian collusion, the Electoral College, third party candidate, unequal campaign coverage, subservient white women who take voting orders from their Republican husbands.
> 
> 2010 Republican victory in Congress:  Voter-ID, voter suppression, gerrymandering.
> 
> George Bush reelection:  Diebold machines, gerrymandering.
> 
> George Bush election: hanging chads, selected not elected, brother is the Governor, voter purging.
> 
> Brainwashing dictates they tell their constituents they never lost, they won, it's just the Republicans found a way to cheat them somehow.  Liberals are way too closed minded to see a pattern like I listed above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF America were still white and IF Americans still respected the basics of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution,and founding principles then they could count on being re-elected.  The reality is, when the economy was improving, the Democrats took the House.  In Georgia where a lot of precincts are up to 87 percent white Republicans, a fraction of 1 percent of the votes separated the candidates for governor and the race for Secretary of State had to have a second run-off, neither major candidate getting 50 percent of the vote.  A LOT of races here were decided by less than one percent of the vote.
> 
> I think that when America swings left again, they are going to make you sorry that you had such a cocky attitude.  You should win with grace and style and NOT give your political opponents a reason to hate you.  It only guarantees that they will show up on election day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of leftists are fleeing their high taxed states and polluting lower taxed red states.  So unfortunately, you are seeing changes.
> 
> However a large part of change comes from liberalism.  If you look at statistics, less people are claiming to be religious or believe in God.  More people believe in Socialism.  This is especially true of younger people and college kids.  This is the era of "gimme."
> 
> So evil is spreading as planned and we on the right are trying to fight the will of Satan. People are becoming less and less responsible every year.  More and more people want government to handle all their personal and financial affairs.
> 
> I don't know what will happen in 50 years from now, but I"m glad I'll be off this earth by then.  Because the great experiment is coming to an end.  Once Democrats wipe out white people and make us a minority, we will have a single-party government forever.  Socialism will then be the new government quickly followed by Communism.  The only hope I have is that they don't destroy history books like they are with statues and religious items today so people in the future can figure out where we went wrong and how we failed them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so, Ray, we failed as a nation for turning our backs against God.  America became the greatest nation in the annals of history when we were keeping the Commandments of God.  I belong to the Anglo-Israelite Christian Church.  Among our tenets of faith is that we believe America is the New Jerusalem of the Bible and that the Anglo Saxon, Scandinavian, Germanic, Teutonic and kindred people are those that are Christ's servants and those destined to bless the world - which we have.  Our race has provided the bulk of soldiers to die in foreign wars in the name of Liberty; we've provided more than 90 percent of the world's missionaries;  created the bulk of the world's wealth; stopped slavery; poured more money into research to cure diseases, etc., etc.
> 
> The immigration issue is a diversionary tactic and a byproduct of what is known as the Hegelian Principle:  Thesis + Anti-Thesis = Synthesis.  The globalists play the political game very well.  Create the problem (Thesis.)  Create the opposition, hysteria and the chaos while advocating that something be done (Anti-Thesis.)  Then produce a list of solutions and allow the sheeple pick from those pre-planned solutions (Synthesis.)
> 
> As it turns out, the solutions the globalists gave the sheeple to work with is predicated upon lies that, if you could understand their ultimate destination, end in slavery, oppression and inevitable genocide for the posterity of the founders of America.  You are an unwitting pawn in a very sick game.  What you fret over are symptoms of much larger problem in this world.  Since you only see what the puppetmasters want you to see, you suffer from what is known as BIAS CONFIRMATION.
> 
> Bias confirmation happens when you are only interested in facts and information that lead credence to your point of view.  As a result of this bias, you reject all knowledge that does not prove your point.  Then you assume that everyone that disagrees with your opinions, certainly must be liberals.  Well, I have opinions too.  And my solutions are just like those from the left and the right: my own ideas have flaws.  But I am not affected by bias confirmation so if the left points out the truth I can accept it; if the right slings skeet and lies, I can condemn it.
> 
> What I can tell you is that the left hates the Constitution; they hate the posterity of the founding fathers and every principle they stood for.  They hate your race; they have an issue with Christianity; they oppose the foundational principles upon which this country was founded.  Unfortunately, many of the people on the right have joined them and little separates them.  When you stoop to their level in trying to articulate your points and refuse to understand that all sides have facts on their side, you lose those that are on the sidelines looking in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 237085
Click to expand...


In what sentence and in what post have you gotten any conspiracy theory out of me?  I gave you the facts son.  I did not theorize a damn thing.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Skylar said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.  It's been legal to use force against trespassers for 250 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray is the most disrespectful person on this board.  You are the most ignorant.  Calling people names is a testament to your character.
> 
> The fact is, it is YOUR fault that the courts put people just like you in prison and then declared that undocumented have civil rights - and those civil rights trumped those who think just like you.
> 
> If people had a Right to protect private property, all private property along the border would be being protected by civilian militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a certifiable idiot.  People have a right to use force to protect their property.  The fact is irrefutable.  I have personally had a shotgun pointed in my direction by a rancher because we were on his land.
> 
> Debating you is a waste of time because so much of what you believe just isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most states don't recognize the use of lethal force for mere trespassing. Deadly force in the defense of one's life is permitted. Deadly force in defense of property alone generally isn't. Most uses of lethal force must be in response to reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm to oneself or others
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the law we have except for your home or car.  If somebody breaks into my home or car while I'm armed, I have the legal right to use deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on the state and depends on if you have a reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm to oneself or others. You wouldn't be able to kill someone say....walking across your lawn.
> 
> And since we're talking about legal allegories to lethal force against illegals as they cross the border.......the United States is neither a 'house' nor a 'car'.
Click to expand...


Correct, but I was just responding to your comment that using deadly force is only acceptable if you believe you are in jeopardy of serious harm or death.  If I am carrying on the street, that is true.  But we don't have those restrictions for our Castle Doctrine.  If somebody breaks into my home, that's the only legal excuse I need to kill the SOB.  Our Castle Doctrine also extends to your vehicle.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one said a wall would magically keep people out but it would seriously slow illegals down if it was build right and it would slow the flow of drugs .
> Again a 20 percent reduction in illegals and drugs would safe 7s7s billions a year.yyear.you just cant handle the truth
> 
> 
> 
> With half the illegals in the country coming in legally and only a 20% drop in illegal entry it wouldn't be worth 25 or 30 billion dollars, particular when you consider that whenever democrats get control, they're going to reform immigration and the wall will be joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like they reformed it all these years?
> 
> The Democrats are not going to do anything that doesn't benefit them.  And whatever benefits the Democrats is a disadvantage to citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The only reason democrats did not reform immigration law when they had the chance was because it was a low priority item with the public.  The only people really interested in immigration were racists whose goal was the supremacy of the white majority.
> 
> Trump of course has created an immigration crisis where none exist.  So when democrats get the opportunity, they are going to have to go after immigration law.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't do anything because it was going in their favor.  Young male men who could fight for their country, kids, pregnant women all came here and got in under Catch and Release.  So the Democrats are going to have to do something (if they ever gain full power again) because Trump is doing what he can to solve this problem.  The anti-white party doesn't want the problem solved, they want it to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When democrats took control of goverment in 2008, immigration was a non-issue for most Americans.  It was healthcare and the economy and that is what democrats focused on.
> 
> Thanks to Donald Trump he has created a crisis in immigration where none exist.  If democrats have sufficient control of government in 2020, there will be real immigration reform.  It could come in the next two years with a democratic House.  Both democrats and republicans in congress agree on a number immigration issues and Donald's only real interest in immigration is building a wall.  Democrats will be willing to give Trump his wall for the right kind of immigration bill.
Click to expand...


No they will not.  Piglosi said it herself, the wall is totally off the table.  Nothing is being traded for it.  

Immigration has always been a problem.  Perhaps you on the left could care less, but for the rest of us, a real problem.  Donald Trump didn't create a problem, he addressed the problem.  In fact that's what led to his victory against Hil-Liar.  Every other candidate spoke the same way about illegals.  Blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah.  Only Trump was transcending in what he said.  He told us what we wanted to hear: We are going to stop illegals from entering this country.  We will build a wall.  And that's why in light of our congressional loss, Trump is addressing the issue much more seriously.


----------



## Skylar

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> With half the illegals in the country coming in legally and only a 20% drop in illegal entry it wouldn't be worth 25 or 30 billion dollars, particular when you consider that whenever democrats get control, they're going to reform immigration and the wall will be joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like they reformed it all these years?
> 
> The Democrats are not going to do anything that doesn't benefit them.  And whatever benefits the Democrats is a disadvantage to citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The only reason democrats did not reform immigration law when they had the chance was because it was a low priority item with the public.  The only people really interested in immigration were racists whose goal was the supremacy of the white majority.
> 
> Trump of course has created an immigration crisis where none exist.  So when democrats get the opportunity, they are going to have to go after immigration law.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't do anything because it was going in their favor.  Young male men who could fight for their country, kids, pregnant women all came here and got in under Catch and Release.  So the Democrats are going to have to do something (if they ever gain full power again) because Trump is doing what he can to solve this problem.  The anti-white party doesn't want the problem solved, they want it to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When democrats took control of goverment in 2008, immigration was a non-issue for most Americans.  It was healthcare and the economy and that is what democrats focused on.
> 
> Thanks to Donald Trump he has created a crisis in immigration where none exist.  If democrats have sufficient control of government in 2020, there will be real immigration reform.  It could come in the next two years with a democratic House.  Both democrats and republicans in congress agree on a number immigration issues and Donald's only real interest in immigration is building a wall.  Democrats will be willing to give Trump his wall for the right kind of immigration bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they will not.  Piglosi said it herself, the wall is totally off the table.  Nothing is being traded for it.
> 
> Immigration has always been a problem.  Perhaps you on the left could care less, but for the rest of us, a real problem.  Donald Trump didn't create a problem, he addressed the problem.  In fact that's what led to his victory against Hil-Liar.  Every other candidate spoke the same way about illegals.  Blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah.  Only Trump was transcending in what he said.  He told us what we wanted to hear: We are going to stop illegals from entering this country.  We will build a wall.  And that's why in light of our congressional loss, Trump is addressing the issue much more seriously.
Click to expand...


There are far more affordable, faster, and more effective methods: Make E-Verify mandatory and put some teeth in it.

Illegal immigrant focused enforcement is stupid. Illegals are numerous, numbering in the tens of millions. They move. We don't know where they live. They may or may not be using their own names. And if we deport them, they can come back.

Use employer based focus.....the same way we focus our drug enforcement policy not on the users, but on the sellers and distributors. Employers make far more sense. They're public, they generally don't move, they're easy to find (most advertise!), they use their real names, and they're far less numerous.

Make the use of E-verify mandatory. Give any employer that doesn't use it 1 year in prison....including HR people and Hiring Managers. If an employer uses E-Verify and a perspective employee passes...and are later found to be illegal, the employer is free and clear. Employers only get in trouble if they don't use E-Verify.

The system already exists, is easy to use....so there's no ramp up or roll out. It takes a few minutes per employee and can be done online or over the phone. Merely make it mandatory, put some teeth behind it and give employers a 6 month grace period to bring their employees into compliance. You'd need a few dozen high profile prosecutions before employers got the message....and jobs for illegals dried up.

In comparison to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. With no work, they'll largely deport themselves. You could have the vast majority of the illegal immigration problem fixed in about a year. It would work and work well.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

dblack said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look to the facts from a study, on the cost burdens surrounding illegal immigrants.
> 
> “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion.”
> 
> 
> 
> So let's fix that. And let's do it without indulging the shackles of big government.
> 
> The problems we have are the welfare state and birth-right citizenship. Neither of those requires the Berlin wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China / Hong Kong (early 1960s) - 32 km
> Botswana / Zimbabwe 2003 - 500 km
> Bulgaria / Turkey 2014 - 30 km
> Chinese / Korean border fence (under construction) - 1,416 km
> Macedonia / Greece barrier  2015 - 30 km
> India / Myanmar barrier (under construction) - 1,624 km
> 
> Just the facts, and this is to name but a few. However, we are called to follow after other nations on how government faces health care?  Yet a wall is immoral and racist, despite other nations around the globe seeing fit to do so against illegal immigration.
> 
> Explain that one to me.  Anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it you don't understand? Other nations have overbearing governments, bad laws and policies that violate individual liberty? Are you suggesting we follow their example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Harry Reid saw the burden of illegals on our nation, and that was 1993.  Look, liberals lost the cost argument on illegal immigration and now they are to lose on the nation’s border barrier argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no interest in the opinions of liberals, nor Harry Reid.
Click to expand...


This is about (1) enforcement of *CURRENT* Federal Immigration Laws through deportation and ICE,

(2) an amnesty decision during the Reagan administration with the promise of strict border enforcement that never happened.  In fact that amnesty decision only made the immigration problem WORSE not better with a larger amount of illegals in our country that we must deal with. 

(3) A flow of violent MS-13 gangs, the report of repeat offender illegals that don’t get deported or reported to ICE

(4) sex trafficking coming in from our southern neighbor. 

Perhaps you aren’t willing to take these issues seriously. 


Interesting to note how democrats blame the increase of violent crime deaths among the most STRICT of cities ... like California, Maryland, and Michigan ... on filtering weapons from neighboring states.  Yet these same liberal democrats will throw their support behind open borders with Mexico.  For a party that “claims” weapons coming across the border, where criminals can find loose gun regulations outside the state as the underlining issue, it’s rather evident liberal democrats have become their own real problem through their support of an “open border policy” with Mexico.


----------



## Flopper

bear513 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, this is a barrier free country, and that's why we have over 20 million illegals here.  If you don't think 20 million people here illegally is an issue, over 70,000 Americans dying from overdoses every year is an issue, Americans losing work and working for lower pay because of foreigners is an issue, Americans getting murdered by these foreigners is an issue, then what is an issue to you?
> 
> I don't like that we spend 70 billion a  year on food stamps either; especially when I see the kind of people using them at my grocery store, but hey......... we keep spending it anyway.
> 
> A wall that we originally wanted is less than half of that, and it's one time only, not an annual thing.
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of those 20 million came in to the country legally, then wound up not reporting to the INS when their visas ran out.  They take jobs Americans don't want.  And you have a bigger chance getting murdered by the alt right, than you do someone whose in the country illegally.
> 
> This is a non-issue.  Only 10% of the most whacked out part of our population wants this wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, if you believe biased polling that wants to convince people of something that's not true.
> 
> Trump won the presidential election because of the wall.  Last midterms broke records for turnouts on both sides.  If nobody wanted the wall, the Republican turnout would have been pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course someone wants a big beautiful wall. However, a lot more people want to know that it will really work, how much will it cost, how long will it take to build it, what parts of the border will have a wall, what is the environmental impact, and what will be done with the rest of the border.  Trump tweets one thing today and something entirely different tomorrow.  That is not a plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So walls are a new concept to people??
> 
> 
> What kind of post is that, did they just hear of locks also?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

No, and neither is scaling them.


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like they reformed it all these years?
> 
> The Democrats are not going to do anything that doesn't benefit them.  And whatever benefits the Democrats is a disadvantage to citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> *The only reason democrats did not reform immigration law when they had the chance was because it was a low priority item with the public.  The only people really interested in immigration were racists whose goal was the supremacy of the white majority.
> 
> Trump of course has created an immigration crisis where none exist.  So when democrats get the opportunity, they are going to have to go after immigration law.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't do anything because it was going in their favor.  Young male men who could fight for their country, kids, pregnant women all came here and got in under Catch and Release.  So the Democrats are going to have to do something (if they ever gain full power again) because Trump is doing what he can to solve this problem.  The anti-white party doesn't want the problem solved, they want it to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When democrats took control of goverment in 2008, immigration was a non-issue for most Americans.  It was healthcare and the economy and that is what democrats focused on.
> 
> Thanks to Donald Trump he has created a crisis in immigration where none exist.  If democrats have sufficient control of government in 2020, there will be real immigration reform.  It could come in the next two years with a democratic House.  Both democrats and republicans in congress agree on a number immigration issues and Donald's only real interest in immigration is building a wall.  Democrats will be willing to give Trump his wall for the right kind of immigration bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they will not.  Piglosi said it herself, the wall is totally off the table.  Nothing is being traded for it.
> 
> Immigration has always been a problem.  Perhaps you on the left could care less, but for the rest of us, a real problem.  Donald Trump didn't create a problem, he addressed the problem.  In fact that's what led to his victory against Hil-Liar.  Every other candidate spoke the same way about illegals.  Blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah.  Only Trump was transcending in what he said.  He told us what we wanted to hear: We are going to stop illegals from entering this country.  We will build a wall.  And that's why in light of our congressional loss, Trump is addressing the issue much more seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are far more affordable, faster, and more effective methods: Make E-Verify mandatory and put some teeth in it.
> 
> Illegal immigrant focused enforcement is stupid. Illegals are numerous, numbering in the tens of millions. They move. We don't know where they live. They may or may not be using their own names. And if we deport them, they can come back.
> 
> Use employer based focus.....the same way we focus our drug enforcement policy not on the users, but on the sellers and distributors. Employers make far more sense. They're public, they generally don't move, they're easy to find (most advertise!), they use their real names, and they're far less numerous.
> 
> Make the use of E-verify mandatory. Give any employer that doesn't use it 1 year in prison....including HR people and Hiring Managers. If an employer uses E-Verify and a perspective employee passes...and are later found to be illegal, the employer is free and clear. Employers only get in trouble if they don't use E-Verify.
> 
> The system already exists, is easy to use....so there's no ramp up or roll out. It takes a few minutes per employee and can be done online or over the phone. Merely make it mandatory, put some teeth behind it and give employers a 6 month grace period to bring their employees into compliance. You'd need a few dozen high profile prosecutions before employers got the message....and jobs for illegals dried up.
> 
> In comparison to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. With no work, they'll largely deport themselves. You could have the vast majority of the illegal immigration problem fixed in about a year. It would work and work well.
Click to expand...

Utter horseshit.  All your claims have been refuted in this forum 1000 times.  The wall has been proven the most effective method for controlling illegal immigration.


----------



## Flopper

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't discussing "immigrants."  We're discussing illegal aliens.  Douchebags like you always like to blur the distinction between the two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we are. We're discussing immigrants and guest workers. The reason there are so many "illegals" here is because the laws limiting entry are too restrictive. If we changed that, if we made it easier for immigrants and workers to enter the country legally, we could focus on the remaining "illegals" knowing that they were up to no good.
> 
> As it is, you have little sympathy for the crackdown on "illegals" because people know that most of them are just trying to feed their families.
Click to expand...

That is far to straight forward and inexpensive.  Trump wants us to spend about 30 billion dollars to build a wall that migrants will just go around or over while  half of them will continue to enter the country through ports of entry.   I don't think Trump gives a gives damn about the effectiveness of the wall, as long as it get's build He can then claim he has saved America and fulfilled his campaign promise.


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The only reason democrats did not reform immigration law when they had the chance was because it was a low priority item with the public.  The only people really interested in immigration were racists whose goal was the supremacy of the white majority.
> 
> Trump of course has created an immigration crisis where none exist.  So when democrats get the opportunity, they are going to have to go after immigration law.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't do anything because it was going in their favor.  Young male men who could fight for their country, kids, pregnant women all came here and got in under Catch and Release.  So the Democrats are going to have to do something (if they ever gain full power again) because Trump is doing what he can to solve this problem.  The anti-white party doesn't want the problem solved, they want it to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When democrats took control of goverment in 2008, immigration was a non-issue for most Americans.  It was healthcare and the economy and that is what democrats focused on.
> 
> Thanks to Donald Trump he has created a crisis in immigration where none exist.  If democrats have sufficient control of government in 2020, there will be real immigration reform.  It could come in the next two years with a democratic House.  Both democrats and republicans in congress agree on a number immigration issues and Donald's only real interest in immigration is building a wall.  Democrats will be willing to give Trump his wall for the right kind of immigration bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they will not.  Piglosi said it herself, the wall is totally off the table.  Nothing is being traded for it.
> 
> Immigration has always been a problem.  Perhaps you on the left could care less, but for the rest of us, a real problem.  Donald Trump didn't create a problem, he addressed the problem.  In fact that's what led to his victory against Hil-Liar.  Every other candidate spoke the same way about illegals.  Blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah.  Only Trump was transcending in what he said.  He told us what we wanted to hear: We are going to stop illegals from entering this country.  We will build a wall.  And that's why in light of our congressional loss, Trump is addressing the issue much more seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are far more affordable, faster, and more effective methods: Make E-Verify mandatory and put some teeth in it.
> 
> Illegal immigrant focused enforcement is stupid. Illegals are numerous, numbering in the tens of millions. They move. We don't know where they live. They may or may not be using their own names. And if we deport them, they can come back.
> 
> Use employer based focus.....the same way we focus our drug enforcement policy not on the users, but on the sellers and distributors. Employers make far more sense. They're public, they generally don't move, they're easy to find (most advertise!), they use their real names, and they're far less numerous.
> 
> Make the use of E-verify mandatory. Give any employer that doesn't use it 1 year in prison....including HR people and Hiring Managers. If an employer uses E-Verify and a perspective employee passes...and are later found to be illegal, the employer is free and clear. Employers only get in trouble if they don't use E-Verify.
> 
> The system already exists, is easy to use....so there's no ramp up or roll out. It takes a few minutes per employee and can be done online or over the phone. Merely make it mandatory, put some teeth behind it and give employers a 6 month grace period to bring their employees into compliance. You'd need a few dozen high profile prosecutions before employers got the message....and jobs for illegals dried up.
> 
> In comparison to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. With no work, they'll largely deport themselves. You could have the vast majority of the illegal immigration problem fixed in about a year. It would work and work well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter horseshit.  All your claims have been refuted in this forum 1000 times.  The wall has been proven the most effective method for controlling illegal immigration.
Click to expand...



Nope. And no, it hasn't.

A wall actually increases illegal immigration by making it more expensive to cross the border. Before a wall immigrants would come here, earn money, and then go home. There were entire seasonal work forces that would arrive from Mexico, help bring in a harvest of a particular crop, earn some money *and go home. *And come back the next year for the next harvest season.

Now people have to work for years to pay back the cost of crossing the border. *Meaning they have to stay longer.* And when they stay longer, they have more kids here, there is less incentive for them to go home.

Worse, about a third of illegals are folks who merely overstayed visas. *Which walls do nothing to prevent. 
*
Walls are expensive to make expensive to buy land for and even more expensive to maintain. They can be circumvented by anyone who really wants to. To quote Trump's own chief of staff,



> "the bottom line is the fence doesn't stop anybody who really wants to get across. You go under, you go around, you go through it. And that's what the ranchers tell us, is that they don't need a fence."
> 
> Mick Mulvaney
> 
> Mick Mulvaney in 2015: Trump's views on border wall 'simplistic,' 'absurd and almost childish' - CNNPolitics



Nor does the fence keep them from coming back.

*The E-Verify system works on all of those fronts. *It eliminates the work that illegals come here for, or those overstaying their visas require in order to stay here. Compared to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. Stripped of the means of making a living, most would go home where its far cheaper.

The wall is orders of magnitude MORE expensive, takes *years* to build, is* wildly expensive to maintain*, is *ineffective*, doesn't address 1/3 or illegal immigrants at all, and actually i*ncreases *the incentive for them to stay once they've arrived. *Its a stupid proposal.*

E-Verify is orders of magnitude LESS expensive, _it is already in place,_ its maintenance costs are minimal (a website, phone line and paperwork), its very effective, it DOES address the 1/3 of illegal immigrants that the wall ignores, and it REDUCES the incentive for illegals to stay here. *Its a smart proposal. *


----------



## Skylar

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look to the facts from a study, on the cost burdens surrounding illegal immigrants.
> 
> “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion.”
> 
> 
> 
> So let's fix that. And let's do it without indulging the shackles of big government.
> 
> The problems we have are the welfare state and birth-right citizenship. Neither of those requires the Berlin wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China / Hong Kong (early 1960s) - 32 km
> Botswana / Zimbabwe 2003 - 500 km
> Bulgaria / Turkey 2014 - 30 km
> Chinese / Korean border fence (under construction) - 1,416 km
> Macedonia / Greece barrier  2015 - 30 km
> India / Myanmar barrier (under construction) - 1,624 km
> 
> Just the facts, and this is to name but a few. However, we are called to follow after other nations on how government faces health care?  Yet a wall is immoral and racist, despite other nations around the globe seeing fit to do so against illegal immigration.
> 
> Explain that one to me.  Anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it you don't understand? Other nations have overbearing governments, bad laws and policies that violate individual liberty? Are you suggesting we follow their example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Harry Reid saw the burden of illegals on our nation, and that was 1993.  Look, liberals lost the cost argument on illegal immigration and now they are to lose on the nation’s border barrier argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no interest in the opinions of liberals, nor Harry Reid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is about (1) enforcement of *CURRENT* Federal Immigration Laws through deportation and ICE,
> 
> (2) an amnesty decision during the Reagan administration with the promise of strict border enforcement that never happened.  In fact that amnesty decision only made the immigration problem WORSE not better with a larger amount of illegals in our country that we must deal with.
> 
> (3) A flow of violent MS-13 gangs, the report of repeat offender illegals that don’t get deported or reported to ICE
> 
> (4) sex trafficking coming in from our southern neighbor.
> 
> Perhaps you aren’t willing to take these issues seriously.
> 
> 
> Interesting to note how democrats blame the increase of violent crime deaths among the most STRICT of cities ... like California, Maryland, and Michigan ... on filtering weapons from neighboring states.  Yet these same liberal democrats will throw their support behind open borders with Mexico.
Click to expand...


Who is supporting an open border with Mexico? You're citing California. Show us Governor Brown advocating an open border.

You can't. You're not citing 'liberal democrats'. You're citing yourself AS liberal democrats. 

That's the same thing, is it?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look to the facts from a study, on the cost burdens surrounding illegal immigrants.
> 
> “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion.”
> 
> 
> 
> So let's fix that. And let's do it without indulging the shackles of big government.
> 
> The problems we have are the welfare state and birth-right citizenship. Neither of those requires the Berlin wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China / Hong Kong (early 1960s) - 32 km
> Botswana / Zimbabwe 2003 - 500 km
> Bulgaria / Turkey 2014 - 30 km
> Chinese / Korean border fence (under construction) - 1,416 km
> Macedonia / Greece barrier  2015 - 30 km
> India / Myanmar barrier (under construction) - 1,624 km
> 
> Just the facts, and this is to name but a few. However, we are called to follow after other nations on how government faces health care?  Yet a wall is immoral and racist, despite other nations around the globe seeing fit to do so against illegal immigration.
> 
> Explain that one to me.  Anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it you don't understand? Other nations have overbearing governments, bad laws and policies that violate individual liberty? Are you suggesting we follow their example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Harry Reid saw the burden of illegals on our nation, and that was 1993.  Look, liberals lost the cost argument on illegal immigration and now they are to lose on the nation’s border barrier argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no interest in the opinions of liberals, nor Harry Reid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hilarious that you read the mental midgetry of some of these build the wall guys and they are ALWAYS quoting liberals and promoting communist nations in support of their talking points... All the while calling others lefties.  You can't make this stuff up.
Click to expand...


You actually think Greece, Turkey, Macedonia, and India are communist nations?  Care to try that again?

Actually ... I always found it interesting when you have liberals that are so opposed to building the wall, throwing their support for an open border.  Yet, when you inform the left that strict gun regulations simply does not work to lower gun violence in cities like Detroit or Baltimore, they then blame how easy it is for criminals to transport guns across the border.  Talk about a paradox, I don’t believe the left has actually taken the time to completely think this through.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't discussing "immigrants."  We're discussing illegal aliens.  Douchebags like you always like to blur the distinction between the two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we are. We're discussing immigrants and guest workers. The reason there are so many "illegals" here is because the laws limiting entry are too restrictive. If we changed that, if we made it easier for immigrants and workers to enter the country legally, we could focus on the remaining "illegals" knowing that they were up to no good.
> 
> As it is, you have little sympathy for the crackdown on "illegals" because people know that most of them are just trying to feed their families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then let them feed their families at home.  Surrendering is never a winning strategy.  It's an admission of failure.
> 
> Having people come here to make money and take it back home might not be devastating now, but this economy won't last forever.  Democrats will be in charge of Congress next week and then we may see harsh changes.
> 
> So what about these people wanting to feed their families when our people want to feed theirs?  Isn't it bad enough we've lowered pay scales by allowing these people to come here?  Now we are going to give them priority over our own people?
Click to expand...

What you are neglecting is that most of the people that are in the county illegally will still be in the country even if you build a wall and even if it's successful.  That is not going change till the immigration laws are changed.  The size of the illegal immigrant population will not decrease significantly because undocumented immigrants stay where most people with work permits do return home.  Also, the flow of people with entry visas will continue and many of those will become undocumented by overstay their visas.

Lastly, we need legal immigrants today and we're going to need them a lot more as our workforce shrinks in the 21st century.

You mentioned feeding the families at home. For central Americans cleaning out the Northern Triangle and making the area a safe place to live would eliminate most of the those seeking asylum. It might even save us money.  They aren't looking for food or handouts.  Most of them have jobs and earn a living.  They just need a safe environment where the violent crime rate in not 25 times greater than ours and kidnapping rate is not 80 times greater.


----------



## sealybobo

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't discussing "immigrants."  We're discussing illegal aliens.  Douchebags like you always like to blur the distinction between the two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we are. We're discussing immigrants and guest workers. The reason there are so many "illegals" here is because the laws limiting entry are too restrictive. If we changed that, if we made it easier for immigrants and workers to enter the country legally, we could focus on the remaining "illegals" knowing that they were up to no good.
> 
> As it is, you have little sympathy for the crackdown on "illegals" because people know that most of them are just trying to feed their families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then let them feed their families at home.  Surrendering is never a winning strategy.  It's an admission of failure.
> 
> Having people come here to make money and take it back home might not be devastating now, but this economy won't last forever.  Democrats will be in charge of Congress next week and then we may see harsh changes.
> 
> So what about these people wanting to feed their families when our people want to feed theirs?  Isn't it bad enough we've lowered pay scales by allowing these people to come here?  Now we are going to give them priority over our own people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are neglecting is that most of the people that are in the county illegally will still be in the country even if you build a wall and even if it's successful.  That is not going change till the immigration laws are changed  The size of the illegal immigrant population will not decrease significantly because undocumented immigrants stay where most people with work permits do return home.  Also, the flow of people with entry visas will continue and many of those will become undocumented by overstay their visas.
> 
> Lastly, we need these people today and we're going to need them a lot more as our workforce shrinks in the 21st century.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Corporatists on both sides will keep importing immigrants to fill the jobs and for growth. So building a wall won’t make wages go up because they’ll keep flooding the market with low skilled workers.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Skylar said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look to the facts from a study, on the cost burdens surrounding illegal immigrants.
> 
> “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion.”
> 
> 
> 
> So let's fix that. And let's do it without indulging the shackles of big government.
> 
> The problems we have are the welfare state and birth-right citizenship. Neither of those requires the Berlin wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China / Hong Kong (early 1960s) - 32 km
> Botswana / Zimbabwe 2003 - 500 km
> Bulgaria / Turkey 2014 - 30 km
> Chinese / Korean border fence (under construction) - 1,416 km
> Macedonia / Greece barrier  2015 - 30 km
> India / Myanmar barrier (under construction) - 1,624 km
> 
> Just the facts, and this is to name but a few. However, we are called to follow after other nations on how government faces health care?  Yet a wall is immoral and racist, despite other nations around the globe seeing fit to do so against illegal immigration.
> 
> Explain that one to me.  Anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it you don't understand? Other nations have overbearing governments, bad laws and policies that violate individual liberty? Are you suggesting we follow their example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Harry Reid saw the burden of illegals on our nation, and that was 1993.  Look, liberals lost the cost argument on illegal immigration and now they are to lose on the nation’s border barrier argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no interest in the opinions of liberals, nor Harry Reid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is about (1) enforcement of *CURRENT* Federal Immigration Laws through deportation and ICE,
> 
> (2) an amnesty decision during the Reagan administration with the promise of strict border enforcement that never happened.  In fact that amnesty decision only made the immigration problem WORSE not better with a larger amount of illegals in our country that we must deal with.
> 
> (3) A flow of violent MS-13 gangs, the report of repeat offender illegals that don’t get deported or reported to ICE
> 
> (4) sex trafficking coming in from our southern neighbor.
> 
> Perhaps you aren’t willing to take these issues seriously.
> 
> 
> Interesting to note how democrats blame the increase of violent crime deaths among the most STRICT of cities ... like California, Maryland, and Michigan ... on filtering weapons from neighboring states.  Yet these same liberal democrats will throw their support behind open borders with Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is supporting an open border with Mexico? You're citing California. Show us Governor Brown advocating an open border.
> 
> You can't. You're not citing 'liberal democrats'. You're citing yourself AS liberal democrats.
> 
> That's the same thing, is it?
Click to expand...


California does not advocate bringing those they discover as “illegal” to the knowledge of Federal authorities .. or ICE.  California protects illegals over following established Federal Immigration Laws, that have been passed through a legislation process and signed into law.  California also fines companies who   bring the knowledge of illegals to Federal authorities.  Are you that uninformed of the facts?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look to the facts from a study, on the cost burdens surrounding illegal immigrants.
> 
> “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion.”
> 
> 
> 
> So let's fix that. And let's do it without indulging the shackles of big government.
> 
> The problems we have are the welfare state and birth-right citizenship. Neither of those requires the Berlin wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China / Hong Kong (early 1960s) - 32 km
> Botswana / Zimbabwe 2003 - 500 km
> Bulgaria / Turkey 2014 - 30 km
> Chinese / Korean border fence (under construction) - 1,416 km
> Macedonia / Greece barrier  2015 - 30 km
> India / Myanmar barrier (under construction) - 1,624 km
> 
> Just the facts, and this is to name but a few. However, we are called to follow after other nations on how government faces health care?  Yet a wall is immoral and racist, despite other nations around the globe seeing fit to do so against illegal immigration.
> 
> Explain that one to me.  Anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it you don't understand? Other nations have overbearing governments, bad laws and policies that violate individual liberty? Are you suggesting we follow their example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Harry Reid saw the burden of illegals on our nation, and that was 1993.  Look, liberals lost the cost argument on illegal immigration and now they are to lose on the nation’s border barrier argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no interest in the opinions of liberals, nor Harry Reid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hilarious that you read the mental midgetry of some of these build the wall guys and they are ALWAYS quoting liberals and promoting communist nations in support of their talking points... All the while calling others lefties.  You can't make this stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You actually think Greece, Turkey, Macedonia, and India are communist nations?  Care to try that again?
> 
> Actually ... I always found it interesting when you have liberals that are so opposed to building the wall, throwing their support for an open border.  Yet, when you inform the left that strict gun regulations simply does not work to lower gun violence in cities like Detroit or Baltimore, they then blame how easy it is for criminals to transport guns across the border.  Talk about a paradox, I don’t believe the left has actually taken the time to completely think this through.
Click to expand...


For what reason did those countries put up a wall?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't discussing "immigrants."  We're discussing illegal aliens.  Douchebags like you always like to blur the distinction between the two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we are. We're discussing immigrants and guest workers. The reason there are so many "illegals" here is because the laws limiting entry are too restrictive. If we changed that, if we made it easier for immigrants and workers to enter the country legally, we could focus on the remaining "illegals" knowing that they were up to no good.
> 
> As it is, you have little sympathy for the crackdown on "illegals" because people know that most of them are just trying to feed their families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then let them feed their families at home.  Surrendering is never a winning strategy.  It's an admission of failure.
> 
> Having people come here to make money and take it back home might not be devastating now, but this economy won't last forever.  Democrats will be in charge of Congress next week and then we may see harsh changes.
> 
> So what about these people wanting to feed their families when our people want to feed theirs?  Isn't it bad enough we've lowered pay scales by allowing these people to come here?  Now we are going to give them priority over our own people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are neglecting is that most of the people that are in the county illegally will still be in the country even if you build a wall and even if it's successful.  That is not going change till the immigration laws are changed  The size of the illegal immigrant population will not decrease significantly because undocumented immigrants stay where most people with work permits do return home.  Also, the flow of people with entry visas will continue and many of those will become undocumented by overstay their visas.
> 
> Lastly, we need these people today and we're going to need them a lot more as our workforce shrinks in the 21st century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. Corporatists on both sides will keep importing immigrants to fill the jobs and for growth. So building a wall won’t make wages go up because they’ll keep flooding the market with low skilled workers.
Click to expand...


Then those corporations would not only be guilty of hiring these people, but complicit in breaking our immigration laws as well unless they bring them here legally.


----------



## McRocket

Nothing.

But thinking that simply building a wall higher is going to noticeably slow down illegal immigration is ridiculous.


----------



## Skylar

Ray From Cleveland said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't discussing "immigrants."  We're discussing illegal aliens.  Douchebags like you always like to blur the distinction between the two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we are. We're discussing immigrants and guest workers. The reason there are so many "illegals" here is because the laws limiting entry are too restrictive. If we changed that, if we made it easier for immigrants and workers to enter the country legally, we could focus on the remaining "illegals" knowing that they were up to no good.
> 
> As it is, you have little sympathy for the crackdown on "illegals" because people know that most of them are just trying to feed their families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then let them feed their families at home.  Surrendering is never a winning strategy.  It's an admission of failure.
> 
> Having people come here to make money and take it back home might not be devastating now, but this economy won't last forever.  Democrats will be in charge of Congress next week and then we may see harsh changes.
> 
> So what about these people wanting to feed their families when our people want to feed theirs?  Isn't it bad enough we've lowered pay scales by allowing these people to come here?  Now we are going to give them priority over our own people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are neglecting is that most of the people that are in the county illegally will still be in the country even if you build a wall and even if it's successful.  That is not going change till the immigration laws are changed  The size of the illegal immigrant population will not decrease significantly because undocumented immigrants stay where most people with work permits do return home.  Also, the flow of people with entry visas will continue and many of those will become undocumented by overstay their visas.
> 
> Lastly, we need these people today and we're going to need them a lot more as our workforce shrinks in the 21st century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. Corporatists on both sides will keep importing immigrants to fill the jobs and for growth. So building a wall won’t make wages go up because they’ll keep flooding the market with low skilled workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then those corporations would not only be guilty of hiring these people, but complicit in breaking our immigration laws as well unless they bring them here legally.
Click to expand...


That's one of the reasons I focus on E-Verify.


----------



## Skylar

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's fix that. And let's do it without indulging the shackles of big government.
> 
> The problems we have are the welfare state and birth-right citizenship. Neither of those requires the Berlin wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China / Hong Kong (early 1960s) - 32 km
> Botswana / Zimbabwe 2003 - 500 km
> Bulgaria / Turkey 2014 - 30 km
> Chinese / Korean border fence (under construction) - 1,416 km
> Macedonia / Greece barrier  2015 - 30 km
> India / Myanmar barrier (under construction) - 1,624 km
> 
> Just the facts, and this is to name but a few. However, we are called to follow after other nations on how government faces health care?  Yet a wall is immoral and racist, despite other nations around the globe seeing fit to do so against illegal immigration.
> 
> Explain that one to me.  Anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it you don't understand? Other nations have overbearing governments, bad laws and policies that violate individual liberty? Are you suggesting we follow their example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Harry Reid saw the burden of illegals on our nation, and that was 1993.  Look, liberals lost the cost argument on illegal immigration and now they are to lose on the nation’s border barrier argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no interest in the opinions of liberals, nor Harry Reid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is about (1) enforcement of *CURRENT* Federal Immigration Laws through deportation and ICE,
> 
> (2) an amnesty decision during the Reagan administration with the promise of strict border enforcement that never happened.  In fact that amnesty decision only made the immigration problem WORSE not better with a larger amount of illegals in our country that we must deal with.
> 
> (3) A flow of violent MS-13 gangs, the report of repeat offender illegals that don’t get deported or reported to ICE
> 
> (4) sex trafficking coming in from our southern neighbor.
> 
> Perhaps you aren’t willing to take these issues seriously.
> 
> 
> Interesting to note how democrats blame the increase of violent crime deaths among the most STRICT of cities ... like California, Maryland, and Michigan ... on filtering weapons from neighboring states.  Yet these same liberal democrats will throw their support behind open borders with Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is supporting an open border with Mexico? You're citing California. Show us Governor Brown advocating an open border.
> 
> You can't. You're not citing 'liberal democrats'. You're citing yourself AS liberal democrats.
> 
> That's the same thing, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> California does not advocate bringing those they discover as “illegal” to the knowledge of Federal authorities .. or ICE.  California protects illegals over following established Federal Immigration Laws, that have been passed through a legislation process and signed into law.  California also fines companies who   bring the knowledge of illegals to Federal authorities.  Are you that uninformed of the facts?
Click to expand...


That's not advocating an open border. In fact, nothing you cited even mentioned the border. 

Again, you're not citing 'liberal democrats' on an open border with Mexico. You're citing _yourself. _


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't discussing "immigrants."  We're discussing illegal aliens.  Douchebags like you always like to blur the distinction between the two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we are. We're discussing immigrants and guest workers. The reason there are so many "illegals" here is because the laws limiting entry are too restrictive. If we changed that, if we made it easier for immigrants and workers to enter the country legally, we could focus on the remaining "illegals" knowing that they were up to no good.
> 
> As it is, you have little sympathy for the crackdown on "illegals" because people know that most of them are just trying to feed their families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then let them feed their families at home.  Surrendering is never a winning strategy.  It's an admission of failure.
> 
> Having people come here to make money and take it back home might not be devastating now, but this economy won't last forever.  Democrats will be in charge of Congress next week and then we may see harsh changes.
> 
> So what about these people wanting to feed their families when our people want to feed theirs?  Isn't it bad enough we've lowered pay scales by allowing these people to come here?  Now we are going to give them priority over our own people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are neglecting is that most of the people that are in the county illegally will still be in the country even if you build a wall and even if it's successful.  That is not going change till the immigration laws are changed.  The size of the illegal immigrant population will not decrease significantly because undocumented immigrants stay where most people with work permits do return home.  Also, the flow of people with entry visas will continue and many of those will become undocumented by overstay their visas.
> 
> Lastly, we need legal immigrants today and we're going to need them a lot more as our workforce shrinks in the 21st century.
> 
> You mentioned feeding the families at home. For central Americans cleaning out the Northern Triangle and making the area a safe place to live would eliminate most of the those seeking asylum. It might even save us money.  They aren't looking for food or handouts.  Most of them have jobs and earn a living.  They just need a safe environment where the violent crime rate in not 25 times greater than ours and kidnapping rate is not 80 times greater.
Click to expand...


The workforce is not going to shrink in this country.  In fact in the next 20 years or so, less and less manual labor will be needed because of the continuous advancement in automation.  It's taking place at grocery stores, in hospitals and clinics, and yes, fast food restaurants where people with zero skills were able to get a job.  Did you ever ask yourself what are we going to do with all the cab and Uber drivers once we have driverless cars?  Do you know how many people we are talking here? 

And those are just a few industries I listed.  As wages increase and automation because less expensive, many of our blue collar people will find themselves without the ability to get a job.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Skylar said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we are. We're discussing immigrants and guest workers. The reason there are so many "illegals" here is because the laws limiting entry are too restrictive. If we changed that, if we made it easier for immigrants and workers to enter the country legally, we could focus on the remaining "illegals" knowing that they were up to no good.
> 
> As it is, you have little sympathy for the crackdown on "illegals" because people know that most of them are just trying to feed their families.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then let them feed their families at home.  Surrendering is never a winning strategy.  It's an admission of failure.
> 
> Having people come here to make money and take it back home might not be devastating now, but this economy won't last forever.  Democrats will be in charge of Congress next week and then we may see harsh changes.
> 
> So what about these people wanting to feed their families when our people want to feed theirs?  Isn't it bad enough we've lowered pay scales by allowing these people to come here?  Now we are going to give them priority over our own people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are neglecting is that most of the people that are in the county illegally will still be in the country even if you build a wall and even if it's successful.  That is not going change till the immigration laws are changed  The size of the illegal immigrant population will not decrease significantly because undocumented immigrants stay where most people with work permits do return home.  Also, the flow of people with entry visas will continue and many of those will become undocumented by overstay their visas.
> 
> Lastly, we need these people today and we're going to need them a lot more as our workforce shrinks in the 21st century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. Corporatists on both sides will keep importing immigrants to fill the jobs and for growth. So building a wall won’t make wages go up because they’ll keep flooding the market with low skilled workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then those corporations would not only be guilty of hiring these people, but complicit in breaking our immigration laws as well unless they bring them here legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's one of the reasons I focus on E-Verify.
Click to expand...


We should focus on everything; not just one avenue.  If we stuck together to do all we can to stop illegal immigration, it would be stopped.  However like everything else, it comes down to power and politics.


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> The CIA played no part in overthrowing the government, asshole.  If they aren't communists, Chileans love the CIA.


So you go the extra mile of putting up a wall between you and the truth.


----------



## Pogo

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux



Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

Why is posting a picture of a Klan march on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin in December and claiming it's the Democratic convention in New York the previous summer wrong?


----------



## Skylar

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then let them feed their families at home.  Surrendering is never a winning strategy.  It's an admission of failure.
> 
> Having people come here to make money and take it back home might not be devastating now, but this economy won't last forever.  Democrats will be in charge of Congress next week and then we may see harsh changes.
> 
> So what about these people wanting to feed their families when our people want to feed theirs?  Isn't it bad enough we've lowered pay scales by allowing these people to come here?  Now we are going to give them priority over our own people?
> 
> 
> 
> What you are neglecting is that most of the people that are in the county illegally will still be in the country even if you build a wall and even if it's successful.  That is not going change till the immigration laws are changed  The size of the illegal immigrant population will not decrease significantly because undocumented immigrants stay where most people with work permits do return home.  Also, the flow of people with entry visas will continue and many of those will become undocumented by overstay their visas.
> 
> Lastly, we need these people today and we're going to need them a lot more as our workforce shrinks in the 21st century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. Corporatists on both sides will keep importing immigrants to fill the jobs and for growth. So building a wall won’t make wages go up because they’ll keep flooding the market with low skilled workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then those corporations would not only be guilty of hiring these people, but complicit in breaking our immigration laws as well unless they bring them here legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's one of the reasons I focus on E-Verify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should focus on everything; not just one avenue.  If we stuck together to do all we can to stop illegal immigration, it would be stopped.  However like everything else, it comes down to power and politics.
Click to expand...


Start with the least expensive, most immediate and most effective solutions FIRST. E-Verify hits all those marks. Its ready right now, its very inexpensive, and it works. It also addresses a huge source of illegal immigrants; those who have overstayed their visas.

The wall....is expensive, slow, ineffective, and doesn't even address a full third of llegal immigration. Its a stupid policy. And the one the president is leading with.


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> It isn't possible for that to be a lie, moron.  It's an opinion, and it's far more credible than yours.  The theory that foreigners have a right to emigrate here couldn't be more idiotic.


WTF are you talking about?  This country was founded by emigrating foreigners.  As an American, we believe in the rule of law.  Requesting asylum is codified in international law.  Not respecting the law, is not being an American.


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look to the facts from a study, on the cost burdens surrounding illegal immigrants.
> 
> “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion.”
> 
> 
> 
> So let's fix that. And let's do it without indulging the shackles of big government.
> 
> The problems we have are the welfare state and birth-right citizenship. Neither of those requires the Berlin wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China / Hong Kong (early 1960s) - 32 km
> Botswana / Zimbabwe 2003 - 500 km
> Bulgaria / Turkey 2014 - 30 km
> Chinese / Korean border fence (under construction) - 1,416 km
> Macedonia / Greece barrier  2015 - 30 km
> India / Myanmar barrier (under construction) - 1,624 km
> 
> Just the facts, and this is to name but a few. However, we are called to follow after other nations on how government faces health care?  Yet a wall is immoral and racist, despite other nations around the globe seeing fit to do so against illegal immigration.
> 
> Explain that one to me.  Anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it you don't understand? Other nations have overbearing governments, bad laws and policies that violate individual liberty? Are you suggesting we follow their example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Harry Reid saw the burden of illegals on our nation, and that was 1993.  Look, liberals lost the cost argument on illegal immigration and now they are to lose on the nation’s border barrier argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no interest in the opinions of liberals, nor Harry Reid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is about (1) enforcement of *CURRENT* Federal Immigration Laws through deportation and ICE,
> 
> (2) an amnesty decision during the Reagan administration with the promise of strict border enforcement that never happened.  In fact that amnesty decision only made the immigration problem WORSE not better with a larger amount of illegals in our country that we must deal with.
> 
> (3) A flow of violent MS-13 gangs, the report of repeat offender illegals that don’t get deported or reported to ICE
> 
> (4) sex trafficking coming in from our southern neighbor.
> 
> Perhaps you aren’t willing to take these issues seriously.
> 
> 
> Interesting to note how democrats blame the increase of violent crime deaths among the most STRICT of cities ... like California, Maryland, and Michigan ... on filtering weapons from neighboring states.  Yet these same liberal democrats will throw their support behind open borders with Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is supporting an open border with Mexico? You're citing California. Show us Governor Brown advocating an open border.
> 
> You can't. You're not citing 'liberal democrats'. You're citing yourself AS liberal democrats.
> 
> That's the same thing, is it?
Click to expand...

You're supporting an open border with Mexico, douchebag.  You keep opposing doing anything that would actually work.


----------



## Flopper

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.  It's been legal to use force against trespassers for 250 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray is the most disrespectful person on this board.  You are the most ignorant.  Calling people names is a testament to your character.
> 
> The fact is, it is YOUR fault that the courts put people just like you in prison and then declared that undocumented have civil rights - and those civil rights trumped those who think just like you.
> 
> If people had a Right to protect private property, all private property along the border would be being protected by civilian militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a certifiable idiot.  People have a right to use force to protect their property.  The fact is irrefutable.  I have personally had a shotgun pointed in my direction by a rancher because we were on his land.
> 
> Debating you is a waste of time because so much of what you believe just isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most states don't recognize the use of lethal force for mere trespassing. Deadly force in the defense of one's life is permitted. Deadly force in defense of property alone generally isn't. Most uses of lethal force must be in response to reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm to oneself or others
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't use the term "lethal force."  However, in many states, if someone breaks into your home, you are allowed to blow them away.  You are allowed to use force against trespassers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not 'any place'. But one's home specifically. You couldn't, for example, shoot someone on your lawn without a reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm to one's self or others.
> 
> Trying to shift that to the use of deadly force on the border when someone is trying to enter the country.....would be poorly supported legally.
Click to expand...

There're a number places in world where deadly force is used by individuals and the government to prevent border crossing.  Many of these people making crossing are armed and dangerous, often criminals and terrorist.  Most of the people attempting illegal crossings of our southern border are not terrorists are even criminals.  They're people seeking a safe haven and chance to make a living wage.   They would certainly enter legally if they could.  However for most of these countries getting into the US without having family in the US is nearly impossible.  In some cases the wait can be years even if you have family in the US.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

McRocket said:


> Nothing.
> 
> But thinking that simply building a wall higher is going to noticeably slow down illegal immigration is ridiculous.



I don't know how you can say that given the hundred of thousands of apprehensions that happen at the border now.


----------



## Skylar

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's fix that. And let's do it without indulging the shackles of big government.
> 
> The problems we have are the welfare state and birth-right citizenship. Neither of those requires the Berlin wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China / Hong Kong (early 1960s) - 32 km
> Botswana / Zimbabwe 2003 - 500 km
> Bulgaria / Turkey 2014 - 30 km
> Chinese / Korean border fence (under construction) - 1,416 km
> Macedonia / Greece barrier  2015 - 30 km
> India / Myanmar barrier (under construction) - 1,624 km
> 
> Just the facts, and this is to name but a few. However, we are called to follow after other nations on how government faces health care?  Yet a wall is immoral and racist, despite other nations around the globe seeing fit to do so against illegal immigration.
> 
> Explain that one to me.  Anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it you don't understand? Other nations have overbearing governments, bad laws and policies that violate individual liberty? Are you suggesting we follow their example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Harry Reid saw the burden of illegals on our nation, and that was 1993.  Look, liberals lost the cost argument on illegal immigration and now they are to lose on the nation’s border barrier argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no interest in the opinions of liberals, nor Harry Reid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is about (1) enforcement of *CURRENT* Federal Immigration Laws through deportation and ICE,
> 
> (2) an amnesty decision during the Reagan administration with the promise of strict border enforcement that never happened.  In fact that amnesty decision only made the immigration problem WORSE not better with a larger amount of illegals in our country that we must deal with.
> 
> (3) A flow of violent MS-13 gangs, the report of repeat offender illegals that don’t get deported or reported to ICE
> 
> (4) sex trafficking coming in from our southern neighbor.
> 
> Perhaps you aren’t willing to take these issues seriously.
> 
> 
> Interesting to note how democrats blame the increase of violent crime deaths among the most STRICT of cities ... like California, Maryland, and Michigan ... on filtering weapons from neighboring states.  Yet these same liberal democrats will throw their support behind open borders with Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is supporting an open border with Mexico? You're citing California. Show us Governor Brown advocating an open border.
> 
> You can't. You're not citing 'liberal democrats'. You're citing yourself AS liberal democrats.
> 
> That's the same thing, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're supporting an open border with Mexico, douchebag.  You keep opposing doing anything that would actually work.
Click to expand...


Quote me advocating an open border. You'll find you're suffering from your ordinary delusions. 

Walls don't work. Cutting off the supply of work that keeps drawing illegals here.....that works.


----------



## Billo_Really

toobfreak said:


> View attachment 237043
> 
> 
> *Thanks for proving once and for all times* that you are a total idiot not worth my spit.  Right BR.  Now there is no such thing as a law breaker.    ALL people have some inalienable right to do whatever they please.  Please send me your address;  I want to come there and rob you of everything you have (if you have anything worth taking).  It's my inalienable right.


So, you're an American criminal?  Where's the wall around you?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Skylar said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are neglecting is that most of the people that are in the county illegally will still be in the country even if you build a wall and even if it's successful.  That is not going change till the immigration laws are changed  The size of the illegal immigrant population will not decrease significantly because undocumented immigrants stay where most people with work permits do return home.  Also, the flow of people with entry visas will continue and many of those will become undocumented by overstay their visas.
> 
> Lastly, we need these people today and we're going to need them a lot more as our workforce shrinks in the 21st century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Corporatists on both sides will keep importing immigrants to fill the jobs and for growth. So building a wall won’t make wages go up because they’ll keep flooding the market with low skilled workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then those corporations would not only be guilty of hiring these people, but complicit in breaking our immigration laws as well unless they bring them here legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's one of the reasons I focus on E-Verify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should focus on everything; not just one avenue.  If we stuck together to do all we can to stop illegal immigration, it would be stopped.  However like everything else, it comes down to power and politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start with the least expensive, most immediate and most effective solutions FIRST. E-Verify hits all those marks. Its ready right now, its very inexpensive, and it works. It also addresses a huge source of illegal immigrants; those who have overstayed their visas.
> 
> The wall....is expensive, slow, ineffective, and doesn't even address a full third of llegal immigration. Its a stupid policy. And the one the president is leading with.
Click to expand...


Like I said, do any and everything that will work.  But since the wall will take the most time to build, the sooner we start, the better.  Even if it was only E-Verify, people still come here to have babies, they still come here to sell drugs, they still come here to live with family that's already here.  E-Verify will never be successful on it's own just like a wall won't be successful on it's own.  

The only solution that hits all avenues of illegal crossings are if we make being here illegal a first degree felony with a minimum sentence of 5 years in prison.  Then we wouldn't need a wall or E-Veryfiy.  The only border problem we would have are people rushing to get the hell out of this country.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Fine with me.  Keep the government closed down.


You talk too much!


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't possible for that to be a lie, moron.  It's an opinion, and it's far more credible than yours.  The theory that foreigners have a right to emigrate here couldn't be more idiotic.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?  This country was founded by emigrating foreigners.  As an American, we believe in the rule of law.  Requesting asylum is codified in international law.  Not respecting the law, is not being an American.
Click to expand...

This country was founded by native born Americans, dumbass.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Oh trust me, that I can whole heartedly believe.


Next week, we open a can of "whoop ass".


----------



## bripat9643

Skylar said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are neglecting is that most of the people that are in the county illegally will still be in the country even if you build a wall and even if it's successful.  That is not going change till the immigration laws are changed  The size of the illegal immigrant population will not decrease significantly because undocumented immigrants stay where most people with work permits do return home.  Also, the flow of people with entry visas will continue and many of those will become undocumented by overstay their visas.
> 
> Lastly, we need these people today and we're going to need them a lot more as our workforce shrinks in the 21st century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Corporatists on both sides will keep importing immigrants to fill the jobs and for growth. So building a wall won’t make wages go up because they’ll keep flooding the market with low skilled workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then those corporations would not only be guilty of hiring these people, but complicit in breaking our immigration laws as well unless they bring them here legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's one of the reasons I focus on E-Verify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should focus on everything; not just one avenue.  If we stuck together to do all we can to stop illegal immigration, it would be stopped.  However like everything else, it comes down to power and politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start with the least expensive, most immediate and most effective solutions FIRST. E-Verify hits all those marks. Its ready right now, its very inexpensive, and it works. It also addresses a huge source of illegal immigrants; those who have overstayed their visas.
> 
> The wall....is expensive, slow, ineffective, and doesn't even address a full third of llegal immigration. Its a stupid policy. And the one the president is leading with.
Click to expand...

There's nothing stopping Congress from implementing E-verify and building the wall at the same time.  That's not a valid argument against building the wall.  Furthermore, we all know the government will not enforce the use of E-verify.


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't possible for that to be a lie, moron.  It's an opinion, and it's far more credible than yours.  The theory that foreigners have a right to emigrate here couldn't be more idiotic.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?  This country was founded by emigrating foreigners.  As an American, we believe in the rule of law.  Requesting asylum is codified in international law.  Not respecting the law, is not being an American.
Click to expand...

We ignore international law whenever we feel like it.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> What did you want him to do?


Something, other than nothing.



Ray From Cleveland said:


> What Bush Knew Before Sept. 11


Bin Laden determined to strike in the US.



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Now tell me page and paragraph where anything in the travel ban referred to race.


It was called the Muslim travel ban.



Ray From Cleveland said:


> You know, you have to quit letting MSM tell you how to think.  Try it yourself sometime.


Nice try.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So you're saying this country doesn't belong to us, it belongs to the entire world?  When did that happen?
> 
> The world population is 7.5 billion people.  Excluding our population, that's about 7.2 billion.  Given the fact that many people on the planet live like those in S/C America, how many of those 7.2 billion do you want to let in?


I'm saying you have no right stopping someone from requesting asylum.


----------



## Skylar

Flopper said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray is the most disrespectful person on this board.  You are the most ignorant.  Calling people names is a testament to your character.
> 
> The fact is, it is YOUR fault that the courts put people just like you in prison and then declared that undocumented have civil rights - and those civil rights trumped those who think just like you.
> 
> If people had a Right to protect private property, all private property along the border would be being protected by civilian militias.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a certifiable idiot.  People have a right to use force to protect their property.  The fact is irrefutable.  I have personally had a shotgun pointed in my direction by a rancher because we were on his land.
> 
> Debating you is a waste of time because so much of what you believe just isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most states don't recognize the use of lethal force for mere trespassing. Deadly force in the defense of one's life is permitted. Deadly force in defense of property alone generally isn't. Most uses of lethal force must be in response to reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm to oneself or others
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't use the term "lethal force."  However, in many states, if someone breaks into your home, you are allowed to blow them away.  You are allowed to use force against trespassers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not 'any place'. But one's home specifically. You couldn't, for example, shoot someone on your lawn without a reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm to one's self or others.
> 
> Trying to shift that to the use of deadly force on the border when someone is trying to enter the country.....would be poorly supported legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There're a number places in world where deadly force is used by individuals and the government to prevent border crossing.  For the most part the people making crossing are armed and dangerous, often criminals and terrorist.  Most of the people attempting illegal crossings of our southern border are not terrorists are even criminals.  They're people seeking a safe haven and chance to make a living wage.   They would certainly enter legally if they could.  However for most of these countries getting into the US without having family in the US is nearly impossible.
Click to expand...




bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Corporatists on both sides will keep importing immigrants to fill the jobs and for growth. So building a wall won’t make wages go up because they’ll keep flooding the market with low skilled workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then those corporations would not only be guilty of hiring these people, but complicit in breaking our immigration laws as well unless they bring them here legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's one of the reasons I focus on E-Verify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should focus on everything; not just one avenue.  If we stuck together to do all we can to stop illegal immigration, it would be stopped.  However like everything else, it comes down to power and politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start with the least expensive, most immediate and most effective solutions FIRST. E-Verify hits all those marks. Its ready right now, its very inexpensive, and it works. It also addresses a huge source of illegal immigrants; those who have overstayed their visas.
> 
> The wall....is expensive, slow, ineffective, and doesn't even address a full third of llegal immigration. Its a stupid policy. And the one the president is leading with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's nothing stopping Congress from implementing E-verify and building the wall at the same time.  That's not a valid argument against building the wall.  Furthermore, we all know the government will not enforce the use of E-verify.
Click to expand...


Sure there is: Funding and Time.

The wall costs billions and billions of dollars and would take about a decade to implement. And as Trump's own chief of Staff has noted, would be ineffective. Worse, it incentivizes illegals to stay here once they've arrived.

Where as E-Verify works immediately, as its already in place. With any policy changes implemented in a matter of months. You could resolve the overwhelming majority of illegal immigration, including the full 1/3 that the wall doesn't address in anyway,_ within a year.

And you'd get broad, bipartisan support. You don't need a government shut down for it.
_
But Trump is an idiot. And would rather shut down the government for a vanity project that is among the slowest, most expensive, least effective solutions imaginable for a border that per Trump is ALREADY SECURE.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Something, other than nothing.



Something like what?  Bin Laden (like the hundreds of threats received by the White House every day) had plans to attack America.  What was Bush supposed to do with no information about that.  And let me ask:  Since Bush was so hated by the left, what would they have done if Bush put TSA in the airports to prevent 911?  Do you think they would have just taken his word that he knew something nobody else knew?  



Billo_Really said:


> Bin Laden determined to strike in the US.



Just as he was determined to strike the US under Bill Clinton.  



Billo_Really said:


> It was called the Muslim travel ban.



No, the anti-white party called it a Muslim Travel Ban.  A majority of Muslims were un-effected by the ban that only targeted certain countries.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying this country doesn't belong to us, it belongs to the entire world?  When did that happen?
> 
> The world population is 7.5 billion people.  Excluding our population, that's about 7.2 billion.  Given the fact that many people on the planet live like those in S/C America, how many of those 7.2 billion do you want to let in?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying you have no right stopping someone from requesting asylum.
Click to expand...


But we do have the right to restrict access to the US after they apply like Trump is doing.  Under DumBama, catch and release was his way of doing things, so these people came here knowing they could sneak in and afterwards, never attend their court date.  Then they could settle in some Sanctuary city and be protected from the federal government, even getting an apartment, a drivers license, and credit cards.


----------



## Flopper

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't do anything because it was going in their favor.  Young male men who could fight for their country, kids, pregnant women all came here and got in under Catch and Release.  So the Democrats are going to have to do something (if they ever gain full power again) because Trump is doing what he can to solve this problem.  The anti-white party doesn't want the problem solved, they want it to grow.
> 
> 
> 
> When democrats took control of goverment in 2008, immigration was a non-issue for most Americans.  It was healthcare and the economy and that is what democrats focused on.
> 
> Thanks to Donald Trump he has created a crisis in immigration where none exist.  If democrats have sufficient control of government in 2020, there will be real immigration reform.  It could come in the next two years with a democratic House.  Both democrats and republicans in congress agree on a number immigration issues and Donald's only real interest in immigration is building a wall.  Democrats will be willing to give Trump his wall for the right kind of immigration bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they will not.  Piglosi said it herself, the wall is totally off the table.  Nothing is being traded for it.
> 
> Immigration has always been a problem.  Perhaps you on the left could care less, but for the rest of us, a real problem.  Donald Trump didn't create a problem, he addressed the problem.  In fact that's what led to his victory against Hil-Liar.  Every other candidate spoke the same way about illegals.  Blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah.  Only Trump was transcending in what he said.  He told us what we wanted to hear: We are going to stop illegals from entering this country.  We will build a wall.  And that's why in light of our congressional loss, Trump is addressing the issue much more seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are far more affordable, faster, and more effective methods: Make E-Verify mandatory and put some teeth in it.
> 
> Illegal immigrant focused enforcement is stupid. Illegals are numerous, numbering in the tens of millions. They move. We don't know where they live. They may or may not be using their own names. And if we deport them, they can come back.
> 
> Use employer based focus.....the same way we focus our drug enforcement policy not on the users, but on the sellers and distributors. Employers make far more sense. They're public, they generally don't move, they're easy to find (most advertise!), they use their real names, and they're far less numerous.
> 
> Make the use of E-verify mandatory. Give any employer that doesn't use it 1 year in prison....including HR people and Hiring Managers. If an employer uses E-Verify and a perspective employee passes...and are later found to be illegal, the employer is free and clear. Employers only get in trouble if they don't use E-Verify.
> 
> The system already exists, is easy to use....so there's no ramp up or roll out. It takes a few minutes per employee and can be done online or over the phone. Merely make it mandatory, put some teeth behind it and give employers a 6 month grace period to bring their employees into compliance. You'd need a few dozen high profile prosecutions before employers got the message....and jobs for illegals dried up.
> 
> In comparison to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. With no work, they'll largely deport themselves. You could have the vast majority of the illegal immigration problem fixed in about a year. It would work and work well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter horseshit.  All your claims have been refuted in this forum 1000 times.  The wall has been proven the most effective method for controlling illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. And no, it hasn't.
> 
> A wall actually increases illegal immigration by making it more expensive to cross the border. Before a wall immigrants would come here, earn money, and then go home. There were entire seasonal work forces that would arrive from Mexico, help bring in a harvest of a particular crop, earn some money *and go home. *And come back the next year for the next harvest season.
> 
> Now people have to work for years to pay back the cost of crossing the border. *Meaning they have to stay longer.* And when they stay longer, they have more kids here, there is less incentive for them to go home.
> 
> Worse, about a third of illegals are folks who merely overstayed visas. *Which walls do nothing to prevent.
> *
> Walls are expensive to make expensive to buy land for and even more expensive to maintain. They can be circumvented by anyone who really wants to. To quote Trump's own chief of staff,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "the bottom line is the fence doesn't stop anybody who really wants to get across. You go under, you go around, you go through it. And that's what the ranchers tell us, is that they don't need a fence."
> 
> Mick Mulvaney
> 
> Mick Mulvaney in 2015: Trump's views on border wall 'simplistic,' 'absurd and almost childish' - CNNPolitics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor does the fence keep them from coming back.
> 
> *The E-Verify system works on all of those fronts. *It eliminates the work that illegals come here for, or those overstaying their visas require in order to stay here. Compared to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. Stripped of the means of making a living, most would go home where its far cheaper.
> 
> The wall is orders of magnitude MORE expensive, takes *years* to build, is* wildly expensive to maintain*, is *ineffective*, doesn't address 1/3 or illegal immigrants at all, and actually i*ncreases *the incentive for them to stay once they've arrived. *Its a stupid proposal.*
> 
> E-Verify is orders of magnitude LESS expensive, _it is already in place,_ its maintenance costs are minimal (a website, phone line and paperwork), its very effective, it DOES address the 1/3 of illegal immigrants that the wall ignores, and it REDUCES the incentive for illegals to stay here. *Its a smart proposal. *
Click to expand...

A wall will also increase the number illegal immigrants because the increased border security makes it harder for migrants to leave without being picked by immigration and getting back in the US is harder so once in they are here to stay.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh trust me, that I can whole heartedly believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Next week, we open a can of "whoop ass".
Click to expand...


What are you going to "whoop" when you have a Republican led Senate and a Republican White House?  Are the Democrats going to beat each other up or something?


----------



## Skylar

Flopper said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> When democrats took control of goverment in 2008, immigration was a non-issue for most Americans.  It was healthcare and the economy and that is what democrats focused on.
> 
> Thanks to Donald Trump he has created a crisis in immigration where none exist.  If democrats have sufficient control of government in 2020, there will be real immigration reform.  It could come in the next two years with a democratic House.  Both democrats and republicans in congress agree on a number immigration issues and Donald's only real interest in immigration is building a wall.  Democrats will be willing to give Trump his wall for the right kind of immigration bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they will not.  Piglosi said it herself, the wall is totally off the table.  Nothing is being traded for it.
> 
> Immigration has always been a problem.  Perhaps you on the left could care less, but for the rest of us, a real problem.  Donald Trump didn't create a problem, he addressed the problem.  In fact that's what led to his victory against Hil-Liar.  Every other candidate spoke the same way about illegals.  Blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah.  Only Trump was transcending in what he said.  He told us what we wanted to hear: We are going to stop illegals from entering this country.  We will build a wall.  And that's why in light of our congressional loss, Trump is addressing the issue much more seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are far more affordable, faster, and more effective methods: Make E-Verify mandatory and put some teeth in it.
> 
> Illegal immigrant focused enforcement is stupid. Illegals are numerous, numbering in the tens of millions. They move. We don't know where they live. They may or may not be using their own names. And if we deport them, they can come back.
> 
> Use employer based focus.....the same way we focus our drug enforcement policy not on the users, but on the sellers and distributors. Employers make far more sense. They're public, they generally don't move, they're easy to find (most advertise!), they use their real names, and they're far less numerous.
> 
> Make the use of E-verify mandatory. Give any employer that doesn't use it 1 year in prison....including HR people and Hiring Managers. If an employer uses E-Verify and a perspective employee passes...and are later found to be illegal, the employer is free and clear. Employers only get in trouble if they don't use E-Verify.
> 
> The system already exists, is easy to use....so there's no ramp up or roll out. It takes a few minutes per employee and can be done online or over the phone. Merely make it mandatory, put some teeth behind it and give employers a 6 month grace period to bring their employees into compliance. You'd need a few dozen high profile prosecutions before employers got the message....and jobs for illegals dried up.
> 
> In comparison to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. With no work, they'll largely deport themselves. You could have the vast majority of the illegal immigration problem fixed in about a year. It would work and work well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter horseshit.  All your claims have been refuted in this forum 1000 times.  The wall has been proven the most effective method for controlling illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. And no, it hasn't.
> 
> A wall actually increases illegal immigration by making it more expensive to cross the border. Before a wall immigrants would come here, earn money, and then go home. There were entire seasonal work forces that would arrive from Mexico, help bring in a harvest of a particular crop, earn some money *and go home. *And come back the next year for the next harvest season.
> 
> Now people have to work for years to pay back the cost of crossing the border. *Meaning they have to stay longer.* And when they stay longer, they have more kids here, there is less incentive for them to go home.
> 
> Worse, about a third of illegals are folks who merely overstayed visas. *Which walls do nothing to prevent.
> *
> Walls are expensive to make expensive to buy land for and even more expensive to maintain. They can be circumvented by anyone who really wants to. To quote Trump's own chief of staff,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "the bottom line is the fence doesn't stop anybody who really wants to get across. You go under, you go around, you go through it. And that's what the ranchers tell us, is that they don't need a fence."
> 
> Mick Mulvaney
> 
> Mick Mulvaney in 2015: Trump's views on border wall 'simplistic,' 'absurd and almost childish' - CNNPolitics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor does the fence keep them from coming back.
> 
> *The E-Verify system works on all of those fronts. *It eliminates the work that illegals come here for, or those overstaying their visas require in order to stay here. Compared to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. Stripped of the means of making a living, most would go home where its far cheaper.
> 
> The wall is orders of magnitude MORE expensive, takes *years* to build, is* wildly expensive to maintain*, is *ineffective*, doesn't address 1/3 or illegal immigrants at all, and actually i*ncreases *the incentive for them to stay once they've arrived. *Its a stupid proposal.*
> 
> E-Verify is orders of magnitude LESS expensive, _it is already in place,_ its maintenance costs are minimal (a website, phone line and paperwork), its very effective, it DOES address the 1/3 of illegal immigrants that the wall ignores, and it REDUCES the incentive for illegals to stay here. *Its a smart proposal. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A wall will also increase the number illegal immigrants because the increased border security makes it harder for migrants to leave without being picked by immigration and getting back in the US is harder so once in they are here to stay.
Click to expand...


Exactly. The wall is just layers of stupid.


----------



## WheelieAddict

I'm still waiting for that Mexico money. Any day now.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> When democrats took control of goverment in 2008, immigration was a non-issue for most Americans.  It was healthcare and the economy and that is what democrats focused on.
> 
> Thanks to Donald Trump he has created a crisis in immigration where none exist.  If democrats have sufficient control of government in 2020, there will be real immigration reform.  It could come in the next two years with a democratic House.  Both democrats and republicans in congress agree on a number immigration issues and Donald's only real interest in immigration is building a wall.  Democrats will be willing to give Trump his wall for the right kind of immigration bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they will not.  Piglosi said it herself, the wall is totally off the table.  Nothing is being traded for it.
> 
> Immigration has always been a problem.  Perhaps you on the left could care less, but for the rest of us, a real problem.  Donald Trump didn't create a problem, he addressed the problem.  In fact that's what led to his victory against Hil-Liar.  Every other candidate spoke the same way about illegals.  Blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah.  Only Trump was transcending in what he said.  He told us what we wanted to hear: We are going to stop illegals from entering this country.  We will build a wall.  And that's why in light of our congressional loss, Trump is addressing the issue much more seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are far more affordable, faster, and more effective methods: Make E-Verify mandatory and put some teeth in it.
> 
> Illegal immigrant focused enforcement is stupid. Illegals are numerous, numbering in the tens of millions. They move. We don't know where they live. They may or may not be using their own names. And if we deport them, they can come back.
> 
> Use employer based focus.....the same way we focus our drug enforcement policy not on the users, but on the sellers and distributors. Employers make far more sense. They're public, they generally don't move, they're easy to find (most advertise!), they use their real names, and they're far less numerous.
> 
> Make the use of E-verify mandatory. Give any employer that doesn't use it 1 year in prison....including HR people and Hiring Managers. If an employer uses E-Verify and a perspective employee passes...and are later found to be illegal, the employer is free and clear. Employers only get in trouble if they don't use E-Verify.
> 
> The system already exists, is easy to use....so there's no ramp up or roll out. It takes a few minutes per employee and can be done online or over the phone. Merely make it mandatory, put some teeth behind it and give employers a 6 month grace period to bring their employees into compliance. You'd need a few dozen high profile prosecutions before employers got the message....and jobs for illegals dried up.
> 
> In comparison to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. With no work, they'll largely deport themselves. You could have the vast majority of the illegal immigration problem fixed in about a year. It would work and work well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter horseshit.  All your claims have been refuted in this forum 1000 times.  The wall has been proven the most effective method for controlling illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. And no, it hasn't.
> 
> A wall actually increases illegal immigration by making it more expensive to cross the border. Before a wall immigrants would come here, earn money, and then go home. There were entire seasonal work forces that would arrive from Mexico, help bring in a harvest of a particular crop, earn some money *and go home. *And come back the next year for the next harvest season.
> 
> Now people have to work for years to pay back the cost of crossing the border. *Meaning they have to stay longer.* And when they stay longer, they have more kids here, there is less incentive for them to go home.
> 
> Worse, about a third of illegals are folks who merely overstayed visas. *Which walls do nothing to prevent.
> *
> Walls are expensive to make expensive to buy land for and even more expensive to maintain. They can be circumvented by anyone who really wants to. To quote Trump's own chief of staff,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "the bottom line is the fence doesn't stop anybody who really wants to get across. You go under, you go around, you go through it. And that's what the ranchers tell us, is that they don't need a fence."
> 
> Mick Mulvaney
> 
> Mick Mulvaney in 2015: Trump's views on border wall 'simplistic,' 'absurd and almost childish' - CNNPolitics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor does the fence keep them from coming back.
> 
> *The E-Verify system works on all of those fronts. *It eliminates the work that illegals come here for, or those overstaying their visas require in order to stay here. Compared to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. Stripped of the means of making a living, most would go home where its far cheaper.
> 
> The wall is orders of magnitude MORE expensive, takes *years* to build, is* wildly expensive to maintain*, is *ineffective*, doesn't address 1/3 or illegal immigrants at all, and actually i*ncreases *the incentive for them to stay once they've arrived. *Its a stupid proposal.*
> 
> E-Verify is orders of magnitude LESS expensive, _it is already in place,_ its maintenance costs are minimal (a website, phone line and paperwork), its very effective, it DOES address the 1/3 of illegal immigrants that the wall ignores, and it REDUCES the incentive for illegals to stay here. *Its a smart proposal. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A wall will also increase the number illegal immigrants because the increased border security makes it harder for migrants to leave without being picked by immigration and getting back in the US is harder so once in they are here to stay.
Click to expand...


No.  When they leave, they can do so at a point of entry.  Nobody is going to stop a Mexican from going back to Mexico.


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> You're an idiot.  It's been legal to use force against trespassers for 250 years.


Not only are you the idiot, you're a violent one.

..._a person is allowed to use deadly force to protect their home if:_

_Another person is committing an illegal act, such as arson, burglary, robbery, or another felony,_
_There is a genuine and immediate danger for individuals_
_The use of deadly force would prevent or stop the illegal activity_
_Not using deadly force would put homeowners or family members at risk of serious bodily injury._
_For example, you cannot use deadly force if person X is illegally, but innocently trespassing near person A's home, it would not be acceptable for person A to come after person X with a baseball bat and hit him on the head. _​


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Corporatists on both sides will keep importing immigrants to fill the jobs and for growth. So building a wall won’t make wages go up because they’ll keep flooding the market with low skilled workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then those corporations would not only be guilty of hiring these people, but complicit in breaking our immigration laws as well unless they bring them here legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's one of the reasons I focus on E-Verify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should focus on everything; not just one avenue.  If we stuck together to do all we can to stop illegal immigration, it would be stopped.  However like everything else, it comes down to power and politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start with the least expensive, most immediate and most effective solutions FIRST. E-Verify hits all those marks. Its ready right now, its very inexpensive, and it works. It also addresses a huge source of illegal immigrants; those who have overstayed their visas.
> 
> The wall....is expensive, slow, ineffective, and doesn't even address a full third of llegal immigration. Its a stupid policy. And the one the president is leading with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, do any and everything that will work.  But since the wall will take the most time to build, the sooner we start, the better.  Even if it was only E-Verify, people still come here to have babies, they still come here to sell drugs, they still come here to live with family that's already here.  E-Verify will never be successful on it's own just like a wall won't be successful on it's own.
> 
> The only solution that hits all avenues of illegal crossings are if we make being here illegal a first degree felony with a minimum sentence of 5 years in prison.  Then we wouldn't need a wall or E-Veryfiy.  The only border problem we would have are people rushing to get the hell out of this country.
Click to expand...

The vast number of people that come across the border do not come here to sell drugs and certainly don't come to have babies.  That's just bull shit that has been discredited time and again.


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CIA played no part in overthrowing the government, asshole.  If they aren't communists, Chileans love the CIA.
> 
> 
> 
> So you go the extra mile of putting up a wall between you and the truth.
Click to expand...

I posted the truth, moron.  The CIA played no part in the coup.  The people of Chile despised Allende.


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.  It's been legal to use force against trespassers for 250 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Not only are you the idiot, you're a violent one.
> 
> ..._a person is allowed to use deadly force to protect their home if:_
> 
> _Another person is committing an illegal act, such as arson, burglary, robbery, or another felony,_
> _There is a genuine and immediate danger for individuals_
> _The use of deadly force would prevent or stop the illegal activity_
> _Not using deadly force would put homeowners or family members at risk of serious bodily injury._
> _For example, you cannot use deadly force if person X is illegally, but innocently trespassing near person A's home, it would not be acceptable for person A to come after person X with a baseball bat and hit him on the head. _​
Click to expand...

I said "force."  You said "deadly force."


----------



## Skylar

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they will not.  Piglosi said it herself, the wall is totally off the table.  Nothing is being traded for it.
> 
> Immigration has always been a problem.  Perhaps you on the left could care less, but for the rest of us, a real problem.  Donald Trump didn't create a problem, he addressed the problem.  In fact that's what led to his victory against Hil-Liar.  Every other candidate spoke the same way about illegals.  Blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah.  Only Trump was transcending in what he said.  He told us what we wanted to hear: We are going to stop illegals from entering this country.  We will build a wall.  And that's why in light of our congressional loss, Trump is addressing the issue much more seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are far more affordable, faster, and more effective methods: Make E-Verify mandatory and put some teeth in it.
> 
> Illegal immigrant focused enforcement is stupid. Illegals are numerous, numbering in the tens of millions. They move. We don't know where they live. They may or may not be using their own names. And if we deport them, they can come back.
> 
> Use employer based focus.....the same way we focus our drug enforcement policy not on the users, but on the sellers and distributors. Employers make far more sense. They're public, they generally don't move, they're easy to find (most advertise!), they use their real names, and they're far less numerous.
> 
> Make the use of E-verify mandatory. Give any employer that doesn't use it 1 year in prison....including HR people and Hiring Managers. If an employer uses E-Verify and a perspective employee passes...and are later found to be illegal, the employer is free and clear. Employers only get in trouble if they don't use E-Verify.
> 
> The system already exists, is easy to use....so there's no ramp up or roll out. It takes a few minutes per employee and can be done online or over the phone. Merely make it mandatory, put some teeth behind it and give employers a 6 month grace period to bring their employees into compliance. You'd need a few dozen high profile prosecutions before employers got the message....and jobs for illegals dried up.
> 
> In comparison to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. With no work, they'll largely deport themselves. You could have the vast majority of the illegal immigration problem fixed in about a year. It would work and work well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter horseshit.  All your claims have been refuted in this forum 1000 times.  The wall has been proven the most effective method for controlling illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. And no, it hasn't.
> 
> A wall actually increases illegal immigration by making it more expensive to cross the border. Before a wall immigrants would come here, earn money, and then go home. There were entire seasonal work forces that would arrive from Mexico, help bring in a harvest of a particular crop, earn some money *and go home. *And come back the next year for the next harvest season.
> 
> Now people have to work for years to pay back the cost of crossing the border. *Meaning they have to stay longer.* And when they stay longer, they have more kids here, there is less incentive for them to go home.
> 
> Worse, about a third of illegals are folks who merely overstayed visas. *Which walls do nothing to prevent.
> *
> Walls are expensive to make expensive to buy land for and even more expensive to maintain. They can be circumvented by anyone who really wants to. To quote Trump's own chief of staff,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "the bottom line is the fence doesn't stop anybody who really wants to get across. You go under, you go around, you go through it. And that's what the ranchers tell us, is that they don't need a fence."
> 
> Mick Mulvaney
> 
> Mick Mulvaney in 2015: Trump's views on border wall 'simplistic,' 'absurd and almost childish' - CNNPolitics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor does the fence keep them from coming back.
> 
> *The E-Verify system works on all of those fronts. *It eliminates the work that illegals come here for, or those overstaying their visas require in order to stay here. Compared to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. Stripped of the means of making a living, most would go home where its far cheaper.
> 
> The wall is orders of magnitude MORE expensive, takes *years* to build, is* wildly expensive to maintain*, is *ineffective*, doesn't address 1/3 or illegal immigrants at all, and actually i*ncreases *the incentive for them to stay once they've arrived. *Its a stupid proposal.*
> 
> E-Verify is orders of magnitude LESS expensive, _it is already in place,_ its maintenance costs are minimal (a website, phone line and paperwork), its very effective, it DOES address the 1/3 of illegal immigrants that the wall ignores, and it REDUCES the incentive for illegals to stay here. *Its a smart proposal. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A wall will also increase the number illegal immigrants because the increased border security makes it harder for migrants to leave without being picked by immigration and getting back in the US is harder so once in they are here to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  When they leave, they can do so at a point of entry.  Nobody is going to stop a Mexican from going back to Mexico.
Click to expand...

Its not the trip out of the US. Its the trip back in. 

All walls do is make the passage across the border more expensive. Which means that illegals have to work longer in the US to pay for their passage. The increase cost incentivizes people to say longer.

Get rid of the incentive to stay here by eliminating the jobs.


----------



## Billo_Really

OKTexas said:


> Tissue? Funny how you commies claim fraud when everyone is required to play by the same rules.
> 
> .


They weren't playing by the same rules in NC.  Funny how you fuckers bitch and moan about voter fraud, but then when it actually occurs, you say nothing.


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> You're a certifiable idiot.  People have a right to use force to protect their property.  The fact is irrefutable.  I have personally had a shotgun pointed in my direction by a rancher because we were on his land.
> 
> Debating you is a waste of time because so much of what you believe just isn't true.


If you weren't threatening the rancher, he would've gone to jail.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Skylar said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are far more affordable, faster, and more effective methods: Make E-Verify mandatory and put some teeth in it.
> 
> Illegal immigrant focused enforcement is stupid. Illegals are numerous, numbering in the tens of millions. They move. We don't know where they live. They may or may not be using their own names. And if we deport them, they can come back.
> 
> Use employer based focus.....the same way we focus our drug enforcement policy not on the users, but on the sellers and distributors. Employers make far more sense. They're public, they generally don't move, they're easy to find (most advertise!), they use their real names, and they're far less numerous.
> 
> Make the use of E-verify mandatory. Give any employer that doesn't use it 1 year in prison....including HR people and Hiring Managers. If an employer uses E-Verify and a perspective employee passes...and are later found to be illegal, the employer is free and clear. Employers only get in trouble if they don't use E-Verify.
> 
> The system already exists, is easy to use....so there's no ramp up or roll out. It takes a few minutes per employee and can be done online or over the phone. Merely make it mandatory, put some teeth behind it and give employers a 6 month grace period to bring their employees into compliance. You'd need a few dozen high profile prosecutions before employers got the message....and jobs for illegals dried up.
> 
> In comparison to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. With no work, they'll largely deport themselves. You could have the vast majority of the illegal immigration problem fixed in about a year. It would work and work well.
> 
> 
> 
> Utter horseshit.  All your claims have been refuted in this forum 1000 times.  The wall has been proven the most effective method for controlling illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. And no, it hasn't.
> 
> A wall actually increases illegal immigration by making it more expensive to cross the border. Before a wall immigrants would come here, earn money, and then go home. There were entire seasonal work forces that would arrive from Mexico, help bring in a harvest of a particular crop, earn some money *and go home. *And come back the next year for the next harvest season.
> 
> Now people have to work for years to pay back the cost of crossing the border. *Meaning they have to stay longer.* And when they stay longer, they have more kids here, there is less incentive for them to go home.
> 
> Worse, about a third of illegals are folks who merely overstayed visas. *Which walls do nothing to prevent.
> *
> Walls are expensive to make expensive to buy land for and even more expensive to maintain. They can be circumvented by anyone who really wants to. To quote Trump's own chief of staff,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "the bottom line is the fence doesn't stop anybody who really wants to get across. You go under, you go around, you go through it. And that's what the ranchers tell us, is that they don't need a fence."
> 
> Mick Mulvaney
> 
> Mick Mulvaney in 2015: Trump's views on border wall 'simplistic,' 'absurd and almost childish' - CNNPolitics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor does the fence keep them from coming back.
> 
> *The E-Verify system works on all of those fronts. *It eliminates the work that illegals come here for, or those overstaying their visas require in order to stay here. Compared to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. Stripped of the means of making a living, most would go home where its far cheaper.
> 
> The wall is orders of magnitude MORE expensive, takes *years* to build, is* wildly expensive to maintain*, is *ineffective*, doesn't address 1/3 or illegal immigrants at all, and actually i*ncreases *the incentive for them to stay once they've arrived. *Its a stupid proposal.*
> 
> E-Verify is orders of magnitude LESS expensive, _it is already in place,_ its maintenance costs are minimal (a website, phone line and paperwork), its very effective, it DOES address the 1/3 of illegal immigrants that the wall ignores, and it REDUCES the incentive for illegals to stay here. *Its a smart proposal. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A wall will also increase the number illegal immigrants because the increased border security makes it harder for migrants to leave without being picked by immigration and getting back in the US is harder so once in they are here to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  When they leave, they can do so at a point of entry.  Nobody is going to stop a Mexican from going back to Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its not the trip out of the US. Its the trip back in.
> 
> All walls do is make the passage across the border more expensive. Which means that illegals have to work longer in the US to pay for their passage. The increase cost incentivizes people to say longer.
> 
> Get rid of the incentive to stay here by eliminating the jobs.
Click to expand...


It's estimated that we have around 20 million illegals in this country now.  I find it very difficult to believed that we have 20 million people working illegally in the United States.  

As I stated, there is no one fix all solution.  These solutions have to work in unison and be implemented together.  Furthermore if you want to complain about people hiring illegals, why don't you complain about sanctuary cities that make it comfortable for these people to live here?  After all, if all law enforcement notified ICE when a suspect is captured, they would have no peace living anywhere in this country.


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> This country was founded by native born Americans, dumbass.


And what did you do to them?


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> We ignore international law whenever we feel like it.


Then you do not embrace American values.


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We ignore international law whenever we feel like it.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you do not embrace American values.
Click to expand...

International law is the opposite if American values.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> But we do have the right to restrict access to the US after they apply like Trump is doing.  Under DumBama, catch and release was his way of doing things, so these people came here knowing they could sneak in and afterwards, never attend their court date.  Then they could settle in some Sanctuary city and be protected from the federal government, even getting an apartment, a drivers license, and credit cards.


Do you think you have the right to kill their children?


----------



## OKTexas

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tissue? Funny how you commies claim fraud when everyone is required to play by the same rules.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> They weren't playing by the same rules in NC.  Funny how you fuckers bitch and moan about voter fraud, but then when it actually occurs, you say nothing.
Click to expand...



Yeah, I've seen the claims, not much proof though. Commie operatives who probably did the same thing most likely brought the complaint. Why would they let candidates know who requested an absentee ballot and who haven't mailed them back? Both parties had access to that info.

.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> What are you going to "whoop" when you have a Republican led Senate and a Republican White House?


I'm not really sure.  I just know it has to be opened.



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Are the Democrats going to beat each other up or something?


They need to purge the blue dogs.


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> I posted the truth, moron.  The CIA played no part in the coup.  The people of Chile despised Allende.


So you like sucking Pinochet penis?

*CIA Admits Involvement in Chile*
_The CIA is acknowledging for the first time the extent of its deep involvement in Chile, where it dealt with coup-plotters, false propagandists and assassins._​


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> International law is the opposite if American values.


That's a strange thing to say in light of the fact we co-wrote them.


----------



## Billo_Really

OKTexas said:


> Yeah, I've seen the claims, not much proof though. Commie operatives who probably did the same thing most likely brought the complaint. Why would they let candidates know who requested an absentee ballot and who haven't mailed them back? Both parties had access to that info.
> 
> .


Republican campaign grunts showed up at peoples houses demanding their ballets.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we do have the right to restrict access to the US after they apply like Trump is doing.  Under DumBama, catch and release was his way of doing things, so these people came here knowing they could sneak in and afterwards, never attend their court date.  Then they could settle in some Sanctuary city and be protected from the federal government, even getting an apartment, a drivers license, and credit cards.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think you have the right to kill their children?
Click to expand...


So who's killing their children?


----------



## OKTexas

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we do have the right to restrict access to the US after they apply like Trump is doing.  Under DumBama, catch and release was his way of doing things, so these people came here knowing they could sneak in and afterwards, never attend their court date.  Then they could settle in some Sanctuary city and be protected from the federal government, even getting an apartment, a drivers license, and credit cards.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think you have the right to kill their children?
Click to expand...


No one killed anyones children. They got sick from their parents neglect and died.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I've seen the claims, not much proof though. Commie operatives who probably did the same thing most likely brought the complaint. Why would they let candidates know who requested an absentee ballot and who haven't mailed them back? Both parties had access to that info.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Republican campaign grunts showed up at peoples houses demanding their ballets.
Click to expand...



How did anyone know if they hadn't showed up to collect them themselves?

.


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't possible for that to be a lie, moron.  It's an opinion, and it's far more credible than yours.  The theory that foreigners have a right to emigrate here couldn't be more idiotic.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?  This country was founded by emigrating foreigners.  As an American, we believe in the rule of law.  Requesting asylum is codified in international law.  Not respecting the law, is not being an American.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, moron.  Except for one or two, every person involved in founding this country was born here.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray is the most disrespectful person on this board.  You are the most ignorant.  Calling people names is a testament to your character.
> 
> The fact is, it is YOUR fault that the courts put people just like you in prison and then declared that undocumented have civil rights - and those civil rights trumped those who think just like you.
> 
> If people had a Right to protect private property, all private property along the border would be being protected by civilian militias.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a certifiable idiot.  People have a right to use force to protect their property.  The fact is irrefutable.  I have personally had a shotgun pointed in my direction by a rancher because we were on his land.
> 
> Debating you is a waste of time because so much of what you believe just isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most states don't recognize the use of lethal force for mere trespassing. Deadly force in the defense of one's life is permitted. Deadly force in defense of property alone generally isn't. Most uses of lethal force must be in response to reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm to oneself or others
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't use the term "lethal force."  However, in many states, if someone breaks into your home, you are allowed to blow them away.  You are allowed to use force against trespassers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not 'any place'. But one's home specifically. You couldn't, for example, shoot someone on your lawn without a reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm to one's self or others.
> 
> Trying to shift that to the use of deadly force on the border when someone is trying to enter the country.....would be poorly supported legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There're a number places in world where deadly force is used by individuals and the government to prevent border crossing.  Many of these people making crossing are armed and dangerous, often criminals and terrorist.  Most of the people attempting illegal crossings of our southern border are not terrorists are even criminals.  They're people seeking a safe haven and chance to make a living wage.   They would certainly enter legally if they could.  However for most of these countries getting into the US without having family in the US is nearly impossible.  In some cases the wait can be years even if you have family in the US.
Click to expand...


Tough shit for them.  No one has a right to emigrate to the United States.  If the country where they live sucks, they should work on improving it.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
> 
> Why is posting a picture of a Klan march on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin in December and claiming it's the Democratic convention in New York the previous summer wrong?
Click to expand...

You are a major fucking idiot.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they will not.  Piglosi said it herself, the wall is totally off the table.  Nothing is being traded for it.
> 
> Immigration has always been a problem.  Perhaps you on the left could care less, but for the rest of us, a real problem.  Donald Trump didn't create a problem, he addressed the problem.  In fact that's what led to his victory against Hil-Liar.  Every other candidate spoke the same way about illegals.  Blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah.  Only Trump was transcending in what he said.  He told us what we wanted to hear: We are going to stop illegals from entering this country.  We will build a wall.  And that's why in light of our congressional loss, Trump is addressing the issue much more seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are far more affordable, faster, and more effective methods: Make E-Verify mandatory and put some teeth in it.
> 
> Illegal immigrant focused enforcement is stupid. Illegals are numerous, numbering in the tens of millions. They move. We don't know where they live. They may or may not be using their own names. And if we deport them, they can come back.
> 
> Use employer based focus.....the same way we focus our drug enforcement policy not on the users, but on the sellers and distributors. Employers make far more sense. They're public, they generally don't move, they're easy to find (most advertise!), they use their real names, and they're far less numerous.
> 
> Make the use of E-verify mandatory. Give any employer that doesn't use it 1 year in prison....including HR people and Hiring Managers. If an employer uses E-Verify and a perspective employee passes...and are later found to be illegal, the employer is free and clear. Employers only get in trouble if they don't use E-Verify.
> 
> The system already exists, is easy to use....so there's no ramp up or roll out. It takes a few minutes per employee and can be done online or over the phone. Merely make it mandatory, put some teeth behind it and give employers a 6 month grace period to bring their employees into compliance. You'd need a few dozen high profile prosecutions before employers got the message....and jobs for illegals dried up.
> 
> In comparison to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. With no work, they'll largely deport themselves. You could have the vast majority of the illegal immigration problem fixed in about a year. It would work and work well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter horseshit.  All your claims have been refuted in this forum 1000 times.  The wall has been proven the most effective method for controlling illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. And no, it hasn't.
> 
> A wall actually increases illegal immigration by making it more expensive to cross the border. Before a wall immigrants would come here, earn money, and then go home. There were entire seasonal work forces that would arrive from Mexico, help bring in a harvest of a particular crop, earn some money *and go home. *And come back the next year for the next harvest season.
> 
> Now people have to work for years to pay back the cost of crossing the border. *Meaning they have to stay longer.* And when they stay longer, they have more kids here, there is less incentive for them to go home.
> 
> Worse, about a third of illegals are folks who merely overstayed visas. *Which walls do nothing to prevent.
> *
> Walls are expensive to make expensive to buy land for and even more expensive to maintain. They can be circumvented by anyone who really wants to. To quote Trump's own chief of staff,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "the bottom line is the fence doesn't stop anybody who really wants to get across. You go under, you go around, you go through it. And that's what the ranchers tell us, is that they don't need a fence."
> 
> Mick Mulvaney
> 
> Mick Mulvaney in 2015: Trump's views on border wall 'simplistic,' 'absurd and almost childish' - CNNPolitics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor does the fence keep them from coming back.
> 
> *The E-Verify system works on all of those fronts. *It eliminates the work that illegals come here for, or those overstaying their visas require in order to stay here. Compared to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. Stripped of the means of making a living, most would go home where its far cheaper.
> 
> The wall is orders of magnitude MORE expensive, takes *years* to build, is* wildly expensive to maintain*, is *ineffective*, doesn't address 1/3 or illegal immigrants at all, and actually i*ncreases *the incentive for them to stay once they've arrived. *Its a stupid proposal.*
> 
> E-Verify is orders of magnitude LESS expensive, _it is already in place,_ its maintenance costs are minimal (a website, phone line and paperwork), its very effective, it DOES address the 1/3 of illegal immigrants that the wall ignores, and it REDUCES the incentive for illegals to stay here. *Its a smart proposal. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A wall will also increase the number illegal immigrants because the increased border security makes it harder for migrants to leave without being picked by immigration and getting back in the US is harder so once in they are here to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  When they leave, they can do so at a point of entry.  Nobody is going to stop a Mexican from going back to Mexico.
Click to expand...

That's not so.  The border patrol watches areas around ports of entry closely for undocumented immigrants.  Telling the border patrol that you're going home does not cut it.  You might get expedited deportation but you will be deported unless you demand a hearing are ask for asylum.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
> 
> Why is posting a picture of a Klan march on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin in December and claiming it's the Democratic convention in New York the previous summer wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a major fucking idiot.
Click to expand...


Yuh huh.  Then what does that make you two morons who actually thought a few dozen Klan Klowns walking the wet December streets in Wisconsin was a summer political convention in New York?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are far more affordable, faster, and more effective methods: Make E-Verify mandatory and put some teeth in it.
> 
> Illegal immigrant focused enforcement is stupid. Illegals are numerous, numbering in the tens of millions. They move. We don't know where they live. They may or may not be using their own names. And if we deport them, they can come back.
> 
> Use employer based focus.....the same way we focus our drug enforcement policy not on the users, but on the sellers and distributors. Employers make far more sense. They're public, they generally don't move, they're easy to find (most advertise!), they use their real names, and they're far less numerous.
> 
> Make the use of E-verify mandatory. Give any employer that doesn't use it 1 year in prison....including HR people and Hiring Managers. If an employer uses E-Verify and a perspective employee passes...and are later found to be illegal, the employer is free and clear. Employers only get in trouble if they don't use E-Verify.
> 
> The system already exists, is easy to use....so there's no ramp up or roll out. It takes a few minutes per employee and can be done online or over the phone. Merely make it mandatory, put some teeth behind it and give employers a 6 month grace period to bring their employees into compliance. You'd need a few dozen high profile prosecutions before employers got the message....and jobs for illegals dried up.
> 
> In comparison to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. With no work, they'll largely deport themselves. You could have the vast majority of the illegal immigration problem fixed in about a year. It would work and work well.
> 
> 
> 
> Utter horseshit.  All your claims have been refuted in this forum 1000 times.  The wall has been proven the most effective method for controlling illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. And no, it hasn't.
> 
> A wall actually increases illegal immigration by making it more expensive to cross the border. Before a wall immigrants would come here, earn money, and then go home. There were entire seasonal work forces that would arrive from Mexico, help bring in a harvest of a particular crop, earn some money *and go home. *And come back the next year for the next harvest season.
> 
> Now people have to work for years to pay back the cost of crossing the border. *Meaning they have to stay longer.* And when they stay longer, they have more kids here, there is less incentive for them to go home.
> 
> Worse, about a third of illegals are folks who merely overstayed visas. *Which walls do nothing to prevent.
> *
> Walls are expensive to make expensive to buy land for and even more expensive to maintain. They can be circumvented by anyone who really wants to. To quote Trump's own chief of staff,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "the bottom line is the fence doesn't stop anybody who really wants to get across. You go under, you go around, you go through it. And that's what the ranchers tell us, is that they don't need a fence."
> 
> Mick Mulvaney
> 
> Mick Mulvaney in 2015: Trump's views on border wall 'simplistic,' 'absurd and almost childish' - CNNPolitics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor does the fence keep them from coming back.
> 
> *The E-Verify system works on all of those fronts. *It eliminates the work that illegals come here for, or those overstaying their visas require in order to stay here. Compared to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. Stripped of the means of making a living, most would go home where its far cheaper.
> 
> The wall is orders of magnitude MORE expensive, takes *years* to build, is* wildly expensive to maintain*, is *ineffective*, doesn't address 1/3 or illegal immigrants at all, and actually i*ncreases *the incentive for them to stay once they've arrived. *Its a stupid proposal.*
> 
> E-Verify is orders of magnitude LESS expensive, _it is already in place,_ its maintenance costs are minimal (a website, phone line and paperwork), its very effective, it DOES address the 1/3 of illegal immigrants that the wall ignores, and it REDUCES the incentive for illegals to stay here. *Its a smart proposal. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A wall will also increase the number illegal immigrants because the increased border security makes it harder for migrants to leave without being picked by immigration and getting back in the US is harder so once in they are here to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  When they leave, they can do so at a point of entry.  Nobody is going to stop a Mexican from going back to Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not so.  The border patrol watches areas around ports of entry closely for undocumented immigrants.  Telling the border patrol that you're going home does not cut it.  You might get expedited deportation but you will be deported unless you demand a hearing are ask for asylum.
Click to expand...


So if they're going home anyway, what difference would that make?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> China / Hong Kong (early 1960s) - 32 km
> Botswana / Zimbabwe 2003 - 500 km
> Bulgaria / Turkey 2014 - 30 km
> Chinese / Korean border fence (under construction) - 1,416 km
> Macedonia / Greece barrier  2015 - 30 km
> India / Myanmar barrier (under construction) - 1,624 km
> 
> Just the facts, and this is to name but a few. However, we are called to follow after other nations on how government faces health care?  Yet a wall is immoral and racist, despite other nations around the globe seeing fit to do so against illegal immigration.
> 
> Explain that one to me.  Anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it you don't understand? Other nations have overbearing governments, bad laws and policies that violate individual liberty? Are you suggesting we follow their example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Harry Reid saw the burden of illegals on our nation, and that was 1993.  Look, liberals lost the cost argument on illegal immigration and now they are to lose on the nation’s border barrier argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no interest in the opinions of liberals, nor Harry Reid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is about (1) enforcement of *CURRENT* Federal Immigration Laws through deportation and ICE,
> 
> (2) an amnesty decision during the Reagan administration with the promise of strict border enforcement that never happened.  In fact that amnesty decision only made the immigration problem WORSE not better with a larger amount of illegals in our country that we must deal with.
> 
> (3) A flow of violent MS-13 gangs, the report of repeat offender illegals that don’t get deported or reported to ICE
> 
> (4) sex trafficking coming in from our southern neighbor.
> 
> Perhaps you aren’t willing to take these issues seriously.
> 
> 
> Interesting to note how democrats blame the increase of violent crime deaths among the most STRICT of cities ... like California, Maryland, and Michigan ... on filtering weapons from neighboring states.  Yet these same liberal democrats will throw their support behind open borders with Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is supporting an open border with Mexico? You're citing California. Show us Governor Brown advocating an open border.
> 
> You can't. You're not citing 'liberal democrats'. You're citing yourself AS liberal democrats.
> 
> That's the same thing, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're supporting an open border with Mexico, douchebag.  You keep opposing doing anything that would actually work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quote me advocating an open border. You'll find you're suffering from your ordinary delusions.
> 
> Walls don't work. Cutting off the supply of work that keeps drawing illegals here.....that works.
Click to expand...


Threatening businesses that support our Federal Immigration Laws, imposing fines on corporations that cooperate with ICE to deport immigrants found in the state illegally, is advocating an open border dumbass!

Open borders means you encourage illegal immigrants to come in from Mexico by harbor them through “sanctuary cities”, not notifying ICE of the presence of illegal immigrants in your state, using lawyers to protect to instruct those who come here illegally with HOW they can stay in this country, and refusing to see illegals deported.

California attorney general threatens $10,000 fine for businesses that share employee information with immigration agents

*You show me where 
(1) officials in the state of California have followed Federal Immigration Laws,
 (2) that California does not freely allow illegals within their state through the Harbor and protection of illegals within their state from Law Enforcement who seek their deportation
(3) that California assists in the deportation of immigrants they find that are here illegally (as defined under Federal Law)  within their state back to Mexico, 
THEN I will agree with your position that they do not support open borders.*


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So who's killing their children?


Trump Administration separation policy and all his minions that support it.


----------



## Billo_Really

OKTexas said:


> No one killed anyones children. They got sick from their parents neglect and died.
> 
> .


Well, I have to admit, I was wrong; I thought you would've blamed it on Crooked Hillary.


----------



## Billo_Really

OKTexas said:


> How did anyone know if they hadn't showed up to collect them themselves?
> 
> .


Is that a rhetorical statement?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's fix that. And let's do it without indulging the shackles of big government.
> 
> The problems we have are the welfare state and birth-right citizenship. Neither of those requires the Berlin wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China / Hong Kong (early 1960s) - 32 km
> Botswana / Zimbabwe 2003 - 500 km
> Bulgaria / Turkey 2014 - 30 km
> Chinese / Korean border fence (under construction) - 1,416 km
> Macedonia / Greece barrier  2015 - 30 km
> India / Myanmar barrier (under construction) - 1,624 km
> 
> Just the facts, and this is to name but a few. However, we are called to follow after other nations on how government faces health care?  Yet a wall is immoral and racist, despite other nations around the globe seeing fit to do so against illegal immigration.
> 
> Explain that one to me.  Anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it you don't understand? Other nations have overbearing governments, bad laws and policies that violate individual liberty? Are you suggesting we follow their example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Harry Reid saw the burden of illegals on our nation, and that was 1993.  Look, liberals lost the cost argument on illegal immigration and now they are to lose on the nation’s border barrier argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no interest in the opinions of liberals, nor Harry Reid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hilarious that you read the mental midgetry of some of these build the wall guys and they are ALWAYS quoting liberals and promoting communist nations in support of their talking points... All the while calling others lefties.  You can't make this stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You actually think Greece, Turkey, Macedonia, and India are communist nations?  Care to try that again?
> 
> Actually ... I always found it interesting when you have liberals that are so opposed to building the wall, throwing their support for an open border.  Yet, when you inform the left that strict gun regulations simply does not work to lower gun violence in cities like Detroit or Baltimore, they then blame how easy it is for criminals to transport guns across the border.  Talk about a paradox, I don’t believe the left has actually taken the time to completely think this through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For what reason did those countries put up a wall?
Click to expand...


To prevent the free flow of illegal immigration in their country.

Now tell me why do we have Federal Immigration Laws in this country?  Define for me the term  “National sovereignty”..  How does a nation achieve  National sovereignty?


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> Wrong again, moron.  Except for one or two, every person involved in founding this country was born here.


Well, if you go back far enough in the DNA tree, even the people you claim founded this country emigrated here over the Bering Sea.  So we're nothing but a country of foreigners.


----------



## Billo_Really

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> To prevent the free flow of illegal immigration in their country.
> 
> Now tell me why do we have Federal Immigration Laws in this country?  Define for me the term  “National sovereignty”.


Do we give a shit about national sovereignty in Iraq?  In Syria?  In Afghanistan?  In Africa?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one killed anyones children. They got sick from their parents neglect and died.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I have to admit, I was wrong; I thought you would've blamed it on Crooked Hillary.
Click to expand...


Why exactly did they choose for themselves NOT to stay with any other nation they entered in their path, and live there rather than travel on to the United States?

Are parents responsible for what happens to their children when they venture through several nations with their only goal to enter the United States?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Billo_Really said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> To prevent the free flow of illegal immigration in their country.
> 
> Now tell me why do we have Federal Immigration Laws in this country?  Define for me the term  “National sovereignty”.
> 
> 
> 
> Do we give a shit about national sovereignty in Iraq?  In Syria?  In Afghanistan?  In Africa?
Click to expand...


So you don’t know what National sovereignty is regarding why a nation would choose to build a wall or fence along its border.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Billo_Really said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> To prevent the free flow of illegal immigration in their country.
> 
> Now tell me why do we have Federal Immigration Laws in this country?  Define for me the term  “National sovereignty”.
> 
> 
> 
> Do we give a shit about national sovereignty in Iraq?  In Syria?  In Afghanistan?  In Africa?
Click to expand...


Iraq under Saddam invaded a neighboring nation Kuwait, which first brought United States troops to Iraq in response. Iraq also still harbors terrorists who engage against the United States in supporting terrorist attacks.

Syria used chemical weapons on its own people which the nations condemned and the United States responded.

Now United Nations (historically) have shown they don’t enforce their own sanctioned policies.  IF the United Nations performed the role they were initially formed to do in the first place, the United States would not be the nation to solely enforce the UNs role FOR them.  The United Nations, other than to be a bureaucracy of “talks” and bickering disagreements, demonstrate through their actions that they have no real enforcement backbone... no proven authority to *uphold* and follow through with their own sanctions against violating nations.


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't discussing "immigrants."  We're discussing illegal aliens.  Douchebags like you always like to blur the distinction between the two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we are. We're discussing immigrants and guest workers. The reason there are so many "illegals" here is because the laws limiting entry are too restrictive. If we changed that, if we made it easier for immigrants and workers to enter the country legally, we could focus on the remaining "illegals" knowing that they were up to no good.
> 
> As it is, you have little sympathy for the crackdown on "illegals" because people know that most of them are just trying to feed their families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then let them feed their families at home.  Surrendering is never a winning strategy.  It's an admission of failure.
> 
> Having people come here to make money and take it back home might not be devastating now, but this economy won't last forever.  Democrats will be in charge of Congress next week and then we may see harsh changes.
> 
> So what about these people wanting to feed their families when our people want to feed theirs?  Isn't it bad enough we've lowered pay scales by allowing these people to come here?  Now we are going to give them priority over our own people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are neglecting is that most of the people that are in the county illegally will still be in the country even if you build a wall and even if it's successful.  That is not going change till the immigration laws are changed  The size of the illegal immigrant population will not decrease significantly because undocumented immigrants stay where most people with work permits do return home.  Also, the flow of people with entry visas will continue and many of those will become undocumented by overstay their visas.
> 
> Lastly, we need these people today and we're going to need them a lot more as our workforce shrinks in the 21st century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. Corporatists on both sides will keep importing immigrants to fill the jobs and for growth. So building a wall won’t make wages go up because they’ll keep flooding the market with low skilled workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then those corporations would not only be guilty of hiring these people, but complicit in breaking our immigration laws as well unless they bring them here legally.
Click to expand...

They will. And they’ll convince us we need them. And before wages go up because of supply and demand.

As a business owner do you want to raise wages or flood the market with workers?

Then what about after the trump Recession gets here?


----------



## basquebromance

the Babylonians insisted on building walls even as they were being driven to extinction. generation after generation elected to build walls rather than take up arms. its very admirable.


----------



## Billo_Really

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Why exactly did they choose for themselves NOT to stay with any other nation they entered in their path, and live there rather than travel on to the United States?


We're supposed to be the land of opportunity.  I guess we're not the nation we once claimed to be.







ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Are parents responsible for what happens to their children when they venture through several nations with their only goal to enter the United States?


Are parents responsible for this inhuman separation policy?


----------



## Billo_Really

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> So you don’t know what National sovereignty is regarding why a nation would choose to build a wall or fence along its border.


I'm saying we could care less about national sovereignty.


----------



## Billo_Really

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Iraq under Saddam invaded a neighboring nation Kuwait, which first brought United States troops to Iraq in response. Iraq also still harbors terrorists who engage against the United States in supporting terrorist attacks.
> 
> Syria used chemical weapons on its own people which the nations condemned and the United States responded.
> 
> Now United Nations (historically) have shown they don’t enforce their own sanctioned policies.  IF the United Nations performed the role they were initially formed to do in the first place, the United States would not be the nation to solely enforce the UNs role FOR them.  The United Nations, other than to be a bureaucracy of “talks” and bickering disagreements, demonstrate through their actions that they have no real enforcement backbone... no proven authority to *uphold* and follow through with their own sanctions against violating nations.


Since this is completely off topic, I will be brief:

we did not invade Iraq over Kuwait
Hussein harboring terrorists has been completely debunked
US backed rebels were the ones who used the gas
we have no right acting unilaterally in lieu of UN resolutions


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't possible for that to be a lie, moron.  It's an opinion, and it's far more credible than yours.  The theory that foreigners have a right to emigrate here couldn't be more idiotic.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?  This country was founded by emigrating foreigners.  As an American, we believe in the rule of law.  Requesting asylum is codified in international law.  Not respecting the law, is not being an American.
Click to expand...




Billo_Really said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why exactly did they choose for themselves NOT to stay with any other nation they entered in their path, and live there rather than travel on to the United States?
> 
> 
> 
> We're supposed to be the land of opportunity.  I guess we're not the nation we once claimed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are parents responsible for what happens to their children when they venture through several nations with their only goal to enter the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are parents responsible for this inhuman separation policy?
Click to expand...


Parents are responsible for the health of their kids, with their choice to travel through multiple nations.. any of which they could have chosen to live.

You forgot that.the United States is a nation of immigration laws.  That land of opportunity applies to those immigrants who obey our Federal Immigration Laws and enter “legally”.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Billo_Really said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq under Saddam invaded a neighboring nation Kuwait, which first brought United States troops to Iraq in response. Iraq also still harbors terrorists who engage against the United States in supporting terrorist attacks.
> 
> Syria used chemical weapons on its own people which the nations condemned and the United States responded.
> 
> Now United Nations (historically) have shown they don’t enforce their own sanctioned policies.  IF the United Nations performed the role they were initially formed to do in the first place, the United States would not be the nation to solely enforce the UNs role FOR them.  The United Nations, other than to be a bureaucracy of “talks” and bickering disagreements, demonstrate through their actions that they have no real enforcement backbone... no proven authority to *uphold* and follow through with their own sanctions against violating nations.
> 
> 
> 
> Since this is completely off topic, I will be brief:
> 
> we did not invade Iraq over Kuwait
> Hussein harboring terrorists has been completely debunked
> US backed rebels were the ones who used the gas
> we have no right acting unilaterally in lieu of UN resolutions
Click to expand...


We had multiple nations condemn and were involved in the war against Iraq, over the invasion of Kuwait - this is historic FACT

As far as the UN (being brief) .... The United Nations doesn’t enforce their resolutions


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> we have no right acting unilaterally in lieu of UN resolutions



You have a strange list of rights.  We have no right to enforce UN resolutions, but foreigners have a right to enter our country illegally.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> We're supposed to be the land of opportunity. I guess we're not the nation we once claimed to be.



We aren't?  

The United States of America allows a million people a year to become citizens.  We hand out over 11,000 VISA's a year, plus we allow people to make money here to take home to their country via permits.  What other nation even comes close to our generosity when it comes to sharing our land with people who are not from this country?  

Even for those who break our laws, once they are here, their children are entitled to medical care, shelter and even food.  But we're not the nation we claimed to be?  



Billo_Really said:


> Are parents responsible for this inhuman separation policy?



Let's see, you are going to take your child through a dangerous trek.  There is a good chance they will be kidnapped and used as slaves or prostitutes or even murdered.  The place you're going to is known for separating parents from their children during an asylum process.  Who's fault is that if not the parents?


----------



## danielpalos

we need to abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror if we need a wall.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we are. We're discussing immigrants and guest workers. The reason there are so many "illegals" here is because the laws limiting entry are too restrictive. If we changed that, if we made it easier for immigrants and workers to enter the country legally, we could focus on the remaining "illegals" knowing that they were up to no good.
> 
> As it is, you have little sympathy for the crackdown on "illegals" because people know that most of them are just trying to feed their families.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then let them feed their families at home.  Surrendering is never a winning strategy.  It's an admission of failure.
> 
> Having people come here to make money and take it back home might not be devastating now, but this economy won't last forever.  Democrats will be in charge of Congress next week and then we may see harsh changes.
> 
> So what about these people wanting to feed their families when our people want to feed theirs?  Isn't it bad enough we've lowered pay scales by allowing these people to come here?  Now we are going to give them priority over our own people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are neglecting is that most of the people that are in the county illegally will still be in the country even if you build a wall and even if it's successful.  That is not going change till the immigration laws are changed  The size of the illegal immigrant population will not decrease significantly because undocumented immigrants stay where most people with work permits do return home.  Also, the flow of people with entry visas will continue and many of those will become undocumented by overstay their visas.
> 
> Lastly, we need these people today and we're going to need them a lot more as our workforce shrinks in the 21st century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. Corporatists on both sides will keep importing immigrants to fill the jobs and for growth. So building a wall won’t make wages go up because they’ll keep flooding the market with low skilled workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then those corporations would not only be guilty of hiring these people, but complicit in breaking our immigration laws as well unless they bring them here legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They will. And they’ll convince us we need them. And before wages go up because of supply and demand.
> 
> As a business owner do you want to raise wages or flood the market with workers?
> 
> Then what about after the trump Recession gets here?
Click to expand...


You mean the Trump recession that's been coming for the last two years?  Credit card companies are reporting a 5% increase in holiday shopping this year.   That's the strongest holiday purchases in 6 years.  850 billion dollars to be more accurate. 

I'm not against anything that will contribute to the security of our country and stop the invasion of foreigners that come here to break our laws.


----------



## task0778

danielpalos said:


> we need to abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror if we need a wall.



Bullshit.  A wall on the southern border would help to reduce the inflow of illegals, which in turn helps combat crime, drugs, and terrorism.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one killed anyones children. They got sick from their parents neglect and died.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I have to admit, I was wrong; I thought you would've blamed it on Crooked Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why exactly did they choose for themselves NOT to stay with any other nation they entered in their path, and live there rather than travel on to the United States?
> 
> Are parents responsible for what happens to their children when they venture through several nations with their only goal to enter the United States?
Click to expand...


The better question is what would our authorities do to an American parent or parents that exposed their children to the same dangers these folks expose their children to?  Their kids would be taken away from them and the parents facing charges and likely imprisoned.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, moron.  Except for one or two, every person involved in founding this country was born here.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you go back far enough in the DNA tree, even the people you claim founded this country emigrated here over the Bering Sea.  So we're nothing but a country of foreigners.
Click to expand...


So what's your point?  Because hundreds of years ago people came here and created a country, that means any foreigner who wants to come here should be allowed to?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who's killing their children?
> 
> 
> 
> Trump Administration separation policy and all his minions that support it.
Click to expand...


So you have a link to this child killing policy?  I never knew children die from being separated from their parents.  After all, our children don't die when we send the parents of children to prison or they join the military to go overseas to war.


----------



## danielpalos

task0778 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we need to abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror if we need a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  A wall on the southern border would help to reduce the inflow of illegals, which in turn helps combat crime, drugs, and terrorism.
Click to expand...

you can't be serious with tax cut economics.  they take serious effort.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Flopper said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> When democrats took control of goverment in 2008, immigration was a non-issue for most Americans.  It was healthcare and the economy and that is what democrats focused on.
> 
> Thanks to Donald Trump he has created a crisis in immigration where none exist.  If democrats have sufficient control of government in 2020, there will be real immigration reform.  It could come in the next two years with a democratic House.  Both democrats and republicans in congress agree on a number immigration issues and Donald's only real interest in immigration is building a wall.  Democrats will be willing to give Trump his wall for the right kind of immigration bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they will not.  Piglosi said it herself, the wall is totally off the table.  Nothing is being traded for it.
> 
> Immigration has always been a problem.  Perhaps you on the left could care less, but for the rest of us, a real problem.  Donald Trump didn't create a problem, he addressed the problem.  In fact that's what led to his victory against Hil-Liar.  Every other candidate spoke the same way about illegals.  Blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah.  Only Trump was transcending in what he said.  He told us what we wanted to hear: We are going to stop illegals from entering this country.  We will build a wall.  And that's why in light of our congressional loss, Trump is addressing the issue much more seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are far more affordable, faster, and more effective methods: Make E-Verify mandatory and put some teeth in it.
> 
> Illegal immigrant focused enforcement is stupid. Illegals are numerous, numbering in the tens of millions. They move. We don't know where they live. They may or may not be using their own names. And if we deport them, they can come back.
> 
> Use employer based focus.....the same way we focus our drug enforcement policy not on the users, but on the sellers and distributors. Employers make far more sense. They're public, they generally don't move, they're easy to find (most advertise!), they use their real names, and they're far less numerous.
> 
> Make the use of E-verify mandatory. Give any employer that doesn't use it 1 year in prison....including HR people and Hiring Managers. If an employer uses E-Verify and a perspective employee passes...and are later found to be illegal, the employer is free and clear. Employers only get in trouble if they don't use E-Verify.
> 
> The system already exists, is easy to use....so there's no ramp up or roll out. It takes a few minutes per employee and can be done online or over the phone. Merely make it mandatory, put some teeth behind it and give employers a 6 month grace period to bring their employees into compliance. You'd need a few dozen high profile prosecutions before employers got the message....and jobs for illegals dried up.
> 
> In comparison to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. With no work, they'll largely deport themselves. You could have the vast majority of the illegal immigration problem fixed in about a year. It would work and work well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter horseshit.  All your claims have been refuted in this forum 1000 times.  The wall has been proven the most effective method for controlling illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. And no, it hasn't.
> 
> A wall actually increases illegal immigration by making it more expensive to cross the border. Before a wall immigrants would come here, earn money, and then go home. There were entire seasonal work forces that would arrive from Mexico, help bring in a harvest of a particular crop, earn some money *and go home. *And come back the next year for the next harvest season.
> 
> Now people have to work for years to pay back the cost of crossing the border. *Meaning they have to stay longer.* And when they stay longer, they have more kids here, there is less incentive for them to go home.
> 
> Worse, about a third of illegals are folks who merely overstayed visas. *Which walls do nothing to prevent.
> *
> Walls are expensive to make expensive to buy land for and even more expensive to maintain. They can be circumvented by anyone who really wants to. To quote Trump's own chief of staff,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "the bottom line is the fence doesn't stop anybody who really wants to get across. You go under, you go around, you go through it. And that's what the ranchers tell us, is that they don't need a fence."
> 
> Mick Mulvaney
> 
> Mick Mulvaney in 2015: Trump's views on border wall 'simplistic,' 'absurd and almost childish' - CNNPolitics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor does the fence keep them from coming back.
> 
> *The E-Verify system works on all of those fronts. *It eliminates the work that illegals come here for, or those overstaying their visas require in order to stay here. Compared to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. Stripped of the means of making a living, most would go home where its far cheaper.
> 
> The wall is orders of magnitude MORE expensive, takes *years* to build, is* wildly expensive to maintain*, is *ineffective*, doesn't address 1/3 or illegal immigrants at all, and actually i*ncreases *the incentive for them to stay once they've arrived. *Its a stupid proposal.*
> 
> E-Verify is orders of magnitude LESS expensive, _it is already in place,_ its maintenance costs are minimal (a website, phone line and paperwork), its very effective, it DOES address the 1/3 of illegal immigrants that the wall ignores, and it REDUCES the incentive for illegals to stay here. *Its a smart proposal. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A wall will also increase the number illegal immigrants because the increased border security makes it harder for migrants to leave without being picked by immigration and getting back in the US is harder so once in they are here to stay.
Click to expand...


You forgot continue on -

When those from south of the border are popping out babies here because they can't leave, it will significantly increase their numbers as citizens PLUS, at some point, federal judges will say that our current laws are a violation of the Eighth Amendment (as it keeps Americans separated from their families.)  

So, you end up with a wall, but have to increase the numbers of incoming foreigners (and Hispanics are already an important demographic) so said wall is now a multi-Trillion dollar albatross.

Those who favor the wall are simply out of touch with reality.  They want to keep people out that are already here AND constitute a significant part of the U.S. population.  They cite China, but China does not allow non-Chinese to hold public office.  It is over 92 percent Han Chinese.  They cite the Israelis, but there is another country that is 81 percent all one people - Jews.  About 62 percent of America is non-Hispanic whites.  That is why I keep asking the build the wall guys if they get rid of the Hispanics with their wall, would they then ship blacks to Africa or deport the Muslims.  

If the wall is to work, the U.S. must be like other countries that employ them.  That means keeping those who are not all of one people out of positions of power - and our country WAS originally intended to be for white Christians.  If you want to advocate for the wall, you have to answer the other relevant questions.  We all have a Right to know what the America of tomorrow is.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> China / Hong Kong (early 1960s) - 32 km
> Botswana / Zimbabwe 2003 - 500 km
> Bulgaria / Turkey 2014 - 30 km
> Chinese / Korean border fence (under construction) - 1,416 km
> Macedonia / Greece barrier  2015 - 30 km
> India / Myanmar barrier (under construction) - 1,624 km
> 
> Just the facts, and this is to name but a few. However, we are called to follow after other nations on how government faces health care?  Yet a wall is immoral and racist, despite other nations around the globe seeing fit to do so against illegal immigration.
> 
> Explain that one to me.  Anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it you don't understand? Other nations have overbearing governments, bad laws and policies that violate individual liberty? Are you suggesting we follow their example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Harry Reid saw the burden of illegals on our nation, and that was 1993.  Look, liberals lost the cost argument on illegal immigration and now they are to lose on the nation’s border barrier argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no interest in the opinions of liberals, nor Harry Reid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hilarious that you read the mental midgetry of some of these build the wall guys and they are ALWAYS quoting liberals and promoting communist nations in support of their talking points... All the while calling others lefties.  You can't make this stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You actually think Greece, Turkey, Macedonia, and India are communist nations?  Care to try that again?
> 
> Actually ... I always found it interesting when you have liberals that are so opposed to building the wall, throwing their support for an open border.  Yet, when you inform the left that strict gun regulations simply does not work to lower gun violence in cities like Detroit or Baltimore, they then blame how easy it is for criminals to transport guns across the border.  Talk about a paradox, I don’t believe the left has actually taken the time to completely think this through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For what reason did those countries put up a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To prevent the free flow of illegal immigration in their country.
> 
> Now tell me why do we have Federal Immigration Laws in this country?  Define for me the term  “National sovereignty”..  How does a nation achieve  National sovereignty?
Click to expand...


I'll give you a complete and honest answer once you do the same for me.  For what reason did those countries erect a wall in the first place?

Let me help you out.  I Googled this question with regards to China.  Here is he answer:

"The *Great Wall of China* is a series of fortifications made of stone, brick, tamped earth, wood, and other materials, generally built along an east-to-west line across the historical northern borders of China to protect the Chinese statesand empires against the *raids and invasions* of the various nomadic groups of the Eurasian Steppe"

Great Wall of China - Wikipedia

Now give me some examples of walls and WHY they were built.  We are not being raided or invaded.  Like it or not, the people who come from south of the border are coming here because Americans are WILLINGLY doing business with them.  

What short circuits in your brain that you do not understand that?  Will your next response be to call me a lefty for acknowledging that simple fact of life?  Well, let me ease your mind.  It pisses me off to no end that our own brethren do not support one another and are in a mad dash to destroy America be being in alliances like the UN; giving foreigners easier access to our universities than to our own citizenry; that we destroy the posterity of our nation with inter-racial marriage, people marrying outside their family's faith, marrying those from foreign countries / cultures.

That is doing more to destroy your nation, culture and heritage than a silly ass wall.  But, what make us different from all the nations on earth is that people have the Right to make their own personal decisions.  That is the essence of Liberty.  While I may be livid for the decisions my own countrymen make, I will never support an effort to take that Right away from them - even at the cost or detriment to me.

I will answer one question for you - to show you I'm sincere in having a two way conversation:

We have UNCONSTITUTIONAL immigration laws on the books for one reason and one reason only:  It is the power of control.  They serve no other purpose and if you want a few paragraphs proving their unconstitutionality, I'll include them IF you will answer my previous question to you.


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then let them feed their families at home.  Surrendering is never a winning strategy.  It's an admission of failure.
> 
> Having people come here to make money and take it back home might not be devastating now, but this economy won't last forever.  Democrats will be in charge of Congress next week and then we may see harsh changes.
> 
> So what about these people wanting to feed their families when our people want to feed theirs?  Isn't it bad enough we've lowered pay scales by allowing these people to come here?  Now we are going to give them priority over our own people?
> 
> 
> 
> What you are neglecting is that most of the people that are in the county illegally will still be in the country even if you build a wall and even if it's successful.  That is not going change till the immigration laws are changed  The size of the illegal immigrant population will not decrease significantly because undocumented immigrants stay where most people with work permits do return home.  Also, the flow of people with entry visas will continue and many of those will become undocumented by overstay their visas.
> 
> Lastly, we need these people today and we're going to need them a lot more as our workforce shrinks in the 21st century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. Corporatists on both sides will keep importing immigrants to fill the jobs and for growth. So building a wall won’t make wages go up because they’ll keep flooding the market with low skilled workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then those corporations would not only be guilty of hiring these people, but complicit in breaking our immigration laws as well unless they bring them here legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They will. And they’ll convince us we need them. And before wages go up because of supply and demand.
> 
> As a business owner do you want to raise wages or flood the market with workers?
> 
> Then what about after the trump Recession gets here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the Trump recession that's been coming for the last two years?  Credit card companies are reporting a 5% increase in holiday shopping this year.   That's the strongest holiday purchases in 6 years.  850 billion dollars to be more accurate.
> 
> I'm not against anything that will contribute to the security of our country and stop the invasion of foreigners that come here to break our laws.
Click to expand...


No, you right wingers have been predicting a recession not us.  

Obama gave us the longest economic expansion.  Slow and steady.

I don't know when the next recession is going to happen.  What I worry about is how a Trump administration would handle it.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
> 
> Why is posting a picture of a Klan march on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin in December and claiming it's the Democratic convention in New York the previous summer wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a major fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh.  Then what does that make you two morons who actually thought a few dozen Klan Klowns walking the wet December streets in Wisconsin was a summer political convention in New York?
Click to expand...

Have you been studying that pic for 5 years?  That's how long ago it was posted, snowflake.  You're OCD.


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, moron.  Except for one or two, every person involved in founding this country was born here.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you go back far enough in the DNA tree, even the people you claim founded this country emigrated here over the Bering Sea.  So we're nothing but a country of foreigners.
Click to expand...

That's true of every country on earth, except for maybe one in Africa.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are neglecting is that most of the people that are in the county illegally will still be in the country even if you build a wall and even if it's successful.  That is not going change till the immigration laws are changed  The size of the illegal immigrant population will not decrease significantly because undocumented immigrants stay where most people with work permits do return home.  Also, the flow of people with entry visas will continue and many of those will become undocumented by overstay their visas.
> 
> Lastly, we need these people today and we're going to need them a lot more as our workforce shrinks in the 21st century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Corporatists on both sides will keep importing immigrants to fill the jobs and for growth. So building a wall won’t make wages go up because they’ll keep flooding the market with low skilled workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then those corporations would not only be guilty of hiring these people, but complicit in breaking our immigration laws as well unless they bring them here legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They will. And they’ll convince us we need them. And before wages go up because of supply and demand.
> 
> As a business owner do you want to raise wages or flood the market with workers?
> 
> Then what about after the trump Recession gets here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the Trump recession that's been coming for the last two years?  Credit card companies are reporting a 5% increase in holiday shopping this year.   That's the strongest holiday purchases in 6 years.  850 billion dollars to be more accurate.
> 
> I'm not against anything that will contribute to the security of our country and stop the invasion of foreigners that come here to break our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you right wingers have been predicting a recession not us.
> 
> Obama gave us the longest economic expansion.  Slow and steady.
> 
> I don't know when the next recession is going to happen.  What I worry about is how a Trump administration would handle it.
Click to expand...


I'd rather that problem be handled by a professional businessman than a community organizer.


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Corporatists on both sides will keep importing immigrants to fill the jobs and for growth. So building a wall won’t make wages go up because they’ll keep flooding the market with low skilled workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then those corporations would not only be guilty of hiring these people, but complicit in breaking our immigration laws as well unless they bring them here legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They will. And they’ll convince us we need them. And before wages go up because of supply and demand.
> 
> As a business owner do you want to raise wages or flood the market with workers?
> 
> Then what about after the trump Recession gets here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the Trump recession that's been coming for the last two years?  Credit card companies are reporting a 5% increase in holiday shopping this year.   That's the strongest holiday purchases in 6 years.  850 billion dollars to be more accurate.
> 
> I'm not against anything that will contribute to the security of our country and stop the invasion of foreigners that come here to break our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you right wingers have been predicting a recession not us.
> 
> Obama gave us the longest economic expansion.  Slow and steady.
> 
> I don't know when the next recession is going to happen.  What I worry about is how a Trump administration would handle it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd rather that problem be handled by a professional businessman than a community organizer.
Click to expand...

Yea he will just go bankrupt.  That won't hurt him at all.  You may suffer some pain however.

God I hope he ends social security.  A truck driver should be counting on social security.  I would love it if Trump renigged on the debt and just put the USA into bankruptsy. 

You would support it.  Dummy.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then those corporations would not only be guilty of hiring these people, but complicit in breaking our immigration laws as well unless they bring them here legally.
> 
> 
> 
> They will. And they’ll convince us we need them. And before wages go up because of supply and demand.
> 
> As a business owner do you want to raise wages or flood the market with workers?
> 
> Then what about after the trump Recession gets here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the Trump recession that's been coming for the last two years?  Credit card companies are reporting a 5% increase in holiday shopping this year.   That's the strongest holiday purchases in 6 years.  850 billion dollars to be more accurate.
> 
> I'm not against anything that will contribute to the security of our country and stop the invasion of foreigners that come here to break our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you right wingers have been predicting a recession not us.
> 
> Obama gave us the longest economic expansion.  Slow and steady.
> 
> I don't know when the next recession is going to happen.  What I worry about is how a Trump administration would handle it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd rather that problem be handled by a professional businessman than a community organizer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea he will just go bankrupt.  That won't hurt him at all.  You may suffer some pain however.
> 
> God I hope he ends social security.  A truck driver should be counting on social security.  I would love it if Trump renigged on the debt and just put the USA into bankruptsy.
> 
> You would support it.  Dummy.
Click to expand...


I would support phasing out SS.  You can't tell people who put into the system their entire lives that they aren't gong to get what was promised.  However you can restructure retirement for new generations entering the working world.  

Trump owned or operated over 500 companies in his career.  He filed bankruptcy only four times, and most of those was because of a bad economy when many companies were doing the same.


----------



## OKTexas

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one killed anyones children. They got sick from their parents neglect and died.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I have to admit, I was wrong; I thought you would've blamed it on Crooked Hillary.
Click to expand...



The bitch didn't drag those kids 2000 miles with inadequate food, water and medical treatment, the parents did.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did anyone know if they hadn't showed up to collect them themselves?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a rhetorical statement?
Click to expand...



Nope.

.


----------



## candycorn




----------



## OKTexas

Billo_Really said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why exactly did they choose for themselves NOT to stay with any other nation they entered in their path, and live there rather than travel on to the United States?
> 
> 
> 
> We're supposed to be the land of opportunity.  I guess we're not the nation we once claimed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are parents responsible for what happens to their children when they venture through several nations with their only goal to enter the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are parents responsible for this inhuman separation policy?
Click to expand...



All criminals are responsible for being separated from their children. Go out and commit a crime and see how fast you're separated form your family. The parents put their children in the situation, yes, they are to blame.

.


----------



## candycorn

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was voted in because of the wall, that is building power.
> 
> 
> 
> Not from the majority of Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't try to educate the Trump is God supporters.  Trump won because he got the most electoral votes.  He lost the popular vote.
> 
> In 2020 the liberals get to change the federal Congressional districts.  By pushing B.S. laws that offend the masses, the Republicans are absolutely guaranteeing they will be in the minority in just about every district in America after 2020.
> 
> I'm not a liberal, but once these arrogant build the wall guys get knocked on their ass, they can decide to fight or die.  They are not strategists.  2020 won't come none too soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is showing now, the States do the redistricting not congress and the majority of the State legislatures aren't liberal. In fact liberal States will be losing seats to more conservative States.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Redistricting is subject to Congressional approval.  And I hate to bust your bubble son, but it is not liberals have been gaining so much ground, but in states where it REALLY matters - places where there are a lot of electoral college votes, the liberals have been taking over districts AND areas near red districts so as to be able to dilute the Republican votes in the future.
Click to expand...


No.  Congress does not approve redistricting on the federal level.  

Gerrymandering: How to Stifle Democracy


----------



## Porter Rockwell

candycorn said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was voted in because of the wall, that is building power.
> 
> 
> 
> Not from the majority of Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't try to educate the Trump is God supporters.  Trump won because he got the most electoral votes.  He lost the popular vote.
> 
> In 2020 the liberals get to change the federal Congressional districts.  By pushing B.S. laws that offend the masses, the Republicans are absolutely guaranteeing they will be in the minority in just about every district in America after 2020.
> 
> I'm not a liberal, but once these arrogant build the wall guys get knocked on their ass, they can decide to fight or die.  They are not strategists.  2020 won't come none too soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is showing now, the States do the redistricting not congress and the majority of the State legislatures aren't liberal. In fact liberal States will be losing seats to more conservative States.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Redistricting is subject to Congressional approval.  And I hate to bust your bubble son, but it is not liberals have been gaining so much ground, but in states where it REALLY matters - places where there are a lot of electoral college votes, the liberals have been taking over districts AND areas near red districts so as to be able to dilute the Republican votes in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Congress does not approve redistricting on the federal level.
> 
> Gerrymandering: How to Stifle Democracy
Click to expand...



Let me assure you that what is taught in public schools and what goes on in reality are two different things.

Although the American Bar Association, the most liberal organization in the United States, has NO power or authority when it comes to judges, a lawyer's chances of every becoming a judge without their endorsement is zero to none. 

Likewise, while not mentioned in any official document, sitting Congressmen and Senators play a pivotal role in the way districts are redrawn.  If you want to believe differently, you are most assuredly welcome to.  If you want to know how politics REALLY work, join your local party and become an officer in it.  Go to the meetings and volunteer for different projects.  That way you will have the facts and you won't want to waste your time with B.S. you learned in school that only gives you the very basic information.


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> View attachment 237210




Crossing in the San Diego sector went form 100,000 to 5,000 after a barrier was erected. They work, period. Visa overstays is a simple fix if politicians had the will.

.


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was voted in because of the wall, that is building power.
> 
> 
> 
> Not from the majority of Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't try to educate the Trump is God supporters.  Trump won because he got the most electoral votes.  He lost the popular vote.
> 
> In 2020 the liberals get to change the federal Congressional districts.  By pushing B.S. laws that offend the masses, the Republicans are absolutely guaranteeing they will be in the minority in just about every district in America after 2020.
> 
> I'm not a liberal, but once these arrogant build the wall guys get knocked on their ass, they can decide to fight or die.  They are not strategists.  2020 won't come none too soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is showing now, the States do the redistricting not congress and the majority of the State legislatures aren't liberal. In fact liberal States will be losing seats to more conservative States.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Redistricting is subject to Congressional approval.  And I hate to bust your bubble son, but it is not liberals have been gaining so much ground, but in states where it REALLY matters - places where there are a lot of electoral college votes, the liberals have been taking over districts AND areas near red districts so as to be able to dilute the Republican votes in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Congress does not approve redistricting on the federal level.
> 
> Gerrymandering: How to Stifle Democracy
Click to expand...



Don't concern yourself, this dude just disappears from a conversation when proven wrong.

.


----------



## danielpalos

OKTexas said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why exactly did they choose for themselves NOT to stay with any other nation they entered in their path, and live there rather than travel on to the United States?
> 
> 
> 
> We're supposed to be the land of opportunity.  I guess we're not the nation we once claimed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are parents responsible for what happens to their children when they venture through several nations with their only goal to enter the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are parents responsible for this inhuman separation policy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All criminals are responsible for being separated from their children. Go out and commit a crime and see how fast you're separated form your family. The parents put their children in the situation, yes, they are to blame.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

seeking asylum is not unlawful.  the right wing just like to blame the Poor.


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will. And they’ll convince us we need them. And before wages go up because of supply and demand.
> 
> As a business owner do you want to raise wages or flood the market with workers?
> 
> Then what about after the trump Recession gets here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the Trump recession that's been coming for the last two years?  Credit card companies are reporting a 5% increase in holiday shopping this year.   That's the strongest holiday purchases in 6 years.  850 billion dollars to be more accurate.
> 
> I'm not against anything that will contribute to the security of our country and stop the invasion of foreigners that come here to break our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you right wingers have been predicting a recession not us.
> 
> Obama gave us the longest economic expansion.  Slow and steady.
> 
> I don't know when the next recession is going to happen.  What I worry about is how a Trump administration would handle it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd rather that problem be handled by a professional businessman than a community organizer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea he will just go bankrupt.  That won't hurt him at all.  You may suffer some pain however.
> 
> God I hope he ends social security.  A truck driver should be counting on social security.  I would love it if Trump renigged on the debt and just put the USA into bankruptsy.
> 
> You would support it.  Dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would support phasing out SS.  You can't tell people who put into the system their entire lives that they aren't gong to get what was promised.  However you can restructure retirement for new generations entering the working world.
> 
> Trump owned or operated over 500 companies in his career.  He filed bankruptcy only four times, and most of those was because of a bad economy when many companies were doing the same.
Click to expand...

How many of those 500 closed rather than went bankrupt?  How many contractors didn't get paid?  Trump sucks as a person and he's a shady businessman.


----------



## OKTexas

danielpalos said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why exactly did they choose for themselves NOT to stay with any other nation they entered in their path, and live there rather than travel on to the United States?
> 
> 
> 
> We're supposed to be the land of opportunity.  I guess we're not the nation we once claimed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are parents responsible for what happens to their children when they venture through several nations with their only goal to enter the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are parents responsible for this inhuman separation policy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All criminals are responsible for being separated from their children. Go out and commit a crime and see how fast you're separated form your family. The parents put their children in the situation, yes, they are to blame.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> seeking asylum is not unlawful.  the right wing just like to blame the Poor.
Click to expand...



Crossing the border away from a port of entry is unlawful. Just like with all criminals, you deal with the crime first, and the excuses later. BTW only about 9% of asylum claims are approved.

.


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will. And they’ll convince us we need them. And before wages go up because of supply and demand.
> 
> As a business owner do you want to raise wages or flood the market with workers?
> 
> Then what about after the trump Recession gets here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the Trump recession that's been coming for the last two years?  Credit card companies are reporting a 5% increase in holiday shopping this year.   That's the strongest holiday purchases in 6 years.  850 billion dollars to be more accurate.
> 
> I'm not against anything that will contribute to the security of our country and stop the invasion of foreigners that come here to break our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you right wingers have been predicting a recession not us.
> 
> Obama gave us the longest economic expansion.  Slow and steady.
> 
> I don't know when the next recession is going to happen.  What I worry about is how a Trump administration would handle it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd rather that problem be handled by a professional businessman than a community organizer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea he will just go bankrupt.  That won't hurt him at all.  You may suffer some pain however.
> 
> God I hope he ends social security.  A truck driver should be counting on social security.  I would love it if Trump renigged on the debt and just put the USA into bankruptsy.
> 
> You would support it.  Dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would support phasing out SS.  You can't tell people who put into the system their entire lives that they aren't gong to get what was promised.  However you can restructure retirement for new generations entering the working world.
> 
> Trump owned or operated over 500 companies in his career.  He filed bankruptcy only four times, and most of those was because of a bad economy when many companies were doing the same.
Click to expand...

Editorial: Trump Foundation scandal exposes grifter in chief

It’s the details that tell the real story about Donald J. Trump, the self-proclaimed philanthropist. It’s clear in the settlement his foundation just reached with New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood that Trump’s cherished charitable cause was himself.

Underwood has accused the Donald J. Trump Foundation of engaging in “a shocking pattern of illegality” and “functioning as little more than a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump’s business and political interests.”

But those words are not nearly as damning as the details behind the 

This is where you idiots accept it when Trump says doing this makes him smart and that everyone does it.

Its definition of “charity” apparently included settling six-figure lawsuits against Trump’s businesses, such as the one from Palm Beach over building regulations at Mar-a-Lago and another from a golfer saying he was cheated out of a $1 million prize for hitting a hole-in-one at Trump’s New Jersey course.

Downright smarmy are some of the personal purchases from the ostensible charity: a $20,000 life-size portrait of Trump; $12,000 for a football helmet signed by former NFL quarterback Tim Tebow and $7 to the Boy Scouts — presumably to cover the dues of then-11-year-old Don Jr. One would think a celebrated real estate mogul could have paid for all of those expenses out of his own checkbook.

The foundation also is accused of blatantly crossing the line against using its funds for political purposes — most notably, the 2016 Trump presidential campaign. Evidence includes an email from the Trump campaign manager to the foundation treasurer asking for proceeds from an Iowa fundraiser.

Even with the dissolution of the foundation, the attorney general plans to continue pursuing $2.8 million in restitution and additional penalties, and to prohibit the president and his three oldest children from ever serving on the board of another New York nonprofit.

Your defense of this is noted.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the Trump recession that's been coming for the last two years?  Credit card companies are reporting a 5% increase in holiday shopping this year.   That's the strongest holiday purchases in 6 years.  850 billion dollars to be more accurate.
> 
> I'm not against anything that will contribute to the security of our country and stop the invasion of foreigners that come here to break our laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you right wingers have been predicting a recession not us.
> 
> Obama gave us the longest economic expansion.  Slow and steady.
> 
> I don't know when the next recession is going to happen.  What I worry about is how a Trump administration would handle it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd rather that problem be handled by a professional businessman than a community organizer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea he will just go bankrupt.  That won't hurt him at all.  You may suffer some pain however.
> 
> God I hope he ends social security.  A truck driver should be counting on social security.  I would love it if Trump renigged on the debt and just put the USA into bankruptsy.
> 
> You would support it.  Dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would support phasing out SS.  You can't tell people who put into the system their entire lives that they aren't gong to get what was promised.  However you can restructure retirement for new generations entering the working world.
> 
> Trump owned or operated over 500 companies in his career.  He filed bankruptcy only four times, and most of those was because of a bad economy when many companies were doing the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many of those 500 closed rather than went bankrupt?  How many contractors didn't get paid?  Trump sucks as a person and he's a shady businessman.
Click to expand...


Does it really matter to people with TDS?  Not really.  It wouldn't matter if not one company closed.


----------



## sealybobo

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


How about this.  If Trump is a 2 term president we will build a wall.  With us on the outside.  Deal?


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Utter horseshit.  All your claims have been refuted in this forum 1000 times.  The wall has been proven the most effective method for controlling illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. And no, it hasn't.
> 
> A wall actually increases illegal immigration by making it more expensive to cross the border. Before a wall immigrants would come here, earn money, and then go home. There were entire seasonal work forces that would arrive from Mexico, help bring in a harvest of a particular crop, earn some money *and go home. *And come back the next year for the next harvest season.
> 
> Now people have to work for years to pay back the cost of crossing the border. *Meaning they have to stay longer.* And when they stay longer, they have more kids here, there is less incentive for them to go home.
> 
> Worse, about a third of illegals are folks who merely overstayed visas. *Which walls do nothing to prevent.
> *
> Walls are expensive to make expensive to buy land for and even more expensive to maintain. They can be circumvented by anyone who really wants to. To quote Trump's own chief of staff,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "the bottom line is the fence doesn't stop anybody who really wants to get across. You go under, you go around, you go through it. And that's what the ranchers tell us, is that they don't need a fence."
> 
> Mick Mulvaney
> 
> Mick Mulvaney in 2015: Trump's views on border wall 'simplistic,' 'absurd and almost childish' - CNNPolitics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor does the fence keep them from coming back.
> 
> *The E-Verify system works on all of those fronts. *It eliminates the work that illegals come here for, or those overstaying their visas require in order to stay here. Compared to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. Stripped of the means of making a living, most would go home where its far cheaper.
> 
> The wall is orders of magnitude MORE expensive, takes *years* to build, is* wildly expensive to maintain*, is *ineffective*, doesn't address 1/3 or illegal immigrants at all, and actually i*ncreases *the incentive for them to stay once they've arrived. *Its a stupid proposal.*
> 
> E-Verify is orders of magnitude LESS expensive, _it is already in place,_ its maintenance costs are minimal (a website, phone line and paperwork), its very effective, it DOES address the 1/3 of illegal immigrants that the wall ignores, and it REDUCES the incentive for illegals to stay here. *Its a smart proposal. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A wall will also increase the number illegal immigrants because the increased border security makes it harder for migrants to leave without being picked by immigration and getting back in the US is harder so once in they are here to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  When they leave, they can do so at a point of entry.  Nobody is going to stop a Mexican from going back to Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not so.  The border patrol watches areas around ports of entry closely for undocumented immigrants.  Telling the border patrol that you're going home does not cut it.  You might get expedited deportation but you will be deported unless you demand a hearing are ask for asylum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if they're going home anyway, what difference would that make?
Click to expand...

You 're missing the point.  The border patrol has no way of knowing if an undocumented immigrant is coming or going unless they are caught actually crossing the border.  When caught they will often say they are returning home to escape deportation and possible detention.  Usually deportation carries a penalty of barred legal entrance for 3 to 5 years.

The border patrol watches areas close to ports of entry because they are the most common points for illegal entry.  Only about one in a hundred vehicles are stopped for inspection at the border.  On an average day 40,000 vehicles cross at the San Diego crossing  and over a 100,000 people but during the heavies periods those number can be much higher.  Even today, forged documents are still used to gain entry.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not from the majority of Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't try to educate the Trump is God supporters.  Trump won because he got the most electoral votes.  He lost the popular vote.
> 
> In 2020 the liberals get to change the federal Congressional districts.  By pushing B.S. laws that offend the masses, the Republicans are absolutely guaranteeing they will be in the minority in just about every district in America after 2020.
> 
> I'm not a liberal, but once these arrogant build the wall guys get knocked on their ass, they can decide to fight or die.  They are not strategists.  2020 won't come none too soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is showing now, the States do the redistricting not congress and the majority of the State legislatures aren't liberal. In fact liberal States will be losing seats to more conservative States.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Redistricting is subject to Congressional approval.  And I hate to bust your bubble son, but it is not liberals have been gaining so much ground, but in states where it REALLY matters - places where there are a lot of electoral college votes, the liberals have been taking over districts AND areas near red districts so as to be able to dilute the Republican votes in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Congress does not approve redistricting on the federal level.
> 
> Gerrymandering: How to Stifle Democracy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't concern yourself, this dude just disappears from a conversation when proven wrong.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Do you get paid to lie?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 237210
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing in the San Diego sector went form 100,000 to 5,000 after a barrier was erected. They work, period. Visa overstays is a simple fix if politicians had the will.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Since you waste so much time looking for relevance, why not run for public office and show Congress how simple the fixes are.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. And no, it hasn't.
> 
> A wall actually increases illegal immigration by making it more expensive to cross the border. Before a wall immigrants would come here, earn money, and then go home. There were entire seasonal work forces that would arrive from Mexico, help bring in a harvest of a particular crop, earn some money *and go home. *And come back the next year for the next harvest season.
> 
> Now people have to work for years to pay back the cost of crossing the border. *Meaning they have to stay longer.* And when they stay longer, they have more kids here, there is less incentive for them to go home.
> 
> Worse, about a third of illegals are folks who merely overstayed visas. *Which walls do nothing to prevent.
> *
> Walls are expensive to make expensive to buy land for and even more expensive to maintain. They can be circumvented by anyone who really wants to. To quote Trump's own chief of staff,
> 
> Nor does the fence keep them from coming back.
> 
> *The E-Verify system works on all of those fronts. *It eliminates the work that illegals come here for, or those overstaying their visas require in order to stay here. Compared to their home countries, the US is usually expensive. Stripped of the means of making a living, most would go home where its far cheaper.
> 
> The wall is orders of magnitude MORE expensive, takes *years* to build, is* wildly expensive to maintain*, is *ineffective*, doesn't address 1/3 or illegal immigrants at all, and actually i*ncreases *the incentive for them to stay once they've arrived. *Its a stupid proposal.*
> 
> E-Verify is orders of magnitude LESS expensive, _it is already in place,_ its maintenance costs are minimal (a website, phone line and paperwork), its very effective, it DOES address the 1/3 of illegal immigrants that the wall ignores, and it REDUCES the incentive for illegals to stay here. *Its a smart proposal. *
> 
> 
> 
> A wall will also increase the number illegal immigrants because the increased border security makes it harder for migrants to leave without being picked by immigration and getting back in the US is harder so once in they are here to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  When they leave, they can do so at a point of entry.  Nobody is going to stop a Mexican from going back to Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not so.  The border patrol watches areas around ports of entry closely for undocumented immigrants.  Telling the border patrol that you're going home does not cut it.  You might get expedited deportation but you will be deported unless you demand a hearing are ask for asylum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if they're going home anyway, what difference would that make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You 're missing the point.  The border patrol has no way of knowing if an undocumented immigrant is coming or going unless they are caught actually crossing the border.  When caught they will often say they are returning home to escape deportation and possible detention.  Usually deportation carries a penalty of barred legal entrance for 3 to 5 years.
> 
> The border patrol watches areas close to ports of entry because they are the most common points for illegal entry.  Less than one in a hundred vehicles are stopped for inspection at the border.  Even today, forged documents are still used to gain entry.
Click to expand...


Point I was making is that if an illegal is returning to Mexico, nobody is going to bother them.  Even it it's learned they are an illegal, as long as they're leaving, that's all that counts.  Entering the US?  That may be a different story.  

If an illegal is driving through customs, nobody is going to ask if he was legal while he was in the US.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux



I'm going to get away from the side arguments here and remind you that you've answered your own question.

None of the choices you gave are reasons any substantial percentage of people can weigh in.  Your choices are non-sequiturs. 

The greatest reason NOT to build the wall is that the machine, which is primarily business, benefits.  In turn, this creates opportunities for landlords to rent, retail sales to sell more products, etc.  It's a win / win.  It is the free market at its finest.

By contrast, those arguing for the wall are always invoking the names of communist countries, socialist countries, and / or *those at war*.  The build the wall guys come up with communist examples and they give you socialist solutions.  They are opposed to the idea of rehabilitating those in prisons and putting them in those jobs now occupied with undocumented foreigners.  They are opposed to cutting down on the numbers of drug users the U.S. creates.   The real reason the build the wall guys want the wall is simply to keep people out.  Without SOMEONE available to do the work, nothing gets done.  Businesses leave the U.S. and go where there are more workers, less taxes and fewer regulations. 

If you want to live in a dictatorship there is no reason not to build a wall.  If you enjoy Liberty and Freedom, the list of reasons NOT to build the wall are endless.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't try to educate the Trump is God supporters.  Trump won because he got the most electoral votes.  He lost the popular vote.
> 
> In 2020 the liberals get to change the federal Congressional districts.  By pushing B.S. laws that offend the masses, the Republicans are absolutely guaranteeing they will be in the minority in just about every district in America after 2020.
> 
> I'm not a liberal, but once these arrogant build the wall guys get knocked on their ass, they can decide to fight or die.  They are not strategists.  2020 won't come none too soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is showing now, the States do the redistricting not congress and the majority of the State legislatures aren't liberal. In fact liberal States will be losing seats to more conservative States.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Redistricting is subject to Congressional approval.  And I hate to bust your bubble son, but it is not liberals have been gaining so much ground, but in states where it REALLY matters - places where there are a lot of electoral college votes, the liberals have been taking over districts AND areas near red districts so as to be able to dilute the Republican votes in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Congress does not approve redistricting on the federal level.
> 
> Gerrymandering: How to Stifle Democracy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't concern yourself, this dude just disappears from a conversation when proven wrong.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you get paid to lie?
Click to expand...



You sure ran like a scalded dog from our conversation concerning redistricting. That made my statement a fact. Deal with it child.

.


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the Trump recession that's been coming for the last two years?  Credit card companies are reporting a 5% increase in holiday shopping this year.   That's the strongest holiday purchases in 6 years.  850 billion dollars to be more accurate.
> 
> I'm not against anything that will contribute to the security of our country and stop the invasion of foreigners that come here to break our laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you right wingers have been predicting a recession not us.
> 
> Obama gave us the longest economic expansion.  Slow and steady.
> 
> I don't know when the next recession is going to happen.  What I worry about is how a Trump administration would handle it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd rather that problem be handled by a professional businessman than a community organizer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea he will just go bankrupt.  That won't hurt him at all.  You may suffer some pain however.
> 
> God I hope he ends social security.  A truck driver should be counting on social security.  I would love it if Trump renigged on the debt and just put the USA into bankruptsy.
> 
> You would support it.  Dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would support phasing out SS.  You can't tell people who put into the system their entire lives that they aren't gong to get what was promised.  However you can restructure retirement for new generations entering the working world.
> 
> Trump owned or operated over 500 companies in his career.  He filed bankruptcy only four times, and most of those was because of a bad economy when many companies were doing the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many of those 500 closed rather than went bankrupt?  How many contractors didn't get paid?  Trump sucks as a person and he's a shady businessman.
Click to expand...

You say he sucks as a person based on pure speculation?   How does closing a business mean that Trump sucks as a person?  Tens of thousands of businesses close every year in this country.  Do all of their owners "suck?"

One thing we know:  you suck as a logician.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is showing now, the States do the redistricting not congress and the majority of the State legislatures aren't liberal. In fact liberal States will be losing seats to more conservative States.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redistricting is subject to Congressional approval.  And I hate to bust your bubble son, but it is not liberals have been gaining so much ground, but in states where it REALLY matters - places where there are a lot of electoral college votes, the liberals have been taking over districts AND areas near red districts so as to be able to dilute the Republican votes in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Congress does not approve redistricting on the federal level.
> 
> Gerrymandering: How to Stifle Democracy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't concern yourself, this dude just disappears from a conversation when proven wrong.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you get paid to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sure ran like a scalded dog from our conversation concerning redistricting. That made my statement a fact. Deal with it child.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I responded to the question.  Besides, the topic is about the wall.  There is not much more I can do other than answer the question because I'm not going to hijack the thread just to prove to you that most of the ways laws are changed are not in the textbooks.

You were responded to.  Nobody is running away from you.  BTW, since your link didn't have anything to do with the wall, I failed to comment, but if something will destroy democracy, I'm all for it.  It's one reason the nutty wall idea don't fly with me.  We are guaranteed a Republican Form of Government.


----------



## sealybobo

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you right wingers have been predicting a recession not us.
> 
> Obama gave us the longest economic expansion.  Slow and steady.
> 
> I don't know when the next recession is going to happen.  What I worry about is how a Trump administration would handle it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather that problem be handled by a professional businessman than a community organizer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea he will just go bankrupt.  That won't hurt him at all.  You may suffer some pain however.
> 
> God I hope he ends social security.  A truck driver should be counting on social security.  I would love it if Trump renigged on the debt and just put the USA into bankruptsy.
> 
> You would support it.  Dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would support phasing out SS.  You can't tell people who put into the system their entire lives that they aren't gong to get what was promised.  However you can restructure retirement for new generations entering the working world.
> 
> Trump owned or operated over 500 companies in his career.  He filed bankruptcy only four times, and most of those was because of a bad economy when many companies were doing the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many of those 500 closed rather than went bankrupt?  How many contractors didn't get paid?  Trump sucks as a person and he's a shady businessman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say he sucks as a person based on pure speculation?   How does closing a business mean that Trump sucks as a person?  Tens of thousands of businesses close every year in this country.  Do all of their owners "suck?"
> 
> One thing we know:  you suck as a logician.
Click to expand...

OMG how can you even argue that he's a good person?  I can't take you seriously.


----------



## danielpalos

OKTexas said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why exactly did they choose for themselves NOT to stay with any other nation they entered in their path, and live there rather than travel on to the United States?
> 
> 
> 
> We're supposed to be the land of opportunity.  I guess we're not the nation we once claimed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are parents responsible for what happens to their children when they venture through several nations with their only goal to enter the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are parents responsible for this inhuman separation policy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All criminals are responsible for being separated from their children. Go out and commit a crime and see how fast you're separated form your family. The parents put their children in the situation, yes, they are to blame.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> seeking asylum is not unlawful.  the right wing just like to blame the Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing the border away from a port of entry is unlawful. Just like with all criminals, you deal with the crime first, and the excuses later. BTW only about 9% of asylum claims are approved.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

asking for asylum on US soil is not illegal.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redistricting is subject to Congressional approval.  And I hate to bust your bubble son, but it is not liberals have been gaining so much ground, but in states where it REALLY matters - places where there are a lot of electoral college votes, the liberals have been taking over districts AND areas near red districts so as to be able to dilute the Republican votes in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Congress does not approve redistricting on the federal level.
> 
> Gerrymandering: How to Stifle Democracy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't concern yourself, this dude just disappears from a conversation when proven wrong.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you get paid to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sure ran like a scalded dog from our conversation concerning redistricting. That made my statement a fact. Deal with it child.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I responded to the question.  Besides, the topic is about the wall.  There is not much more I can do other than answer the question because I'm not going to hijack the thread just to prove to you that most of the ways laws are changed are not in the textbooks.
> 
> You were responded to.  Nobody is running away from you.  BTW, since your link didn't have anything to do with the wall, I failed to comment, but if something will destroy democracy, I'm all for it.  It's one reason the nutty wall idea don't fly with me.  We are guaranteed a Republican Form of Government.
Click to expand...



You're the one that brought up ominous fairy tales how congress would alter the political landscape after the 2020 census. Below was my last response to your fantasy which you never responded to.


OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was voted in because of the wall, that is building power.
> 
> 
> 
> Not from the majority of Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't try to educate the Trump is God supporters.  Trump won because he got the most electoral votes.  He lost the popular vote.
> 
> In 2020 the liberals get to change the federal Congressional districts.  By pushing B.S. laws that offend the masses, the Republicans are absolutely guaranteeing they will be in the minority in just about every district in America after 2020.
> 
> I'm not a liberal, but once these arrogant build the wall guys get knocked on their ass, they can decide to fight or die.  They are not strategists.  2020 won't come none too soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is showing now, the States do the redistricting not congress and the majority of the State legislatures aren't liberal. In fact liberal States will be losing seats to more conservative States.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Redistricting is subject to Congressional approval.  And I hate to bust your bubble son, but it is not liberals have been gaining so much ground, but in states where it REALLY matters - places where there are a lot of electoral college votes, the liberals have been taking over districts AND areas near red districts so as to be able to dilute the Republican votes in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, congress has nothing to do with it. The courts sometimes gets involved but never congress.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


.


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather that problem be handled by a professional businessman than a community organizer.
> 
> 
> 
> Yea he will just go bankrupt.  That won't hurt him at all.  You may suffer some pain however.
> 
> God I hope he ends social security.  A truck driver should be counting on social security.  I would love it if Trump renigged on the debt and just put the USA into bankruptsy.
> 
> You would support it.  Dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would support phasing out SS.  You can't tell people who put into the system their entire lives that they aren't gong to get what was promised.  However you can restructure retirement for new generations entering the working world.
> 
> Trump owned or operated over 500 companies in his career.  He filed bankruptcy only four times, and most of those was because of a bad economy when many companies were doing the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many of those 500 closed rather than went bankrupt?  How many contractors didn't get paid?  Trump sucks as a person and he's a shady businessman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say he sucks as a person based on pure speculation?   How does closing a business mean that Trump sucks as a person?  Tens of thousands of businesses close every year in this country.  Do all of their owners "suck?"
> 
> One thing we know:  you suck as a logician.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG how can you even argue that he's a good person?  I can't take you seriously.
Click to expand...


It's easy.  He's done more good for America than any president since Reagan.  Obama only hurt America, yet you defend him and attack Trump.


----------



## OKTexas

danielpalos said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why exactly did they choose for themselves NOT to stay with any other nation they entered in their path, and live there rather than travel on to the United States?
> 
> 
> 
> We're supposed to be the land of opportunity.  I guess we're not the nation we once claimed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are parents responsible for what happens to their children when they venture through several nations with their only goal to enter the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are parents responsible for this inhuman separation policy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All criminals are responsible for being separated from their children. Go out and commit a crime and see how fast you're separated form your family. The parents put their children in the situation, yes, they are to blame.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> seeking asylum is not unlawful.  the right wing just like to blame the Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing the border away from a port of entry is unlawful. Just like with all criminals, you deal with the crime first, and the excuses later. BTW only about 9% of asylum claims are approved.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asking for asylum on US soil is not illegal.
Click to expand...



Feel free to point where I said it was.

.


----------



## Geaux4it

danielpalos said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why exactly did they choose for themselves NOT to stay with any other nation they entered in their path, and live there rather than travel on to the United States?
> 
> 
> 
> We're supposed to be the land of opportunity.  I guess we're not the nation we once claimed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are parents responsible for what happens to their children when they venture through several nations with their only goal to enter the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are parents responsible for this inhuman separation policy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All criminals are responsible for being separated from their children. Go out and commit a crime and see how fast you're separated form your family. The parents put their children in the situation, yes, they are to blame.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> seeking asylum is not unlawful.  the right wing just like to blame the Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing the border away from a port of entry is unlawful. Just like with all criminals, you deal with the crime first, and the excuses later. BTW only about 9% of asylum claims are approved.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asking for asylum on US soil is not illegal.
Click to expand...

But many, many are liars and are not qualified for asylum. They are looking for a free ride

-Geaux


----------



## candycorn

Porter Rockwell said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not from the majority of Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't try to educate the Trump is God supporters.  Trump won because he got the most electoral votes.  He lost the popular vote.
> 
> In 2020 the liberals get to change the federal Congressional districts.  By pushing B.S. laws that offend the masses, the Republicans are absolutely guaranteeing they will be in the minority in just about every district in America after 2020.
> 
> I'm not a liberal, but once these arrogant build the wall guys get knocked on their ass, they can decide to fight or die.  They are not strategists.  2020 won't come none too soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is showing now, the States do the redistricting not congress and the majority of the State legislatures aren't liberal. In fact liberal States will be losing seats to more conservative States.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Redistricting is subject to Congressional approval.  And I hate to bust your bubble son, but it is not liberals have been gaining so much ground, but in states where it REALLY matters - places where there are a lot of electoral college votes, the liberals have been taking over districts AND areas near red districts so as to be able to dilute the Republican votes in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Congress does not approve redistricting on the federal level.
> 
> Gerrymandering: How to Stifle Democracy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me assure you that what is taught in public schools and what goes on in reality are two different things.
> 
> Although the American Bar Association, the most liberal organization in the United States, has NO power or authority when it comes to judges, a lawyer's chances of every becoming a judge without their endorsement is zero to none.
> 
> Likewise, while not mentioned in any official document, sitting Congressmen and Senators play a pivotal role in the way districts are redrawn.  If you want to believe differently, you are most assuredly welcome to.  If you want to know how politics REALLY work, join your local party and become an officer in it.  Go to the meetings and volunteer for different projects.  That way you will have the facts and you won't want to waste your time with B.S. you learned in school that only gives you the very basic information.
Click to expand...


Let me assure you that it is clear to anyone paying a dimes worth of attention that you’re changing your story. 
Redistricting does not require congressional approval. Never has, never will.  Congressional approval is the approval of the body known as the Congress.  The approval of members of congress is something totally different. If you want to know how redistricting REALLY works, you should study more before trying to weigh in on the subject.


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't try to educate the Trump is God supporters.  Trump won because he got the most electoral votes.  He lost the popular vote.
> 
> In 2020 the liberals get to change the federal Congressional districts.  By pushing B.S. laws that offend the masses, the Republicans are absolutely guaranteeing they will be in the minority in just about every district in America after 2020.
> 
> I'm not a liberal, but once these arrogant build the wall guys get knocked on their ass, they can decide to fight or die.  They are not strategists.  2020 won't come none too soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is showing now, the States do the redistricting not congress and the majority of the State legislatures aren't liberal. In fact liberal States will be losing seats to more conservative States.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Redistricting is subject to Congressional approval.  And I hate to bust your bubble son, but it is not liberals have been gaining so much ground, but in states where it REALLY matters - places where there are a lot of electoral college votes, the liberals have been taking over districts AND areas near red districts so as to be able to dilute the Republican votes in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Congress does not approve redistricting on the federal level.
> 
> Gerrymandering: How to Stifle Democracy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me assure you that what is taught in public schools and what goes on in reality are two different things.
> 
> Although the American Bar Association, the most liberal organization in the United States, has NO power or authority when it comes to judges, a lawyer's chances of every becoming a judge without their endorsement is zero to none.
> 
> Likewise, while not mentioned in any official document, sitting Congressmen and Senators play a pivotal role in the way districts are redrawn.  If you want to believe differently, you are most assuredly welcome to.  If you want to know how politics REALLY work, join your local party and become an officer in it.  Go to the meetings and volunteer for different projects.  That way you will have the facts and you won't want to waste your time with B.S. you learned in school that only gives you the very basic information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me assure you that it is clear to anyone paying a dimes worth of attention that you’re changing your story.
> Redistricting does not require congressional approval. Never has, never will.  Congressional approval is the approval of the body known as the Congress.  The approval of members of congress is something totally different. If you want to know how redistricting REALLY works, you should study more before trying to weigh in on the subject.
Click to expand...



There are hundreds if not thousands of factions that try to provide input on redistricting, the US Congress ain't one of them. The dude is trying to play word games.

.


----------



## sealybobo

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea he will just go bankrupt.  That won't hurt him at all.  You may suffer some pain however.
> 
> God I hope he ends social security.  A truck driver should be counting on social security.  I would love it if Trump renigged on the debt and just put the USA into bankruptsy.
> 
> You would support it.  Dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would support phasing out SS.  You can't tell people who put into the system their entire lives that they aren't gong to get what was promised.  However you can restructure retirement for new generations entering the working world.
> 
> Trump owned or operated over 500 companies in his career.  He filed bankruptcy only four times, and most of those was because of a bad economy when many companies were doing the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many of those 500 closed rather than went bankrupt?  How many contractors didn't get paid?  Trump sucks as a person and he's a shady businessman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say he sucks as a person based on pure speculation?   How does closing a business mean that Trump sucks as a person?  Tens of thousands of businesses close every year in this country.  Do all of their owners "suck?"
> 
> One thing we know:  you suck as a logician.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG how can you even argue that he's a good person?  I can't take you seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's easy.  He's done more good for America than any president since Reagan.  Obama only hurt America, yet you defend him and attack Trump.
Click to expand...

That’s your republican position. It’s wrong but it’s yours.

Who will you blame the next recession on?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Congress does not approve redistricting on the federal level.
> 
> Gerrymandering: How to Stifle Democracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't concern yourself, this dude just disappears from a conversation when proven wrong.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you get paid to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sure ran like a scalded dog from our conversation concerning redistricting. That made my statement a fact. Deal with it child.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I responded to the question.  Besides, the topic is about the wall.  There is not much more I can do other than answer the question because I'm not going to hijack the thread just to prove to you that most of the ways laws are changed are not in the textbooks.
> 
> You were responded to.  Nobody is running away from you.  BTW, since your link didn't have anything to do with the wall, I failed to comment, but if something will destroy democracy, I'm all for it.  It's one reason the nutty wall idea don't fly with me.  We are guaranteed a Republican Form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one that brought up ominous fairy tales how congress would alter the political landscape after the 2020 census. Below was my last response to your fantasy which you never responded to.
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not from the majority of Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't try to educate the Trump is God supporters.  Trump won because he got the most electoral votes.  He lost the popular vote.
> 
> In 2020 the liberals get to change the federal Congressional districts.  By pushing B.S. laws that offend the masses, the Republicans are absolutely guaranteeing they will be in the minority in just about every district in America after 2020.
> 
> I'm not a liberal, but once these arrogant build the wall guys get knocked on their ass, they can decide to fight or die.  They are not strategists.  2020 won't come none too soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is showing now, the States do the redistricting not congress and the majority of the State legislatures aren't liberal. In fact liberal States will be losing seats to more conservative States.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Redistricting is subject to Congressional approval.  And I hate to bust your bubble son, but it is not liberals have been gaining so much ground, but in states where it REALLY matters - places where there are a lot of electoral college votes, the liberals have been taking over districts AND areas near red districts so as to be able to dilute the Republican votes in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, congress has nothing to do with it. The courts sometimes gets involved but never congress.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...



You're here, looking to stroke your ego.  If you believe that, it is your Right as an American.  It's not true.  Had you ever worked as a legislative aide, lobbyist or page you'd know it.

It don't have shit to do with the topic at hand.  If you don't think that it matters what the composition of Congress is in 2020 and that it will have no bearing on the 2020 redistricting, then go with God and be satisfied that you live in a country that allows YOU to believe in fantasies.

Right now the topic at hand is immigration.  You and I won't be debating it further.  You can attack me, my intelligence, etc. but that is what change agents do.  They cannot stay on topic, hoping that any and all side comments you don't like merit having a separate discussion so as to ignore the issue at hand.  The rest of the people on this thread have moved on.  They do not see the future as being relative, so time to let it go.  Your ego is not getting stroked because everything you have said relative to immigration has been shot down.

You see me as being the easiest target to help you stay relevant because most people disagree with my take on the subject.  When you have to take on the most ignored poster on the board, it speaks louder about the relevancy of your posts than ANYTHING else I can say.  Pardon me if I don't respond to your predictable post of how great you are and people are running from you, etc. and if I don't understand that you have a monopoly on human virtue, I'm an idiot and so forth...  Your side lost any "debate" many moons ago and now everybody is trying to entertain each other.


----------



## danielpalos

Geaux4it said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're supposed to be the land of opportunity.  I guess we're not the nation we once claimed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are parents responsible for this inhuman separation policy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All criminals are responsible for being separated from their children. Go out and commit a crime and see how fast you're separated form your family. The parents put their children in the situation, yes, they are to blame.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> seeking asylum is not unlawful.  the right wing just like to blame the Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing the border away from a port of entry is unlawful. Just like with all criminals, you deal with the crime first, and the excuses later. BTW only about 9% of asylum claims are approved.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asking for asylum on US soil is not illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But many, many are liars and are not qualified for asylum. They are looking for a free ride
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

a free ride from what?  most are willing to work for a living in a less developed economy.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> ...
> 
> 
> Let me assure you that what is taught in public schools and what goes on in reality are two different things......




Why would anyone accept your assurance? What do you know about what is taught in public schools?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Let me assure you that what is taught in public schools and what goes on in reality are two different things......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone accept your assurance? What do you know about what is taught in public schools?
Click to expand...


I am a foster parent and help younger kids with their homework.  I know what is in the books, but it don't qualify me for anything other than spouting an opinion.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Let me assure you that what is taught in public schools and what goes on in reality are two different things......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone accept your assurance? What do you know about what is taught in public schools?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a foster parent and help younger kids with their homework.  I know what is in the books, but it don't qualify me for anything other than spouting an opinion.
Click to expand...



Not much of an assurance.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't concern yourself, this dude just disappears from a conversation when proven wrong.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you get paid to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sure ran like a scalded dog from our conversation concerning redistricting. That made my statement a fact. Deal with it child.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I responded to the question.  Besides, the topic is about the wall.  There is not much more I can do other than answer the question because I'm not going to hijack the thread just to prove to you that most of the ways laws are changed are not in the textbooks.
> 
> You were responded to.  Nobody is running away from you.  BTW, since your link didn't have anything to do with the wall, I failed to comment, but if something will destroy democracy, I'm all for it.  It's one reason the nutty wall idea don't fly with me.  We are guaranteed a Republican Form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one that brought up ominous fairy tales how congress would alter the political landscape after the 2020 census. Below was my last response to your fantasy which you never responded to.
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't try to educate the Trump is God supporters.  Trump won because he got the most electoral votes.  He lost the popular vote.
> 
> In 2020 the liberals get to change the federal Congressional districts.  By pushing B.S. laws that offend the masses, the Republicans are absolutely guaranteeing they will be in the minority in just about every district in America after 2020.
> 
> I'm not a liberal, but once these arrogant build the wall guys get knocked on their ass, they can decide to fight or die.  They are not strategists.  2020 won't come none too soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is showing now, the States do the redistricting not congress and the majority of the State legislatures aren't liberal. In fact liberal States will be losing seats to more conservative States.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Redistricting is subject to Congressional approval.  And I hate to bust your bubble son, but it is not liberals have been gaining so much ground, but in states where it REALLY matters - places where there are a lot of electoral college votes, the liberals have been taking over districts AND areas near red districts so as to be able to dilute the Republican votes in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, congress has nothing to do with it. The courts sometimes gets involved but never congress.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're here, looking to stroke your ego.  If you believe that, it is your Right as an American.  It's not true.  Had you ever worked as a legislative aide, lobbyist or page you'd know it.
> 
> It don't have shit to do with the topic at hand.  If you don't think that it matters what the composition of Congress is in 2020 and that it will have no bearing on the 2020 redistricting, then go with God and be satisfied that you live in a country that allows YOU to believe in fantasies.
> 
> Right now the topic at hand is immigration.  You and I won't be debating it further.  You can attack me, my intelligence, etc. but that is what change agents do.  They cannot stay on topic, hoping that any and all side comments you don't like merit having a separate discussion so as to ignore the issue at hand.  The rest of the people on this thread have moved on.  They do not see the future as being relative, so time to let it go.  Your ego is not getting stroked because everything you have said relative to immigration has been shot down.
> 
> You see me as being the easiest target to help you stay relevant because most people disagree with my take on the subject.  When you have to take on the most ignored poster on the board, it speaks louder about the relevancy of your posts than ANYTHING else I can say.  Pardon me if I don't respond to your predictable post of how great you are and people are running from you, etc. and if I don't understand that you have a monopoly on human virtue, I'm an idiot and so forth...  Your side lost any "debate" many moons ago and now everybody is trying to entertain each other.
Click to expand...



See post 2349. And BTW you did respond child. Have a nice day.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Let me assure you that what is taught in public schools and what goes on in reality are two different things......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone accept your assurance? What do you know about what is taught in public schools?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a foster parent and help younger kids with their homework.  I know what is in the books, but it don't qualify me for anything other than spouting an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not much of an assurance.
Click to expand...


You get what you pay for.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you get paid to lie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure ran like a scalded dog from our conversation concerning redistricting. That made my statement a fact. Deal with it child.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I responded to the question.  Besides, the topic is about the wall.  There is not much more I can do other than answer the question because I'm not going to hijack the thread just to prove to you that most of the ways laws are changed are not in the textbooks.
> 
> You were responded to.  Nobody is running away from you.  BTW, since your link didn't have anything to do with the wall, I failed to comment, but if something will destroy democracy, I'm all for it.  It's one reason the nutty wall idea don't fly with me.  We are guaranteed a Republican Form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one that brought up ominous fairy tales how congress would alter the political landscape after the 2020 census. Below was my last response to your fantasy which you never responded to.
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is showing now, the States do the redistricting not congress and the majority of the State legislatures aren't liberal. In fact liberal States will be losing seats to more conservative States.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Redistricting is subject to Congressional approval.  And I hate to bust your bubble son, but it is not liberals have been gaining so much ground, but in states where it REALLY matters - places where there are a lot of electoral college votes, the liberals have been taking over districts AND areas near red districts so as to be able to dilute the Republican votes in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, congress has nothing to do with it. The courts sometimes gets involved but never congress.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're here, looking to stroke your ego.  If you believe that, it is your Right as an American.  It's not true.  Had you ever worked as a legislative aide, lobbyist or page you'd know it.
> 
> It don't have shit to do with the topic at hand.  If you don't think that it matters what the composition of Congress is in 2020 and that it will have no bearing on the 2020 redistricting, then go with God and be satisfied that you live in a country that allows YOU to believe in fantasies.
> 
> Right now the topic at hand is immigration.  You and I won't be debating it further.  You can attack me, my intelligence, etc. but that is what change agents do.  They cannot stay on topic, hoping that any and all side comments you don't like merit having a separate discussion so as to ignore the issue at hand.  The rest of the people on this thread have moved on.  They do not see the future as being relative, so time to let it go.  Your ego is not getting stroked because everything you have said relative to immigration has been shot down.
> 
> You see me as being the easiest target to help you stay relevant because most people disagree with my take on the subject.  When you have to take on the most ignored poster on the board, it speaks louder about the relevancy of your posts than ANYTHING else I can say.  Pardon me if I don't respond to your predictable post of how great you are and people are running from you, etc. and if I don't understand that you have a monopoly on human virtue, I'm an idiot and so forth...  Your side lost any "debate" many moons ago and now everybody is trying to entertain each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See post 2349. And BTW you did respond child. Have a nice day.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

You looked awfully lonely out there, struggling for relevance.  I really feel sorry for you when you need the validation of the least important poster in this discussion in order to be relevant.

Maybe you should pick a fight with Flopper or Sealybobo.  People actually read what they write.


----------



## candycorn

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sure ran like a scalded dog from our conversation concerning redistricting. That made my statement a fact. Deal with it child.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I responded to the question.  Besides, the topic is about the wall.  There is not much more I can do other than answer the question because I'm not going to hijack the thread just to prove to you that most of the ways laws are changed are not in the textbooks.
> 
> You were responded to.  Nobody is running away from you.  BTW, since your link didn't have anything to do with the wall, I failed to comment, but if something will destroy democracy, I'm all for it.  It's one reason the nutty wall idea don't fly with me.  We are guaranteed a Republican Form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one that brought up ominous fairy tales how congress would alter the political landscape after the 2020 census. Below was my last response to your fantasy which you never responded to.
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redistricting is subject to Congressional approval.  And I hate to bust your bubble son, but it is not liberals have been gaining so much ground, but in states where it REALLY matters - places where there are a lot of electoral college votes, the liberals have been taking over districts AND areas near red districts so as to be able to dilute the Republican votes in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, congress has nothing to do with it. The courts sometimes gets involved but never congress.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're here, looking to stroke your ego.  If you believe that, it is your Right as an American.  It's not true.  Had you ever worked as a legislative aide, lobbyist or page you'd know it.
> 
> It don't have shit to do with the topic at hand.  If you don't think that it matters what the composition of Congress is in 2020 and that it will have no bearing on the 2020 redistricting, then go with God and be satisfied that you live in a country that allows YOU to believe in fantasies.
> 
> Right now the topic at hand is immigration.  You and I won't be debating it further.  You can attack me, my intelligence, etc. but that is what change agents do.  They cannot stay on topic, hoping that any and all side comments you don't like merit having a separate discussion so as to ignore the issue at hand.  The rest of the people on this thread have moved on.  They do not see the future as being relative, so time to let it go.  Your ego is not getting stroked because everything you have said relative to immigration has been shot down.
> 
> You see me as being the easiest target to help you stay relevant because most people disagree with my take on the subject.  When you have to take on the most ignored poster on the board, it speaks louder about the relevancy of your posts than ANYTHING else I can say.  Pardon me if I don't respond to your predictable post of how great you are and people are running from you, etc. and if I don't understand that you have a monopoly on human virtue, I'm an idiot and so forth...  Your side lost any "debate" many moons ago and now everybody is trying to entertain each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See post 2349. And BTW you did respond child. Have a nice day.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You looked awfully lonely out there, struggling for relevance.  .
Click to expand...


Pot meet kettle

People read and revere Flops because he is level headed and accurate.  You should take notes.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

candycorn said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I responded to the question.  Besides, the topic is about the wall.  There is not much more I can do other than answer the question because I'm not going to hijack the thread just to prove to you that most of the ways laws are changed are not in the textbooks.
> 
> You were responded to.  Nobody is running away from you.  BTW, since your link didn't have anything to do with the wall, I failed to comment, but if something will destroy democracy, I'm all for it.  It's one reason the nutty wall idea don't fly with me.  We are guaranteed a Republican Form of Government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one that brought up ominous fairy tales how congress would alter the political landscape after the 2020 census. Below was my last response to your fantasy which you never responded to.
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, congress has nothing to do with it. The courts sometimes gets involved but never congress.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're here, looking to stroke your ego.  If you believe that, it is your Right as an American.  It's not true.  Had you ever worked as a legislative aide, lobbyist or page you'd know it.
> 
> It don't have shit to do with the topic at hand.  If you don't think that it matters what the composition of Congress is in 2020 and that it will have no bearing on the 2020 redistricting, then go with God and be satisfied that you live in a country that allows YOU to believe in fantasies.
> 
> Right now the topic at hand is immigration.  You and I won't be debating it further.  You can attack me, my intelligence, etc. but that is what change agents do.  They cannot stay on topic, hoping that any and all side comments you don't like merit having a separate discussion so as to ignore the issue at hand.  The rest of the people on this thread have moved on.  They do not see the future as being relative, so time to let it go.  Your ego is not getting stroked because everything you have said relative to immigration has been shot down.
> 
> You see me as being the easiest target to help you stay relevant because most people disagree with my take on the subject.  When you have to take on the most ignored poster on the board, it speaks louder about the relevancy of your posts than ANYTHING else I can say.  Pardon me if I don't respond to your predictable post of how great you are and people are running from you, etc. and if I don't understand that you have a monopoly on human virtue, I'm an idiot and so forth...  Your side lost any "debate" many moons ago and now everybody is trying to entertain each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See post 2349. And BTW you did respond child. Have a nice day.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You looked awfully lonely out there, struggling for relevance.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot meet kettle
> 
> People read and revere Flops because he is level headed and accurate.  You should take notes.
Click to expand...


Why are you coming down on me?  I'm acknowledging that he is one of the posters whose posts draws the most interest.  I might not be a liberal, but even this week I agreed and added on to a point made by  "Flops."

Is he accurate?  Not all the time.  He's levelheaded because you agree with him.  He is a real liberal and represents his side better than most professional politicians.  That is why I tell the guy whose religion is that silly wall if he wants to hone his skills, pick a fight with someone that matters.  So, given that, what are you talking about?  Or do you just post stuff without reading the thread?


----------



## Thinker101

Porter Rockwell said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one that brought up ominous fairy tales how congress would alter the political landscape after the 2020 census. Below was my last response to your fantasy which you never responded to.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're here, looking to stroke your ego.  If you believe that, it is your Right as an American.  It's not true.  Had you ever worked as a legislative aide, lobbyist or page you'd know it.
> 
> It don't have shit to do with the topic at hand.  If you don't think that it matters what the composition of Congress is in 2020 and that it will have no bearing on the 2020 redistricting, then go with God and be satisfied that you live in a country that allows YOU to believe in fantasies.
> 
> Right now the topic at hand is immigration.  You and I won't be debating it further.  You can attack me, my intelligence, etc. but that is what change agents do.  They cannot stay on topic, hoping that any and all side comments you don't like merit having a separate discussion so as to ignore the issue at hand.  The rest of the people on this thread have moved on.  They do not see the future as being relative, so time to let it go.  Your ego is not getting stroked because everything you have said relative to immigration has been shot down.
> 
> You see me as being the easiest target to help you stay relevant because most people disagree with my take on the subject.  When you have to take on the most ignored poster on the board, it speaks louder about the relevancy of your posts than ANYTHING else I can say.  Pardon me if I don't respond to your predictable post of how great you are and people are running from you, etc. and if I don't understand that you have a monopoly on human virtue, I'm an idiot and so forth...  Your side lost any "debate" many moons ago and now everybody is trying to entertain each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See post 2349. And BTW you did respond child. Have a nice day.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You looked awfully lonely out there, struggling for relevance.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot meet kettle
> 
> People read and revere Flops because he is level headed and accurate.  You should take notes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you coming down on me?  I'm acknowledging that he is one of the posters whose posts draws the most interest.  I might not be a liberal, but even this week I agreed and added on to a point made by  "Flops."
> 
> Is he accurate?  Not all the time.  He's levelheaded because you agree with him.  He is a real liberal and represents his side better than most professional politicians.  That is why I tell the guy whose religion is that silly wall if he wants to hone his skills, pick a fight with someone that matters.  So, given that, what are you talking about?  Or do you just post stuff without reading the thread?
Click to expand...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

candycorn said:


> Pot meet kettle
> 
> People read and revere Flops because he is level headed and accurate. You should take notes.



I enjoy discussions with people that don't start with the childish insults.  Many times when you back a lefty into a corner, that's usually what happens.


----------



## candycorn

Porter Rockwell said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one that brought up ominous fairy tales how congress would alter the political landscape after the 2020 census. Below was my last response to your fantasy which you never responded to.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're here, looking to stroke your ego.  If you believe that, it is your Right as an American.  It's not true.  Had you ever worked as a legislative aide, lobbyist or page you'd know it.
> 
> It don't have shit to do with the topic at hand.  If you don't think that it matters what the composition of Congress is in 2020 and that it will have no bearing on the 2020 redistricting, then go with God and be satisfied that you live in a country that allows YOU to believe in fantasies.
> 
> Right now the topic at hand is immigration.  You and I won't be debating it further.  You can attack me, my intelligence, etc. but that is what change agents do.  They cannot stay on topic, hoping that any and all side comments you don't like merit having a separate discussion so as to ignore the issue at hand.  The rest of the people on this thread have moved on.  They do not see the future as being relative, so time to let it go.  Your ego is not getting stroked because everything you have said relative to immigration has been shot down.
> 
> You see me as being the easiest target to help you stay relevant because most people disagree with my take on the subject.  When you have to take on the most ignored poster on the board, it speaks louder about the relevancy of your posts than ANYTHING else I can say.  Pardon me if I don't respond to your predictable post of how great you are and people are running from you, etc. and if I don't understand that you have a monopoly on human virtue, I'm an idiot and so forth...  Your side lost any "debate" many moons ago and now everybody is trying to entertain each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See post 2349. And BTW you did respond child. Have a nice day.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You looked awfully lonely out there, struggling for relevance.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot meet kettle
> 
> People read and revere Flops because he is level headed and accurate.  You should take notes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you coming down on me?  I'm acknowledging that he is one of the posters whose posts draws the most interest.  I might not be a liberal, but even this week I agreed and added on to a point made by  "Flops."
Click to expand...

Flops is a great poster. 



Porter Rockwell said:


> Is he accurate?  Not all the time.  He's levelheaded because you agree with him.


I would imagine Flops got a chuckle out of that one.



Porter Rockwell said:


> He is a real liberal and represents his side better than most professional politicians.  That is why I tell the guy whose religion is that silly wall if he wants to hone his skills, pick a fight with someone that matters.  So, given that, what are you talking about?  Or do you just post stuff without reading the thread?



Your insisting that Congress played a role in redistricting then switching to "congressional members" playing a role means you're either ignorant of the reality of how redistricting is done or you're being intellectually dishonest.  The "laws are not made like you learned" is also garbage for the most part.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Thinker101 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're here, looking to stroke your ego.  If you believe that, it is your Right as an American.  It's not true.  Had you ever worked as a legislative aide, lobbyist or page you'd know it.
> 
> It don't have shit to do with the topic at hand.  If you don't think that it matters what the composition of Congress is in 2020 and that it will have no bearing on the 2020 redistricting, then go with God and be satisfied that you live in a country that allows YOU to believe in fantasies.
> 
> Right now the topic at hand is immigration.  You and I won't be debating it further.  You can attack me, my intelligence, etc. but that is what change agents do.  They cannot stay on topic, hoping that any and all side comments you don't like merit having a separate discussion so as to ignore the issue at hand.  The rest of the people on this thread have moved on.  They do not see the future as being relative, so time to let it go.  Your ego is not getting stroked because everything you have said relative to immigration has been shot down.
> 
> You see me as being the easiest target to help you stay relevant because most people disagree with my take on the subject.  When you have to take on the most ignored poster on the board, it speaks louder about the relevancy of your posts than ANYTHING else I can say.  Pardon me if I don't respond to your predictable post of how great you are and people are running from you, etc. and if I don't understand that you have a monopoly on human virtue, I'm an idiot and so forth...  Your side lost any "debate" many moons ago and now everybody is trying to entertain each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See post 2349. And BTW you did respond child. Have a nice day.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You looked awfully lonely out there, struggling for relevance.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot meet kettle
> 
> People read and revere Flops because he is level headed and accurate.  You should take notes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you coming down on me?  I'm acknowledging that he is one of the posters whose posts draws the most interest.  I might not be a liberal, but even this week I agreed and added on to a point made by  "Flops."
> 
> Is he accurate?  Not all the time.  He's levelheaded because you agree with him.  He is a real liberal and represents his side better than most professional politicians.  That is why I tell the guy whose religion is that silly wall if he wants to hone his skills, pick a fight with someone that matters.  So, given that, what are you talking about?  Or do you just post stuff without reading the thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Now that you have provided a picture of yourself, I take it that there is some meaning behind it.  You're ugly and you kind of look like a dope smoking community organizer who was so irrelevant that I'm afraid I've forgotten his name.

You quit quoting and posting to me, I'll probably forget you too... still can't recall anything that guy did:







Oh yeah, he had friends and supporters like this:






So are you missing them now?  I'm sorry.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

candycorn said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're here, looking to stroke your ego.  If you believe that, it is your Right as an American.  It's not true.  Had you ever worked as a legislative aide, lobbyist or page you'd know it.
> 
> It don't have shit to do with the topic at hand.  If you don't think that it matters what the composition of Congress is in 2020 and that it will have no bearing on the 2020 redistricting, then go with God and be satisfied that you live in a country that allows YOU to believe in fantasies.
> 
> Right now the topic at hand is immigration.  You and I won't be debating it further.  You can attack me, my intelligence, etc. but that is what change agents do.  They cannot stay on topic, hoping that any and all side comments you don't like merit having a separate discussion so as to ignore the issue at hand.  The rest of the people on this thread have moved on.  They do not see the future as being relative, so time to let it go.  Your ego is not getting stroked because everything you have said relative to immigration has been shot down.
> 
> You see me as being the easiest target to help you stay relevant because most people disagree with my take on the subject.  When you have to take on the most ignored poster on the board, it speaks louder about the relevancy of your posts than ANYTHING else I can say.  Pardon me if I don't respond to your predictable post of how great you are and people are running from you, etc. and if I don't understand that you have a monopoly on human virtue, I'm an idiot and so forth...  Your side lost any "debate" many moons ago and now everybody is trying to entertain each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See post 2349. And BTW you did respond child. Have a nice day.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You looked awfully lonely out there, struggling for relevance.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot meet kettle
> 
> People read and revere Flops because he is level headed and accurate.  You should take notes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you coming down on me?  I'm acknowledging that he is one of the posters whose posts draws the most interest.  I might not be a liberal, but even this week I agreed and added on to a point made by  "Flops."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flops is a great poster.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is he accurate?  Not all the time.  He's levelheaded because you agree with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would imagine Flops got a chuckle out of that one.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is a real liberal and represents his side better than most professional politicians.  That is why I tell the guy whose religion is that silly wall if he wants to hone his skills, pick a fight with someone that matters.  So, given that, what are you talking about?  Or do you just post stuff without reading the thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your insisting that Congress played a role in redistricting then switching to "congressional members" playing a role means you're either ignorant of the reality of how redistricting is done or you're being intellectually dishonest.  The "laws are not made like you learned" is also garbage for the most part.
Click to expand...


You're entitled to your opinion and like I said, I support it.  

Working in the community with various politicians and agencies, I get to know how the game is really played.  So, if experience does not validate your beliefs, that is tough.  The only intellectual dishonesty being practiced is by people like you.  You have NO commitment for the opinions of others.  It's either that or OCD.  

The textbook teaches that redistricting is left up to the states.  In practice, whether you like it or not, incumbents in office - and ESPECIALLY if the federal legislators and the governor are in the same party draw lines, look at each other, give it a wink and present it to the public.  It's not law; it's not in any written policy manual, but it is the way real life works.

That's not intellectual dishonesty, but it was a chickenshit way for you to get out of talking about immigration.  You were another of those getting your butt kicked.


----------



## candycorn

Porter Rockwell said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> See post 2349. And BTW you did respond child. Have a nice day.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> You looked awfully lonely out there, struggling for relevance.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot meet kettle
> 
> People read and revere Flops because he is level headed and accurate.  You should take notes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you coming down on me?  I'm acknowledging that he is one of the posters whose posts draws the most interest.  I might not be a liberal, but even this week I agreed and added on to a point made by  "Flops."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flops is a great poster.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is he accurate?  Not all the time.  He's levelheaded because you agree with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would imagine Flops got a chuckle out of that one.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is a real liberal and represents his side better than most professional politicians.  That is why I tell the guy whose religion is that silly wall if he wants to hone his skills, pick a fight with someone that matters.  So, given that, what are you talking about?  Or do you just post stuff without reading the thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your insisting that Congress played a role in redistricting then switching to "congressional members" playing a role means you're either ignorant of the reality of how redistricting is done or you're being intellectually dishonest.  The "laws are not made like you learned" is also garbage for the most part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion and like I said, I support it.
> 
> Working in the community with various politicians and agencies, I get to know how the game is really played.  So, if experience does not validate your beliefs, that is tough.  The only intellectual dishonesty being practiced is by people like you.  You have NO commitment for the opinions of others.  It's either that or OCD.
> 
> The textbook teaches that redistricting is left up to the states.  In practice, whether you like it or not, incumbents in office - and ESPECIALLY if the federal legislators and the governor are in the same party draw lines, look at each other, give it a wink and present it to the public.  It's not law; it's not in any written policy manual, but it is the way real life works.
> 
> That's not intellectual dishonesty, but it was a chickenshit way for you to get out of talking about immigration.  You were another of those getting your butt kicked.
Click to expand...


Uh no.  

Congressional approval has never been part of the redistricting process.  
Congressional members are at the mercy of the State Legislature and the Governor. Can they weigh in?  Sure.  As can the national parties.  Gee...I wonder who would carry more weight in California if the CA legislature re-drew districts?  That Republican Nunes who keeps subpoenaing shit from the DOJ or the Democratic Party?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

candycorn said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You looked awfully lonely out there, struggling for relevance.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pot meet kettle
> 
> People read and revere Flops because he is level headed and accurate.  You should take notes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you coming down on me?  I'm acknowledging that he is one of the posters whose posts draws the most interest.  I might not be a liberal, but even this week I agreed and added on to a point made by  "Flops."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flops is a great poster.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is he accurate?  Not all the time.  He's levelheaded because you agree with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would imagine Flops got a chuckle out of that one.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is a real liberal and represents his side better than most professional politicians.  That is why I tell the guy whose religion is that silly wall if he wants to hone his skills, pick a fight with someone that matters.  So, given that, what are you talking about?  Or do you just post stuff without reading the thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your insisting that Congress played a role in redistricting then switching to "congressional members" playing a role means you're either ignorant of the reality of how redistricting is done or you're being intellectually dishonest.  The "laws are not made like you learned" is also garbage for the most part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion and like I said, I support it.
> 
> Working in the community with various politicians and agencies, I get to know how the game is really played.  So, if experience does not validate your beliefs, that is tough.  The only intellectual dishonesty being practiced is by people like you.  You have NO commitment for the opinions of others.  It's either that or OCD.
> 
> The textbook teaches that redistricting is left up to the states.  In practice, whether you like it or not, incumbents in office - and ESPECIALLY if the federal legislators and the governor are in the same party draw lines, look at each other, give it a wink and present it to the public.  It's not law; it's not in any written policy manual, but it is the way real life works.
> 
> That's not intellectual dishonesty, but it was a chickenshit way for you to get out of talking about immigration.  You were another of those getting your butt kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh no.
> 
> Congressional approval has never been part of the redistricting process.
> Congressional members are at the mercy of the State Legislature and the Governor. Can they weigh in?  Sure.  As can the national parties.  Gee...I wonder who would carry more weight in California if the CA legislature re-drew districts?  That Republican Nunes who keeps subpoenaing shit from the DOJ or the Democratic Party?
Click to expand...


Are you both OKTexas and candycorn with one board persona pretending to be on the right and the other board persona is a lefty?  It appears a little suspicious that both of you show up at about the same time, trying to eliminate me from the discussion by hijacking the thread with an issue that has been asked and answered at least FOUR times. AND that issue doesn't have squat to do with the OP directly.

It has been ADMITTED that, according to school textbooks, that the states are in charge of redistricting.  If that is not sufficient to get back to the subject at hand I can post it 100 times. 

I can tell you though:  You've tried to stir up some shit on this thread; put an effort in to screw with me while most of your posts lead one to believe you are left of center.  So, why are you jerking the chain of a poster that is a constitutionalist that is AGAINST the wall and has NO influence on this board?  Exactly what is your game?

Okay, you are absolutely right.  There is not one thing on this entire thread, whether about me or about any other issue that is not 100 percent correct.  I will so stipulate that you are 100 percent infallible and IF anyone has an experience that is different than yours, it should be dismissed.  It's not true; only an idiot would say it and that goes for EVERY post you've made on this board.

You are right about everything and maybe the rest of us ought to STFU.  But, it keeps gnawing at me how your posts sound so much like OKTexas.  Yep.  I'm paranoid and you're right - so what does it matter?  Right?


----------



## candycorn

Porter Rockwell said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pot meet kettle
> 
> People read and revere Flops because he is level headed and accurate.  You should take notes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you coming down on me?  I'm acknowledging that he is one of the posters whose posts draws the most interest.  I might not be a liberal, but even this week I agreed and added on to a point made by  "Flops."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flops is a great poster.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is he accurate?  Not all the time.  He's levelheaded because you agree with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would imagine Flops got a chuckle out of that one.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is a real liberal and represents his side better than most professional politicians.  That is why I tell the guy whose religion is that silly wall if he wants to hone his skills, pick a fight with someone that matters.  So, given that, what are you talking about?  Or do you just post stuff without reading the thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your insisting that Congress played a role in redistricting then switching to "congressional members" playing a role means you're either ignorant of the reality of how redistricting is done or you're being intellectually dishonest.  The "laws are not made like you learned" is also garbage for the most part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion and like I said, I support it.
> 
> Working in the community with various politicians and agencies, I get to know how the game is really played.  So, if experience does not validate your beliefs, that is tough.  The only intellectual dishonesty being practiced is by people like you.  You have NO commitment for the opinions of others.  It's either that or OCD.
> 
> The textbook teaches that redistricting is left up to the states.  In practice, whether you like it or not, incumbents in office - and ESPECIALLY if the federal legislators and the governor are in the same party draw lines, look at each other, give it a wink and present it to the public.  It's not law; it's not in any written policy manual, but it is the way real life works.
> 
> That's not intellectual dishonesty, but it was a chickenshit way for you to get out of talking about immigration.  You were another of those getting your butt kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh no.
> 
> Congressional approval has never been part of the redistricting process.
> Congressional members are at the mercy of the State Legislature and the Governor. Can they weigh in?  Sure.  As can the national parties.  Gee...I wonder who would carry more weight in California if the CA legislature re-drew districts?  That Republican Nunes who keeps subpoenaing shit from the DOJ or the Democratic Party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you both OKTexas and candycorn with one board persona pretending to be on the right and the other board persona is a lefty?  It appears a little suspicious that both of you show up at about the same time, trying to eliminate me from the discussion by hijacking the thread with an issue that has been asked and answered at least FOUR times. AND that issue doesn't have squat to do with the issue directly.
> 
> It has been ADMITTED that, according to school textbooks, that the states are in charge of redistricting.  If that is not sufficient to get back to the subject at hand I can post it 100 times.
> 
> I can tell you though:  You've tried to stir up some shit on this thread; put an effort in to screw with me while most of your posts lead one to believe you are left of center.  So, why are you jerking the chain of a poster that is a constitutionalist that is AGAINST the wall and has NO influence on this board?  Exactly what is your game?
> 
> Okay, you are absolutely right.  There is not one thing on this entire thread, whether about me or about any other issue that is not 100 percent correct.  I will so stipulate that you are 100 percent infallible and IF anyone has an experience that is different than yours, it should be dismissed.  It's not true; only an idiot would say it and that goes for EVERY post you've made on this board.
> 
> You are right about everything and maybe the rest of us ought to STFU.  But, it keeps gnawing at me how your posts sound so much like OKTexas.  Yep.  I'm paranoid and you're right - so what does it matter?  Right?
Click to expand...


You got us; we're the same person.  LOL


----------



## Porter Rockwell

candycorn said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you coming down on me?  I'm acknowledging that he is one of the posters whose posts draws the most interest.  I might not be a liberal, but even this week I agreed and added on to a point made by  "Flops."
> 
> 
> 
> Flops is a great poster.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is he accurate?  Not all the time.  He's levelheaded because you agree with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would imagine Flops got a chuckle out of that one.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is a real liberal and represents his side better than most professional politicians.  That is why I tell the guy whose religion is that silly wall if he wants to hone his skills, pick a fight with someone that matters.  So, given that, what are you talking about?  Or do you just post stuff without reading the thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your insisting that Congress played a role in redistricting then switching to "congressional members" playing a role means you're either ignorant of the reality of how redistricting is done or you're being intellectually dishonest.  The "laws are not made like you learned" is also garbage for the most part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion and like I said, I support it.
> 
> Working in the community with various politicians and agencies, I get to know how the game is really played.  So, if experience does not validate your beliefs, that is tough.  The only intellectual dishonesty being practiced is by people like you.  You have NO commitment for the opinions of others.  It's either that or OCD.
> 
> The textbook teaches that redistricting is left up to the states.  In practice, whether you like it or not, incumbents in office - and ESPECIALLY if the federal legislators and the governor are in the same party draw lines, look at each other, give it a wink and present it to the public.  It's not law; it's not in any written policy manual, but it is the way real life works.
> 
> That's not intellectual dishonesty, but it was a chickenshit way for you to get out of talking about immigration.  You were another of those getting your butt kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh no.
> 
> Congressional approval has never been part of the redistricting process.
> Congressional members are at the mercy of the State Legislature and the Governor. Can they weigh in?  Sure.  As can the national parties.  Gee...I wonder who would carry more weight in California if the CA legislature re-drew districts?  That Republican Nunes who keeps subpoenaing shit from the DOJ or the Democratic Party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you both OKTexas and candycorn with one board persona pretending to be on the right and the other board persona is a lefty?  It appears a little suspicious that both of you show up at about the same time, trying to eliminate me from the discussion by hijacking the thread with an issue that has been asked and answered at least FOUR times. AND that issue doesn't have squat to do with the issue directly.
> 
> It has been ADMITTED that, according to school textbooks, that the states are in charge of redistricting.  If that is not sufficient to get back to the subject at hand I can post it 100 times.
> 
> I can tell you though:  You've tried to stir up some shit on this thread; put an effort in to screw with me while most of your posts lead one to believe you are left of center.  So, why are you jerking the chain of a poster that is a constitutionalist that is AGAINST the wall and has NO influence on this board?  Exactly what is your game?
> 
> Okay, you are absolutely right.  There is not one thing on this entire thread, whether about me or about any other issue that is not 100 percent correct.  I will so stipulate that you are 100 percent infallible and IF anyone has an experience that is different than yours, it should be dismissed.  It's not true; only an idiot would say it and that goes for EVERY post you've made on this board.
> 
> You are right about everything and maybe the rest of us ought to STFU.  But, it keeps gnawing at me how your posts sound so much like OKTexas.  Yep.  I'm paranoid and you're right - so what does it matter?  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got us; we're the same person.  LOL
Click to expand...


Life makes sense now.  Just goes to show you - even a broken clock has the potential to be right twice a day.


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you coming down on me?  I'm acknowledging that he is one of the posters whose posts draws the most interest.  I might not be a liberal, but even this week I agreed and added on to a point made by  "Flops."
> 
> 
> 
> Flops is a great poster.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is he accurate?  Not all the time.  He's levelheaded because you agree with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would imagine Flops got a chuckle out of that one.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is a real liberal and represents his side better than most professional politicians.  That is why I tell the guy whose religion is that silly wall if he wants to hone his skills, pick a fight with someone that matters.  So, given that, what are you talking about?  Or do you just post stuff without reading the thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your insisting that Congress played a role in redistricting then switching to "congressional members" playing a role means you're either ignorant of the reality of how redistricting is done or you're being intellectually dishonest.  The "laws are not made like you learned" is also garbage for the most part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion and like I said, I support it.
> 
> Working in the community with various politicians and agencies, I get to know how the game is really played.  So, if experience does not validate your beliefs, that is tough.  The only intellectual dishonesty being practiced is by people like you.  You have NO commitment for the opinions of others.  It's either that or OCD.
> 
> The textbook teaches that redistricting is left up to the states.  In practice, whether you like it or not, incumbents in office - and ESPECIALLY if the federal legislators and the governor are in the same party draw lines, look at each other, give it a wink and present it to the public.  It's not law; it's not in any written policy manual, but it is the way real life works.
> 
> That's not intellectual dishonesty, but it was a chickenshit way for you to get out of talking about immigration.  You were another of those getting your butt kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh no.
> 
> Congressional approval has never been part of the redistricting process.
> Congressional members are at the mercy of the State Legislature and the Governor. Can they weigh in?  Sure.  As can the national parties.  Gee...I wonder who would carry more weight in California if the CA legislature re-drew districts?  That Republican Nunes who keeps subpoenaing shit from the DOJ or the Democratic Party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you both OKTexas and candycorn with one board persona pretending to be on the right and the other board persona is a lefty?  It appears a little suspicious that both of you show up at about the same time, trying to eliminate me from the discussion by hijacking the thread with an issue that has been asked and answered at least FOUR times. AND that issue doesn't have squat to do with the issue directly.
> 
> It has been ADMITTED that, according to school textbooks, that the states are in charge of redistricting.  If that is not sufficient to get back to the subject at hand I can post it 100 times.
> 
> I can tell you though:  You've tried to stir up some shit on this thread; put an effort in to screw with me while most of your posts lead one to believe you are left of center.  So, why are you jerking the chain of a poster that is a constitutionalist that is AGAINST the wall and has NO influence on this board?  Exactly what is your game?
> 
> Okay, you are absolutely right.  There is not one thing on this entire thread, whether about me or about any other issue that is not 100 percent correct.  I will so stipulate that you are 100 percent infallible and IF anyone has an experience that is different than yours, it should be dismissed.  It's not true; only an idiot would say it and that goes for EVERY post you've made on this board.
> 
> You are right about everything and maybe the rest of us ought to STFU.  But, it keeps gnawing at me how your posts sound so much like OKTexas.  Yep.  I'm paranoid and you're right - so what does it matter?  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got us; we're the same person.  LOL
Click to expand...



Yeah, with a spit personality. LMAO

.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flops is a great poster.
> 
> I would imagine Flops got a chuckle out of that one.
> 
> Your insisting that Congress played a role in redistricting then switching to "congressional members" playing a role means you're either ignorant of the reality of how redistricting is done or you're being intellectually dishonest.  The "laws are not made like you learned" is also garbage for the most part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion and like I said, I support it.
> 
> Working in the community with various politicians and agencies, I get to know how the game is really played.  So, if experience does not validate your beliefs, that is tough.  The only intellectual dishonesty being practiced is by people like you.  You have NO commitment for the opinions of others.  It's either that or OCD.
> 
> The textbook teaches that redistricting is left up to the states.  In practice, whether you like it or not, incumbents in office - and ESPECIALLY if the federal legislators and the governor are in the same party draw lines, look at each other, give it a wink and present it to the public.  It's not law; it's not in any written policy manual, but it is the way real life works.
> 
> That's not intellectual dishonesty, but it was a chickenshit way for you to get out of talking about immigration.  You were another of those getting your butt kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh no.
> 
> Congressional approval has never been part of the redistricting process.
> Congressional members are at the mercy of the State Legislature and the Governor. Can they weigh in?  Sure.  As can the national parties.  Gee...I wonder who would carry more weight in California if the CA legislature re-drew districts?  That Republican Nunes who keeps subpoenaing shit from the DOJ or the Democratic Party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you both OKTexas and candycorn with one board persona pretending to be on the right and the other board persona is a lefty?  It appears a little suspicious that both of you show up at about the same time, trying to eliminate me from the discussion by hijacking the thread with an issue that has been asked and answered at least FOUR times. AND that issue doesn't have squat to do with the issue directly.
> 
> It has been ADMITTED that, according to school textbooks, that the states are in charge of redistricting.  If that is not sufficient to get back to the subject at hand I can post it 100 times.
> 
> I can tell you though:  You've tried to stir up some shit on this thread; put an effort in to screw with me while most of your posts lead one to believe you are left of center.  So, why are you jerking the chain of a poster that is a constitutionalist that is AGAINST the wall and has NO influence on this board?  Exactly what is your game?
> 
> Okay, you are absolutely right.  There is not one thing on this entire thread, whether about me or about any other issue that is not 100 percent correct.  I will so stipulate that you are 100 percent infallible and IF anyone has an experience that is different than yours, it should be dismissed.  It's not true; only an idiot would say it and that goes for EVERY post you've made on this board.
> 
> You are right about everything and maybe the rest of us ought to STFU.  But, it keeps gnawing at me how your posts sound so much like OKTexas.  Yep.  I'm paranoid and you're right - so what does it matter?  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got us; we're the same person.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Life makes sense now.  Just goes to show you - even a broken clock has the potential to be right twice a day.
Click to expand...



Actually you're a miracle worker, we never agreed on anything till you came along.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion and like I said, I support it.
> 
> Working in the community with various politicians and agencies, I get to know how the game is really played.  So, if experience does not validate your beliefs, that is tough.  The only intellectual dishonesty being practiced is by people like you.  You have NO commitment for the opinions of others.  It's either that or OCD.
> 
> The textbook teaches that redistricting is left up to the states.  In practice, whether you like it or not, incumbents in office - and ESPECIALLY if the federal legislators and the governor are in the same party draw lines, look at each other, give it a wink and present it to the public.  It's not law; it's not in any written policy manual, but it is the way real life works.
> 
> That's not intellectual dishonesty, but it was a chickenshit way for you to get out of talking about immigration.  You were another of those getting your butt kicked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh no.
> 
> Congressional approval has never been part of the redistricting process.
> Congressional members are at the mercy of the State Legislature and the Governor. Can they weigh in?  Sure.  As can the national parties.  Gee...I wonder who would carry more weight in California if the CA legislature re-drew districts?  That Republican Nunes who keeps subpoenaing shit from the DOJ or the Democratic Party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you both OKTexas and candycorn with one board persona pretending to be on the right and the other board persona is a lefty?  It appears a little suspicious that both of you show up at about the same time, trying to eliminate me from the discussion by hijacking the thread with an issue that has been asked and answered at least FOUR times. AND that issue doesn't have squat to do with the issue directly.
> 
> It has been ADMITTED that, according to school textbooks, that the states are in charge of redistricting.  If that is not sufficient to get back to the subject at hand I can post it 100 times.
> 
> I can tell you though:  You've tried to stir up some shit on this thread; put an effort in to screw with me while most of your posts lead one to believe you are left of center.  So, why are you jerking the chain of a poster that is a constitutionalist that is AGAINST the wall and has NO influence on this board?  Exactly what is your game?
> 
> Okay, you are absolutely right.  There is not one thing on this entire thread, whether about me or about any other issue that is not 100 percent correct.  I will so stipulate that you are 100 percent infallible and IF anyone has an experience that is different than yours, it should be dismissed.  It's not true; only an idiot would say it and that goes for EVERY post you've made on this board.
> 
> You are right about everything and maybe the rest of us ought to STFU.  But, it keeps gnawing at me how your posts sound so much like OKTexas.  Yep.  I'm paranoid and you're right - so what does it matter?  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got us; we're the same person.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Life makes sense now.  Just goes to show you - even a broken clock has the potential to be right twice a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you're a miracle worker, we never agreed on anything till you came along.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Well you can't say I'm good for nothing.  Getting a split personality to the table at the same time IS an accomplishment.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You have a strange list of rights.  We have no right to enforce UN resolutions, but foreigners have a right to enter our country illegally.


I didn't say that.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Let's see, you are going to take your child through a dangerous trek.  There is a good chance they will be kidnapped and used as slaves or prostitutes or even murdered.  The place you're going to is known for separating parents from their children during an asylum process.  Who's fault is that if not the parents?


Nobody makes that trek unless they have to.  Did you ever think of that?


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The better question is what would our authorities do to an American parent or parents that exposed their children to the same dangers these folks expose their children to?  Their kids would be taken away from them and the parents facing charges and likely imprisoned.


By coming to the US, they are escaping danger.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So what's your point?  Because hundreds of years ago people came here and created a country, that means any foreigner who wants to come here should be allowed to?


Yes.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So you have a link to this child killing policy?  I never knew children die from being separated from their parents.  After all, our children don't die when we send the parents of children to prison or they join the military to go overseas to war.


Well, two did and its your fault.


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> That's true of every country on earth, except for maybe one in Africa.


And they don't want you there.


----------



## beautress

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, you are going to take your child through a dangerous trek.  There is a good chance they will be kidnapped and used as slaves or prostitutes or even murdered.  The place you're going to is known for separating parents from their children during an asylum process.  Who's fault is that if not the parents?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody makes that trek unless they have to.  Did you ever think of that?
Click to expand...

Now, Billow, the last publicized bunch of invaders' had a passel of "Me toos," who didn't have to. But kudos for restoring the hijacked thread. <giggle>


----------



## Billo_Really

OKTexas said:


> The bitch didn't drag those kids 2000 miles with inadequate food, water and medical treatment, the parents did.
> 
> .


And then you killed them.


----------



## Billo_Really

OKTexas said:


> All criminals are responsible for being separated from their children. Go out and commit a crime and see how fast you're separated form your family. The parents put their children in the situation, yes, they are to blame.
> 
> .


People seeking asylum are not criminals, you fucking piece of shit.


----------



## Billo_Really

Geaux4it said:


> But many, many are liars and are not qualified for asylum. They are looking for a free ride
> 
> -Geaux


And you know this how?


----------



## OKTexas

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bitch didn't drag those kids 2000 miles with inadequate food, water and medical treatment, the parents did.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> And then you killed them.
Click to expand...



No they were dead when they got here, they just hadn't laid down yet.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> All criminals are responsible for being separated from their children. Go out and commit a crime and see how fast you're separated form your family. The parents put their children in the situation, yes, they are to blame.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> People seeking asylum are not criminals, you fucking piece of shit.
Click to expand...



If they enter at a port, otherwise they are guilty of illegal entry, that's a crime.

.


----------



## Billo_Really

OKTexas said:


> No they were dead when they got here, they just hadn't laid down yet.
> 
> .


Let me give you the virtual experience.  You're tanning your racist face on a Florida beach when a boat load of Cubans hit the shore.  If you try to stop them, you're going to jail.


----------



## beautress

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> All criminals are responsible for being separated from their children. Go out and commit a crime and see how fast you're separated form your family. The parents put their children in the situation, yes, they are to blame.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> People seeking asylum are not criminals, you fucking piece of shit.
Click to expand...

Nobody's a piece of shit, Billow. Most people who break a law commit a crime. And there's a big difference between asking a foreign country for asylum and taking it surreptitiously when admission is declined due to a lack of communication from the applicant. That is not a good thing, and it has resulted in murders of our border patrol in some instances.


----------



## Billo_Really

OKTexas said:


> If they enter at a port, otherwise they are guilty of illegal entry, that's a crime.
> 
> .


Wow, 240 webpages on something you ain't ever going to get.


----------



## OKTexas

Billo_Really said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> But many, many are liars and are not qualified for asylum. They are looking for a free ride
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> And you know this how?
Click to expand...



Only about 9% are actually granted asylum, that means the others told the lies they were coached to tell.

.


----------



## Billo_Really

beautress said:


> Nobody's a piece of shit, Billow. Most people who break a law commit a crime. And there's a big difference between asking a foreign country for asylum and taking it surreptitiously when admission is declined due to a lack of communication from the applicant. That is not a good thing, and it has resulted in murders of our border patrol in some instances.


People who detain children and allow them to die in their custody and the people who support this bullshit, are pieces of shit.


----------



## Billo_Really

OKTexas said:


> Only about 9% are actually granted asylum, that means the others told the lies they were coached to tell.
> 
> .


Prove it.


----------



## OKTexas

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they enter at a port, otherwise they are guilty of illegal entry, that's a crime.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, 240 webpages on something you ain't ever going to get.
Click to expand...



Asking for asylum after being arrested for entering illegally doesn't negate the illegal entry charge.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only about 9% are actually granted asylum, that means the others told the lies they were coached to tell.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...



I just did, 91% are ordered to be deported. They should be arresting theses American lawyers that are traveling to coach them.

.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they were dead when they got here, they just hadn't laid down yet.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Let me give you the virtual experience.  You're tanning your racist face on a Florida beach when a boat load of Cubans hit the shore.  If you try to stop them, you're going to jail.
Click to expand...


Cubans have an exemption.  S/C Americans don't.


----------



## beautress

Billo_Really said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody's a piece of shit, Billow. Most people who break a law commit a crime. And there's a big difference between asking a foreign country for asylum and taking it surreptitiously when admission is declined due to a lack of communication from the applicant. That is not a good thing, and it has resulted in murders of our border patrol in some instances.
> 
> 
> 
> People who detain children and allow them to die in their custody and the people who support this bullshit, are pieces of shit.
Click to expand...

If you put your ear to the ground, two of the children who allegedly died in custody recently were actually killed several years ago, and Donald Trump was not in the White House then. I'm hearing he got tagged for it, as hard as it may be to know the leftist press may have fudged the stories just a little, with due regard that trifling with the truth can place truth and reality and stuff in an improper light.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have a link to this child killing policy?  I never knew children die from being separated from their parents.  After all, our children don't die when we send the parents of children to prison or they join the military to go overseas to war.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, two did and its your fault.
Click to expand...


No, the border patrol got them to a hospital as soon as they detected something was wrong.  The medical facility released them with medication to take.  When there was no improvement, they took the child back to the hospital where he died.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your point?  Because hundreds of years ago people came here and created a country, that means any foreigner who wants to come here should be allowed to?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


So then you'd be okay with bringing slavery back and male only voting since that's what took place during our founding?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The better question is what would our authorities do to an American parent or parents that exposed their children to the same dangers these folks expose their children to?  Their kids would be taken away from them and the parents facing charges and likely imprisoned.
> 
> 
> 
> By coming to the US, they are escaping danger.
Click to expand...


No, because if it was only to escape danger, they had that escape when they crossed the Mexican border. They were offered asylum, but refused because they wanted to trade that in for US asylum.  

They were not escaping anything.  They lived in a shit hole and wanted to trade up.  That doesn't meet the requirement for US asylum.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, you are going to take your child through a dangerous trek.  There is a good chance they will be kidnapped and used as slaves or prostitutes or even murdered.  The place you're going to is known for separating parents from their children during an asylum process.  Who's fault is that if not the parents?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody makes that trek unless they have to.  Did you ever think of that?
Click to expand...


Then why didn't everybody in those countries have to?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a strange list of rights.  We have no right to enforce UN resolutions, but foreigners have a right to enter our country illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that.
Click to expand...


That's exactly what you said. Would you like me to post your quotes?


----------



## OKTexas

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they were dead when they got here, they just hadn't laid down yet.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Let me give you the virtual experience.  You're tanning your racist face on a Florida beach when a boat load of Cubans hit the shore.  If you try to stop them, you're going to jail.
Click to expand...



I'm not border patrol dumb ass, they could damn sure stop them, your dear leader did away with that wet foot, dry foot bullshit.

.


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's true of every country on earth, except for maybe one in Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> And they don't want you there.
Click to expand...

You're only embarrassing yourself with cheap shots like that.


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> All criminals are responsible for being separated from their children. Go out and commit a crime and see how fast you're separated form your family. The parents put their children in the situation, yes, they are to blame.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> People seeking asylum are not criminals, you fucking piece of shit.
Click to expand...

They are when they cross our border illegally and it turns out their asylum claims are bullshit.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

sealybobo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> How about this.  If Trump is a 2 term president we will build a wall.  With us on the outside.  Deal?
Click to expand...


How many promised to leave if Trump was president?  Where are they now?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

bripat9643 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> All criminals are responsible for being separated from their children. Go out and commit a crime and see how fast you're separated form your family. The parents put their children in the situation, yes, they are to blame.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> People seeking asylum are not criminals, you fucking piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are when they cross our border illegally and it turns out their asylum claims are bullshit.
Click to expand...


Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum.  It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States.  If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> All criminals are responsible for being separated from their children. Go out and commit a crime and see how fast you're separated form your family. The parents put their children in the situation, yes, they are to blame.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> People seeking asylum are not criminals, you fucking piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are when they cross our border illegally and it turns out their asylum claims are bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum.  It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States.  If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.
Click to expand...


What *IS*

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)

"Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Also see this:

Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities 

Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?


----------



## Billo_Really

beautress said:


> If you put your ear to the ground, two of the children who allegedly died in custody recently were actually killed several years ago, and Donald Trump was not in the White House then. I'm hearing he got tagged for it, as hard as it may be to know the leftist press may have fudged the stories just a little, with due regard that trifling with the truth can place truth and reality and stuff in an improper light.


 "...allegedly died..."?

Go home, twisted sister.


----------



## Norman

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the border patrol got them to a hospital as soon as they detected something was wrong.  The medical facility released them with medication to take.  When there was no improvement, they took the child back to the hospital where he died.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you and fuck Baker Mayfield.
Click to expand...


Since you are a kind sensitive person, where were you? How could have you let this happen? How are you allowing millions in Africa to starve? Damn, that's harsh.

Folks, yet a other leftist who uses lots of words, but doesn't contribute anything.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So then you'd be okay with bringing slavery back and male only voting since that's what took place during our founding?


You just said that cuz I'm black.

That's right, I'm the black, white Irish Catholic.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ray From Cleveland said:


> That's exactly what you said. Would you like me to post your quotes?


Post it.  I didn't say that.


----------



## Manonthestreet




----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> You're only embarrassing yourself with cheap shots like that.


Sometimes you have to play down to the level of your audience.


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> They are when they cross our border illegally and it turns out their asylum claims are bullshit.


Says the man who thought the CIA had nothing to do in Chili.

What do you think they teach at the School of the America's?


----------



## Billo_Really

Norman said:


> Since you are a kind sensitive person, where were you? How could have you let this happen? How are you allowing millions in Africa to starve? Damn, that's harsh.
> 
> Folks, yet a other leftist who uses lots of words, but doesn't contribute anything.


I want us out of Africa as well.  We certainly are not there requesting asylum.  

All these right wing hypocrites can go fuck themselves.  They're all bent out of shape about people entering this country illegally, but say nothing when we make up bullshit reasons to invade other countries to kill millions of their citizens.


----------



## Norman

Manonthestreet said:


>



The democrat version of this story doesn't have a happy ending, does it?


----------



## Norman

Billo_Really said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are a kind sensitive person, where were you? How could have you let this happen? How are you allowing millions in Africa to starve? Damn, that's harsh.
> 
> Folks, yet a other leftist who uses lots of words, but doesn't contribute anything.
> 
> 
> 
> I want us out of Africa as well.  We certainly are not there requesting asylum.
> 
> All these right wing hypocrites can go fuck themselves.  They're all bent out of shape about people entering this country illegally, but say nothing when we make up bullshit reasons to invade other countries to kill millions of their citizens.
Click to expand...


Yet you are the one who is butthurt about Trump leaving Syria while Obama was your master overlord for putting more troops there.

They were white Christians so they needed to have their lives put on risk. Might want to inform your church about your thoughts, perhaps they will direct you to the church of Satan.


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are when they cross our border illegally and it turns out their asylum claims are bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man who thought the CIA had nothing to do in Chili.
> 
> What do you think they teach at the School of the America's?
Click to expand...

Show us what the CIA did in Chili to help the coup.


----------



## Billo_Really

Norman said:


> Yet you are the one who is butthurt about Trump leaving Syria while Obama was your master overlord for putting more troops there.
> 
> They were white Christians so they needed to have their lives put on risk. Might want to inform your church about your thoughts, perhaps they will direct you to the church of Satan.


I never supported troops in Syria and I withdrew my support for BA policies 18 months in to his first term when it became clear to me he was center-right.


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> Show us what the CIA did in Chili to help the coup.


Google "Project FUBELT".


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us what the CIA did in Chili to help the coup.
> 
> 
> 
> Google "Project FUBELT".
Click to expand...

You Google it and then post what you find.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
> 
> Why is posting a picture of a Klan march on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin in December and claiming it's the Democratic convention in New York the previous summer wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a major fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh.  Then what does that make you two morons who actually thought a few dozen Klan Klowns walking the wet December streets in Wisconsin was a summer political convention in New York?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you been studying that pic for 5 years?  That's how long ago it was posted, snowflake.  You're OCD.
Click to expand...


Actually it was last year, 2017.

But interesting approach, going to the "how long ago" bag after you yourself posted a pic from 1924 residing in the Wisconsin Historical Society for decades and declared it to be not only a political convention in New York, but also to be "_newly discovered_".   Riiiiight, "discover" this pal.

Obviously you didn't write the inane blog that committed this jaw-dropping fuckup, but you did pick it up and run with it and it never even occurred to you that political conventions don't take place on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin in December.  So ultimately all of this tells us nothing about Wisconsin or 1924.  It speaks volumes about you and Geaux, especially the fact that even a year later neither one of you can man up to your own partisan-hack gullibility.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because if it was only to escape danger, they had that escape when they crossed the Mexican border. They were offered asylum, but refused because they wanted to trade that in for US asylum.
> 
> They were not escaping anything.  They lived in a shit hole and wanted to trade up.  That doesn't meet the requirement for US asylum.
> 
> 
> 
> How the fuck would you know?  Oh, I forgot, you live in a city many people are trying to escape from.
Click to expand...


How do I know, it's called "reading."  You see, when news comes out, all you have to do to stay informed is read it.  If you want to know protocol, all you have to do is look it up on the internet. 

Yes, they were not only offered asylum by Mexico, but work as well.  They refused it.  It was America or bust.  And while refusing asylum in another country is not automatic disqualification for American asylum, it's extremely unlikely you'd be granted it by a US court given the circumstance.  They know this because American Hispanic lawyers jump the border to teach these invaders how to lie in order to get into this country one way or another.  

But this is the brilliance of Trump.  Under Hussein, these people would be allowed into our country until the court date, and then they'd never show up.  Under Trump, you stay in Mexico until your court date, and if you decide to attend, you will be escorted to and from the court by our authorities.  Unless granted asylum, back over the border you go.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then you'd be okay with bringing slavery back and male only voting since that's what took place during our founding?
> 
> 
> 
> You just said that cuz I'm black.
> 
> That's right, I'm the black, white Irish Catholic.
Click to expand...


I had no idea WTF you were.  When you use an avatar of a white person, I"m just assuming that you are white.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the border patrol got them to a hospital as soon as they detected something was wrong.  The medical facility released them with medication to take.  When there was no improvement, they took the child back to the hospital where he died.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you and fuck Baker Mayfield.
Click to expand...


Who is Baker Mayfield and what does that have to do with my post?


----------



## jasonnfree

Why build a wall when we can just jail the employers of illegals.  We had a candidate for governor in California, Meg Whitman,  (republican of course), who was found to be hiring illegals for domestic work.  Imagine, a billionaire  pinching pennies by hiring illegals.  Even great leader little fists has hired illegals.   No, a wall not necessary if citizens, republicans included, are prosecuted for hiring the undocumented.


----------



## Pogo

jasonnfree said:


> Why build a wall when we can just jail the employers of illegals.  We had a candidate for governor in California, Meg Whitman,  (republican of course), who was found to be hiring illegals for domestic work.  Imagine, a billionaire  pinching pennies by hiring illegals.  Even great leader little fists has hired illegals.   No, a wall not necessary if citizens, republicans included, are prosecuted for hiring the undocumented.



As a fatter o' mact Rump himself was found to be employing 'ïllegals' just this very month.

But as you know, Rump could hire illegals on Fifth Avenue and then shoot them, and his sheeple would still line up to buy "Feelings".


----------



## beautress

Billo_Really said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you put your ear to the ground, two of the children who allegedly died in custody recently were actually killed several years ago, and Donald Trump was not in the White House then. I'm hearing he got tagged for it, as hard as it may be to know the leftist press may have fudged the stories just a little, with due regard that trifling with the truth can place truth and reality and stuff in an improper light.
> 
> 
> 
> "...allegedly died..."?
> 
> Go home, twisted sister.
Click to expand...

Lefties leaked the story, hon. Poor, confused girl or guy who marginalizes and belittles other people in each post, uses constant _ad hominems_, exaggerates with prevarications either intentionally or from a master leftist list as popularized by Christine Blasey Ford in order to achieve an end at the expense of her perceived and also paranoid outlook that getting what one wants without getting caught is preferable to honesty in debate, whilst Chuckie Schumer, D NY and Diane Feinstein, D CA, egged her on through her two-ton load of bullshit against Juris Doctor and now Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, thankyouverymuch.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

jasonnfree said:


> Why build a wall when we can just jail the employers of illegals.  We had a candidate for governor in California, Meg Whitman,  (republican of course), who was found to be hiring illegals for domestic work.  Imagine, a billionaire  pinching pennies by hiring illegals.  Even great leader little fists has hired illegals.   No, a wall not necessary if citizens, republicans included, are prosecuted for hiring the undocumented.



That's a good plan.  Foreigners trespass on our land, break our laws, so send Americans to jail instead of them.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
> 
> Why is posting a picture of a Klan march on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin in December and claiming it's the Democratic convention in New York the previous summer wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a major fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh.  Then what does that make you two morons who actually thought a few dozen Klan Klowns walking the wet December streets in Wisconsin was a summer political convention in New York?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you been studying that pic for 5 years?  That's how long ago it was posted, snowflake.  You're OCD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it was last year, 2017.
> 
> But interesting approach, going to the "how long ago" bag after you yourself posted a pic from 1924 residing in the Wisconsin Historical Society for decades and declared it to be not only a political convention in New York, but also to be "_newly discovered_".   Riiiiight, "discover" this pal.
> 
> Obviously you didn't write the inane blog that committed this jaw-dropping fuckup, but you did pick it up and run with it and it never even occurred to you that political conventions don't take place on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin in December.  So ultimately all of this tells us nothing about Wisconsin or 1924.  It speaks volumes about you and Geaux, especially the fact that even a year later neither one of you can man up to your own partisan-hack gullibility.
Click to expand...

It was at least 4 years ago, moron.  I was living in Jacksonville at the time, and I haven't lived there in almost 4 years.


----------



## Geaux4it

Billo_Really said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> But many, many are liars and are not qualified for asylum. They are looking for a free ride
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> And you know this how?
Click to expand...

And you know this not to be true just how? Maybe you've been eating to much tree bark I suspect

-Geaux
-------------------

Sessions said that the number of asylum claims jumped to 94,000 in 2016, compared with 5,000 in 2009, and that only about *one-fifth of claims in the past five years have been found to be justified*

Fear of domestic or gang violence is not grounds for asylum, Sessions rules


----------



## Geaux4it

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only about 9% are actually granted asylum, that means the others told the lies they were coached to tell.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...


See post 2429

-Geaux


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Building the Wall Wrong?
> 
> Why is posting a picture of a Klan march on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin in December and claiming it's the Democratic convention in New York the previous summer wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> You are a major fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh.  Then what does that make you two morons who actually thought a few dozen Klan Klowns walking the wet December streets in Wisconsin was a summer political convention in New York?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you been studying that pic for 5 years?  That's how long ago it was posted, snowflake.  You're OCD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it was last year, 2017.
> 
> But interesting approach, going to the "how long ago" bag after you yourself posted a pic from 1924 residing in the Wisconsin Historical Society for decades and declared it to be not only a political convention in New York, but also to be "_newly discovered_".   Riiiiight, "discover" this pal.
> 
> Obviously you didn't write the inane blog that committed this jaw-dropping fuckup, but you did pick it up and run with it and it never even occurred to you that political conventions don't take place on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin in December.  So ultimately all of this tells us nothing about Wisconsin or 1924.  It speaks volumes about you and Geaux, especially the fact that even a year later neither one of you can man up to your own partisan-hack gullibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was at least 4 years ago, moron.  I was living in Jacksonville at the time, and I haven't lived there in almost 4 years.
Click to expand...


Time to go back to calendar class, Fingerfuck.  Here ya go, July 31, 2017 ---- and that's not even your OP, that's Geaux4it stepping in it.  YOUR OP of the same bullshit link came later and the two bullshit threads were merged into a single odoriferous, yet entertaining in its partisan-hack cluelessness, thread that continues to follow both of you around like a puppy, apparently forever.  And why does it do that?  Because neither one of you klowns can man up to admit your own Grand Fuckup.

Mid-summer of 2017 to the present is a little under a year and a half.


----------



## danielpalos

Geaux4it said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> But many, many are liars and are not qualified for asylum. They are looking for a free ride
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> And you know this how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you know this not to be true just how? Maybe you've been eating to much tree bark I suspect
> 
> -Geaux
> -------------------
> 
> Sessions said that the number of asylum claims jumped to 94,000 in 2016, compared with 5,000 in 2009, and that only about *one-fifth of claims in the past five years have been found to be justified*
> 
> Fear of domestic or gang violence is not grounds for asylum, Sessions rules
Click to expand...

This is an express Constitutional law:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
_
natural rights are in State Constitutions.


----------



## Flopper

OKTexas said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 237210
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing in the San Diego sector went form 100,000 to 5,000 after a barrier was erected. They work, period. Visa overstays is a simple fix if politicians had the will.
> .
Click to expand...

According to the head of immigration, a border barrier simple persuades people to use an easier path across the 2000 mile border which is not hard find.   

The 5 billion dollar Trump wall will not be a 2000 or 1000 mile wall but a 212 mile slatted fence, hundreds of miles of service roads, electronic monitors, aerial surveillance, and additional facilities to hold migrants crossing the border.  
Trump will always claim it is his big beautiful wall which has stopped illegal immigration.

The fact is illegal immigration will continue as before with most illegal crossings occurring at ports of entry and the biggest problem untouched, overstays of visas.


----------



## basquebromance

these kids would trade everything in the world just to see their parents again. they've never had someone spoil them. they need to be cared for, my friends.


----------



## H B Lowrie

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux




The machine, ever since the aftermath of Bacon's Rebellion has benefited from pitting the underclasses against one another and by having “illegals” here due to the fact that capitalism hes never weaned itself off of a cheap source of labor it could exploit outside legal protection.  Don't like them here?  Accept their employment conditions.


----------



## H B Lowrie

basquebromance said:


> these kids would trade everything in the world just to see their parents again. they've never had someone spoil them. they need to be cared for, my friends.



We just ain't that kinda people.


----------



## basquebromance

H B Lowrie said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> these kids would trade everything in the world just to see their parents again. they've never had someone spoil them. they need to be cared for, my friends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We just ain't that kinda people.
Click to expand...

among latinos, family is all-important. motherhood and fatherhood is valued above all else. i was struck by the choice people make when they leave their children. how do they make such an impossible decision. do they go to the US and make money and leave their children or do they stay and live in miserable poverty?


----------



## Flopper

Geaux4it said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're supposed to be the land of opportunity.  I guess we're not the nation we once claimed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are parents responsible for this inhuman separation policy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All criminals are responsible for being separated from their children. Go out and commit a crime and see how fast you're separated form your family. The parents put their children in the situation, yes, they are to blame.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> seeking asylum is not unlawful.  the right wing just like to blame the Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing the border away from a port of entry is unlawful. Just like with all criminals, you deal with the crime first, and the excuses later. BTW only about 9% of asylum claims are approved.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asking for asylum on US soil is not illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But many, many are liars and are not qualified for asylum. They are looking for a free ride
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

Which is why 60% to 80% will not be be granted asylum.  The way to get asylum in the US is get a tourist visa, come to the US legally, and hire an immigration.  That of course would cost tens of thousands of dollars which most asylum seekers can't afford.  People should be able apply for asylum at any US embassy.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 237210
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing in the San Diego sector went form 100,000 to 5,000 after a barrier was erected. They work, period. Visa overstays is a simple fix if politicians had the will.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the head of immigration, a border barrier simple persuades people to use an easier path across the 2000 mile border which is not hard find.
> 
> The 5 billion dollar Trump wall will not be a 2000 or 1000 mile wall but a 212 mile slatted fence, hundreds of miles of service roads, electronic monitors, aerial surveillance, and additional facilities to hold migrants crossing the border.
> Trump will always claim it is his big beautiful wall which has stopped illegal immigration.
> 
> The fact is illegal immigration will continue as before with most illegal crossings occurring at ports of entry and the biggest problem untouched, overstays of visas.
Click to expand...


At least with Visa's the government has somewhat vetted who is coming in.  Lord only knows what these illegals are like that lowlife that killed the cop in CA.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have a link to this child killing policy?  I never knew children die from being separated from their parents.  After all, our children don't die when we send the parents of children to prison or they join the military to go overseas to war.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, two did and its your fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the border patrol got them to a hospital as soon as they detected something was wrong.  The medical facility released them with medication to take.  When there was no improvement, they took the child back to the hospital where he died.
Click to expand...

In the media, it said at least one of the children is believed to have died with influenza yet there was no mention of the hospital testing for influenza. It's a pretty routine test in most ERs with any flu symptoms.  The test is a simple swab of nose or throat.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 237210
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing in the San Diego sector went form 100,000 to 5,000 after a barrier was erected. They work, period. Visa overstays is a simple fix if politicians had the will.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the head of immigration, a border barrier simple persuades people to use an easier path across the 2000 mile border which is not hard find.
> 
> The 5 billion dollar Trump wall will not be a 2000 or 1000 mile wall but a 212 mile slatted fence, hundreds of miles of service roads, electronic monitors, aerial surveillance, and additional facilities to hold migrants crossing the border.
> Trump will always claim it is his big beautiful wall which has stopped illegal immigration.
> 
> The fact is illegal immigration will continue as before with most illegal crossings occurring at ports of entry and the biggest problem untouched, overstays of visas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least with Visa's the government has somewhat vetted who is coming in.  Lord only knows what these illegals are like that lowlife that killed the cop in CA.
Click to expand...

The problem of using a visa to enter the US to apply is the application process can take a number of months and during that time you are not allowed to work. Thousands of dollars for a lawyer, cost of living in the US for months plus travel means most of the people qualified for asylum will not be able to afford it.  That's why I say they should be able to apply at a US embassy in their country and we wouldn't have these caravans to deal with.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 237210
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing in the San Diego sector went form 100,000 to 5,000 after a barrier was erected. They work, period. Visa overstays is a simple fix if politicians had the will.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the head of immigration, a border barrier simple persuades people to use an easier path across the 2000 mile border which is not hard find.
> 
> The 5 billion dollar Trump wall will not be a 2000 or 1000 mile wall but a 212 mile slatted fence, hundreds of miles of service roads, electronic monitors, aerial surveillance, and additional facilities to hold migrants crossing the border.
> Trump will always claim it is his big beautiful wall which has stopped illegal immigration.
> 
> The fact is illegal immigration will continue as before with most illegal crossings occurring at ports of entry and the biggest problem untouched, overstays of visas.
Click to expand...



So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.

But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.

.


----------



## H B Lowrie

basquebromance said:


> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> these kids would trade everything in the world just to see their parents again. they've never had someone spoil them. they need to be cared for, my friends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We just ain't that kinda people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> among latinos, family is all-important. motherhood and fatherhood is valued above all else. i was struck by the choice people make when they leave their children. how do they make such an impossible decision. do they go to the US and make money and leave their children or do they stay and live in miserable poverty?
Click to expand...


They could always outsourse the raising of their children and care of their elders to chase a career like we do I suppose.


----------



## dblack

OKTexas said:


> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.



Exactly. THIS is what bothers me about the "wall" movement. Their goals will require a police state to achieve, not just a wall.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. THIS is what bothers me about the "wall" movement. Their goals will require a police state to achieve, not just a wall.
Click to expand...

How does deporting illegal aliens make this country a police state?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 237210
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing in the San Diego sector went form 100,000 to 5,000 after a barrier was erected. They work, period. Visa overstays is a simple fix if politicians had the will.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the head of immigration, a border barrier simple persuades people to use an easier path across the 2000 mile border which is not hard find.
> 
> The 5 billion dollar Trump wall will not be a 2000 or 1000 mile wall but a 212 mile slatted fence, hundreds of miles of service roads, electronic monitors, aerial surveillance, and additional facilities to hold migrants crossing the border.
> Trump will always claim it is his big beautiful wall which has stopped illegal immigration.
> 
> The fact is illegal immigration will continue as before with most illegal crossings occurring at ports of entry and the biggest problem untouched, overstays of visas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least with Visa's the government has somewhat vetted who is coming in.  Lord only knows what these illegals are like that lowlife that killed the cop in CA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem of using a visa to enter the US to apply is the application process can take a number of months and during that time you are not allowed to work. Thousands of dollars for a lawyer, cost of living in the US for months plus travel means most of the people qualified for asylum will not be able to afford it.  That's why I say they should be able to apply at a US embassy in their country and we wouldn't have these caravans to deal with.
Click to expand...


Well I have some bad news for you, and that is they know they don't qualify for asylum.  They are hoping the Democrats make an issue out of them waiting to get in and pressure Trump to open the gates.  

However I'm with you on applying outside of our country.  At least that way we can without a doubt say the real reason they are coming here.  When we do it now, the Democrats fight us tooth and nail claiming coming here is the only way to apply.  However asylum was designed to be the last resort and an emergency one at that.  If you are applying at an embassy somewhere, it's obvious it's not that dire of a situation.  

At the risk of sounding repetitive, the solution is to make being here illegal a first degree felony which carries a minimum 5 years in prison.  It would take care of the Visa overstays, people thinking of sneaking in, building a wall, and the people here already that shouldn't be here.


----------



## OKTexas

dblack said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. THIS is what bothers me about the "wall" movement. Their goals will require a police state to achieve, not just a wall.
Click to expand...



So you think we should do away with law enforcement? Do you think it would be unreasonable to require people coming in on visas to leave as agreed?

If I were king, everyone granted a visa would be required to purchase a return bond. If computerized records show they haven't left, a warrant for their arrest should be issued and private bounty hunters would be paid form the bonds to locate and apprehend them. Any assets they have would be seized under RICO and they would be deported with the shirts on their backs. The assets would be used to replenish the bond fund.

.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. THIS is what bothers me about the "wall" movement. Their goals will require a police state to achieve, not just a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does deporting illegal aliens make this country a police state?
Click to expand...


Because it requires ubiquitous government monitoring. If we're really going to ensure that they're aren't any "illegals" among us, we'll have to give up many of our individual rights. We'll have to submit to routine searches and carry proof of our citizenship with us at all times. If you don't, you risk getting caught up in "expedited deportation procedures".


----------



## dblack

OKTexas said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. THIS is what bothers me about the "wall" movement. Their goals will require a police state to achieve, not just a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should do away with law enforcement? Do you think it would be unreasonable to require people coming in on visas to leave as agreed?
Click to expand...


I think the role of government should be protecting individual rights, not violating them in the name of state security.


----------



## danielpalos

it won't solve the problem and only increases costs.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because if it was only to escape danger, they had that escape when they crossed the Mexican border. They were offered asylum, but refused because they wanted to trade that in for US asylum.
> 
> They were not escaping anything.  They lived in a shit hole and wanted to trade up.  That doesn't meet the requirement for US asylum.
> 
> 
> 
> How the fuck would you know?  Oh, I forgot, you live in a city many people are trying to escape from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do I know, it's called "reading."  You see, when news comes out, all you have to do to stay informed is read it.  If you want to know protocol, all you have to do is look it up on the internet.
> 
> Yes, they were not only offered asylum by Mexico, but work as well.  They refused it.  It was America or bust.  And while refusing asylum in another country is not automatic disqualification for American asylum, it's extremely unlikely you'd be granted it by a US court given the circumstance.  They know this because American Hispanic lawyers jump the border to teach these invaders how to lie in order to get into this country one way or another.
> 
> But this is the brilliance of Trump.  Under Hussein, these people would be allowed into our country until the court date, and then they'd never show up.  Under Trump, you stay in Mexico until your court date, and if you decide to attend, you will be escorted to and from the court by our authorities.  Unless granted asylum, back over the border you go.
Click to expand...

Mexico does not offer asylum to all migrants.  Like the US, you apply for asylum in Mexico.  An asylum officer determines the level of fear you have of returning home and whether you have legally qualified reasons for asking for asylum which are very similar to the US law.  Mexico does not do an in depth background check like the US.  Most, but not all applicants are accepted.  Unlike the US, Mexico does not offer very much to asylum seekers.  You get documentation and depending on number applying, you get a few weeks of help with room and board.  US law does not prohibit people with asylum in Mexico from applying for US asylum. 

Safety and protection of human rights in Mexico is only slightly better than Central America, but that is certainly of no concern to the Trump.  administration.  The goal is to keep them out.


----------



## bripat9643

H B Lowrie said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> these kids would trade everything in the world just to see their parents again. they've never had someone spoil them. they need to be cared for, my friends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We just ain't that kinda people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> among latinos, family is all-important. motherhood and fatherhood is valued above all else. i was struck by the choice people make when they leave their children. how do they make such an impossible decision. do they go to the US and make money and leave their children or do they stay and live in miserable poverty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could always outsourse the raising of their children and care of their elders to chase a career like we do I suppose.
Click to expand...

Who's stopping them?  Let them do it in Mexico.


----------



## bripat9643

OKTexas said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. THIS is what bothers me about the "wall" movement. Their goals will require a police state to achieve, not just a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should do away with law enforcement? Do you think it would be unreasonable to require people coming in on visas to leave as agreed?
> 
> If I were king, everyone granted a visa would be required to purchase a return bond. If computerized records show they haven't left, a warrant for their arrest should be issued and private bounty hunters would be paid form the bonds to locate and apprehend them. Any assets they have would be seized under RICO and they would be deported with the shirts on their backs. The assets would be used to replenish the bond fund.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

According to morons like dblack, enforcing our immigration laws is the police state.


dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. THIS is what bothers me about the "wall" movement. Their goals will require a police state to achieve, not just a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does deporting illegal aliens make this country a police state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it requires ubiquitous government monitoring. If we're really going to ensure that they're aren't any "illegals" among us, we'll have to give up many of our individual rights. We'll have to submit to routine searches and carry proof of our citizenship with us at all times. If you don't, you risk getting caught up in "expedited deportation procedures".
Click to expand...

It certainly doesn't.  It requires far less "monitoring" than enforcing the IRS code. It's a simple matter to determine whether someone has overstayed their visa.  Other countries manage to do it, so why can't we?  No one needs to submit to routine searches, and I carry proof that I'm a U.S. citizen at all times.  It's called a driver's license.  Of course, in some states they give out drivers licenses to illegal aliens in a deliberate attempt to subvert our immigration laws.

I think the only thing needed is to keep Dims out of the government.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. THIS is what bothers me about the "wall" movement. Their goals will require a police state to achieve, not just a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should do away with law enforcement? Do you think it would be unreasonable to require people coming in on visas to leave as agreed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the role of government should be protecting individual rights, not violating them in the name of state security.
Click to expand...

Deporting illegal aliens doesn't violate anyone's individual rights.


----------



## OKTexas

dblack said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. THIS is what bothers me about the "wall" movement. Their goals will require a police state to achieve, not just a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should do away with law enforcement? Do you think it would be unreasonable to require people coming in on visas to leave as agreed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the role of government should be protecting individual rights, not violating them in the name of state security.
Click to expand...



There are 1.4 billion people all over this world that say they want to come here. That's more than 4 times our current population and more than 4 times the 100+ billion a year we're spending on illegals now. Are you prepared to give up your country to the third world, I'm not. And it's "national security" not "state security". We're supposed to be a nation of laws, with no enforcement, we are no nation at all.

.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because if it was only to escape danger, they had that escape when they crossed the Mexican border. They were offered asylum, but refused because they wanted to trade that in for US asylum.
> 
> They were not escaping anything.  They lived in a shit hole and wanted to trade up.  That doesn't meet the requirement for US asylum.
> 
> 
> 
> How the fuck would you know?  Oh, I forgot, you live in a city many people are trying to escape from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do I know, it's called "reading."  You see, when news comes out, all you have to do to stay informed is read it.  If you want to know protocol, all you have to do is look it up on the internet.
> 
> Yes, they were not only offered asylum by Mexico, but work as well.  They refused it.  It was America or bust.  And while refusing asylum in another country is not automatic disqualification for American asylum, it's extremely unlikely you'd be granted it by a US court given the circumstance.  They know this because American Hispanic lawyers jump the border to teach these invaders how to lie in order to get into this country one way or another.
> 
> But this is the brilliance of Trump.  Under Hussein, these people would be allowed into our country until the court date, and then they'd never show up.  Under Trump, you stay in Mexico until your court date, and if you decide to attend, you will be escorted to and from the court by our authorities.  Unless granted asylum, back over the border you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mexico does not offer asylum to all migrants.  Like the US, you apply for asylum in Mexico.  An asylum officer determines the level of fear you have of returning home and whether you have legally qualified reasons for asking for asylum which are very similar to the US law.  Mexico does not do an in depth background check like the US.  Most, but not all applicants are accepted.  Unlike the US, Mexico does not offer very much to asylum seekers.  You get documentation and depending on number applying, you get a few weeks of help with room and board.  US law does not prohibit people with asylum in Mexico from applying for US asylum.
> 
> Safety and protection of human rights in Mexico is only slightly better than Central America, but that is certainly of no concern to the Trump.  administration.  The goal is to keep them out.
Click to expand...


Yes, the goal is to keep them out.  Whats wrong with that?  If it were up to me, our asylum program would end.  Too many people using our laws against us.  

According to our news agencies, yes, Mexico did offer the people in the Caravan asylum.  Nobody accepted it.  And while there is no law stating that if they refuse asylum in another country, they are not applicable here, no court would grant asylum given that circumstance.  

Asylum is to escape a dire situation, it's not a program of who offers a better opportunity.  Once you are out of the country that you claim is persecuting you or your family, you are safe from that government. 

Do you really want to have some fun?  Tell Mexico and others that we are putting the people of S/C America in front of the line, and since we only take in a million people a year, everybody else will have to wait.  Watch how fast Mexico stops those people from moving north through their country.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. THIS is what bothers me about the "wall" movement. Their goals will require a police state to achieve, not just a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does deporting illegal aliens make this country a police state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it requires ubiquitous government monitoring. If we're really going to ensure that they're aren't any "illegals" among us, we'll have to give up many of our individual rights. We'll have to submit to routine searches and carry proof of our citizenship with us at all times. If you don't, you risk getting caught up in "expedited deportation procedures".
Click to expand...


I think our agencies are smart enough to figure out who is a citizen here and who may not be without papers for everybody.


----------



## Lesh

Why is building the wall wrong?

Mostly because it's an expensive boondoggle that would not achieve its supposed intended results and would steal land from thousands of American ranchers and farmers

It's a very expensive SYMBOL and little else


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> Why is building the wall wrong?
> 
> Mostly because it's an expensive boondoggle that would not achieve its supposed intended results and would steal land from thousands of American ranchers and farmers
> 
> It's a very expensive SYMBOL and little else


We all know that you're spewing Dim talking points, not facts


----------



## Lesh

bripat9643 said:


> We all know that you're spewing Dim talking points, not facts



What "we all know" is that as usual you are trolling...or can you actually dispute anything I've said with anything other than "nuuuuhhhhuhhhh"


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all know that you're spewing Dim talking points, not facts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "we all know" is that as usual you are trolling...or can you actually dispute anything I've said with anything other than "nuuuuhhhhuhhhh"
Click to expand...

Yes, I can easily dispute it, but it isn't worth the effort.  Everyone in this forum already knows that you're just a lying troll.


----------



## OKTexas

Lesh said:


> Why is building the wall wrong?
> 
> Mostly because it's an expensive boondoggle that would not achieve its supposed intended results and would steal land from thousands of American ranchers and farmers
> 
> It's a very expensive SYMBOL and little else




Funny, when they built the wall in the San Diego sector it reduced crossings form 100000 to 5000, a 95% reduction. That sir, proves you're full of it.

.


----------



## Lesh

bripat9643 said:


> Yes, I can easily dispute it, but it isn't worth the effort.



Surrender accepted


----------



## Lesh

OKTexas said:


> Funny, when they built the wall in the San Diego sector it reduced crossings form 100000 to 5000, a 95% reduction. That sir, proves you're full of it.



The hell it does.

Trump isn't proposing selective areas where walls would be appropriate...he wants money to build a wall along the entire fucking border.
THAT is just fucking stupid


----------



## OKTexas

Lesh said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, when they built the wall in the San Diego sector it reduced crossings form 100000 to 5000, a 95% reduction. That sir, proves you're full of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The hell it does.
> 
> Trump isn't proposing selective areas where walls would be appropriate...he wants money to build a wall along the entire fucking border.
> THAT is just fucking stupid
Click to expand...



That sir, very simply proves you're a liar and a propagandist. He is relying on the border patrol and DHS to determine what is needed and where.

.


----------



## Lesh

OKTexas said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, when they built the wall in the San Diego sector it reduced crossings form 100000 to 5000, a 95% reduction. That sir, proves you're full of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The hell it does.
> 
> Trump isn't proposing selective areas where walls would be appropriate...he wants money to build a wall along the entire fucking border.
> THAT is just fucking stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That sir, very simply proves you're a liar and a propagandist. He is relying on the border patrol and DHS to determine what is needed and where.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I'm a liar?

Trump ISN'T talking about a wall along the entire border?

That's new


----------



## Lesh

So it appears we have scaled things back significantly.

No concrete wall.

No actual wall at all

Just more of what we currently have. 

Well it's a good thing that the Senate has passed a clean CR that has 1.6 billion in it to pay for that. Too bad the GOP House has refused to pass that.

I guess we'll have to wait for the Dems to take control of the House in a couple days to do it


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. THIS is what bothers me about the "wall" movement. Their goals will require a police state to achieve, not just a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should do away with law enforcement? Do you think it would be unreasonable to require people coming in on visas to leave as agreed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the role of government should be protecting individual rights, not violating them in the name of state security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deporting illegal aliens doesn't violate anyone's individual rights.
Click to expand...

We don't have an immigration clause it is a naturalization clause.  Illegal is only a concept for national socialists not national capitalists.


----------



## danielpalos

OKTexas said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is building the wall wrong?
> 
> Mostly because it's an expensive boondoggle that would not achieve its supposed intended results and would steal land from thousands of American ranchers and farmers
> 
> It's a very expensive SYMBOL and little else
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, when they built the wall in the San Diego sector it reduced crossings form 100000 to 5000, a 95% reduction. That sir, proves you're full of it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Tax raise economics for right wing immigration policies!


----------



## OKTexas

Lesh said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, when they built the wall in the San Diego sector it reduced crossings form 100000 to 5000, a 95% reduction. That sir, proves you're full of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The hell it does.
> 
> Trump isn't proposing selective areas where walls would be appropriate...he wants money to build a wall along the entire fucking border.
> THAT is just fucking stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That sir, very simply proves you're a liar and a propagandist. He is relying on the border patrol and DHS to determine what is needed and where.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm a liar?
> 
> Trump ISN'T talking about a wall along the entire border?
> 
> That's new
Click to expand...



Not really, I guess mslsd didn't tell ya.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Lesh said:


> So it appears we have scaled things back significantly.
> 
> No concrete wall.
> 
> No actual wall at all
> 
> Just more of what we currently have.
> 
> Well it's a good thing that the Senate has passed a clean CR that has 1.6 billion in it to pay for that. Too bad the GOP House has refused to pass that.
> 
> I guess we'll have to wait for the Dems to take control of the House in a couple days to do it




Much more of this.


 

And the commies in congress aren't offering ANY money for it. You really should stop watching mslsd. You're so badly informed it's pathetic.

.


----------



## danielpalos

OKTexas said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, when they built the wall in the San Diego sector it reduced crossings form 100000 to 5000, a 95% reduction. That sir, proves you're full of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The hell it does.
> 
> Trump isn't proposing selective areas where walls would be appropriate...he wants money to build a wall along the entire fucking border.
> THAT is just fucking stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That sir, very simply proves you're a liar and a propagandist. He is relying on the border patrol and DHS to determine what is needed and where.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm a liar?
> 
> Trump ISN'T talking about a wall along the entire border?
> 
> That's new
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, I guess mslsd didn't tell ya.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

tax raise economics, right wingers; you either believe in Your policies or you are merely being frivolous at the Expense of the Poor.


----------



## danielpalos

OKTexas said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it appears we have scaled things back significantly.
> 
> No concrete wall.
> 
> No actual wall at all
> 
> Just more of what we currently have.
> 
> Well it's a good thing that the Senate has passed a clean CR that has 1.6 billion in it to pay for that. Too bad the GOP House has refused to pass that.
> 
> I guess we'll have to wait for the Dems to take control of the House in a couple days to do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much more of this.
> View attachment 237734
> 
> And the commies in congress aren't offering ANY money for it. You really should stop watching mslsd. You're so badly informed it's pathetic.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Capital based metrics not social metrics!


----------



## OKTexas

danielpalos said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is building the wall wrong?
> 
> Mostly because it's an expensive boondoggle that would not achieve its supposed intended results and would steal land from thousands of American ranchers and farmers
> 
> It's a very expensive SYMBOL and little else
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, when they built the wall in the San Diego sector it reduced crossings form 100000 to 5000, a 95% reduction. That sir, proves you're full of it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tax raise economics for right wing immigration policies!
Click to expand...





.


----------



## danielpalos

Only Persons with the franchise should vote in federal elections. All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id; we don't have an immigration clause we have a naturalization clause.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> So it appears we have scaled things back significantly.
> 
> No concrete wall.
> 
> No actual wall at all
> 
> Just more of what we currently have.
> 
> Well it's a good thing that the Senate has passed a clean CR that has 1.6 billion in it to pay for that. Too bad the GOP House has refused to pass that.
> 
> I guess we'll have to wait for the Dems to take control of the House in a couple days to do it



There is nothing they can do about it.  Congress passed a budge with the 5.8 billion.  It's in the hands of the Senate now.  It's up to the Senate Democrats to open the government back up or keep it closed.


----------



## Lesh

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It's in the hands of the Senate now



Has the GOP Senate even VOTED on that?

No?

They did vote on a CR with 1.6 billion.For what you are now saying you want to do, that's plenty


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> I'm a liar?
> 
> Trump ISN'T talking about a wall along the entire border?
> 
> That's new



Actually just a few weeks old. Fast Forward to around the 12:30 mark and listen.


----------



## Lesh

Trump is notorious for saying all sorts of shit.

Are you claiming that this is over a security system not unlike that which we have now?

NOT an actual wall and NOT along the entire border?

That IS new


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> Trump is notorious for saying all sorts of shit.
> 
> Are you claiming that this is over a security system not unlike that which we have now?
> 
> NOT an actual wall and NOT along the entire border?
> 
> That IS new



It was easy to miss.  They were kind of talking over each other a lot and it did get annoying.  But 5.8 billion could never get a wall across the entire border.  We can't just nail boards together and call it a wall.  It has to be effective and do what it's intended to do.  It's better to have 100 miles of good wall and technology than it is to have 200 miles of half-assed wall that's not too difficult to get by.  I'm sure our engineers and border agents will have it built to their specifications. 

However the more money we have, the more quality and wall we have.


----------



## Lesh

So we're not even talking about an actual wall anymore.

Well gee...I wonder how many Trumpers are on that?

Ghead folks.

Weigh in


----------



## Lesh

And of note...the COntinuing resolution contains funding equal to what was appropriated last year...and amount that has NOT been spent...


----------



## Geaux4it

I'm about ready to throw in the towel. You fucking dumbass liberals will regret the day you sold America, your children and grandchildren down the river. Assuming you have spawn and didn't abort them

-Geaux


----------



## Flopper

OKTexas said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 237210
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing in the San Diego sector went form 100,000 to 5,000 after a barrier was erected. They work, period. Visa overstays is a simple fix if politicians had the will.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the head of immigration, a border barrier simple persuades people to use an easier path across the 2000 mile border which is not hard find.
> 
> The 5 billion dollar Trump wall will not be a 2000 or 1000 mile wall but a 212 mile slatted fence, hundreds of miles of service roads, electronic monitors, aerial surveillance, and additional facilities to hold migrants crossing the border.
> Trump will always claim it is his big beautiful wall which has stopped illegal immigration.
> 
> The fact is illegal immigration will continue as before with most illegal crossings occurring at ports of entry and the biggest problem untouched, overstays of visas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
Click to expand...

I agree with both your points.

A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.

Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.


----------



## danielpalos

Geaux4it said:


> I'm about ready to throw in the towel. You fucking dumbass liberals will regret the day you sold America, your children and grandchildren down the river. Assuming you have spawn and didn't abort them
> 
> -Geaux


There is no express wall building power and the right wing refuses to enact wall building tax rates.  

Frivolous on the People's dime is all the right wing knows.


----------



## Geaux4it

danielpalos said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm about ready to throw in the towel. You fucking dumbass liberals will regret the day you sold America, your children and grandchildren down the river. Assuming you have spawn and didn't abort them
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> There is no express wall building power and the right wing refuses to enact wall building tax rates.
> 
> Frivolous on the People's dime is all the right wing knows.
Click to expand...

Your excuse is worthless and a lie. We all know why you don't want the wall. Why don't you just be honest about it

-Geaux


----------



## danielpalos

Geaux4it said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm about ready to throw in the towel. You fucking dumbass liberals will regret the day you sold America, your children and grandchildren down the river. Assuming you have spawn and didn't abort them
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> There is no express wall building power and the right wing refuses to enact wall building tax rates.
> 
> Frivolous on the People's dime is all the right wing knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your excuse is worthless and a lie. We all know why you don't want the wall. Why don't you just be honest about it
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

What excuse and worthless lie, right winger?  That is your right wing modus operandi.


----------



## Geaux4it

danielpalos said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm about ready to throw in the towel. You fucking dumbass liberals will regret the day you sold America, your children and grandchildren down the river. Assuming you have spawn and didn't abort them
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> There is no express wall building power and the right wing refuses to enact wall building tax rates.
> 
> Frivolous on the People's dime is all the right wing knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your excuse is worthless and a lie. We all know why you don't want the wall. Why don't you just be honest about it
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What excuse and worthless lie, right winger?  That is your right wing modus operandi.
Click to expand...

If you care about $$$ lets cut funding to Planned Parenthood. Are you down with that? I mean, we are talking $$$$ here.

-Geaux


----------



## danielpalos

Geaux4it said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm about ready to throw in the towel. You fucking dumbass liberals will regret the day you sold America, your children and grandchildren down the river. Assuming you have spawn and didn't abort them
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> There is no express wall building power and the right wing refuses to enact wall building tax rates.
> 
> Frivolous on the People's dime is all the right wing knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your excuse is worthless and a lie. We all know why you don't want the wall. Why don't you just be honest about it
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What excuse and worthless lie, right winger?  That is your right wing modus operandi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you care about $$$ lets cut funding to Planned Parenthood. Are you down with that? I mean, we are talking $$$$ here.
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

free contraceptive is more cost effective.


----------



## Geaux4it

danielpalos said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm about ready to throw in the towel. You fucking dumbass liberals will regret the day you sold America, your children and grandchildren down the river. Assuming you have spawn and didn't abort them
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> There is no express wall building power and the right wing refuses to enact wall building tax rates.
> 
> Frivolous on the People's dime is all the right wing knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your excuse is worthless and a lie. We all know why you don't want the wall. Why don't you just be honest about it
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What excuse and worthless lie, right winger?  That is your right wing modus operandi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you care about $$$ lets cut funding to Planned Parenthood. Are you down with that? I mean, we are talking $$$$ here.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> free contraceptive is more cost effective.
Click to expand...

Non-sequitur

-Geaux


----------



## danielpalos

Great Walls of America Tax Rates!  Our Great Walls of America should make money from Inception!


----------



## Flopper

Lesh said:


> Trump is notorious for saying all sorts of shit.
> 
> Are you claiming that this is over a security system not unlike that which we have now?
> 
> NOT an actual wall and NOT along the entire border?
> 
> That IS new


First he said it was a border wall.  Then it became a barrier.  Then it became a fence.  Then he said it was a wall or a fence, whatever you want to call it.  First, he said it was a southern border wall, which meant it was the length of the border.  Then his staff sad it would be about 1,000 miles long because it did not need to cover the entire border.  A few days ago, his head of immigration said it was a slatted fence 212 miles long.  The fact is he's asking for a 5 billion dollar slush fund. 

If Trump told congress what his plans are, assuming he has any plans, the specifications of his fence/wall, how long it will be, and where it will be located, estimated construction time, and exactly what he will do with the hundreds of millions that remain, he might just get the support he needs.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 237210
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing in the San Diego sector went form 100,000 to 5,000 after a barrier was erected. They work, period. Visa overstays is a simple fix if politicians had the will.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the head of immigration, a border barrier simple persuades people to use an easier path across the 2000 mile border which is not hard find.
> 
> The 5 billion dollar Trump wall will not be a 2000 or 1000 mile wall but a 212 mile slatted fence, hundreds of miles of service roads, electronic monitors, aerial surveillance, and additional facilities to hold migrants crossing the border.
> Trump will always claim it is his big beautiful wall which has stopped illegal immigration.
> 
> The fact is illegal immigration will continue as before with most illegal crossings occurring at ports of entry and the biggest problem untouched, overstays of visas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
Click to expand...



1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?

.


----------



## candycorn

Geaux4it said:


> I'm about ready to throw in the towel. You fucking dumbass liberals will regret the day you sold America, your children and grandchildren down the river. Assuming you have spawn and didn't abort them
> 
> -Geaux



poor baby


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is notorious for saying all sorts of shit.
> 
> Are you claiming that this is over a security system not unlike that which we have now?
> 
> NOT an actual wall and NOT along the entire border?
> 
> That IS new
> 
> 
> 
> First he said it was a border wall.  Then it became a barrier.  Then it became a fence.  Then he said it was a wall or a fence, whatever you want to call it.  First, he said it was a southern border wall, which meant it was the length of the border.  Then his staff sad it would be about 1,000 miles long because it did not need to cover the entire border.  A few days ago, his head of immigration said it was a slatted fence 212 miles long.  The fact is he's asking for a 5 billion dollar slush fund.
> 
> If Trump told congress what his plans are, assuming he has any plans, the specifications of his fence/wall, how long it will be, and where it will be located, estimated construction time, and exactly what he will do with the hundreds of millions that remain, he might just get the support he needs.
Click to expand...


And I guess you believe all your presents came from Santa Clause on Christmas too, don't you?

It wouldn't matter if Trump had it figured down to the last bolt.  The Democrats are not going to pass any wall unless they get so much pressure from the public they have no choice.  The problem for Democrats is not the details, it's Trump bringing a solution to the problem and Democrats having no way of getting rid of it.

Democrats don't want illegal immigration stopped.


----------



## Flopper

OKTexas said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 237210
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing in the San Diego sector went form 100,000 to 5,000 after a barrier was erected. They work, period. Visa overstays is a simple fix if politicians had the will.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the head of immigration, a border barrier simple persuades people to use an easier path across the 2000 mile border which is not hard find.
> 
> The 5 billion dollar Trump wall will not be a 2000 or 1000 mile wall but a 212 mile slatted fence, hundreds of miles of service roads, electronic monitors, aerial surveillance, and additional facilities to hold migrants crossing the border.
> Trump will always claim it is his big beautiful wall which has stopped illegal immigration.
> 
> The fact is illegal immigration will continue as before with most illegal crossings occurring at ports of entry and the biggest problem untouched, overstays of visas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.

Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.

While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing in the San Diego sector went form 100,000 to 5,000 after a barrier was erected. They work, period. Visa overstays is a simple fix if politicians had the will.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> According to the head of immigration, a border barrier simple persuades people to use an easier path across the 2000 mile border which is not hard find.
> 
> The 5 billion dollar Trump wall will not be a 2000 or 1000 mile wall but a 212 mile slatted fence, hundreds of miles of service roads, electronic monitors, aerial surveillance, and additional facilities to hold migrants crossing the border.
> Trump will always claim it is his big beautiful wall which has stopped illegal immigration.
> 
> The fact is illegal immigration will continue as before with most illegal crossings occurring at ports of entry and the biggest problem untouched, overstays of visas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
Click to expand...

What we need is politicians who are financially responsible.  Yeah, we need more suckers if we want to keep all the Ponzi schemes going.  The trick is not to create the Ponzi schemes in the first place.  Then it wouldn't matter how old the population is.


----------



## Indeependent

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing in the San Diego sector went form 100,000 to 5,000 after a barrier was erected. They work, period. Visa overstays is a simple fix if politicians had the will.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> According to the head of immigration, a border barrier simple persuades people to use an easier path across the 2000 mile border which is not hard find.
> 
> The 5 billion dollar Trump wall will not be a 2000 or 1000 mile wall but a 212 mile slatted fence, hundreds of miles of service roads, electronic monitors, aerial surveillance, and additional facilities to hold migrants crossing the border.
> Trump will always claim it is his big beautiful wall which has stopped illegal immigration.
> 
> The fact is illegal immigration will continue as before with most illegal crossings occurring at ports of entry and the biggest problem untouched, overstays of visas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
Click to expand...

The next time you need a doctor, go to a business man.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing in the San Diego sector went form 100,000 to 5,000 after a barrier was erected. They work, period. Visa overstays is a simple fix if politicians had the will.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> According to the head of immigration, a border barrier simple persuades people to use an easier path across the 2000 mile border which is not hard find.
> 
> The 5 billion dollar Trump wall will not be a 2000 or 1000 mile wall but a 212 mile slatted fence, hundreds of miles of service roads, electronic monitors, aerial surveillance, and additional facilities to hold migrants crossing the border.
> Trump will always claim it is his big beautiful wall which has stopped illegal immigration.
> 
> The fact is illegal immigration will continue as before with most illegal crossings occurring at ports of entry and the biggest problem untouched, overstays of visas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
Click to expand...



I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.

.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

OKTexas said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the head of immigration, a border barrier simple persuades people to use an easier path across the 2000 mile border which is not hard find.
> 
> The 5 billion dollar Trump wall will not be a 2000 or 1000 mile wall but a 212 mile slatted fence, hundreds of miles of service roads, electronic monitors, aerial surveillance, and additional facilities to hold migrants crossing the border.
> Trump will always claim it is his big beautiful wall which has stopped illegal immigration.
> 
> The fact is illegal immigration will continue as before with most illegal crossings occurring at ports of entry and the biggest problem untouched, overstays of visas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I was born in a very ethnic neighborhood and lived there until the age of 7.  I distinctly remember how people off the boat would strive to learn the language of their new country.  It meant just about everything to them.  Of course people back then came here to become an American, not use America for the money or welfare.  

Our local Catholic school held free English classes for the Polish immigrants.  My Grandfather used to take us to the bar for chips and pop while he had a couple of beers, and American patrons were teaching the immigrant patrons the language. Most of the American people in the neighborhood were bilingual.  

Our neighbors were off the boat too.  My sister befriended the girl around her age and taught her English.  My mother too was bilingual and spoke broken Polish, but certainly enough to easily communicate with the girl.  That girl grew up and eventually became a Doctor.  

Foreigners today couldn't have it easier when it comes to learning our language.  If the people I observed back in the 60's could do it with very limited resources, there is no excuse how foreigners can't do it today given our much advanced technology.


----------



## OKTexas

Ray From Cleveland said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was born in a very ethnic neighborhood and lived there until the age of 7.  I distinctly remember how people off the boat would strive to learn the language of their new country.  It meant just about everything to them.  Of course people back then came here to become an American, not use America for the money or welfare.
> 
> Our local Catholic school held free English classes for the Polish immigrants.  My Grandfather used to take us to the bar for chips and pop while he had a couple of beers, and American patrons were teaching the immigrant patrons the language. Most of the American people in the neighborhood were bilingual.
> 
> Our neighbors were off the boat too.  My sister befriended the girl around her age and taught her English.  My mother too was bilingual and spoke broken Polish, but certainly enough to easily communicate with the girl.  That girl grew up and eventually became a Doctor.
> 
> Foreigners today couldn't have it easier when it comes to learning our language.  If the people I observed back in the 60's could do it with very limited resources, there is no excuse how foreigners can't do it today given our much advanced technology.
Click to expand...



Most settle in their own little enclaves now and can get along just fine with never learning the language. There are strips of roads in Houston where you're lucky to see a sign in English, some Spanish, some Chinese and hell, even some street signs are bilingual.

.


----------



## Slyhunter

Maybe we need to get rid of Welfare


----------



## bripat9643

OKTexas said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the head of immigration, a border barrier simple persuades people to use an easier path across the 2000 mile border which is not hard find.
> 
> The 5 billion dollar Trump wall will not be a 2000 or 1000 mile wall but a 212 mile slatted fence, hundreds of miles of service roads, electronic monitors, aerial surveillance, and additional facilities to hold migrants crossing the border.
> Trump will always claim it is his big beautiful wall which has stopped illegal immigration.
> 
> The fact is illegal immigration will continue as before with most illegal crossings occurring at ports of entry and the biggest problem untouched, overstays of visas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

If they can support themselves, all that means is that they will be taking a job from an American.  We don't need any more immigrants, period, educated or not.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

OKTexas said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was born in a very ethnic neighborhood and lived there until the age of 7.  I distinctly remember how people off the boat would strive to learn the language of their new country.  It meant just about everything to them.  Of course people back then came here to become an American, not use America for the money or welfare.
> 
> Our local Catholic school held free English classes for the Polish immigrants.  My Grandfather used to take us to the bar for chips and pop while he had a couple of beers, and American patrons were teaching the immigrant patrons the language. Most of the American people in the neighborhood were bilingual.
> 
> Our neighbors were off the boat too.  My sister befriended the girl around her age and taught her English.  My mother too was bilingual and spoke broken Polish, but certainly enough to easily communicate with the girl.  That girl grew up and eventually became a Doctor.
> 
> Foreigners today couldn't have it easier when it comes to learning our language.  If the people I observed back in the 60's could do it with very limited resources, there is no excuse how foreigners can't do it today given our much advanced technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most settle in their own little enclaves now and can get along just fine with never learning the language. There are strips of roads in Houston where you're lucky to see a sign in English, some Spanish, some Chinese and hell, even some street signs are bilingual.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I've heard that about Texas but some have challenged me on that when I brought it up.  

Taking no initiative to learn the language of a country you moved to shows lack of enthusiasm.  A friend of mine was German descent.  He wanted to vacation in Germany to see what it was like.  He went to school to take German lessons, got an app to translate English to German, and even purchased books.......for two crummy weeks. 

These people come here and are so lazy, they won't even familiarize themselves with the language yet alone customs.  Don't we have Americans like that; people who are so lazy they won't get out of their own way?  Why are we importing more of that kind?


----------



## OKTexas

bripat9643 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they can support themselves, all that means is that they will be taking a job from an American.  We don't need any more immigrants, period, educated or not.
Click to expand...



We have 9 million jobs available now, and you seem to have skipped over them having skills we need.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Ray From Cleveland said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was born in a very ethnic neighborhood and lived there until the age of 7.  I distinctly remember how people off the boat would strive to learn the language of their new country.  It meant just about everything to them.  Of course people back then came here to become an American, not use America for the money or welfare.
> 
> Our local Catholic school held free English classes for the Polish immigrants.  My Grandfather used to take us to the bar for chips and pop while he had a couple of beers, and American patrons were teaching the immigrant patrons the language. Most of the American people in the neighborhood were bilingual.
> 
> Our neighbors were off the boat too.  My sister befriended the girl around her age and taught her English.  My mother too was bilingual and spoke broken Polish, but certainly enough to easily communicate with the girl.  That girl grew up and eventually became a Doctor.
> 
> Foreigners today couldn't have it easier when it comes to learning our language.  If the people I observed back in the 60's could do it with very limited resources, there is no excuse how foreigners can't do it today given our much advanced technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most settle in their own little enclaves now and can get along just fine with never learning the language. There are strips of roads in Houston where you're lucky to see a sign in English, some Spanish, some Chinese and hell, even some street signs are bilingual.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard that about Texas but some have challenged me on that when I brought it up.
> 
> Taking no initiative to learn the language of a country you moved to shows lack of enthusiasm.  A friend of mine was German descent.  He wanted to vacation in Germany to see what it was like.  He went to school to take German lessons, got an app to translate English to German, and even purchased books.......for two crummy weeks.
> 
> These people come here and are so lazy, they won't even familiarize themselves with the language yet alone customs.  Don't we have Americans like that; people who are so lazy they won't get out of their own way?  Why are we importing more of that kind?
Click to expand...



You're preaching to the choir.

.


----------



## bripat9643

OKTexas said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they can support themselves, all that means is that they will be taking a job from an American.  We don't need any more immigrants, period, educated or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have 9 million jobs available now, and you seem to have skipped over them having skills we need.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

If you want wages to go up, then you need to restrict the supply of labor.  Expanding the supply of labor can't fail to make wages go down or remain stagnant.


----------



## Slyhunter




----------



## Ame®icano

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux



We have walls everywhere... Would democrats really have to declare sanctuary cities if the concept was not sound in the first place? 

Those moronic cities actually believe to be welfare dependent states that then seek to shit on said agricultural states. Am I really supposed to feel bad because they import more shitskins than they are able to handle and it sudden becomes my problem because their retarded ass literally could not pass 9th grade arithmetic.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Ame®icano said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have walls everywhere... Would democrats really have to declare sanctuary cities if the concept was not sound in the first place?
> 
> Those moronic cities actually believe to be welfare dependent states that then seek to shit on said agricultural states. Am I really supposed to feel bad because they import more shitskins than they are able to handle and it sudden becomes my problem because their retarded ass literally could not pass 9th grade arithmetic.
Click to expand...


That's basically what the anti-wallers are talking about.  Bring more problems to the USA.


----------



## Ame®icano

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have walls everywhere... Would democrats really have to declare sanctuary cities if the concept was not sound in the first place?
> 
> Those moronic cities actually believe to be welfare dependent states that then seek to shit on said agricultural states. Am I really supposed to feel bad because they import more shitskins than they are able to handle and it sudden becomes my problem because their retarded ass literally could not pass 9th grade arithmetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's basically what the anti-wallers are talking about.  Bring more problems to the USA.
Click to expand...


Nope, that is not my point. Walls are needed for the protection of both private and public property. 

Sanctuary cities (and now Californistan as a state) declared unconstitutional "administrative walls" to protect themselves from the constitutional obligations and federal laws, and at the same time clam that walls don't work.


----------



## OKTexas

bripat9643 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they can support themselves, all that means is that they will be taking a job from an American.  We don't need any more immigrants, period, educated or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have 9 million jobs available now, and you seem to have skipped over them having skills we need.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want wages to go up, then you need to restrict the supply of labor.  Expanding the supply of labor can't fail to make wages go down or remain stagnant.
Click to expand...



You want businesses to flourish and be able to expand, they need to be able to fill positions with qualified people to do that. Merit based immigration is a win win for the country. This thing we're doing now is a big negative.

.


----------



## bripat9643

OKTexas said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they can support themselves, all that means is that they will be taking a job from an American.  We don't need any more immigrants, period, educated or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have 9 million jobs available now, and you seem to have skipped over them having skills we need.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want wages to go up, then you need to restrict the supply of labor.  Expanding the supply of labor can't fail to make wages go down or remain stagnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want businesses to flourish and be able to expand, they need to be able to fill positions with qualified people to do that. Merit based immigration is a win win for the country. This thing we're doing now is a big negative.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

What does it benefit me when businesses expand if my wages don't go up?  The way you increase wages is by constricting the supply of labor.  If businesses could easily fill all the positions they have then why would they ever off a higher wage?


----------



## OKTexas

bripat9643 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> If they can support themselves, all that means is that they will be taking a job from an American.  We don't need any more immigrants, period, educated or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have 9 million jobs available now, and you seem to have skipped over them having skills we need.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want wages to go up, then you need to restrict the supply of labor.  Expanding the supply of labor can't fail to make wages go down or remain stagnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want businesses to flourish and be able to expand, they need to be able to fill positions with qualified people to do that. Merit based immigration is a win win for the country. This thing we're doing now is a big negative.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does it benefit me when businesses expand if my wages don't go up?  The way you increase wages is by constricting the supply of labor.  If businesses could easily fill all the positions they have then why would they ever off a higher wage?
Click to expand...



Businesses offer higher wages to keep quality people, not to just fill a position with the unqualified.

.


----------



## bripat9643

OKTexas said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they can support themselves, all that means is that they will be taking a job from an American.  We don't need any more immigrants, period, educated or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have 9 million jobs available now, and you seem to have skipped over them having skills we need.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want wages to go up, then you need to restrict the supply of labor.  Expanding the supply of labor can't fail to make wages go down or remain stagnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want businesses to flourish and be able to expand, they need to be able to fill positions with qualified people to do that. Merit based immigration is a win win for the country. This thing we're doing now is a big negative.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does it benefit me when businesses expand if my wages don't go up?  The way you increase wages is by constricting the supply of labor.  If businesses could easily fill all the positions they have then why would they ever off a higher wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses offer higher wages to keep quality people, not to just fill a position with the unqualified.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Either way, if there are more people looking for the same job, then employers can pay lower wages.   You can't get around the laws of supply and demand.


----------



## Flopper

OKTexas said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the head of immigration, a border barrier simple persuades people to use an easier path across the 2000 mile border which is not hard find.
> 
> The 5 billion dollar Trump wall will not be a 2000 or 1000 mile wall but a 212 mile slatted fence, hundreds of miles of service roads, electronic monitors, aerial surveillance, and additional facilities to hold migrants crossing the border.
> Trump will always claim it is his big beautiful wall which has stopped illegal immigration.
> 
> The fact is illegal immigration will continue as before with most illegal crossings occurring at ports of entry and the biggest problem untouched, overstays of visas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> .
Click to expand...

A better class of immigrants would be highly desirable.  The problem of course is people with good job skills and education are the least likely to immigrate.  However, I think there are things than can be done to encourage a better class of immigrants.

First we need to increase the number of visas for highly educated workers.  There are not near enough to meet demand.  Many students with post graduate degrees and experience in engineer and science are turned down every year because of their country of origin. 
Second, we need to tell the world that we want and need educated skilled workers.  We don't care about your country of origin, your race, or your religion.  We are looking for well educated, skilled workers that can be an asset to America.
We need to restrict family immigration to the immediate family.  Other immigration should be based on merit and limits should be raised. 
Assimilation is a slow process.  Typically taking several generation.  First generation immigrants rarely assimilate. They learn what they need to learn to make a living in the US and to function in society.  Second generation becomes the hyphen generation.  Thrid generation approaches what Americans think of as assimilation.


----------



## Flopper

OKTexas said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was born in a very ethnic neighborhood and lived there until the age of 7.  I distinctly remember how people off the boat would strive to learn the language of their new country.  It meant just about everything to them.  Of course people back then came here to become an American, not use America for the money or welfare.
> 
> Our local Catholic school held free English classes for the Polish immigrants.  My Grandfather used to take us to the bar for chips and pop while he had a couple of beers, and American patrons were teaching the immigrant patrons the language. Most of the American people in the neighborhood were bilingual.
> 
> Our neighbors were off the boat too.  My sister befriended the girl around her age and taught her English.  My mother too was bilingual and spoke broken Polish, but certainly enough to easily communicate with the girl.  That girl grew up and eventually became a Doctor.
> 
> Foreigners today couldn't have it easier when it comes to learning our language.  If the people I observed back in the 60's could do it with very limited resources, there is no excuse how foreigners can't do it today given our much advanced technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most settle in their own little enclaves now and can get along just fine with never learning the language. There are strips of roads in Houston where you're lucky to see a sign in English, some Spanish, some Chinese and hell, even some street signs are bilingual.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Assimulating does not mean replacement of one's native language and customs. It means adding to to the native culture and adapting to new the culture.  A person from china is likely to learn English and American customs over a period of years but they will likely still speak their native language and practice native customs while adapting to the American culture and language.  Each successive generation will maintain less of their original culture and absorb more American culture.

The fact that we live in a world of rapid change and adaption causes us to expect cultural changes to occur at the same rate.  However, cultural assimilation today is not much faster than it was 100 years ago.


----------



## OKTexas

bripat9643 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have 9 million jobs available now, and you seem to have skipped over them having skills we need.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> If you want wages to go up, then you need to restrict the supply of labor.  Expanding the supply of labor can't fail to make wages go down or remain stagnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want businesses to flourish and be able to expand, they need to be able to fill positions with qualified people to do that. Merit based immigration is a win win for the country. This thing we're doing now is a big negative.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does it benefit me when businesses expand if my wages don't go up?  The way you increase wages is by constricting the supply of labor.  If businesses could easily fill all the positions they have then why would they ever off a higher wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses offer higher wages to keep quality people, not to just fill a position with the unqualified.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Either way, if there are more people looking for the same job, then employers can pay lower wages.   You can't get around the laws of supply and demand.
Click to expand...



That would be if there are more *qualified* people looking for the same job.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A better class of immigrants would be highly desirable.  The problem of course is people with good job skills and education are the least likely to immigrate.  However, I think there are things than can be done to encourage a better class of immigrants.
> 
> First we need to increase the number of visas for highly educated workers.  There are not near enough to meet demand.  Many students with post graduate degrees and experience in engineer and science are turned down every year because of their country of origin.
> Second, we need to tell the world that we want and need educated skilled workers.  We don't care about your country of origin, your race, or your religion.  We are looking for well educated, skilled workers that can be an asset to America.
> We need to restrict family immigration to the immediate family.  Other immigration should be based on merit and limits should be raised.
> Assimilation is a slow process.  Typically taking several generation.  First generation immigrants rarely assimilate. They learn what they need to learn to make a living in the US and to function in society.  Second generation becomes the hyphen generation.  Thrid generation approaches what Americans think of as assimilation.
Click to expand...




How do you expect third world countries to improve if we poach all their talent? Also there are countries where their people wouldn't take 3 generations to assimilate and plenty of talent and educated people of their own.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was born in a very ethnic neighborhood and lived there until the age of 7.  I distinctly remember how people off the boat would strive to learn the language of their new country.  It meant just about everything to them.  Of course people back then came here to become an American, not use America for the money or welfare.
> 
> Our local Catholic school held free English classes for the Polish immigrants.  My Grandfather used to take us to the bar for chips and pop while he had a couple of beers, and American patrons were teaching the immigrant patrons the language. Most of the American people in the neighborhood were bilingual.
> 
> Our neighbors were off the boat too.  My sister befriended the girl around her age and taught her English.  My mother too was bilingual and spoke broken Polish, but certainly enough to easily communicate with the girl.  That girl grew up and eventually became a Doctor.
> 
> Foreigners today couldn't have it easier when it comes to learning our language.  If the people I observed back in the 60's could do it with very limited resources, there is no excuse how foreigners can't do it today given our much advanced technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most settle in their own little enclaves now and can get along just fine with never learning the language. There are strips of roads in Houston where you're lucky to see a sign in English, some Spanish, some Chinese and hell, even some street signs are bilingual.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Assimulating does not mean replacement of one's native language and customs. It means adding to to the native culture and adapting to new the culture.  A person from china is likely to learn English and American customs over a period of years but they will likely still speak their native language and practice native customs while adapting to the American culture and language.  Each successive generation will maintain less of their original culture and absorb more American culture.
> 
> The fact that we live in a world of rapid change and adaption causes us to expect cultural changes to occur at the same rate.  However, cultural assimilation today is not much faster than it was 100 years ago.
Click to expand...



Actually it means learning the language and ADOPTING a NEW culture. Bilingual men are blessed, bilingual nations are cursed, I'm sure I'm paraphrasing, but I think one of our presidents said that. And cultural change means we are adapting to them, they aren't assimilating here.

as·sim·i·la·tion
[əˌsimiˈlāSH(ə)n]
NOUN

the process of taking in and fully understanding information or ideas.
"the assimilation of the knowledge of the Greeks"
*the absorption and integration of people, ideas, or culture into a wider society or culture.*
"the assimilation of Italians into American society"


.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A better class of immigrants would be highly desirable.  The problem of course is people with good job skills and education are the least likely to immigrate.  However, I think there are things than can be done to encourage a better class of immigrants.
> 
> First we need to increase the number of visas for highly educated workers.  There are not near enough to meet demand.  Many students with post graduate degrees and experience in engineer and science are turned down every year because of their country of origin.
> Second, we need to tell the world that we want and need educated skilled workers.  We don't care about your country of origin, your race, or your religion.  We are looking for well educated, skilled workers that can be an asset to America.
> We need to restrict family immigration to the immediate family.  Other immigration should be based on merit and limits should be raised.
> Assimilation is a slow process.  Typically taking several generation.  First generation immigrants rarely assimilate. They learn what they need to learn to make a living in the US and to function in society.  Second generation becomes the hyphen generation.  Thrid generation approaches what Americans think of as assimilation.
Click to expand...

The one thing we don't need is more H1-B visas.  This country is flooded with high tech workers from India.  wages in my field haven't increased for the last 15 years.   Yeah, software companies keep talking about shortages, but that's because they like cheap labor.


----------



## bripat9643

OKTexas said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want wages to go up, then you need to restrict the supply of labor.  Expanding the supply of labor can't fail to make wages go down or remain stagnant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want businesses to flourish and be able to expand, they need to be able to fill positions with qualified people to do that. Merit based immigration is a win win for the country. This thing we're doing now is a big negative.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does it benefit me when businesses expand if my wages don't go up?  The way you increase wages is by constricting the supply of labor.  If businesses could easily fill all the positions they have then why would they ever off a higher wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses offer higher wages to keep quality people, not to just fill a position with the unqualified.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Either way, if there are more people looking for the same job, then employers can pay lower wages.   You can't get around the laws of supply and demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That would be if there are more *qualified* people looking for the same job.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

So what happens when you import more of them?


----------



## danielpalos

OKTexas said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 237210
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing in the San Diego sector went form 100,000 to 5,000 after a barrier was erected. They work, period. Visa overstays is a simple fix if politicians had the will.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the head of immigration, a border barrier simple persuades people to use an easier path across the 2000 mile border which is not hard find.
> 
> The 5 billion dollar Trump wall will not be a 2000 or 1000 mile wall but a 212 mile slatted fence, hundreds of miles of service roads, electronic monitors, aerial surveillance, and additional facilities to hold migrants crossing the border.
> Trump will always claim it is his big beautiful wall which has stopped illegal immigration.
> 
> The fact is illegal immigration will continue as before with most illegal crossings occurring at ports of entry and the biggest problem untouched, overstays of visas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

We don't have an immigration clause, it is a naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals in the US.


----------



## danielpalos

OKTexas said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the head of immigration, a border barrier simple persuades people to use an easier path across the 2000 mile border which is not hard find.
> 
> The 5 billion dollar Trump wall will not be a 2000 or 1000 mile wall but a 212 mile slatted fence, hundreds of miles of service roads, electronic monitors, aerial surveillance, and additional facilities to hold migrants crossing the border.
> Trump will always claim it is his big beautiful wall which has stopped illegal immigration.
> 
> The fact is illegal immigration will continue as before with most illegal crossings occurring at ports of entry and the biggest problem untouched, overstays of visas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Let's upgrade Ellis Island and raise the minimum wage.


----------



## Ame®icano

danielpalos said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing in the San Diego sector went form 100,000 to 5,000 after a barrier was erected. They work, period. Visa overstays is a simple fix if politicians had the will.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> According to the head of immigration, a border barrier simple persuades people to use an easier path across the 2000 mile border which is not hard find.
> 
> The 5 billion dollar Trump wall will not be a 2000 or 1000 mile wall but a 212 mile slatted fence, hundreds of miles of service roads, electronic monitors, aerial surveillance, and additional facilities to hold migrants crossing the border.
> Trump will always claim it is his big beautiful wall which has stopped illegal immigration.
> 
> The fact is illegal immigration will continue as before with most illegal crossings occurring at ports of entry and the biggest problem untouched, overstays of visas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause, it is a naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals in the US.
Click to expand...


True, all illegals should be kicked out of the country.


----------



## dblack

Ame®icano said:


> True, all illegals should be kicked out of the country.



How do you propose to accomplish that?


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A better class of immigrants would be highly desirable.  The problem of course is people with good job skills and education are the least likely to immigrate.  However, I think there are things than can be done to encourage a better class of immigrants.
> 
> First we need to increase the number of visas for highly educated workers.  There are not near enough to meet demand.  Many students with post graduate degrees and experience in engineer and science are turned down every year because of their country of origin.
> Second, we need to tell the world that we want and need educated skilled workers.  We don't care about your country of origin, your race, or your religion.  We are looking for well educated, skilled workers that can be an asset to America.
> We need to restrict family immigration to the immediate family.  Other immigration should be based on merit and limits should be raised.
> Assimilation is a slow process.  Typically taking several generation.  First generation immigrants rarely assimilate. They learn what they need to learn to make a living in the US and to function in society.  Second generation becomes the hyphen generation.  Thrid generation approaches what Americans think of as assimilation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one thing we don't need is more H1-B visas.  This country is flooded with high tech workers from India.  wages in my field haven't increased for the last 15 years.   Yeah, software companies keep talking about shortages, but that's because they like cheap labor.
Click to expand...


Heh... cry me a river. Software pays quite well. We don't need the phony protectionism.


----------



## Thinker101

danielpalos said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing in the San Diego sector went form 100,000 to 5,000 after a barrier was erected. They work, period. Visa overstays is a simple fix if politicians had the will.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> According to the head of immigration, a border barrier simple persuades people to use an easier path across the 2000 mile border which is not hard find.
> 
> The 5 billion dollar Trump wall will not be a 2000 or 1000 mile wall but a 212 mile slatted fence, hundreds of miles of service roads, electronic monitors, aerial surveillance, and additional facilities to hold migrants crossing the border.
> Trump will always claim it is his big beautiful wall which has stopped illegal immigration.
> 
> The fact is illegal immigration will continue as before with most illegal crossings occurring at ports of entry and the biggest problem untouched, overstays of visas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause, it is a naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals in the US.
Click to expand...


Yes, it's natural these illegals should be deported.


----------



## Thinker101

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A better class of immigrants would be highly desirable.  The problem of course is people with good job skills and education are the least likely to immigrate.  However, I think there are things than can be done to encourage a better class of immigrants.
> 
> First we need to increase the number of visas for highly educated workers.  There are not near enough to meet demand.  Many students with post graduate degrees and experience in engineer and science are turned down every year because of their country of origin.
> Second, we need to tell the world that we want and need educated skilled workers.  We don't care about your country of origin, your race, or your religion.  We are looking for well educated, skilled workers that can be an asset to America.
> We need to restrict family immigration to the immediate family.  Other immigration should be based on merit and limits should be raised.
> Assimilation is a slow process.  Typically taking several generation.  First generation immigrants rarely assimilate. They learn what they need to learn to make a living in the US and to function in society.  Second generation becomes the hyphen generation.  Thrid generation approaches what Americans think of as assimilation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one thing we don't need is more H1-B visas.  This country is flooded with high tech workers from India.  wages in my field haven't increased for the last 15 years.   Yeah, software companies keep talking about shortages, but that's because they like cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh... cry me a river. Software pays quite well. We don't need the phony protectionism.
Click to expand...


Phony protectionism?  Zuckerberg would disagree.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing in the San Diego sector went form 100,000 to 5,000 after a barrier was erected. They work, period. Visa overstays is a simple fix if politicians had the will.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> According to the head of immigration, a border barrier simple persuades people to use an easier path across the 2000 mile border which is not hard find.
> 
> The 5 billion dollar Trump wall will not be a 2000 or 1000 mile wall but a 212 mile slatted fence, hundreds of miles of service roads, electronic monitors, aerial surveillance, and additional facilities to hold migrants crossing the border.
> Trump will always claim it is his big beautiful wall which has stopped illegal immigration.
> 
> The fact is illegal immigration will continue as before with most illegal crossings occurring at ports of entry and the biggest problem untouched, overstays of visas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause, it is a naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals in the US.
Click to expand...

Then go home. 

Need help packing?


----------



## dblack

Thinker101 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A better class of immigrants would be highly desirable.  The problem of course is people with good job skills and education are the least likely to immigrate.  However, I think there are things than can be done to encourage a better class of immigrants.
> 
> First we need to increase the number of visas for highly educated workers.  There are not near enough to meet demand.  Many students with post graduate degrees and experience in engineer and science are turned down every year because of their country of origin.
> Second, we need to tell the world that we want and need educated skilled workers.  We don't care about your country of origin, your race, or your religion.  We are looking for well educated, skilled workers that can be an asset to America.
> We need to restrict family immigration to the immediate family.  Other immigration should be based on merit and limits should be raised.
> Assimilation is a slow process.  Typically taking several generation.  First generation immigrants rarely assimilate. They learn what they need to learn to make a living in the US and to function in society.  Second generation becomes the hyphen generation.  Thrid generation approaches what Americans think of as assimilation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one thing we don't need is more H1-B visas.  This country is flooded with high tech workers from India.  wages in my field haven't increased for the last 15 years.   Yeah, software companies keep talking about shortages, but that's because they like cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh... cry me a river. Software pays quite well. We don't need the phony protectionism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Phony protectionism?  Zuckerberg would disagree.
Click to expand...


Probably. I don't know much about him. Is he a statist stooge too?


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's upgrade Ellis Island and raise the minimum wage.
Click to expand...

I'd be all for upgrading Ellis Island with ovens. You want more than the minimum wage, then upgrade your skills, you fucking lazy lawnmower.


----------



## Thinker101

dblack said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> A better class of immigrants would be highly desirable.  The problem of course is people with good job skills and education are the least likely to immigrate.  However, I think there are things than can be done to encourage a better class of immigrants.
> 
> First we need to increase the number of visas for highly educated workers.  There are not near enough to meet demand.  Many students with post graduate degrees and experience in engineer and science are turned down every year because of their country of origin.
> Second, we need to tell the world that we want and need educated skilled workers.  We don't care about your country of origin, your race, or your religion.  We are looking for well educated, skilled workers that can be an asset to America.
> We need to restrict family immigration to the immediate family.  Other immigration should be based on merit and limits should be raised.
> Assimilation is a slow process.  Typically taking several generation.  First generation immigrants rarely assimilate. They learn what they need to learn to make a living in the US and to function in society.  Second generation becomes the hyphen generation.  Thrid generation approaches what Americans think of as assimilation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one thing we don't need is more H1-B visas.  This country is flooded with high tech workers from India.  wages in my field haven't increased for the last 15 years.   Yeah, software companies keep talking about shortages, but that's because they like cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh... cry me a river. Software pays quite well. We don't need the phony protectionism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Phony protectionism?  Zuckerberg would disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably. I don't know much about him. Is he a statist stooge too?
Click to expand...


Although a stooge, don't know if he's a statist and he loves the H1-B visas.


----------



## dblack

Thinker101 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> A better class of immigrants would be highly desirable.  The problem of course is people with good job skills and education are the least likely to immigrate.  However, I think there are things than can be done to encourage a better class of immigrants.
> 
> First we need to increase the number of visas for highly educated workers.  There are not near enough to meet demand.  Many students with post graduate degrees and experience in engineer and science are turned down every year because of their country of origin.
> Second, we need to tell the world that we want and need educated skilled workers.  We don't care about your country of origin, your race, or your religion.  We are looking for well educated, skilled workers that can be an asset to America.
> We need to restrict family immigration to the immediate family.  Other immigration should be based on merit and limits should be raised.
> Assimilation is a slow process.  Typically taking several generation.  First generation immigrants rarely assimilate. They learn what they need to learn to make a living in the US and to function in society.  Second generation becomes the hyphen generation.  Thrid generation approaches what Americans think of as assimilation.
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing we don't need is more H1-B visas.  This country is flooded with high tech workers from India.  wages in my field haven't increased for the last 15 years.   Yeah, software companies keep talking about shortages, but that's because they like cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh... cry me a river. Software pays quite well. We don't need the phony protectionism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Phony protectionism?  Zuckerberg would disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably. I don't know much about him. Is he a statist stooge too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although a stooge, don't know if he's a statist and he loves the H1-B visas.
Click to expand...


Ok. ...  so what? Why should I care whether Zuckerberg would agree with me or not?


----------



## Ame®icano

dblack said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, all illegals should be kicked out of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose to accomplish that?
Click to expand...


Two steps: e-verify first, than cut sources of their income, entitlements, services, as second.


----------



## danielpalos

Ame®icano said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the head of immigration, a border barrier simple persuades people to use an easier path across the 2000 mile border which is not hard find.
> 
> The 5 billion dollar Trump wall will not be a 2000 or 1000 mile wall but a 212 mile slatted fence, hundreds of miles of service roads, electronic monitors, aerial surveillance, and additional facilities to hold migrants crossing the border.
> Trump will always claim it is his big beautiful wall which has stopped illegal immigration.
> 
> The fact is illegal immigration will continue as before with most illegal crossings occurring at ports of entry and the biggest problem untouched, overstays of visas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause, it is a naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, all illegals should be kicked out of the country.
Click to expand...

how socialist of you.  why not simply fine them and make honest tourists of them. we don't have an immigration problem we have lousy naturalization policy.


----------



## danielpalos

dblack said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, all illegals should be kicked out of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose to accomplish that?
Click to expand...

With the Other Peoples' tax money while advocating tax cut economics.


----------



## danielpalos

Thinker101 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the head of immigration, a border barrier simple persuades people to use an easier path across the 2000 mile border which is not hard find.
> 
> The 5 billion dollar Trump wall will not be a 2000 or 1000 mile wall but a 212 mile slatted fence, hundreds of miles of service roads, electronic monitors, aerial surveillance, and additional facilities to hold migrants crossing the border.
> Trump will always claim it is his big beautiful wall which has stopped illegal immigration.
> 
> The fact is illegal immigration will continue as before with most illegal crossings occurring at ports of entry and the biggest problem untouched, overstays of visas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause, it is a naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's natural these illegals should be deported.
Click to expand...

how socialist of you.  good capitalists simply fine them and make honest tourists of them.


----------



## Ame®icano

danielpalos said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause, it is a naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, all illegals should be kicked out of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how socialist of you.  why not simply fine them and make honest tourists of them. we don't have an immigration problem we have lousy naturalization policy.
Click to expand...


They had every chance to be honest tourists, but they chose otherwise. 

True, we don't have immigration problem, since immigration is about people who are permitted to be here. We have a problem with illegal aliens and criminals who do not belong here.


----------



## Thinker101

danielpalos said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause, it is a naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's natural these illegals should be deported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how socialist of you.  good capitalists simply fine them and make honest tourists of them.
Click to expand...


Sure, time for the tourists to go home.


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the head of immigration, a border barrier simple persuades people to use an easier path across the 2000 mile border which is not hard find.
> 
> The 5 billion dollar Trump wall will not be a 2000 or 1000 mile wall but a 212 mile slatted fence, hundreds of miles of service roads, electronic monitors, aerial surveillance, and additional facilities to hold migrants crossing the border.
> Trump will always claim it is his big beautiful wall which has stopped illegal immigration.
> 
> The fact is illegal immigration will continue as before with most illegal crossings occurring at ports of entry and the biggest problem untouched, overstays of visas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause, it is a naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then go home.
> 
> Need help packing?
Click to expand...

lol.  i am more native than You.


----------



## danielpalos

Thinker101 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause, it is a naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's natural these illegals should be deported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how socialist of you.  good capitalists simply fine them and make honest tourists of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, time for the tourists to go home.
Click to expand...

Capitalism; What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing.  Tourism is the first, second, or third largest employer in twenty-nine States.


----------



## danielpalos

Ame®icano said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause, it is a naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, all illegals should be kicked out of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how socialist of you.  why not simply fine them and make honest tourists of them. we don't have an immigration problem we have lousy naturalization policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had every chance to be honest tourists, but they chose otherwise.
> 
> True, we don't have immigration problem, since immigration is about people who are permitted to be here. We have a problem with illegal aliens and criminals who do not belong here.
Click to expand...

We don't have an immigration clause.  We have an Express naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause, it is a naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then go home.
> 
> Need help packing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i am more native than You.
Click to expand...

So you have some spearchucker in you?


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's upgrade Ellis Island and raise the minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd be all for upgrading Ellis Island with ovens. You want more than the minimum wage, then upgrade your skills, you fucking lazy lawnmower.
Click to expand...

this is why I don't take the right wing seriously about morals, the law, politics, or economics.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's upgrade Ellis Island and raise the minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd be all for upgrading Ellis Island with ovens. You want more than the minimum wage, then upgrade your skills, you fucking lazy lawnmower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is why I don't take the right wing seriously about morals, the law, politics, or economics.
Click to expand...

If you want to be wrong, I don't care. And don't forget to trim the hedges.


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause, it is a naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then go home.
> 
> Need help packing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i am more native than You.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have some spearchucker in you?
Click to expand...

i know where the mountains of the Caucasians are.


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's upgrade Ellis Island and raise the minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd be all for upgrading Ellis Island with ovens. You want more than the minimum wage, then upgrade your skills, you fucking lazy lawnmower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is why I don't take the right wing seriously about morals, the law, politics, or economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to be wrong, I don't care. And don't forget to trim the hedges.
Click to expand...

you only have gossip and one way street-ism.  not enough morals to go around on the right wing?


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause, it is a naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then go home.
> 
> Need help packing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i am more native than You.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have some spearchucker in you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i know where the mountains of the Caucasians are.
Click to expand...

Good for you, now get back to the lawn.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Let's upgrade Ellis Island and raise the minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd be all for upgrading Ellis Island with ovens. You want more than the minimum wage, then upgrade your skills, you fucking lazy lawnmower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is why I don't take the right wing seriously about morals, the law, politics, or economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to be wrong, I don't care. And don't forget to trim the hedges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you only have gossip and one way street-ism.  not enough morals to go around on the right wing?
Click to expand...

I'm enjoying watching the beaners get gassed at the border. Are they having fun yet?


----------



## Thinker101

danielpalos said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause, it is a naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's natural these illegals should be deported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how socialist of you.  good capitalists simply fine them and make honest tourists of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, time for the tourists to go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism; What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing.  Tourism is the first, second, or third largest employer in twenty-nine States.
Click to expand...


No doubt it's not the first time you've heard it, but you fricken talk in circles.  I'm sure you feel it's cute, but it's too damn stupid for anyone to make any sense of your gibberish.  Adios.


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause, it is a naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> Then go home.
> 
> Need help packing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i am more native than You.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have some spearchucker in you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i know where the mountains of the Caucasians are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you, now get back to the lawn.
Click to expand...

with my native work ethic?


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's upgrade Ellis Island and raise the minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be all for upgrading Ellis Island with ovens. You want more than the minimum wage, then upgrade your skills, you fucking lazy lawnmower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is why I don't take the right wing seriously about morals, the law, politics, or economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to be wrong, I don't care. And don't forget to trim the hedges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you only have gossip and one way street-ism.  not enough morals to go around on the right wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm enjoying watching the beaners get gassed at the border. Are they having fun yet?
Click to expand...

i no longer take the right wing seriously in abortion threads.


----------



## danielpalos

Thinker101 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause, it is a naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it's natural these illegals should be deported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how socialist of you.  good capitalists simply fine them and make honest tourists of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, time for the tourists to go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism; What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing.  Tourism is the first, second, or third largest employer in twenty-nine States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No doubt it's not the first time you've heard it, but you fricken talk in circles.  I'm sure you feel it's cute, but it's too damn stupid for anyone to make any sense of your gibberish.  Adios.
Click to expand...

not dumb enough for the right wing?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Ame[emoji768]icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, all illegals should be kicked out of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose to accomplish that?
Click to expand...


Change the penalty for being here.  Make being here illegally a first degree felony with a minimum sentence of five years in prison for the first offense.  That’s how. 


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Ame®icano

danielpalos said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause, it is a naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, all illegals should be kicked out of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how socialist of you.  why not simply fine them and make honest tourists of them. we don't have an immigration problem we have lousy naturalization policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had every chance to be honest tourists, but they chose otherwise.
> 
> True, we don't have immigration problem, since immigration is about people who are permitted to be here. We have a problem with illegal aliens and criminals who do not belong here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause.  We have an Express naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals.
Click to expand...


Funny, I don''t see word "express" anywhere in the clause. 

But I do see the "subject to the jurisdiction" and no tourist is part of it.


----------



## danielpalos

Ame®icano said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause, it is a naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, all illegals should be kicked out of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how socialist of you.  why not simply fine them and make honest tourists of them. we don't have an immigration problem we have lousy naturalization policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had every chance to be honest tourists, but they chose otherwise.
> 
> True, we don't have immigration problem, since immigration is about people who are permitted to be here. We have a problem with illegal aliens and criminals who do not belong here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause.  We have an Express naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, I don''t see word "express" anywhere in the clause.
> 
> But I do see the "subject to the jurisdiction" and no tourist is part of it.
Click to expand...

naturalization.  we have an establishment clause.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're in essence saying a wall will work. It will force people to seek alternative places and methods to cross. Places and methods the border patrol will be prepared to interdict. The barriers assist the border patrol and are a force multiplier.
> 
> But it will also be necessary to change our laws, to criminalize visa overstays and provide expedited deportation procedures of all illegals.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was born in a very ethnic neighborhood and lived there until the age of 7.  I distinctly remember how people off the boat would strive to learn the language of their new country.  It meant just about everything to them.  Of course people back then came here to become an American, not use America for the money or welfare.
> 
> Our local Catholic school held free English classes for the Polish immigrants.  My Grandfather used to take us to the bar for chips and pop while he had a couple of beers, and American patrons were teaching the immigrant patrons the language. Most of the American people in the neighborhood were bilingual.
> 
> Our neighbors were off the boat too.  My sister befriended the girl around her age and taught her English.  My mother too was bilingual and spoke broken Polish, but certainly enough to easily communicate with the girl.  That girl grew up and eventually became a Doctor.
> 
> Foreigners today couldn't have it easier when it comes to learning our language.  If the people I observed back in the 60's could do it with very limited resources, there is no excuse how foreigners can't do it today given our much advanced technology.
Click to expand...

I hate to break your bubble but immigrants today are no better or worst than those of the 19th and 20th century.  Skilled workers, the educated, the middle class, don't leave their jobs, their homeland, their  friends, and family to come to a strange new country.  We certainly can attract a few "better class of immigrants" but most immigrants will always come from the lower socioeconomic class, the poor, the homeless, the wretched masses.  It is from them that America was built.


----------



## Flopper

OKTexas said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they can support themselves, all that means is that they will be taking a job from an American.  We don't need any more immigrants, period, educated or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have 9 million jobs available now, and you seem to have skipped over them having skills we need.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want wages to go up, then you need to restrict the supply of labor.  Expanding the supply of labor can't fail to make wages go down or remain stagnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want businesses to flourish and be able to expand, they need to be able to fill positions with qualified people to do that. Merit based immigration is a win win for the country. This thing we're doing now is a big negative.
> .
Click to expand...

Merit based immigration is invariably a point based system, based on such factors as education level, wealth, connection with the country, language fluency, existing job offer, or others.  Of course the devil is in the details.  Such a system could be used to severely limit immigration or increase it.

If such a system were used to provide better educated, better skilled workers in the numbers America will need in the future, then we would have to abandon the current country limits which could result in a large migration of Asians.


----------



## Flopper

Ame®icano said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, all illegals should be kicked out of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose to accomplish that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two steps: e-verify first, than cut sources of their income, entitlements, services, as second.
Click to expand...

E-Verify is voluntary and is about 6 months behind immigration records which severely limits it's usefulness.

Federal law prohibits any federal assistance dollars being spent on illegal immigrants, this includes Social Security, Medicare, TANF, SNAP, federal housing assistance, etc which is why illegal immigrants receive very little public assistance.   Federal dollars are used to assist children of illegal immigrants born in the US since they are US citizens.  Free and Reduced lunch programs in schools are probably one the major violations of law because most schools don't track immigration status.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A better class of immigrants would be highly desirable.  The problem of course is people with good job skills and education are the least likely to immigrate.  However, I think there are things than can be done to encourage a better class of immigrants.
> 
> First we need to increase the number of visas for highly educated workers.  There are not near enough to meet demand.  Many students with post graduate degrees and experience in engineer and science are turned down every year because of their country of origin.
> Second, we need to tell the world that we want and need educated skilled workers.  We don't care about your country of origin, your race, or your religion.  We are looking for well educated, skilled workers that can be an asset to America.
> We need to restrict family immigration to the immediate family.  Other immigration should be based on merit and limits should be raised.
> Assimilation is a slow process.  Typically taking several generation.  First generation immigrants rarely assimilate. They learn what they need to learn to make a living in the US and to function in society.  Second generation becomes the hyphen generation.  Thrid generation approaches what Americans think of as assimilation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one thing we don't need is more H1-B visas.  This country is flooded with high tech workers from India.  wages in my field haven't increased for the last 15 years.   Yeah, software companies keep talking about shortages, but that's because they like cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh... cry me a river. Software pays quite well. We don't need the phony protectionism.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what phone protectionism is.  Controlling immigration is not protectionism.  I fail to understand why anyone would support importing millions of people to compete for their jobs.  Only a certifiable idiot would support that.


----------



## JLW

We can end these threads now.  Trump says the wall is just about finished.



*Donald J. Trump*‏Verified account @*realDonaldTrump*
Mexico is paying for the Wall through the new USMCA Trade Deal*. Much of the Wall has already been fully renovated or built.* We have done a lot of work. $5.6 Billion Dollars that House has approved is very little in comparison to the benefits of National Security. Quick payback!

5:35 AM - 2 Jan 2019


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then go home.
> 
> Need help packing?
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  i am more native than You.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have some spearchucker in you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i know where the mountains of the Caucasians are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you, now get back to the lawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with my native work ethic?
Click to expand...

You're not an anchor baby, so not born here. And get your donkey out of the front yard.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be all for upgrading Ellis Island with ovens. You want more than the minimum wage, then upgrade your skills, you fucking lazy lawnmower.
> 
> 
> 
> this is why I don't take the right wing seriously about morals, the law, politics, or economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to be wrong, I don't care. And don't forget to trim the hedges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you only have gossip and one way street-ism.  not enough morals to go around on the right wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm enjoying watching the beaners get gassed at the border. Are they having fun yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i no longer take the right wing seriously in abortion threads.
Click to expand...

I never took you seriously in any thread. I win.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was born in a very ethnic neighborhood and lived there until the age of 7.  I distinctly remember how people off the boat would strive to learn the language of their new country.  It meant just about everything to them.  Of course people back then came here to become an American, not use America for the money or welfare.
> 
> Our local Catholic school held free English classes for the Polish immigrants.  My Grandfather used to take us to the bar for chips and pop while he had a couple of beers, and American patrons were teaching the immigrant patrons the language. Most of the American people in the neighborhood were bilingual.
> 
> Our neighbors were off the boat too.  My sister befriended the girl around her age and taught her English.  My mother too was bilingual and spoke broken Polish, but certainly enough to easily communicate with the girl.  That girl grew up and eventually became a Doctor.
> 
> Foreigners today couldn't have it easier when it comes to learning our language.  If the people I observed back in the 60's could do it with very limited resources, there is no excuse how foreigners can't do it today given our much advanced technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hate to break your bubble but immigrants today are no better or worst than those of the 19th and 20th century.  Skilled workers, the educated, the middle class, don't leave their jobs, their homeland, their  friends, and family to come to a strange new country.  We certainly can attract a few "better class of immigrants" but most immigrants will always come from the lower socioeconomic class, the poor, the homeless, the wretched masses.  It is from them that America was built.
Click to expand...

So?

Why should we allow any of them to come in?  How do we gain?


----------



## Likkmee

Because Nugent wont have anything to shoot at


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame[emoji768]icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, all illegals should be kicked out of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose to accomplish that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Change the penalty for being here.  Make being here illegally a first degree felony with a minimum sentence of five years in prison for the first offense.  That’s how.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...

Terrible idea for several reasons.  First, it would not serve as deterrent for those that entered the country to escape poverty and crime in their home country which is a major reason they are here.  Federal prison would be better than the alternative.  Second, half of those arrested for being in the country illegally voluntarily accept deportation.  Adding a mandatory prison sentence would send all these cases to court and fill federal prisons with non-violent offenders as well as saddling the government with the care thousands of children, pregnant women, and those with serious health problems.  Lastly, hundreds of thousands of illegals are illegal because they are waiting on immigration court rulings.


----------



## Jitss617

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


Ancde all wrong


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  i am more native than You.
> 
> 
> 
> So you have some spearchucker in you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i know where the mountains of the Caucasians are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you, now get back to the lawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with my native work ethic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not an anchor baby, so not born here. And get your donkey out of the front yard.
Click to expand...

who cares what "Caucasians away from their mountains, say"?


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is why I don't take the right wing seriously about morals, the law, politics, or economics.
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to be wrong, I don't care. And don't forget to trim the hedges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you only have gossip and one way street-ism.  not enough morals to go around on the right wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm enjoying watching the beaners get gassed at the border. Are they having fun yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i no longer take the right wing seriously in abortion threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never took you seriously in any thread. I win.
Click to expand...

so what; You have nothing but fallacy.


----------



## OKTexas

danielpalos said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause, it is a naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, all illegals should be kicked out of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how socialist of you.  why not simply fine them and make honest tourists of them. we don't have an immigration problem we have lousy naturalization policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had every chance to be honest tourists, but they chose otherwise.
> 
> True, we don't have immigration problem, since immigration is about people who are permitted to be here. We have a problem with illegal aliens and criminals who do not belong here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause.  We have an Express naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals.
Click to expand...



You might want to read Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1. That is the immigration clause.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> If they can support themselves, all that means is that they will be taking a job from an American.  We don't need any more immigrants, period, educated or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have 9 million jobs available now, and you seem to have skipped over them having skills we need.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want wages to go up, then you need to restrict the supply of labor.  Expanding the supply of labor can't fail to make wages go down or remain stagnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want businesses to flourish and be able to expand, they need to be able to fill positions with qualified people to do that. Merit based immigration is a win win for the country. This thing we're doing now is a big negative.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Merit based immigration is invariably a point based system, based on such factors as education level, wealth, connection with the country, language fluency, existing job offer, or others.  Of course the devil is in the details.  Such a system could be used to severely limit immigration or increase it.
> 
> If such a system were used to provide better educated, better skilled workers in the numbers America will need in the future, then we would have to abandon the current country limits which could result in a large migration of Asians.
Click to expand...



And that would be bad, how?

.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, all illegals should be kicked out of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose to accomplish that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two steps: e-verify first, than cut sources of their income, entitlements, services, as second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> E-Verify is voluntary and is about 6 months behind immigration records which severely limits it's usefulness.
> 
> Federal law prohibits any federal assistance dollars being spent on illegal immigrants, this includes Social Security, Medicare, TANF, SNAP, federal housing assistance, etc which is why illegal immigrants receive very little public assistance.   Federal dollars are used to assist children of illegal immigrants born in the US since they are US citizens.  Free and Reduced lunch programs in schools are probably one the major violations of law because most schools don't track immigration status.
Click to expand...



We're paying hospitals 4 billion a year to take care of illegals, once an illegal drops a kid, they are eligible for welfare and snap for the kid, other services also.

.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have some spearchucker in you?
> 
> 
> 
> i know where the mountains of the Caucasians are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you, now get back to the lawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with my native work ethic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not an anchor baby, so not born here. And get your donkey out of the front yard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who cares what "Caucasians away from their mountains, say"?
Click to expand...

So you hate white people. Got it.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to be wrong, I don't care. And don't forget to trim the hedges.
> 
> 
> 
> you only have gossip and one way street-ism.  not enough morals to go around on the right wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm enjoying watching the beaners get gassed at the border. Are they having fun yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i no longer take the right wing seriously in abortion threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never took you seriously in any thread. I win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what; You have nothing but fallacy.
Click to expand...

I also have a country that your family wants to come to. I win again.


----------



## Lesh

We still have a government shut down...and Trump is claiming it's because of a wall

But I guess the Trumpers don't want to talk about it any more since well...it's not actually a wall but a fence...and it's not actually going to run across the whole southern border...because ya know....like the sane ones of us have been saying...that would be a stupid  waste of money that pretty much could never happen anyway


----------



## dblack

OKTexas said:


> We're paying hospitals 4 billion a year to take care of illegals, once an illegal drops a kid, they are eligible for welfare and snap for the kid, other services also.



Right. The problems are the welfare state and birthright citizenship. We can address those issues without turning our country into a police state.


----------



## OKTexas

dblack said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're paying hospitals 4 billion a year to take care of illegals, once an illegal drops a kid, they are eligible for welfare and snap for the kid, other services also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. The problems are the welfare state and birthright citizenship. We can address those issues without turning our country into a police state.
Click to expand...



Enforcing laws doesn't make us a police state. And the commies will never allow the welfare state to be diminished.

.


----------



## basquebromance

"If they think a wall is "immoral," then they're admitting it's effective. An ineffective wall would merely be a place for illegals to stop and get a little shade before continuing their march into the United States." --Ann Coulter


----------



## Ame®icano

danielpalos said:


> who cares what "Caucasians away from their mountains, say"?



No wonder you're commie. This perfectly explains you...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're paying hospitals 4 billion a year to take care of illegals, once an illegal drops a kid, they are eligible for welfare and snap for the kid, other services also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. The problems are the welfare state and birthright citizenship. We can address those issues without turning our country into a police state.
Click to expand...


And just what do you think the media would do if we didn't feed the kids of these people or provide them medical care?  

The real solution is to stop them from coming, and since every other country has more stringent immigration policies, I wouldn't call it a police state by doing so.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> We still have a government shut down...and Trump is claiming it's because of a wall
> 
> But I guess the Trumpers don't want to talk about it any more since well...it's not actually a wall but a fence...and it's not actually going to run across the whole southern border...because ya know....like the sane ones of us have been saying...that would be a stupid  waste of money that pretty much could never happen anyway



It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.  

Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame[emoji768]icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, all illegals should be kicked out of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose to accomplish that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Change the penalty for being here.  Make being here illegally a first degree felony with a minimum sentence of five years in prison for the first offense.  That’s how.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Terrible idea for several reasons.  First, it would not serve as deterrent for those that entered the country to escape poverty and crime in their home country which is a major reason they are here.  Federal prison would be better than the alternative.  Second, half of those arrested for being in the country illegally voluntarily accept deportation.  Adding a mandatory prison sentence would send all these cases to court and fill federal prisons with non-violent offenders as well as saddling the government with the care thousands of children, pregnant women, and those with serious health problems.  Lastly, hundreds of thousands of illegals are illegal because they are waiting on immigration court rulings.
Click to expand...


If they are waiting for a court hearing, they are not here illegally.  

Escaping poverty or crime is no reasons to be here without our permission.  Let them go to Canada.  Prison better than where they came from?  I'm willing to bet on that.  Let's try it for four or five years and see if your prediction is true.  I think a lot of these so-called concerns are bogus to begin with.  Yes, these are shithole places, but not unlivable.  I'm sure there are people all over the world that live worse.  

Currently there is little deterrent to coming here illegally thanks to Democrats.  Prison is a pretty good deterrent.  I believe if we had such a law, 95% at least would get the hell out of this country.  No wall, no additional border patrol, no more worries about expired Visas.  Just one law.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with both your points.
> 
> A wall will force or persuade people to seek an easier crossing.  I think it's becoming pretty clear that there isn't going to be 2000, or even a 1000 mile mall completed.  At most it will end up being about 200 mile of slatted fence with 1800 miles of reinforced fencing, cattle fencing, electronic monitoring, and aerial surveillance.  Even if the "wall" were extended to 2000 miles, it wouldn't stop half the illegal crossing because most illegal entries will be at ports of entry.  Less than 1% of vehicles are searched and only a small fraction of a percent of containers, boxcars or private planes are searched.  Almost all of these searches are for drugs, not people.
> 
> Yes, reducing visa overstays, will require changes in the laws but it will also require a tracking system, and cooperation from sanctuary cities and states.  In order to get changes in immigration laws needed to significantly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, democrat votes in congress are going to be needed, and that's not going happen without changes that republicans are not going to like such sharp increases the number of temporary work permits and increased country limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 million immigrate to the US annually, we take an additional 50K refugees and you think it's ok to continue to flood the country with additional people from the third world. Does that really make sense to you?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was born in a very ethnic neighborhood and lived there until the age of 7.  I distinctly remember how people off the boat would strive to learn the language of their new country.  It meant just about everything to them.  Of course people back then came here to become an American, not use America for the money or welfare.
> 
> Our local Catholic school held free English classes for the Polish immigrants.  My Grandfather used to take us to the bar for chips and pop while he had a couple of beers, and American patrons were teaching the immigrant patrons the language. Most of the American people in the neighborhood were bilingual.
> 
> Our neighbors were off the boat too.  My sister befriended the girl around her age and taught her English.  My mother too was bilingual and spoke broken Polish, but certainly enough to easily communicate with the girl.  That girl grew up and eventually became a Doctor.
> 
> Foreigners today couldn't have it easier when it comes to learning our language.  If the people I observed back in the 60's could do it with very limited resources, there is no excuse how foreigners can't do it today given our much advanced technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hate to break your bubble but immigrants today are no better or worst than those of the 19th and 20th century.  Skilled workers, the educated, the middle class, don't leave their jobs, their homeland, their  friends, and family to come to a strange new country.  We certainly can attract a few "better class of immigrants" but most immigrants will always come from the lower socioeconomic class, the poor, the homeless, the wretched masses.  It is from them that America was built.
Click to expand...


Low skilled jobs no longer pay a livable wage.  This isn't 1975. 

To be honest, I'm not interested in attracting any group of immigrants.  If left up to me, our borders would be closed and protected from them.  Our American workers are never going to be able to better themselves when millions of people from other countries are competing with them for OUR JOBS.  

Our jobs should be for Americans only.


----------



## Geaux4it

OKTexas said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they can support themselves, all that means is that they will be taking a job from an American.  We don't need any more immigrants, period, educated or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have 9 million jobs available now, and you seem to have skipped over them having skills we need.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want wages to go up, then you need to restrict the supply of labor.  Expanding the supply of labor can't fail to make wages go down or remain stagnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want businesses to flourish and be able to expand, they need to be able to fill positions with qualified people to do that. Merit based immigration is a win win for the country. This thing we're doing now is a big negative.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


No, business need to pay more than for slave, illegal labor. I thought the left was all about fair pay for a days work?

-Geaux


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Geaux4it said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> If they can support themselves, all that means is that they will be taking a job from an American.  We don't need any more immigrants, period, educated or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have 9 million jobs available now, and you seem to have skipped over them having skills we need.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want wages to go up, then you need to restrict the supply of labor.  Expanding the supply of labor can't fail to make wages go down or remain stagnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want businesses to flourish and be able to expand, they need to be able to fill positions with qualified people to do that. Merit based immigration is a win win for the country. This thing we're doing now is a big negative.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, business need to pay more than for slave, illegal labor. I thought the left was all about fair pay for a days work?
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


The left is about forcing people to pay what they decide is fair--not the employer.  And that only places second to their real goal which is to make whites a minority in our country for the first time in history.


----------



## danielpalos

OKTexas said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause, it is a naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, all illegals should be kicked out of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how socialist of you.  why not simply fine them and make honest tourists of them. we don't have an immigration problem we have lousy naturalization policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had every chance to be honest tourists, but they chose otherwise.
> 
> True, we don't have immigration problem, since immigration is about people who are permitted to be here. We have a problem with illegal aliens and criminals who do not belong here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause.  We have an Express naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to read Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1. That is the immigration clause.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

i would agree with you but for our establishment clause.


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i know where the mountains of the Caucasians are.
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, now get back to the lawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with my native work ethic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not an anchor baby, so not born here. And get your donkey out of the front yard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who cares what "Caucasians away from their mountains, say"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you hate white people. Got it.
Click to expand...

that is just You.  why come over here to have a bad attitude.  Your mountains still love you.


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you only have gossip and one way street-ism.  not enough morals to go around on the right wing?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm enjoying watching the beaners get gassed at the border. Are they having fun yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i no longer take the right wing seriously in abortion threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never took you seriously in any thread. I win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what; You have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I also have a country that your family wants to come to. I win again.
Click to expand...

lol.  we are already here. you just hate brown people; i got it.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm enjoying watching the beaners get gassed at the border. Are they having fun yet?
> 
> 
> 
> i no longer take the right wing seriously in abortion threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never took you seriously in any thread. I win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what; You have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I also have a country that your family wants to come to. I win again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  we are already here. you just hate brown people; i got it.
Click to expand...

No, I dislike illegals. Regular immigrants are cool.


----------



## danielpalos

OKTexas said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're paying hospitals 4 billion a year to take care of illegals, once an illegal drops a kid, they are eligible for welfare and snap for the kid, other services also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. The problems are the welfare state and birthright citizenship. We can address those issues without turning our country into a police state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Enforcing laws doesn't make us a police state. And the commies will never allow the welfare state to be diminished.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

lol.  all talk, right wingers.  we already know you don't care the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

we don't have an immigration clause it is a naturalization clause.


----------



## danielpalos

basquebromance said:


> "If they think a wall is "immoral," then they're admitting it's effective. An ineffective wall would merely be a place for illegals to stop and get a little shade before continuing their march into the United States." --Ann Coulter


Our general warfare on crime, drugs, and terror are Worthless if we still need a Wall.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, now get back to the lawn.
> 
> 
> 
> with my native work ethic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not an anchor baby, so not born here. And get your donkey out of the front yard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who cares what "Caucasians away from their mountains, say"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you hate white people. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is just You.  why come over here to have a bad attitude.  Your mountains still love you.
Click to expand...

Don’t quit your English lessons. Now go eat a tamale.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't make sense.  We need more, a lot more immigrants. The 1.4 million figure is only 4 immigrants per 1000 of population.
> 
> Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises.   However the problem is not just retirements but a shrinking birth rate.  Without more young adults we not only face a seriously finance problem but a serious economic problem.  Within a decade we will have a shortage 24 million workers and that number will continue to grow till at least 2050.
> 
> While many clamor for a halt to immigration, more immigrants are exactly what we need.  They are younger, have a higher birth rate, and more entrepreneurial than native born Americans.  Immigrants are the life blood of the nation as they have been in the past.  Although more immigration means more cultural changes, that is nothing new to America because we are a melting pot of cultures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A better class of immigrants would be highly desirable.  The problem of course is people with good job skills and education are the least likely to immigrate.  However, I think there are things than can be done to encourage a better class of immigrants.
> 
> First we need to increase the number of visas for highly educated workers.  There are not near enough to meet demand.  Many students with post graduate degrees and experience in engineer and science are turned down every year because of their country of origin.
> Second, we need to tell the world that we want and need educated skilled workers.  We don't care about your country of origin, your race, or your religion.  We are looking for well educated, skilled workers that can be an asset to America.
> We need to restrict family immigration to the immediate family.  Other immigration should be based on merit and limits should be raised.
> Assimilation is a slow process.  Typically taking several generation.  First generation immigrants rarely assimilate. They learn what they need to learn to make a living in the US and to function in society.  Second generation becomes the hyphen generation.  Thrid generation approaches what Americans think of as assimilation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one thing we don't need is more H1-B visas.  This country is flooded with high tech workers from India.  wages in my field haven't increased for the last 15 years.   Yeah, software companies keep talking about shortages, but that's because they like cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh... cry me a river. Software pays quite well. We don't need the phony protectionism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea what phone protectionism is.  Controlling immigration is not protectionism.  I fail to understand why anyone would support importing millions of people to compete for their jobs.  Only a certifiable idiot would support that.
Click to expand...


What sort of idiot demands their government protect them from competition? Certainly not an advocate of free markets.


----------



## dblack

basquebromance said:


> "If they think a wall is "immoral," then they're admitting it's effective. An ineffective wall would merely be a place for illegals to stop and get a little shade before continuing their march into the United States." --Ann Coulter



It will definitely be 'effective'. If the goal is to promote authoritarian government.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> A better class of immigrants would be highly desirable.  The problem of course is people with good job skills and education are the least likely to immigrate.  However, I think there are things than can be done to encourage a better class of immigrants.
> 
> First we need to increase the number of visas for highly educated workers.  There are not near enough to meet demand.  Many students with post graduate degrees and experience in engineer and science are turned down every year because of their country of origin.
> Second, we need to tell the world that we want and need educated skilled workers.  We don't care about your country of origin, your race, or your religion.  We are looking for well educated, skilled workers that can be an asset to America.
> We need to restrict family immigration to the immediate family.  Other immigration should be based on merit and limits should be raised.
> Assimilation is a slow process.  Typically taking several generation.  First generation immigrants rarely assimilate. They learn what they need to learn to make a living in the US and to function in society.  Second generation becomes the hyphen generation.  Thrid generation approaches what Americans think of as assimilation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one thing we don't need is more H1-B visas.  This country is flooded with high tech workers from India.  wages in my field haven't increased for the last 15 years.   Yeah, software companies keep talking about shortages, but that's because they like cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh... cry me a river. Software pays quite well. We don't need the phony protectionism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea what phone protectionism is.  Controlling immigration is not protectionism.  I fail to understand why anyone would support importing millions of people to compete for their jobs.  Only a certifiable idiot would support that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What sort of idiot demands their government protect them from competition? Certainly not an advocate of free markets.
Click to expand...


Foreigners are no more a part of the free market than unions are.  We have a pretty successful supply and demand process providing somebody doesn't throw a monkey wrench into the system.  Cheating the system is hardly free market.


----------



## Lesh

So it's not actually a wall and it's not actually going across the southern border?

What exactly are we shutting down the government over??


----------



## dblack

Taz said:


> No, I dislike illegals. Regular immigrants are cool.



Then we can surely count on you to increase (or remove) immigration quotas and bureaucratic barriers to legal immigration, right?


----------



## Taz

dblack said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I dislike illegals. Regular immigrants are cool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we can surely count on you to increase (or remove) immigration quotas and bureaucratic barriers to legal immigration, right?
Click to expand...

Why increase them? How big IS your family?


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Foreigners are no more a part of the free market than unions are.  We have a pretty successful supply and demand process providing somebody doesn't throw a monkey wrench into the system.  Cheating the system is hardly free market.



Pretty ironic that you criticize unions, given that the protectionism you're clamoring for is exactly the kind of things unions demand. Hungry people willing to do your job for less IS the free market.


----------



## dblack

Taz said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I dislike illegals. Regular immigrants are cool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we can surely count on you to increase (or remove) immigration quotas and bureaucratic barriers to legal immigration, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why increase them? How big IS your family?
Click to expand...


So, I guess you don't think immigrants aren't THAT cool.


----------



## Taz

dblack said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I dislike illegals. Regular immigrants are cool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we can surely count on you to increase (or remove) immigration quotas and bureaucratic barriers to legal immigration, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why increase them? How big IS your family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I guess you don't think immigrants aren't THAT cool.
Click to expand...

The government sets quotas based on several factors. If they decide we need more, then ok. But not just because of nothing.


----------



## dblack

Taz said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I dislike illegals. Regular immigrants are cool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we can surely count on you to increase (or remove) immigration quotas and bureaucratic barriers to legal immigration, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why increase them? How big IS your family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I guess you don't think immigrants aren't THAT cool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government sets quotas based on several factors. If they decide we need more, then ok. But not just because of nothing.
Click to expand...


Our laws should protect freedom, not privilege.


----------



## Taz

dblack said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I dislike illegals. Regular immigrants are cool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we can surely count on you to increase (or remove) immigration quotas and bureaucratic barriers to legal immigration, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why increase them? How big IS your family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I guess you don't think immigrants aren't THAT cool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government sets quotas based on several factors. If they decide we need more, then ok. But not just because of nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our laws should protect freedom, not privilege.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with quotas?


----------



## dblack

Taz said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then we can surely count on you to increase (or remove) immigration quotas and bureaucratic barriers to legal immigration, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Why increase them? How big IS your family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I guess you don't think immigrants aren't THAT cool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government sets quotas based on several factors. If they decide we need more, then ok. But not just because of nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our laws should protect freedom, not privilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with quotas?
Click to expand...


Quotas limit freedom. That's the point of imposing them.


----------



## OKTexas

Geaux4it said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> If they can support themselves, all that means is that they will be taking a job from an American.  We don't need any more immigrants, period, educated or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have 9 million jobs available now, and you seem to have skipped over them having skills we need.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want wages to go up, then you need to restrict the supply of labor.  Expanding the supply of labor can't fail to make wages go down or remain stagnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want businesses to flourish and be able to expand, they need to be able to fill positions with qualified people to do that. Merit based immigration is a win win for the country. This thing we're doing now is a big negative.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, business need to pay more than for slave, illegal labor. I thought the left was all about fair pay for a days work?
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...



Simple, jail the business owners that hire them But the post you replied to had nothing to do with illegals.

.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called for a halt to immigration, I do however think it is necessary to raise the quality of immigrants. They need to have skills that we need, they have to demonstrate they can support themselves. We can't continue to bring in impoverished, uneducated people who drop a kid and go immediately on welfare and food stamps and they don't tend to assimilate. I saw a man interviewed on the local news that had been in the country 23 years, he had to speak though an interpreter, he was here illegally.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> A better class of immigrants would be highly desirable.  The problem of course is people with good job skills and education are the least likely to immigrate.  However, I think there are things than can be done to encourage a better class of immigrants.
> 
> First we need to increase the number of visas for highly educated workers.  There are not near enough to meet demand.  Many students with post graduate degrees and experience in engineer and science are turned down every year because of their country of origin.
> Second, we need to tell the world that we want and need educated skilled workers.  We don't care about your country of origin, your race, or your religion.  We are looking for well educated, skilled workers that can be an asset to America.
> We need to restrict family immigration to the immediate family.  Other immigration should be based on merit and limits should be raised.
> Assimilation is a slow process.  Typically taking several generation.  First generation immigrants rarely assimilate. They learn what they need to learn to make a living in the US and to function in society.  Second generation becomes the hyphen generation.  Thrid generation approaches what Americans think of as assimilation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one thing we don't need is more H1-B visas.  This country is flooded with high tech workers from India.  wages in my field haven't increased for the last 15 years.   Yeah, software companies keep talking about shortages, but that's because they like cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh... cry me a river. Software pays quite well. We don't need the phony protectionism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea what phone protectionism is.  Controlling immigration is not protectionism.  I fail to understand why anyone would support importing millions of people to compete for their jobs.  Only a certifiable idiot would support that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What sort of idiot demands their government protect them from competition? Certainly not an advocate of free markets.
Click to expand...

Anyone with half a brain doesn't want the government importing workers from the third world willing to do the same job for 1/3 the price.  Do you really think that's smart?

Uncontrolled immigration and the free market are two separate things.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foreigners are no more a part of the free market than unions are.  We have a pretty successful supply and demand process providing somebody doesn't throw a monkey wrench into the system.  Cheating the system is hardly free market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty ironic that you criticize unions, given that the protectionism you're clamoring for is exactly the kind of things unions demand. Hungry people willing to do your job for less IS the free market.
Click to expand...

When the left is using that free market as some kind of ideal, you know they are full of shit.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> Uncontrolled immigration and the free market are two separate things.



No, they're not.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why increase them? How big IS your family?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I guess you don't think immigrants aren't THAT cool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government sets quotas based on several factors. If they decide we need more, then ok. But not just because of nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our laws should protect freedom, not privilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with quotas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quotas limit freedom. That's the point of imposing them.
Click to expand...


quotas on foreign labor don't limit my freedom in any way.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uncontrolled immigration and the free market are two separate things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're not.
Click to expand...

They sure as hell are.


----------



## froggy

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


According to the Democrats they will lose immigrant support and possibly never win an election


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I guess you don't think immigrants aren't THAT cool.
> 
> 
> 
> The government sets quotas based on several factors. If they decide we need more, then ok. But not just because of nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our laws should protect freedom, not privilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with quotas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quotas limit freedom. That's the point of imposing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> quotas on foreign labor don't limit my freedom in any way.
Click to expand...


If you want to cross the border they do. If you, and some of the other wall cowards here, get your way, our nation will become a police state where everyone is under suspicion of "being illegal". Do you remember back when you used to think of yourself as a libertarian?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government sets quotas based on several factors. If they decide we need more, then ok. But not just because of nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our laws should protect freedom, not privilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with quotas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quotas limit freedom. That's the point of imposing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> quotas on foreign labor don't limit my freedom in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to cross the border they do. If you, and some of the other wall cowards here, get your way, our nation will become a police state where everyone is under suspicion of "being illegal". Do you remember back when you used to think of yourself as a libertarian?
Click to expand...


A wall (that most Americans will never see) is going to do all that.......huh?


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our laws should protect freedom, not privilege.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with quotas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quotas limit freedom. That's the point of imposing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> quotas on foreign labor don't limit my freedom in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to cross the border they do. If you, and some of the other wall cowards here, get your way, our nation will become a police state where everyone is under suspicion of "being illegal". Do you remember back when you used to think of yourself as a libertarian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall (that most Americans will never see) is going to do all that.......huh?
Click to expand...


We were talking about quotas. Please pay attention.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government sets quotas based on several factors. If they decide we need more, then ok. But not just because of nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our laws should protect freedom, not privilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with quotas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quotas limit freedom. That's the point of imposing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> quotas on foreign labor don't limit my freedom in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to cross the border they do. If you, and some of the other wall cowards here, get your way, our nation will become a police state where everyone is under suspicion of "being illegal". Do you remember back when you used to think of yourself as a libertarian?
Click to expand...

You mean they limit the freedom of foreigners to take a big crap on America?  Why should I be against that?

Enforcing immigration laws will make the US into a police state?

Do you numskulls read this idiotic shit before you post it?


----------



## Taz

dblack said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why increase them? How big IS your family?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I guess you don't think immigrants aren't THAT cool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government sets quotas based on several factors. If they decide we need more, then ok. But not just because of nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our laws should protect freedom, not privilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with quotas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quotas limit freedom. That's the point of imposing them.
Click to expand...

No, quotas make sure we don’t get swamped and protect our freedom to choose who comes in.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> You mean they limit the freedom of foreigners to take a big crap on America?  Why should I be against that?



Because when government violates freedom, it does so for everyone. This is the concept you couldn't get through your head in the "war" on terror nonsense. This is why the Constitution doesn't limit protections to citizens.


----------



## Taz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our laws should protect freedom, not privilege.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with quotas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quotas limit freedom. That's the point of imposing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> quotas on foreign labor don't limit my freedom in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to cross the border they do. If you, and some of the other wall cowards here, get your way, our nation will become a police state where everyone is under suspicion of "being illegal". Do you remember back when you used to think of yourself as a libertarian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall (that most Americans will never see) is going to do all that.......huh?
Click to expand...

Coming from someone who lives in a totally shit city.


----------



## Flopper

Johnlaw said:


> We can end these threads now.  Trump says the wall is just about finished.
> 
> 
> 
> *Donald J. Trump*‏Verified account @*realDonaldTrump*
> Mexico is paying for the Wall through the new USMCA Trade Deal*. Much of the Wall has already been fully renovated or built.* We have done a lot of work. $5.6 Billion Dollars that House has approved is very little in comparison to the benefits of National Security. Quick payback!
> 
> 5:35 AM - 2 Jan 2019


And the wall has stopped illegal immigration.  Problem solved.  Once again Donald has saved America.


----------



## dblack

Taz said:


> No quotas make sure we don’t get swamped and protect our freedom to choose who comes in.



"Freedom to choose who comes in"

That's not freedom. That's authoritarian state power.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foreigners are no more a part of the free market than unions are.  We have a pretty successful supply and demand process providing somebody doesn't throw a monkey wrench into the system.  Cheating the system is hardly free market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty ironic that you criticize unions, given that the protectionism you're clamoring for is exactly the kind of things unions demand. Hungry people willing to do your job for less IS the free market.
Click to expand...


A free global market perhaps, but our country is not the world.  Free markets in our country exist and survive by the rules governing the free market.  

Now if you're going to insist that our country is a global free market, the only way to accomplish that is a borderless society, and then America would cease to exist.  Billions of people would flock here because there are no laws stopping them.  Then Americans would have to find someplace to move to. 

In the United States, we have global trade, and even that has had some devastating effects.  But global trade is not the same as a global free market.


----------



## dblack

Flopper said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can end these threads now.  Trump says the wall is just about finished.
> 
> 
> 
> *Donald J. Trump*‏Verified account @*realDonaldTrump*
> Mexico is paying for the Wall through the new USMCA Trade Deal*. Much of the Wall has already been fully renovated or built.* We have done a lot of work. $5.6 Billion Dollars that House has approved is very little in comparison to the benefits of National Security. Quick payback!
> 
> 5:35 AM - 2 Jan 2019
> 
> 
> 
> And the wall has stopped illegal immigration.  Problem solved.  Once again Donald has saved America.
Click to expand...


Mission Accomplished!


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foreigners are no more a part of the free market than unions are.  We have a pretty successful supply and demand process providing somebody doesn't throw a monkey wrench into the system.  Cheating the system is hardly free market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty ironic that you criticize unions, given that the protectionism you're clamoring for is exactly the kind of things unions demand. Hungry people willing to do your job for less IS the free market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A free global market perhaps, but our country is not the world.  Free markets in our country exist and survive by the rules governing the free market.
> 
> Now if you're going to insist that our country is a global free market, the only way to accomplish that is a borderless society, and then America would cease to exist.  Billions of people would flock here because there are no laws stopping them.  Then Americans would have to find someplace to move to.
> 
> In the United States, we have global trade, and even that has had some devastating effects.  But global trade is not the same as a global free market.
Click to expand...


So, you like freedom, except when you don't.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I dislike illegals. Regular immigrants are cool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we can surely count on you to increase (or remove) immigration quotas and bureaucratic barriers to legal immigration, right?
Click to expand...


Name me one civilized society that does more for immigration and helping their neighbors than the United States.....just one.


----------



## Taz

dblack said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No quotas make sure we don’t get swamped and protect our freedom to choose who comes in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Freedom to choose who comes in"
> 
> That's not freedom. That's authoritarian state power.
Click to expand...

Go pick some fruit, then get out of here before I call ICE on you.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foreigners are no more a part of the free market than unions are.  We have a pretty successful supply and demand process providing somebody doesn't throw a monkey wrench into the system.  Cheating the system is hardly free market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty ironic that you criticize unions, given that the protectionism you're clamoring for is exactly the kind of things unions demand. Hungry people willing to do your job for less IS the free market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A free global market perhaps, but our country is not the world.  Free markets in our country exist and survive by the rules governing the free market.
> 
> Now if you're going to insist that our country is a global free market, the only way to accomplish that is a borderless society, and then America would cease to exist.  Billions of people would flock here because there are no laws stopping them.  Then Americans would have to find someplace to move to.
> 
> In the United States, we have global trade, and even that has had some devastating effects.  But global trade is not the same as a global free market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you like freedom, except when you don't.
Click to expand...


Our freedom is contained within our borders.  Our freedom is not world policy.  WE have freedoms and rights--the rest of the world does not.  They make their own freedoms and rights as they see fit.


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I dislike illegals. Regular immigrants are cool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we can surely count on you to increase (or remove) immigration quotas and bureaucratic barriers to legal immigration, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name me one civilized society that does more for immigration and helping their neighbors than the United States.....just one.
Click to expand...


Why would you want the US to be like other nations? The US is exceptional, and it should stay that way.


----------



## dblack

Taz said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No quotas make sure we don’t get swamped and protect our freedom to choose who comes in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Freedom to choose who comes in"
> 
> That's not freedom. That's authoritarian state power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go pick some fruit, then get out of here before I call ICE on you.
Click to expand...


Giving up so soon?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> So it's not actually a wall and it's not actually going across the southern border?
> 
> What exactly are we shutting down the government over??



5.8 billion dollars.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I dislike illegals. Regular immigrants are cool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we can surely count on you to increase (or remove) immigration quotas and bureaucratic barriers to legal immigration, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name me one civilized society that does more for immigration and helping their neighbors than the United States.....just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you want the US to be like other nations? The US is exceptional, and it should stay that way.
Click to expand...


And we are exceptional, and always have been.  No other nation is more exceptional than we are.  

However exceptional comes with limits.  Exceptional doesn't mean we are an open house for the world to take advantage of.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No quotas make sure we don’t get swamped and protect our freedom to choose who comes in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Freedom to choose who comes in"
> 
> That's not freedom. That's authoritarian state power.
Click to expand...


Is it authoritarian when you lock your doors before you leave the house?  Is it authoritarian to have an alarm on your home?  Is it authoritarian for you to fence off your property?  Is it authoritarian to have a car alarm on your vehicle?


----------



## Flopper

OKTexas said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they can support themselves, all that means is that they will be taking a job from an American.  We don't need any more immigrants, period, educated or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have 9 million jobs available now, and you seem to have skipped over them having skills we need.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want wages to go up, then you need to restrict the supply of labor.  Expanding the supply of labor can't fail to make wages go down or remain stagnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want businesses to flourish and be able to expand, they need to be able to fill positions with qualified people to do that. Merit based immigration is a win win for the country. This thing we're doing now is a big negative.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Merit based immigration is invariably a point based system, based on such factors as education level, wealth, connection with the country, language fluency, existing job offer, or others.  Of course the devil is in the details.  Such a system could be used to severely limit immigration or increase it.
> 
> If such a system were used to provide better educated, better skilled workers in the numbers America will need in the future, then we would have to abandon the current country limits which could result in a large migration of Asians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that would be bad, how?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Whether abandoning country limits would be good or bad depends on other immigration criteria.


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No quotas make sure we don’t get swamped and protect our freedom to choose who comes in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Freedom to choose who comes in"
> 
> That's not freedom. That's authoritarian state power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it authoritarian when you lock your doors before you leave the house? Is it authoritarian to have an alarm on your home?  Is it authoritarian for you to fence off your property?  Is it authoritarian to have a car alarm on your vehicle?
Click to expand...


"Authoritarian" applies to government. Individuals aren't empowered to employ violence and can't be authoritarian.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they limit the freedom of foreigners to take a big crap on America?  Why should I be against that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because when government violates freedom, it does so for everyone. This is the concept you couldn't get through your head in the "war" on terror nonsense. This is why the Constitution doesn't limit protections to citizens.
Click to expand...

The Constitution doesn't give foreigners the right to cross the border, moron.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they limit the freedom of foreigners to take a big crap on America?  Why should I be against that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because when government violates freedom, it does so for everyone. This is the concept you couldn't get through your head in the "war" on terror nonsense. This is why the Constitution doesn't limit protections to citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution doesn't give foreigners the right to cross the border, moron.
Click to expand...


The Constitution doesn't "give" anyone rights, fascist.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No quotas make sure we don’t get swamped and protect our freedom to choose who comes in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Freedom to choose who comes in"
> 
> That's not freedom. That's authoritarian state power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it authoritarian when you lock your doors before you leave the house? Is it authoritarian to have an alarm on your home?  Is it authoritarian for you to fence off your property?  Is it authoritarian to have a car alarm on your vehicle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Authoritarian" applies to government. Individuals aren't empowered to employ violence and can't be authoritarian.
Click to expand...


Sure they can.  When your boss tells you to perform a task you really hate, that's authoritarian.  When your landlord says you can't have a dog in the apartment, that's authoritarian.  If your neighbors call the cops on you because of a loud party past dark, that's authoritarian.


----------



## Lesh

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still have a government shut down...and Trump is claiming it's because of a wall
> 
> But I guess the Trumpers don't want to talk about it any more since well...it's not actually a wall but a fence...and it's not actually going to run across the whole southern border...because ya know....like the sane ones of us have been saying...that would be a stupid  waste of money that pretty much could never happen anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
Click to expand...

From what I'm hearing now it will be a fence in some places and nothing in others...which is what we have now.

In fact we haven't even spent the appropriation that was made last year


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No quotas make sure we don’t get swamped and protect our freedom to choose who comes in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Freedom to choose who comes in"
> 
> That's not freedom. That's authoritarian state power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it authoritarian when you lock your doors before you leave the house? Is it authoritarian to have an alarm on your home?  Is it authoritarian for you to fence off your property?  Is it authoritarian to have a car alarm on your vehicle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Authoritarian" applies to government. Individuals aren't empowered to employ violence and can't be authoritarian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  When your boss tells you to perform a task you really hate, that's authoritarian.
Click to expand...


No, it's not. Authoritarian describes a mode of government. I know liberals want to pretend that employers are oppressors, but the truth is that we can tell them to piss off whenever we like. And we won't be arrest or thrown in jail for doing so.


----------



## OKTexas

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government sets quotas based on several factors. If they decide we need more, then ok. But not just because of nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our laws should protect freedom, not privilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with quotas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quotas limit freedom. That's the point of imposing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> quotas on foreign labor don't limit my freedom in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to cross the border they do. If you, and some of the other wall cowards here, get your way, our nation will become a police state where everyone is under suspicion of "being illegal". Do you remember back when you used to think of yourself as a libertarian?
Click to expand...



So tell the class, how many of the 1.4 billion people that say they want to come here should we let in? No bullshit, just give us a number.

.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still have a government shut down...and Trump is claiming it's because of a wall
> 
> But I guess the Trumpers don't want to talk about it any more since well...it's not actually a wall but a fence...and it's not actually going to run across the whole southern border...because ya know....like the sane ones of us have been saying...that would be a stupid  waste of money that pretty much could never happen anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
Click to expand...

Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.


----------



## dblack

OKTexas said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our laws should protect freedom, not privilege.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with quotas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quotas limit freedom. That's the point of imposing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> quotas on foreign labor don't limit my freedom in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to cross the border they do. If you, and some of the other wall cowards here, get your way, our nation will become a police state where everyone is under suspicion of "being illegal". Do you remember back when you used to think of yourself as a libertarian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So tell the class, how many of the 1.4 billion people that say they want to come here should we let in? No bullshit, just give us a number.
Click to expand...


Link?

Government shouldn't restrict travel. Period.


----------



## H B Lowrie

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still have a government shut down...and Trump is claiming it's because of a wall
> 
> But I guess the Trumpers don't want to talk about it any more since well...it's not actually a wall but a fence...and it's not actually going to run across the whole southern border...because ya know....like the sane ones of us have been saying...that would be a stupid  waste of money that pretty much could never happen anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
Click to expand...


We're down to a maybe on slats.  Meanwhile, border agents are not being paid.

*GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN: MORE THAN 54,000 BORDER PATROL AGENTS TO WORK WITHOUT PAY, WHILE TRUMP SAYS THEY ‘WANT THE WALL’*
*More than 54,000 Border Patrol agents will be working without pay as government shutdown continues*

*MAGA-n-shit.*


----------



## OKTexas

dblack said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with quotas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quotas limit freedom. That's the point of imposing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> quotas on foreign labor don't limit my freedom in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to cross the border they do. If you, and some of the other wall cowards here, get your way, our nation will become a police state where everyone is under suspicion of "being illegal". Do you remember back when you used to think of yourself as a libertarian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So tell the class, how many of the 1.4 billion people that say they want to come here should we let in? No bullshit, just give us a number.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Government should restrict travel. Period.
Click to expand...



I agree, government should restrict travel and they do a little bit, not near enough. Why didn't you answer the question? BTW I heard the number reported on the Laura Ingraham show the week before Christmas, feel free to look it up.

.


----------



## H B Lowrie

OKTexas said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quotas limit freedom. That's the point of imposing them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quotas on foreign labor don't limit my freedom in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to cross the border they do. If you, and some of the other wall cowards here, get your way, our nation will become a police state where everyone is under suspicion of "being illegal". Do you remember back when you used to think of yourself as a libertarian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So tell the class, how many of the 1.4 billion people that say they want to come here should we let in? No bullshit, just give us a number.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Government should restrict travel. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, government should restrict travel and they do a little bit, not near enough. Why didn't you answer the question? BTW I heard the number reported on the Laura Ingraham show the week before Christmas, feel free to look it up.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

They restrict our travel, fweedumb.


----------



## OKTexas

H B Lowrie said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still have a government shut down...and Trump is claiming it's because of a wall
> 
> But I guess the Trumpers don't want to talk about it any more since well...it's not actually a wall but a fence...and it's not actually going to run across the whole southern border...because ya know....like the sane ones of us have been saying...that would be a stupid  waste of money that pretty much could never happen anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're down to a maybe on slats.  Meanwhile, border agents are not being paid.
> 
> *GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN: MORE THAN 54,000 BORDER PATROL AGENTS TO WORK WITHOUT PAY, WHILE TRUMP SAYS THEY ‘WANT THE WALL’*
> *More than 54,000 Border Patrol agents will be working without pay as government shutdown continues*
> 
> *MAGA-n-shit.*
Click to expand...



You mean they might not be paid on time. BTW according to the DHS white house briefing today, border patrol intercepted 3700 know or suspected terrorist last year. How many of those would you like to see get through. Keep in mind they didn't intercept all border crossers last year, I wonder how many terrorist made it?

.


----------



## OKTexas

H B Lowrie said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> quotas on foreign labor don't limit my freedom in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to cross the border they do. If you, and some of the other wall cowards here, get your way, our nation will become a police state where everyone is under suspicion of "being illegal". Do you remember back when you used to think of yourself as a libertarian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So tell the class, how many of the 1.4 billion people that say they want to come here should we let in? No bullshit, just give us a number.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Government should restrict travel. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, government should restrict travel and they do a little bit, not near enough. Why didn't you answer the question? BTW I heard the number reported on the Laura Ingraham show the week before Christmas, feel free to look it up.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They restrict our travel, fweedumb.
Click to expand...



Really, no one told me I can't go anywhere? Me thinks you need to elaborate a bit.

.


----------



## dblack

OKTexas said:


> Really, no one told me I can't go anywhere? Me thinks you need to elaborate a bit.



Better make sure you have all your papers handy. And don't have too much of a tan.


----------



## Flopper

Taz said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I dislike illegals. Regular immigrants are cool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we can surely count on you to increase (or remove) immigration quotas and bureaucratic barriers to legal immigration, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why increase them? How big IS your family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I guess you don't think immigrants aren't THAT cool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government sets quotas based on several factors. If they decide we need more, then ok. But not just because of nothing.
Click to expand...

Actually, no there are no quotas.  Congress sets the maximum number immigrants at about 675,000 per year plus about half dozen categories of immigration that pushes the total to about a million a year or higher.

Then the law establishes the maximum number of immigrants from any country as 7% of the total, about 70,000 excluding certain categories.  However, this figure is reduced by the number of legal residents from that country living in the US who change immigration status to permanent resident.  Immigrants being sponsored by family members further reduces the number as well as employment sponsoring and other categories of immigration.

So for most countries if you do not have family living in the US or have special skills that will attract an employer to sponsor you or you don't fit in one of the other special categories, you simple can not immigrate to the US, no matter how long you wait.


----------



## Lesh

OKTexas said:


> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still have a government shut down...and Trump is claiming it's because of a wall
> 
> But I guess the Trumpers don't want to talk about it any more since well...it's not actually a wall but a fence...and it's not actually going to run across the whole southern border...because ya know....like the sane ones of us have been saying...that would be a stupid  waste of money that pretty much could never happen anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're down to a maybe on slats.  Meanwhile, border agents are not being paid.
> 
> *GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN: MORE THAN 54,000 BORDER PATROL AGENTS TO WORK WITHOUT PAY, WHILE TRUMP SAYS THEY ‘WANT THE WALL’*
> *More than 54,000 Border Patrol agents will be working without pay as government shutdown continues*
> 
> *MAGA-n-shit.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they might not be paid on time. BTW according to the DHS white house briefing today, border patrol intercepted 3700 know or suspected terrorist last year. How many of those would you like to see get through. Keep in mind they didn't intercept all border crossers last year, I wonder how many terrorist made it?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

We've been through that bullshit already.

Odd that the jails aren;t bursting with all these "terrorists" caught huh?

Maybe that's why Trump defeated ISIS. They all got caught crossing the Mexican border.
'
What a crock


----------



## Lesh

So again...what the hell will this be?

Not a Wall...not 2000 miles. How is that different from what we have?


----------



## OKTexas

Lesh said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still have a government shut down...and Trump is claiming it's because of a wall
> 
> But I guess the Trumpers don't want to talk about it any more since well...it's not actually a wall but a fence...and it's not actually going to run across the whole southern border...because ya know....like the sane ones of us have been saying...that would be a stupid  waste of money that pretty much could never happen anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're down to a maybe on slats.  Meanwhile, border agents are not being paid.
> 
> *GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN: MORE THAN 54,000 BORDER PATROL AGENTS TO WORK WITHOUT PAY, WHILE TRUMP SAYS THEY ‘WANT THE WALL’*
> *More than 54,000 Border Patrol agents will be working without pay as government shutdown continues*
> 
> *MAGA-n-shit.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they might not be paid on time. BTW according to the DHS white house briefing today, border patrol intercepted 3700 know or suspected terrorist last year. How many of those would you like to see get through. Keep in mind they didn't intercept all border crossers last year, I wonder how many terrorist made it?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've been through that bullshit already.
> 
> Odd that the jails aren;t bursting with all these "terrorists" caught huh?
> 
> Maybe that's why Trump defeated ISIS. They all got caught crossing the Mexican border.
> '
> What a crock
Click to expand...



Poor little Lush, got a problem with the DHS report, prove it wrong. I'll be waiting with my glass of tea, till you do. LMAO

.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still have a government shut down...and Trump is claiming it's because of a wall
> 
> But I guess the Trumpers don't want to talk about it any more since well...it's not actually a wall but a fence...and it's not actually going to run across the whole southern border...because ya know....like the sane ones of us have been saying...that would be a stupid  waste of money that pretty much could never happen anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
Click to expand...


And that's Trump's fault or the Democrats?

Trump asked for 25 billion originally.  HIs asking price now is 1/5 of that, and the Democrats are going to fight him tooth and nail for it.  So now you blame less quality on Trump instead of them?

What is it with you on the left that never......ever want to assume responsibility for your actions?  Now if the Democrats approved 25 billion and Trump didn't deliver, then you'd have a solid argument.  But to say Trump failed us when it was actually the Democrats is an out and out lie.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No quotas make sure we don’t get swamped and protect our freedom to choose who comes in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Freedom to choose who comes in"
> 
> That's not freedom. That's authoritarian state power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it authoritarian when you lock your doors before you leave the house? Is it authoritarian to have an alarm on your home?  Is it authoritarian for you to fence off your property?  Is it authoritarian to have a car alarm on your vehicle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Authoritarian" applies to government. Individuals aren't empowered to employ violence and can't be authoritarian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  When your boss tells you to perform a task you really hate, that's authoritarian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not. Authoritarian describes a mode of government. I know liberals want to pretend that employers are oppressors, but the truth is that we can tell them to piss off whenever we like. And we won't be arrest or thrown in jail for doing so.
Click to expand...


No, that's only one definition:

*authoritarian*
[uh-thawr-i-tair-ee-uh n, uh-thor-]
See more synonyms for authoritarian on Thesaurus

adjective

favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom:authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
of or relating to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others:
the definition of authoritarian

Now let's concentrate for a moment on the definition you highlight.  "A group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people."

That would mean that bureaucrats are authoritarians.  That would mean appointed judges are authoritarians.

The law makers that create laws are constitutionally accountable to the people.  We don't live in a lawless society, and having laws (that are constitutional) are not authoritarian.

Our representatives are constitutionally charged with the safety of the people foreign or domestic.  When people are coming here lowering our wages, when people are coming here selling deadly narcotics to our people, when people are coming here killing our citizens and police officers alike, when people break our laws by entering illegally, the Constitution demands that our representatives adhere to the oath they took which is to conduct themselves in a constitutional way.


----------



## Lesh

OKTexas said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're down to a maybe on slats.  Meanwhile, border agents are not being paid.
> 
> *GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN: MORE THAN 54,000 BORDER PATROL AGENTS TO WORK WITHOUT PAY, WHILE TRUMP SAYS THEY ‘WANT THE WALL’*
> *More than 54,000 Border Patrol agents will be working without pay as government shutdown continues*
> 
> *MAGA-n-shit.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they might not be paid on time. BTW according to the DHS white house briefing today, border patrol intercepted 3700 know or suspected terrorist last year. How many of those would you like to see get through. Keep in mind they didn't intercept all border crossers last year, I wonder how many terrorist made it?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've been through that bullshit already.
> 
> Odd that the jails aren;t bursting with all these "terrorists" caught huh?
> 
> Maybe that's why Trump defeated ISIS. They all got caught crossing the Mexican border.
> '
> What a crock
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor little Lush, got a problem with the DHS report, prove it wrong. I'll be waiting with my glass of tea, till you do. LMAO
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Post this report and actually read what it says. It's nonsense


----------



## Lesh

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still have a government shut down...and Trump is claiming it's because of a wall
> 
> But I guess the Trumpers don't want to talk about it any more since well...it's not actually a wall but a fence...and it's not actually going to run across the whole southern border...because ya know....like the sane ones of us have been saying...that would be a stupid  waste of money that pretty much could never happen anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's Trump's fault or the Democrats?
> 
> Trump asked for 25 billion originally.  HIs asking price now is 1/5 of that, and the Democrats are going to fight him tooth and nail for it.  So now you blame less quality on Trump instead of them?
> 
> What is it with you on the left that never......ever want to assume responsibility for your actions?  Now if the Democrats approved 25 billion and Trump didn't deliver, then you'd have a solid argument.  But to say Trump failed us when it was actually the Democrats is an out and out lie.
Click to expand...



And 25 billion was offered and turned down. Trump doesn't actually KNOW what he wants


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still have a government shut down...and Trump is claiming it's because of a wall
> 
> But I guess the Trumpers don't want to talk about it any more since well...it's not actually a wall but a fence...and it's not actually going to run across the whole southern border...because ya know....like the sane ones of us have been saying...that would be a stupid  waste of money that pretty much could never happen anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From what I'm hearing now it will be a fence in some places and nothing in others...which is what we have now.
> 
> In fact we haven't even spent the appropriation that was made last year
Click to expand...


We didn't?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still have a government shut down...and Trump is claiming it's because of a wall
> 
> But I guess the Trumpers don't want to talk about it any more since well...it's not actually a wall but a fence...and it's not actually going to run across the whole southern border...because ya know....like the sane ones of us have been saying...that would be a stupid  waste of money that pretty much could never happen anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's Trump's fault or the Democrats?
> 
> Trump asked for 25 billion originally.  HIs asking price now is 1/5 of that, and the Democrats are going to fight him tooth and nail for it.  So now you blame less quality on Trump instead of them?
> 
> What is it with you on the left that never......ever want to assume responsibility for your actions?  Now if the Democrats approved 25 billion and Trump didn't deliver, then you'd have a solid argument.  But to say Trump failed us when it was actually the Democrats is an out and out lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And 25 billion was offered and turned down. Trump doesn't actually KNOW what he wants
Click to expand...


I don't think you know what you are talking about.  Show me where the Democrats offered the 25 billion and he turned it down for no reason.


----------



## dblack

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still have a government shut down...and Trump is claiming it's because of a wall
> 
> But I guess the Trumpers don't want to talk about it any more since well...it's not actually a wall but a fence...and it's not actually going to run across the whole southern border...because ya know....like the sane ones of us have been saying...that would be a stupid  waste of money that pretty much could never happen anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's Trump's fault or the Democrats?
> 
> Trump asked for 25 billion originally.  HIs asking price now is 1/5 of that, and the Democrats are going to fight him tooth and nail for it.  So now you blame less quality on Trump instead of them?
> 
> What is it with you on the left that never......ever want to assume responsibility for your actions?  Now if the Democrats approved 25 billion and Trump didn't deliver, then you'd have a solid argument.  But to say Trump failed us when it was actually the Democrats is an out and out lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And 25 billion was offered and turned down. Trump doesn't actually KNOW what he wants
Click to expand...


He wants Ann Coulter to stop making fun of him.


----------



## Lesh

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still have a government shut down...and Trump is claiming it's because of a wall
> 
> But I guess the Trumpers don't want to talk about it any more since well...it's not actually a wall but a fence...and it's not actually going to run across the whole southern border...because ya know....like the sane ones of us have been saying...that would be a stupid  waste of money that pretty much could never happen anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's Trump's fault or the Democrats?
> 
> Trump asked for 25 billion originally.  HIs asking price now is 1/5 of that, and the Democrats are going to fight him tooth and nail for it.  So now you blame less quality on Trump instead of them?
> 
> What is it with you on the left that never......ever want to assume responsibility for your actions?  Now if the Democrats approved 25 billion and Trump didn't deliver, then you'd have a solid argument.  But to say Trump failed us when it was actually the Democrats is an out and out lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And 25 billion was offered and turned down. Trump doesn't actually KNOW what he wants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you know what you are talking about.  Show me where the Democrats offered the 25 billion and he turned it down for no reason.
Click to expand...

Keep up. Schumer offered that on January 19 last year in return for reauthorizing DCA. Trump spit in his face


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Freedom to choose who comes in"
> 
> That's not freedom. That's authoritarian state power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it authoritarian when you lock your doors before you leave the house? Is it authoritarian to have an alarm on your home?  Is it authoritarian for you to fence off your property?  Is it authoritarian to have a car alarm on your vehicle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Authoritarian" applies to government. Individuals aren't empowered to employ violence and can't be authoritarian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they can.  When your boss tells you to perform a task you really hate, that's authoritarian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not. Authoritarian describes a mode of government. I know liberals want to pretend that employers are oppressors, but the truth is that we can tell them to piss off whenever we like. And we won't be arrest or thrown in jail for doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's only one definition:
> 
> *authoritarian*
> [uh-thawr-i-tair-ee-uh n, uh-thor-]
> See more synonyms for authoritarian on Thesaurus
> 
> adjective
> 
> favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom:authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
> of or relating to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
> exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others:
> the definition of authoritarian
> 
> Now let's concentrate for a moment on the definition you highlight.  "A group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people."
> 
> That would mean that bureaucrats are authoritarians.  That would mean appointed judges are authoritarians.
> 
> The law makers that create laws are constitutionally accountable to the people.  We don't live in a lawless society, and having laws (that are constitutional) are not authoritarian.
> 
> Our representatives are constitutionally charged with the safety of the people foreign or domestic.  When people are coming here lowering our wages, when people are coming here selling deadly narcotics to our people, when people are coming here killing our citizens and police officers alike, when people break our laws by entering illegally, the Constitution demands that our representatives adhere to the oath they took which is to conduct themselves in a constitutional way.
Click to expand...


The equivocation mambo!


----------



## OKTexas

Lesh said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're down to a maybe on slats.  Meanwhile, border agents are not being paid.
> 
> *GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN: MORE THAN 54,000 BORDER PATROL AGENTS TO WORK WITHOUT PAY, WHILE TRUMP SAYS THEY ‘WANT THE WALL’*
> *More than 54,000 Border Patrol agents will be working without pay as government shutdown continues*
> 
> *MAGA-n-shit.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they might not be paid on time. BTW according to the DHS white house briefing today, border patrol intercepted 3700 know or suspected terrorist last year. How many of those would you like to see get through. Keep in mind they didn't intercept all border crossers last year, I wonder how many terrorist made it?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've been through that bullshit already.
> 
> Odd that the jails aren;t bursting with all these "terrorists" caught huh?
> 
> Maybe that's why Trump defeated ISIS. They all got caught crossing the Mexican border.
> '
> What a crock
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor little Lush, got a problem with the DHS report, prove it wrong. I'll be waiting with my glass of tea, till you do. LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. Post this report and actually read what it says. It's nonsense
Click to expand...



Nah, I trust the person that was in the briefing, it's your problem if you don't. If you're lucky the WH will publish it.

.


----------



## Lesh

OKTexas said:


> Nah, I trust the person that was in the briefing, it's your problem if you don't. If you're lucky the WH will publish it.



Oh noes! Trumpers talking out their asses again?


----------



## OKTexas

Lesh said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's Trump's fault or the Democrats?
> 
> Trump asked for 25 billion originally.  HIs asking price now is 1/5 of that, and the Democrats are going to fight him tooth and nail for it.  So now you blame less quality on Trump instead of them?
> 
> What is it with you on the left that never......ever want to assume responsibility for your actions?  Now if the Democrats approved 25 billion and Trump didn't deliver, then you'd have a solid argument.  But to say Trump failed us when it was actually the Democrats is an out and out lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And 25 billion was offered and turned down. Trump doesn't actually KNOW what he wants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you know what you are talking about.  Show me where the Democrats offered the 25 billion and he turned it down for no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep up. Schumer offered that on January 19 last year in return for reauthorizing DCA. Trump spit in his face
Click to expand...



Actually it was the House that spit in his face, but no need for facts in your propaganda, right?

.


----------



## OKTexas

Lesh said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, I trust the person that was in the briefing, it's your problem if you don't. If you're lucky the WH will publish it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh noes! Trumpers talking out their asses again?
Click to expand...



Damn, you're not even a good troll.


.


----------



## Dale Smith

OKTexas said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, I trust the person that was in the briefing, it's your problem if you don't. If you're lucky the WH will publish it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh noes! Trumpers talking out their asses again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, you're not even a good troll.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

 Lesh tries to be a good non-troll-like but her postings give her away......


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's not actually a wall and it's not actually going across the southern border?
> 
> What exactly are we shutting down the government over??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.8 billion dollars.
Click to expand...

slush fund


----------



## Lesh

OKTexas said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's Trump's fault or the Democrats?
> 
> Trump asked for 25 billion originally.  HIs asking price now is 1/5 of that, and the Democrats are going to fight him tooth and nail for it.  So now you blame less quality on Trump instead of them?
> 
> What is it with you on the left that never......ever want to assume responsibility for your actions?  Now if the Democrats approved 25 billion and Trump didn't deliver, then you'd have a solid argument.  But to say Trump failed us when it was actually the Democrats is an out and out lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And 25 billion was offered and turned down. Trump doesn't actually KNOW what he wants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you know what you are talking about.  Show me where the Democrats offered the 25 billion and he turned it down for no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep up. Schumer offered that on January 19 last year in return for reauthorizing DCA. Trump spit in his face
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the House that spit in his face, but no need for facts in your propaganda, right?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Offering 25 billion is not spitting in anyone's face retard.


----------



## Dale Smith

Lesh said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's Trump's fault or the Democrats?
> 
> Trump asked for 25 billion originally.  HIs asking price now is 1/5 of that, and the Democrats are going to fight him tooth and nail for it.  So now you blame less quality on Trump instead of them?
> 
> What is it with you on the left that never......ever want to assume responsibility for your actions?  Now if the Democrats approved 25 billion and Trump didn't deliver, then you'd have a solid argument.  But to say Trump failed us when it was actually the Democrats is an out and out lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And 25 billion was offered and turned down. Trump doesn't actually KNOW what he wants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you know what you are talking about.  Show me where the Democrats offered the 25 billion and he turned it down for no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep up. Schumer offered that on January 19 last year in return for reauthorizing DCA. Trump spit in his face
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the House that spit in his face, but no need for facts in your propaganda, right?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Offering 25 billion is not spitting in anyone's face retard.
Click to expand...



LMAO!!! Try using a "comma", ya dumb fuck.


----------



## Lesh

When you're reduced to playing grammar Nazi you might as well just quit, retard.


----------



## OKTexas

Lesh said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's Trump's fault or the Democrats?
> 
> Trump asked for 25 billion originally.  HIs asking price now is 1/5 of that, and the Democrats are going to fight him tooth and nail for it.  So now you blame less quality on Trump instead of them?
> 
> What is it with you on the left that never......ever want to assume responsibility for your actions?  Now if the Democrats approved 25 billion and Trump didn't deliver, then you'd have a solid argument.  But to say Trump failed us when it was actually the Democrats is an out and out lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And 25 billion was offered and turned down. Trump doesn't actually KNOW what he wants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you know what you are talking about.  Show me where the Democrats offered the 25 billion and he turned it down for no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep up. Schumer offered that on January 19 last year in return for reauthorizing DCA. Trump spit in his face
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the House that spit in his face, but no need for facts in your propaganda, right?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Offering 25 billion is not spitting in anyone's face retard.
Click to expand...


The senate is the one that made the offer, the house said no, too many other things involved they objected to.

.


----------



## Lesh

OKTexas said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> And 25 billion was offered and turned down. Trump doesn't actually KNOW what he wants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you know what you are talking about.  Show me where the Democrats offered the 25 billion and he turned it down for no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep up. Schumer offered that on January 19 last year in return for reauthorizing DCA. Trump spit in his face
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the House that spit in his face, but no need for facts in your propaganda, right?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Offering 25 billion is not spitting in anyone's face retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The senate is the one that made the offer, the house said no, too many other things involved they objected to.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

The GOP HOUSE?

What did they object to?

THEY didn't want 25 billion in wall funding?


----------



## OKTexas

Lesh said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you know what you are talking about.  Show me where the Democrats offered the 25 billion and he turned it down for no reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep up. Schumer offered that on January 19 last year in return for reauthorizing DCA. Trump spit in his face
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the House that spit in his face, but no need for facts in your propaganda, right?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Offering 25 billion is not spitting in anyone's face retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The senate is the one that made the offer, the house said no, too many other things involved they objected to.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP HOUSE?
> 
> What did they object to?
> 
> THEY didn't want 25 billion in wall funding?
Click to expand...



That was months ago, look it up. I know there was some shamnesty involved.

.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still have a government shut down...and Trump is claiming it's because of a wall
> 
> But I guess the Trumpers don't want to talk about it any more since well...it's not actually a wall but a fence...and it's not actually going to run across the whole southern border...because ya know....like the sane ones of us have been saying...that would be a stupid  waste of money that pretty much could never happen anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's Trump's fault or the Democrats?
> 
> Trump asked for 25 billion originally.  HIs asking price now is 1/5 of that, and the Democrats are going to fight him tooth and nail for it.  So now you blame less quality on Trump instead of them?
> 
> What is it with you on the left that never......ever want to assume responsibility for your actions?  Now if the Democrats approved 25 billion and Trump didn't deliver, then you'd have a solid argument.  But to say Trump failed us when it was actually the Democrats is an out and out lie.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is Trump's fault. Don't you remember the Trump campaign rhetoric.

"I am the greatest deal maker this county has every seen."

“MY STYLE of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after. And I always get what I want."

"When it comes to negotiations, democrats are a push over"

Well it seems the greatest deal maker that ever lived has met his match simply because he does not know how to deal with congress.  In order to get any money for his wall he has to offer House democrats concessions on immigration and that's not going to be easy because almost anything he offers will cost far right votes.

House democrats shouldn't cave in.  They have the votes and they have the public.  Neither the wall nor Trump's government shutdown is popular. Cowing down to the school yard bully would cost them dearly.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, no one told me I can't go anywhere? Me thinks you need to elaborate a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better make sure you have all your papers handy. And don't have too much of a tan.
Click to expand...


I always carry my drivers license, moron.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I dislike illegals. Regular immigrants are cool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we can surely count on you to increase (or remove) immigration quotas and bureaucratic barriers to legal immigration, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why increase them? How big IS your family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I guess you don't think immigrants aren't THAT cool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government sets quotas based on several factors. If they decide we need more, then ok. But not just because of nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, no there are no quotas.  Congress sets the maximum number immigrants at about 675,000 per year plus about half dozen categories of immigration that pushes the total to about a million a year or higher.
> 
> Then the law establishes the maximum number of immigrants from any country as 7% of the total, about 70,000 excluding certain categories.  However, this figure is reduced by the number of legal residents from that country living in the US who change immigration status to permanent resident.  Immigrants being sponsored by family members further reduces the number as well as employment sponsoring and other categories of immigration.
> 
> So for most countries if you do not have family living in the US or have special skills that will attract an employer to sponsor you or you don't fit in one of the other special categories, you simple can not immigrate to the US, no matter how long you wait.
Click to expand...

Yeah?  So what?  Since when does anyone have a right to emigrate to the United States?


----------



## Rigby5

Grampa Murked U said:


> Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...
> 
> If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?




That makes no sense because the way to stop there from being refugees wanting asylum in the US is to stop arming military dictatorship in places like Honduras, Guatamala, etc.  A wall is a waste of time and money because desperate people fleeing death, will get around or over it.  The US is mostly coastline.  There is no way to build a wall for that.  Tons of drug fly in over the border all the time.  All a  wall would do is make it costly enough so that these planes would be smuggling people as well.


----------



## Rigby5

bripat9643 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then we can surely count on you to increase (or remove) immigration quotas and bureaucratic barriers to legal immigration, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Why increase them? How big IS your family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I guess you don't think immigrants aren't THAT cool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government sets quotas based on several factors. If they decide we need more, then ok. But not just because of nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, no there are no quotas.  Congress sets the maximum number immigrants at about 675,000 per year plus about half dozen categories of immigration that pushes the total to about a million a year or higher.
> 
> Then the law establishes the maximum number of immigrants from any country as 7% of the total, about 70,000 excluding certain categories.  However, this figure is reduced by the number of legal residents from that country living in the US who change immigration status to permanent resident.  Immigrants being sponsored by family members further reduces the number as well as employment sponsoring and other categories of immigration.
> 
> So for most countries if you do not have family living in the US or have special skills that will attract an employer to sponsor you or you don't fit in one of the other special categories, you simple can not immigrate to the US, no matter how long you wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah?  So what?  Since when does anyone have a right to emigrate to the United States?
Click to expand...



When the colonists came here from Europe 500 years ago, it was they who claimed anyone had the right to immigrate here, and now we are stuck with that legal precedent.  But it is even more complex because when we negotiated treaties to buy CA, AZ, NM, NV, CO, UT, TX, FL and others, there were already over a million Mexicans living here, so we agreed to treaties that prohibited any infringement on travel by Mexicans.  Those million Mexicans were not required to become US citizens or leave.  So we can't now close the border or else be in violation of the treaties and be in default.


----------



## bripat9643

Rigby5 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why increase them? How big IS your family?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I guess you don't think immigrants aren't THAT cool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government sets quotas based on several factors. If they decide we need more, then ok. But not just because of nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, no there are no quotas.  Congress sets the maximum number immigrants at about 675,000 per year plus about half dozen categories of immigration that pushes the total to about a million a year or higher.
> 
> Then the law establishes the maximum number of immigrants from any country as 7% of the total, about 70,000 excluding certain categories.  However, this figure is reduced by the number of legal residents from that country living in the US who change immigration status to permanent resident.  Immigrants being sponsored by family members further reduces the number as well as employment sponsoring and other categories of immigration.
> 
> So for most countries if you do not have family living in the US or have special skills that will attract an employer to sponsor you or you don't fit in one of the other special categories, you simple can not immigrate to the US, no matter how long you wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah?  So what?  Since when does anyone have a right to emigrate to the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When the colonists came here from Europe 500 years ago, it was they who claimed anyone had the right to immigrate here, and now we are stuck with that legal precedent.  But it is even more complex because when we negotiated treaties to buy CA, AZ, NM, NV, CO, UT, TX, FL and others, there were already over a million Mexicans living here, so we agreed to treaties that prohibited any infringement on travel by Mexicans.  Those million Mexicans were not required to become US citizens or leave.  So we can't now close the border or else be in violation of the treaties and be in default.
Click to expand...


Those treaties were all defunct long ago.  Our government isn't bound by any of them.


----------



## basquebromance

Trump is strong. Trump is kind. Trump is generous of spirit. he's gonna get a deal done that makes everyone happy


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heh... cry me a river. Software pays quite well. We don't need the phony protectionism.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what phone protectionism is.  Controlling immigration is not protectionism.
Click to expand...

Protectionism is government policy that seeks to protect the financial well-being of special interest groups by restricting competition. It's usually achieved by imposing tariffs or limiting imports. In this case, the import being limited is cheap labor.

Phony protectionism is imposing these policies when they won't even have the intended effects - or when unintended consequences render them null and void. Liberals don't understand that unrestricted price competition is the foundation of a free market. They think government can overrule it without repercussions. They are wrong. You are wrong.


----------



## Kondor3

f) It is unsustainable.


----------



## Kondor3

Tax Man said:


> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS


That was a fine sentiment in 1903...

The population of the US was then 76,000,000...

There was still plenty of land to be had...

There was a job for anyone who wanted one...

Today, however...

The population of the US is 330,000,000...

The land has all been parceled out...

We struggle to keep our own employed...

We struggle to provide educational and medical and social services for our own one-third of a billion souls...

Never mind 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens now present upon United States soil without our express prior consent...

Never mind the millions more invaders who will flood across our borders, should we be stupid enough to allow it...

That plaque represented a fine sentiment, in its time...

Unfortunately, it's time is over... those sentiments are no longer practical... best to hang-up a 'No Vacancy' sign.

Perhaps it's time to declare a two- or four-year moratorium on *all *immigration to the United States.


----------



## Ame®icano

danielpalos said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, all illegals should be kicked out of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> how socialist of you.  why not simply fine them and make honest tourists of them. we don't have an immigration problem we have lousy naturalization policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had every chance to be honest tourists, but they chose otherwise.
> 
> True, we don't have immigration problem, since immigration is about people who are permitted to be here. We have a problem with illegal aliens and criminals who do not belong here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause.  We have an Express naturalization clause.  We should have no illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to read Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1. That is the immigration clause.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i would agree with you but for our establishment clause.
Click to expand...


It would help you if you knew what establishment clause is about.


----------



## Ame®icano

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foreigners are no more a part of the free market than unions are.  We have a pretty successful supply and demand process providing somebody doesn't throw a monkey wrench into the system.  Cheating the system is hardly free market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty ironic that you criticize unions, given that the protectionism you're clamoring for is exactly the kind of things unions demand. Hungry people willing to do your job for less IS the free market.
Click to expand...


Letting all world's hungry here wont make your job paid higher.


----------



## Ame®icano

dblack said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why increase them? How big IS your family?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I guess you don't think immigrants aren't THAT cool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government sets quotas based on several factors. If they decide we need more, then ok. But not just because of nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our laws should protect freedom, not privilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with quotas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quotas limit freedom. That's the point of imposing them.
Click to expand...


Whose freedom you're talking about? Quota doesn't limit my freedom, it limits number of people we allow to this country.


----------



## Ame®icano

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still have a government shut down...and Trump is claiming it's because of a wall
> 
> But I guess the Trumpers don't want to talk about it any more since well...it's not actually a wall but a fence...and it's not actually going to run across the whole southern border...because ya know....like the sane ones of us have been saying...that would be a stupid  waste of money that pretty much could never happen anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
Click to expand...


If so, why left is against it?


----------



## Taz

dblack said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No quotas make sure we don’t get swamped and protect our freedom to choose who comes in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Freedom to choose who comes in"
> 
> That's not freedom. That's authoritarian state power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go pick some fruit, then get out of here before I call ICE on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Giving up so soon?
Click to expand...

You just spout nonsense. Choosing who comes into your country is somehow wrong in your eyes. That's stoopid. Now get on your donkey and head south.


----------



## Ame®icano

dblack said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with quotas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quotas limit freedom. That's the point of imposing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> quotas on foreign labor don't limit my freedom in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to cross the border they do. If you, and some of the other wall cowards here, get your way, our nation will become a police state where everyone is under suspicion of "being illegal". Do you remember back when you used to think of yourself as a libertarian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So tell the class, how many of the 1.4 billion people that say they want to come here should we let in? No bullshit, just give us a number.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Government shouldn't restrict travel. Period.
Click to expand...


Of the citizens.


----------



## Lesh

Ame®icano said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still have a government shut down...and Trump is claiming it's because of a wall
> 
> But I guess the Trumpers don't want to talk about it any more since well...it's not actually a wall but a fence...and it's not actually going to run across the whole southern border...because ya know....like the sane ones of us have been saying...that would be a stupid  waste of money that pretty much could never happen anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If so, why left is against it?
Click to expand...

For someone so anti-immigrant...your english is amazingly stilted


----------



## Ame®icano

Lesh said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still have a government shut down...and Trump is claiming it's because of a wall
> 
> But I guess the Trumpers don't want to talk about it any more since well...it's not actually a wall but a fence...and it's not actually going to run across the whole southern border...because ya know....like the sane ones of us have been saying...that would be a stupid  waste of money that pretty much could never happen anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If so, why left is against it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For someone so anti-immigrant...your english is amazingly stilted
Click to expand...


For someone so anti-immigrant...[space here]your [E]nglish is amazingly stilted[period].

There, I fixed it for you.


----------



## Crick

Are you people all so young or uneducated that you don't remember divided Berlin?  If so, what was wrong with that wall?


----------



## dblack

Ame®icano said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government shouldn't restrict travel. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the citizens.
Click to expand...


That's the conceit of a most of the new authoritarians. They want to pretend that their laws will only be violating the rights of certain targeted groups (immigrants, terrorists, drug-users, etc...). But it doesn't work that way. Laws effect everyone. When you build walls they are in everyone's way. When you pass police state laws authorizing the government to short-circuit due process, everyone loses the right to due process.


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> with my native work ethic?
> 
> 
> 
> You're not an anchor baby, so not born here. And get your donkey out of the front yard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who cares what "Caucasians away from their mountains, say"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you hate white people. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is just You.  why come over here to have a bad attitude.  Your mountains still love you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t quit your English lessons. Now go eat a tamale.
Click to expand...

you are too far away from Your mountains; you make no sense.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not an anchor baby, so not born here. And get your donkey out of the front yard.
> 
> 
> 
> who cares what "Caucasians away from their mountains, say"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you hate white people. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is just You.  why come over here to have a bad attitude.  Your mountains still love you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t quit your English lessons. Now go eat a tamale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are too far away from Your mountains; you make no sense.
Click to expand...

You must be jealous of white people that they can create great countries, and you short brown people can't create anything but shitholes.


----------



## danielpalos

OKTexas said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our laws should protect freedom, not privilege.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with quotas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quotas limit freedom. That's the point of imposing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> quotas on foreign labor don't limit my freedom in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to cross the border they do. If you, and some of the other wall cowards here, get your way, our nation will become a police state where everyone is under suspicion of "being illegal". Do you remember back when you used to think of yourself as a libertarian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So tell the class, how many of the 1.4 billion people that say they want to come here should we let in? No bullshit, just give us a number.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

We don't have an immigration clause we have a naturalization clause.  We should have no illegal problem and tourism is the first, second, or third largest employers in twenty-nine States.


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> who cares what "Caucasians away from their mountains, say"?
> 
> 
> 
> So you hate white people. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is just You.  why come over here to have a bad attitude.  Your mountains still love you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t quit your English lessons. Now go eat a tamale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are too far away from Your mountains; you make no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be jealous of white people that they can create great countries, and you short brown people can't create anything but shitholes.
Click to expand...

they were already created.  it must be your turn or whitey would not get so much of the blame.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you hate white people. Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> that is just You.  why come over here to have a bad attitude.  Your mountains still love you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t quit your English lessons. Now go eat a tamale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are too far away from Your mountains; you make no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be jealous of white people that they can create great countries, and you short brown people can't create anything but shitholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they were already created.  it must be your turn or whitey would not get so much of the blame.
Click to expand...

They were created by our ancestors. Your ancestors build the shitholes you all want to get away from. Now go suck an enchilada.


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is just You.  why come over here to have a bad attitude.  Your mountains still love you.
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t quit your English lessons. Now go eat a tamale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are too far away from Your mountains; you make no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be jealous of white people that they can create great countries, and you short brown people can't create anything but shitholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they were already created.  it must be your turn or whitey would not get so much of the blame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were created by our ancestors. Your ancestors build the shitholes you all want to get away from. Now go suck an enchilada.
Click to expand...

story telling.  you seem to be good at that.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t quit your English lessons. Now go eat a tamale.
> 
> 
> 
> you are too far away from Your mountains; you make no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be jealous of white people that they can create great countries, and you short brown people can't create anything but shitholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they were already created.  it must be your turn or whitey would not get so much of the blame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were created by our ancestors. Your ancestors build the shitholes you all want to get away from. Now go suck an enchilada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> story telling.  you seem to be good at that.
Click to expand...

So why are your relatives trying to come up here? Can't stand the greatness of where they are?


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are too far away from Your mountains; you make no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> You must be jealous of white people that they can create great countries, and you short brown people can't create anything but shitholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they were already created.  it must be your turn or whitey would not get so much of the blame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were created by our ancestors. Your ancestors build the shitholes you all want to get away from. Now go suck an enchilada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> story telling.  you seem to be good at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are your relatives trying to come up here? Can't stand the greatness of where they are?
Click to expand...

they would be tourists; but the right wing insists on lousy right wing management.


----------



## Slyhunter

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foreigners are no more a part of the free market than unions are.  We have a pretty successful supply and demand process providing somebody doesn't throw a monkey wrench into the system.  Cheating the system is hardly free market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty ironic that you criticize unions, given that the protectionism you're clamoring for is exactly the kind of things unions demand. Hungry people willing to do your job for less IS the free market.
Click to expand...

Hungry Americans, not hungry foreigners willing to work for slave wages.


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still have a government shut down...and Trump is claiming it's because of a wall
> 
> But I guess the Trumpers don't want to talk about it any more since well...it's not actually a wall but a fence...and it's not actually going to run across the whole southern border...because ya know....like the sane ones of us have been saying...that would be a stupid  waste of money that pretty much could never happen anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's Trump's fault or the Democrats?
> 
> Trump asked for 25 billion originally.  HIs asking price now is 1/5 of that, and the Democrats are going to fight him tooth and nail for it.  So now you blame less quality on Trump instead of them?
> 
> What is it with you on the left that never......ever want to assume responsibility for your actions?  Now if the Democrats approved 25 billion and Trump didn't deliver, then you'd have a solid argument.  But to say Trump failed us when it was actually the Democrats is an out and out lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is Trump's fault. Don't you remember the Trump campaign rhetoric.
> 
> "I am the greatest deal maker this county has every seen."
> 
> “MY STYLE of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after. And I always get what I want."
> 
> "When it comes to negotiations, democrats are a push over"
> 
> Well it seems the greatest deal maker that ever lived has met his match simply because he does not know how to deal with congress.  In order to get any money for his wall he has to offer House democrats concessions on immigration and that's not going to be easy because almost anything he offers will cost far right votes.
> 
> House democrats shouldn't cave in.  They have the votes and they have the public.  Neither the wall nor Trump's government shutdown is popular. Cowing down to the school yard bully would cost them dearly.
Click to expand...

Democrats get nothing until Trump gets his wall. No bill passes. Veto everyfuckingthing.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still have a government shut down...and Trump is claiming it's because of a wall
> 
> But I guess the Trumpers don't want to talk about it any more since well...it's not actually a wall but a fence...and it's not actually going to run across the whole southern border...because ya know....like the sane ones of us have been saying...that would be a stupid  waste of money that pretty much could never happen anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's Trump's fault or the Democrats?
> 
> Trump asked for 25 billion originally.  HIs asking price now is 1/5 of that, and the Democrats are going to fight him tooth and nail for it.  So now you blame less quality on Trump instead of them?
> 
> What is it with you on the left that never......ever want to assume responsibility for your actions?  Now if the Democrats approved 25 billion and Trump didn't deliver, then you'd have a solid argument.  But to say Trump failed us when it was actually the Democrats is an out and out lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is Trump's fault. Don't you remember the Trump campaign rhetoric.
> 
> "I am the greatest deal maker this county has every seen."
> 
> “MY STYLE of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after. And I always get what I want."
> 
> "When it comes to negotiations, democrats are a push over"
> 
> Well it seems the greatest deal maker that ever lived has met his match simply because he does not know how to deal with congress.  In order to get any money for his wall he has to offer House democrats concessions on immigration and that's not going to be easy because almost anything he offers will cost far right votes.
> 
> House democrats shouldn't cave in.  They have the votes and they have the public.  Neither the wall nor Trump's government shutdown is popular. Cowing down to the school yard bully would cost them dearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats get nothing until Trump gets his wall. No bill passes. Veto everyfuckingthing.
Click to expand...

There is no express wall building power enumerated in our Constitution.  We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be jealous of white people that they can create great countries, and you short brown people can't create anything but shitholes.
> 
> 
> 
> they were already created.  it must be your turn or whitey would not get so much of the blame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were created by our ancestors. Your ancestors build the shitholes you all want to get away from. Now go suck an enchilada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> story telling.  you seem to be good at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are your relatives trying to come up here? Can't stand the greatness of where they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they would be tourists; but the right wing insists on lousy right wing management.
Click to expand...

Tourists that wouldn't want to go home to their native paradise. Something like that?


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's Trump's fault or the Democrats?
> 
> Trump asked for 25 billion originally.  HIs asking price now is 1/5 of that, and the Democrats are going to fight him tooth and nail for it.  So now you blame less quality on Trump instead of them?
> 
> What is it with you on the left that never......ever want to assume responsibility for your actions?  Now if the Democrats approved 25 billion and Trump didn't deliver, then you'd have a solid argument.  But to say Trump failed us when it was actually the Democrats is an out and out lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is Trump's fault. Don't you remember the Trump campaign rhetoric.
> 
> "I am the greatest deal maker this county has every seen."
> 
> “MY STYLE of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after. And I always get what I want."
> 
> "When it comes to negotiations, democrats are a push over"
> 
> Well it seems the greatest deal maker that ever lived has met his match simply because he does not know how to deal with congress.  In order to get any money for his wall he has to offer House democrats concessions on immigration and that's not going to be easy because almost anything he offers will cost far right votes.
> 
> House democrats shouldn't cave in.  They have the votes and they have the public.  Neither the wall nor Trump's government shutdown is popular. Cowing down to the school yard bully would cost them dearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats get nothing until Trump gets his wall. No bill passes. Veto everyfuckingthing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no express wall building power enumerated in our Constitution.  We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.
Click to expand...

You are a broken record.


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they were already created.  it must be your turn or whitey would not get so much of the blame.
> 
> 
> 
> They were created by our ancestors. Your ancestors build the shitholes you all want to get away from. Now go suck an enchilada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> story telling.  you seem to be good at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are your relatives trying to come up here? Can't stand the greatness of where they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they would be tourists; but the right wing insists on lousy right wing management.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tourists that wouldn't want to go home to their native paradise. Something like that?
Click to expand...

why not?  Capitalism works.  They could make money here and go home when there is a decent exchange rate.  They could "set up shop" back home.  With our current, lousy right wing management, they are stuck in the US and merely increase their risk leaving and returning.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's Trump's fault or the Democrats?
> 
> Trump asked for 25 billion originally.  HIs asking price now is 1/5 of that, and the Democrats are going to fight him tooth and nail for it.  So now you blame less quality on Trump instead of them?
> 
> What is it with you on the left that never......ever want to assume responsibility for your actions?  Now if the Democrats approved 25 billion and Trump didn't deliver, then you'd have a solid argument.  But to say Trump failed us when it was actually the Democrats is an out and out lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is Trump's fault. Don't you remember the Trump campaign rhetoric.
> 
> "I am the greatest deal maker this county has every seen."
> 
> “MY STYLE of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after. And I always get what I want."
> 
> "When it comes to negotiations, democrats are a push over"
> 
> Well it seems the greatest deal maker that ever lived has met his match simply because he does not know how to deal with congress.  In order to get any money for his wall he has to offer House democrats concessions on immigration and that's not going to be easy because almost anything he offers will cost far right votes.
> 
> House democrats shouldn't cave in.  They have the votes and they have the public.  Neither the wall nor Trump's government shutdown is popular. Cowing down to the school yard bully would cost them dearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats get nothing until Trump gets his wall. No bill passes. Veto everyfuckingthing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no express wall building power enumerated in our Constitution.  We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a broken record.
Click to expand...

don't believe in our Constitution?


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heh... cry me a river. Software pays quite well. We don't need the phony protectionism.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what phone protectionism is.  Controlling immigration is not protectionism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protectionism is government policy that seeks to protect the financial well-being of special interest groups by restricting competition. It's usually achieved by imposing tariffs or limiting imports. In this case, the import being limited is cheap labor.
> 
> Phony protectionism is imposing these policies when they won't even have the intended effects - or when unintended consequences render them null and void. Liberals don't understand that unrestricted price competition is the foundation of a free market. They think government can overrule it without repercussions. They are wrong. You are wrong.
Click to expand...

Wrong.  That isn't what protectionism is.  It's an economic term the refers to placing tariffs or quotas on foreign produced goods.  That's all it refers to.  It doesn't refer to immigration policy in any way.  It also doesn't refer to internal policies, such as unionism, that protect some groups for workers from competition with other domestic labor.

The term has a negative connotation, so you use it dishonestly to promote your idiotic agenda.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were created by our ancestors. Your ancestors build the shitholes you all want to get away from. Now go suck an enchilada.
> 
> 
> 
> story telling.  you seem to be good at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are your relatives trying to come up here? Can't stand the greatness of where they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they would be tourists; but the right wing insists on lousy right wing management.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tourists that wouldn't want to go home to their native paradise. Something like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why not?  Capitalism works.  They could make money here and go home when there is a decent exchange rate.  They could "set up shop" back home.  With our current, lousy right wing management, they are stuck in the US and merely increase their risk leaving and returning.
Click to expand...

The door is currently closed on beaners. At least until we have a fresh batch of new lawns to mow.


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> story telling.  you seem to be good at that.
> 
> 
> 
> So why are your relatives trying to come up here? Can't stand the greatness of where they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they would be tourists; but the right wing insists on lousy right wing management.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tourists that wouldn't want to go home to their native paradise. Something like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why not?  Capitalism works.  They could make money here and go home when there is a decent exchange rate.  They could "set up shop" back home.  With our current, lousy right wing management, they are stuck in the US and merely increase their risk leaving and returning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The door is currently closed on beaners. At least until we have a fresh batch of new lawns to mow.
Click to expand...

you merely have an inferior argument.  that is all.


----------



## bripat9643

Crick said:


> Are you people all so young or uneducated that you don't remember divided Berlin?  If so, what was wrong with that wall?


You can't be this stupid.


----------



## bripat9643

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is just You.  why come over here to have a bad attitude.  Your mountains still love you.
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t quit your English lessons. Now go eat a tamale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are too far away from Your mountains; you make no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be jealous of white people that they can create great countries, and you short brown people can't create anything but shitholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they were already created.  it must be your turn or whitey would not get so much of the blame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were created by our ancestors. Your ancestors build the shitholes you all want to get away from. Now go suck an enchilada.
Click to expand...

Is Daniel Hispanic?


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why are your relatives trying to come up here? Can't stand the greatness of where they are?
> 
> 
> 
> they would be tourists; but the right wing insists on lousy right wing management.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tourists that wouldn't want to go home to their native paradise. Something like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why not?  Capitalism works.  They could make money here and go home when there is a decent exchange rate.  They could "set up shop" back home.  With our current, lousy right wing management, they are stuck in the US and merely increase their risk leaving and returning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The door is currently closed on beaners. At least until we have a fresh batch of new lawns to mow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you merely have an inferior argument.  that is all.
Click to expand...

Door is still closed on tamale chuggers.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No quotas make sure we don’t get swamped and protect our freedom to choose who comes in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Freedom to choose who comes in"
> 
> That's not freedom. That's authoritarian state power.
Click to expand...

Wrong.  That's the proper function of government.


----------



## Taz

bripat9643 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t quit your English lessons. Now go eat a tamale.
> 
> 
> 
> you are too far away from Your mountains; you make no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be jealous of white people that they can create great countries, and you short brown people can't create anything but shitholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they were already created.  it must be your turn or whitey would not get so much of the blame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were created by our ancestors. Your ancestors build the shitholes you all want to get away from. Now go suck an enchilada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is Daniel Hispanic?
Click to expand...

Yes, he admitted to trying to bring up the rest of his family.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government shouldn't restrict travel. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the conceit of a most of the new authoritarians. They want to pretend that their laws will only be violating the rights of certain targeted groups (immigrants, terrorists, drug-users, etc...). But it doesn't work that way. Laws effect everyone. When you build walls they are in everyone's way. When you pass police state laws authorizing the government to short-circuit due process, everyone loses the right to due process.
Click to expand...

So whose rights do laws against murder and robbery violate?


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government shouldn't restrict travel. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the conceit of a most of the new authoritarians. They want to pretend that their laws will only be violating the rights of certain targeted groups (immigrants, terrorists, drug-users, etc...). But it doesn't work that way. Laws effect everyone. When you build walls they are in everyone's way. When you pass police state laws authorizing the government to short-circuit due process, everyone loses the right to due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So whose rights do laws against murder and robbery violate?
Click to expand...

No one's - they defend the rights of the victims. Is this the first time you've considered this sort of thing?


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heh... cry me a river. Software pays quite well. We don't need the phony protectionism.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what phone protectionism is.  Controlling immigration is not protectionism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protectionism is government policy that seeks to protect the financial well-being of special interest groups by restricting competition. It's usually achieved by imposing tariffs or limiting imports. In this case, the import being limited is cheap labor.
> 
> Phony protectionism is imposing these policies when they won't even have the intended effects - or when unintended consequences render them null and void. Liberals don't understand that unrestricted price competition is the foundation of a free market. They think government can overrule it without repercussions. They are wrong. You are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  That isn't what protectionism is.  It's an economic term the refers to placing tariffs or quotas on foreign produced goods.  That's all it refers to.  It doesn't refer to immigration policy in any way.  It also doesn't refer to internal policies, such as unionism, that protect some groups for workers from competition with other domestic labor.
> 
> The term has a negative connotation, so you use it dishonestly to promote your idiotic agenda.
Click to expand...


Nope. Just pointing out your embarrassing hypocrisy.


----------



## OKTexas

Crick said:


> Are you people all so young or uneducated that you don't remember divided Berlin?  If so, what was wrong with that wall?




A wall, like a gun, is an inanimate object, a tool. Neither are good or bad, it depends on how they're used and both can be used for legitimate protection. If you have a problem with that, well, that's your problem.

.


----------



## OKTexas

danielpalos said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with quotas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quotas limit freedom. That's the point of imposing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> quotas on foreign labor don't limit my freedom in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to cross the border they do. If you, and some of the other wall cowards here, get your way, our nation will become a police state where everyone is under suspicion of "being illegal". Do you remember back when you used to think of yourself as a libertarian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So tell the class, how many of the 1.4 billion people that say they want to come here should we let in? No bullshit, just give us a number.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause we have a naturalization clause.  We should have no illegal problem and tourism is the first, second, or third largest employers in twenty-nine States.
Click to expand...



Now you proving yourself to be nothing but a liar. We have both. I've already provided you with the immigration clause. A1, S9, C1.

.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government shouldn't restrict travel. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the conceit of a most of the new authoritarians. They want to pretend that their laws will only be violating the rights of certain targeted groups (immigrants, terrorists, drug-users, etc...). But it doesn't work that way. Laws effect everyone. When you build walls they are in everyone's way. When you pass police state laws authorizing the government to short-circuit due process, everyone loses the right to due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So whose rights do laws against murder and robbery violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one's - they defend the rights of the victims. Is this the first time you've considered this sort of thing?
Click to expand...

But you just said that enforcing laws violates people's rights.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heh... cry me a river. Software pays quite well. We don't need the phony protectionism.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what phone protectionism is.  Controlling immigration is not protectionism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protectionism is government policy that seeks to protect the financial well-being of special interest groups by restricting competition. It's usually achieved by imposing tariffs or limiting imports. In this case, the import being limited is cheap labor.
> 
> Phony protectionism is imposing these policies when they won't even have the intended effects - or when unintended consequences render them null and void. Liberals don't understand that unrestricted price competition is the foundation of a free market. They think government can overrule it without repercussions. They are wrong. You are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  That isn't what protectionism is.  It's an economic term the refers to placing tariffs or quotas on foreign produced goods.  That's all it refers to.  It doesn't refer to immigration policy in any way.  It also doesn't refer to internal policies, such as unionism, that protect some groups for workers from competition with other domestic labor.
> 
> The term has a negative connotation, so you use it dishonestly to promote your idiotic agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Just pointing out your embarrassing hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

You failed.  Controlling immigration is not "protectionism," despite your attempt to spin it that way.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heh... cry me a river. Software pays quite well. We don't need the phony protectionism.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what phone protectionism is.  Controlling immigration is not protectionism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protectionism is government policy that seeks to protect the financial well-being of special interest groups by restricting competition. It's usually achieved by imposing tariffs or limiting imports. In this case, the import being limited is cheap labor.
> 
> Phony protectionism is imposing these policies when they won't even have the intended effects - or when unintended consequences render them null and void. Liberals don't understand that unrestricted price competition is the foundation of a free market. They think government can overrule it without repercussions. They are wrong. You are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  That isn't what protectionism is.  It's an economic term the refers to placing tariffs or quotas on foreign produced goods.  That's all it refers to.  It doesn't refer to immigration policy in any way.  It also doesn't refer to internal policies, such as unionism, that protect some groups for workers from competition with other domestic labor.
> 
> The term has a negative connotation, so you use it dishonestly to promote your idiotic agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Just pointing out your embarrassing hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You failed.  Controlling immigration is not "protectionism," despite your attempt to spin it that way.
Click to expand...


As long as it prevents them dirty brown people from stealing our jobs!


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government shouldn't restrict travel. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the conceit of a most of the new authoritarians. They want to pretend that their laws will only be violating the rights of certain targeted groups (immigrants, terrorists, drug-users, etc...). But it doesn't work that way. Laws effect everyone. When you build walls they are in everyone's way. When you pass police state laws authorizing the government to short-circuit due process, everyone loses the right to due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So whose rights do laws against murder and robbery violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one's - they defend the rights of the victims. Is this the first time you've considered this sort of thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you just said that enforcing laws violates people's rights.
Click to expand...


You're not good with detail, are ya?


----------



## Flopper

basquebromance said:


> Trump is strong. Trump is kind. Trump is generous of spirit. he's gonna get a deal done that makes everyone happy


No, a deal on the wall will not make everyone happy. The far right and far left won't be happy with any solution that's a compromise.


----------



## Flopper

Kondor3 said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS
> 
> 
> 
> That was a fine sentiment in 1903...
> 
> The population of the US was then 76,000,000...
> 
> There was still plenty of land to be had...
> 
> There was a job for anyone who wanted one...
> 
> Today, however...
> 
> The population of the US is 330,000,000...
> 
> The land has all been parceled out...
> 
> We struggle to keep our own employed...
> 
> We struggle to provide educational and medical and social services for our own one-third of a billion souls...
> 
> Never mind 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens now present upon United States soil without our express prior consent...
> 
> Never mind the millions more invaders who will flood across our borders, should we be stupid enough to allow it...
> 
> That plaque represented a fine sentiment, in its time...
> 
> Unfortunately, it's time is over... those sentiments are no longer practical... best to hang-up a 'No Vacancy' sign.
> 
> Perhaps it's time to declare a two- or four-year moratorium on *all *immigration to the United States.
Click to expand...

There is a 6 million job surplus now and that is likely to grow to 24 million in the next decade as the workforce shrinks do to baby boomers exiting the workforce and low birthrates.  There is plenty of room for growth in America.  

We should not open our borders nor should we seal them.  We need more legal immigrants and we need workable immigration laws and policies.


----------



## Flopper

Slyhunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still have a government shut down...and Trump is claiming it's because of a wall
> 
> But I guess the Trumpers don't want to talk about it any more since well...it's not actually a wall but a fence...and it's not actually going to run across the whole southern border...because ya know....like the sane ones of us have been saying...that would be a stupid  waste of money that pretty much could never happen anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's Trump's fault or the Democrats?
> 
> Trump asked for 25 billion originally.  HIs asking price now is 1/5 of that, and the Democrats are going to fight him tooth and nail for it.  So now you blame less quality on Trump instead of them?
> 
> What is it with you on the left that never......ever want to assume responsibility for your actions?  Now if the Democrats approved 25 billion and Trump didn't deliver, then you'd have a solid argument.  But to say Trump failed us when it was actually the Democrats is an out and out lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is Trump's fault. Don't you remember the Trump campaign rhetoric.
> 
> "I am the greatest deal maker this county has every seen."
> 
> “MY STYLE of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after. And I always get what I want."
> 
> "When it comes to negotiations, democrats are a push over"
> 
> Well it seems the greatest deal maker that ever lived has met his match simply because he does not know how to deal with congress.  In order to get any money for his wall he has to offer House democrats concessions on immigration and that's not going to be easy because almost anything he offers will cost far right votes.
> 
> House democrats shouldn't cave in.  They have the votes and they have the public.  Neither the wall nor Trump's government shutdown is popular. Cowing down to the school yard bully would cost them dearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats get nothing until Trump gets his wall. No bill passes. Veto everyfuckingthing.
Click to expand...

It would be foolish for House democrats to give in to Trump.  They have the votes and they have the public.  Trump's wall and his shutdown which he takes credit for is not popular with the public.


----------



## Slyhunter

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what phone protectionism is.  Controlling immigration is not protectionism.
> 
> 
> 
> Protectionism is government policy that seeks to protect the financial well-being of special interest groups by restricting competition. It's usually achieved by imposing tariffs or limiting imports. In this case, the import being limited is cheap labor.
> 
> Phony protectionism is imposing these policies when they won't even have the intended effects - or when unintended consequences render them null and void. Liberals don't understand that unrestricted price competition is the foundation of a free market. They think government can overrule it without repercussions. They are wrong. You are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  That isn't what protectionism is.  It's an economic term the refers to placing tariffs or quotas on foreign produced goods.  That's all it refers to.  It doesn't refer to immigration policy in any way.  It also doesn't refer to internal policies, such as unionism, that protect some groups for workers from competition with other domestic labor.
> 
> The term has a negative connotation, so you use it dishonestly to promote your idiotic agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Just pointing out your embarrassing hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You failed.  Controlling immigration is not "protectionism," despite your attempt to spin it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as it prevents them dirty brown people from stealing our jobs!
Click to expand...

When your sitting at home worrying about the bills jobless the color of the person who took your job is immaterial.


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's Trump's fault or the Democrats?
> 
> Trump asked for 25 billion originally.  HIs asking price now is 1/5 of that, and the Democrats are going to fight him tooth and nail for it.  So now you blame less quality on Trump instead of them?
> 
> What is it with you on the left that never......ever want to assume responsibility for your actions?  Now if the Democrats approved 25 billion and Trump didn't deliver, then you'd have a solid argument.  But to say Trump failed us when it was actually the Democrats is an out and out lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is Trump's fault. Don't you remember the Trump campaign rhetoric.
> 
> "I am the greatest deal maker this county has every seen."
> 
> “MY STYLE of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after. And I always get what I want."
> 
> "When it comes to negotiations, democrats are a push over"
> 
> Well it seems the greatest deal maker that ever lived has met his match simply because he does not know how to deal with congress.  In order to get any money for his wall he has to offer House democrats concessions on immigration and that's not going to be easy because almost anything he offers will cost far right votes.
> 
> House democrats shouldn't cave in.  They have the votes and they have the public.  Neither the wall nor Trump's government shutdown is popular. Cowing down to the school yard bully would cost them dearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats get nothing until Trump gets his wall. No bill passes. Veto everyfuckingthing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would be foolish for House democrats to give in to Trump.  They have the votes and they have the public.  Trump's wall and his shutdown which he takes credit for is not popular with the public.
Click to expand...

Bullshit, we want him to do his job and build the damn wall. No wall no bills.


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they would be tourists; but the right wing insists on lousy right wing management.
> 
> 
> 
> Tourists that wouldn't want to go home to their native paradise. Something like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why not?  Capitalism works.  They could make money here and go home when there is a decent exchange rate.  They could "set up shop" back home.  With our current, lousy right wing management, they are stuck in the US and merely increase their risk leaving and returning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The door is currently closed on beaners. At least until we have a fresh batch of new lawns to mow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you merely have an inferior argument.  that is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Door is still closed on tamale chuggers.
Click to expand...

you need a superior argument.


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are too far away from Your mountains; you make no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> You must be jealous of white people that they can create great countries, and you short brown people can't create anything but shitholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they were already created.  it must be your turn or whitey would not get so much of the blame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were created by our ancestors. Your ancestors build the shitholes you all want to get away from. Now go suck an enchilada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is Daniel Hispanic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, he admitted to trying to bring up the rest of his family.
Click to expand...

You ever Yodle on your mountains?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS
> 
> 
> 
> That was a fine sentiment in 1903...
> 
> The population of the US was then 76,000,000...
> 
> There was still plenty of land to be had...
> 
> There was a job for anyone who wanted one...
> 
> Today, however...
> 
> The population of the US is 330,000,000...
> 
> The land has all been parceled out...
> 
> We struggle to keep our own employed...
> 
> We struggle to provide educational and medical and social services for our own one-third of a billion souls...
> 
> Never mind 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens now present upon United States soil without our express prior consent...
> 
> Never mind the millions more invaders who will flood across our borders, should we be stupid enough to allow it...
> 
> That plaque represented a fine sentiment, in its time...
> 
> Unfortunately, it's time is over... those sentiments are no longer practical... best to hang-up a 'No Vacancy' sign.
> 
> Perhaps it's time to declare a two- or four-year moratorium on *all *immigration to the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a 6 million job surplus now and that is likely to grow to 24 million in the next decade as the workforce shrinks do to baby boomers exiting the workforce and low birthrates.  There is plenty of room for growth in America.
> 
> We should not open our borders nor should we seal them.  We need more legal immigrants and we need workable immigration laws and policies.
Click to expand...


Automation could kill 73 million U.S. jobs by 2030


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government shouldn't restrict travel. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the conceit of a most of the new authoritarians. They want to pretend that their laws will only be violating the rights of certain targeted groups (immigrants, terrorists, drug-users, etc...). But it doesn't work that way. Laws effect everyone. When you build walls they are in everyone's way. When you pass police state laws authorizing the government to short-circuit due process, everyone loses the right to due process.
Click to expand...


Walls don't have that ability, only government does.  And once Democrats secure their single-party government thanks to these immigrants that's exactly what's going to happen and worse.  If you know anything about Democrats; anything about their history, WTF do you think they're going to do with this country once there is no opposition?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Rigby5 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why increase them? How big IS your family?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I guess you don't think immigrants aren't THAT cool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government sets quotas based on several factors. If they decide we need more, then ok. But not just because of nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, no there are no quotas.  Congress sets the maximum number immigrants at about 675,000 per year plus about half dozen categories of immigration that pushes the total to about a million a year or higher.
> 
> Then the law establishes the maximum number of immigrants from any country as 7% of the total, about 70,000 excluding certain categories.  However, this figure is reduced by the number of legal residents from that country living in the US who change immigration status to permanent resident.  Immigrants being sponsored by family members further reduces the number as well as employment sponsoring and other categories of immigration.
> 
> So for most countries if you do not have family living in the US or have special skills that will attract an employer to sponsor you or you don't fit in one of the other special categories, you simple can not immigrate to the US, no matter how long you wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah?  So what?  Since when does anyone have a right to emigrate to the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When the colonists came here from Europe 500 years ago, it was they who claimed anyone had the right to immigrate here, and now we are stuck with that legal precedent.  But it is even more complex because when we negotiated treaties to buy CA, AZ, NM, NV, CO, UT, TX, FL and others, there were already over a million Mexicans living here, so we agreed to treaties that prohibited any infringement on travel by Mexicans.  Those million Mexicans were not required to become US citizens or leave.  So we can't now close the border or else be in violation of the treaties and be in default.
Click to expand...


Where have you been?  We've had immigration policies for generations limiting people who can come here, and no treaties violated.


----------



## Flopper

Slyhunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's Trump's fault or the Democrats?
> 
> Trump asked for 25 billion originally.  HIs asking price now is 1/5 of that, and the Democrats are going to fight him tooth and nail for it.  So now you blame less quality on Trump instead of them?
> 
> What is it with you on the left that never......ever want to assume responsibility for your actions?  Now if the Democrats approved 25 billion and Trump didn't deliver, then you'd have a solid argument.  But to say Trump failed us when it was actually the Democrats is an out and out lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is Trump's fault. Don't you remember the Trump campaign rhetoric.
> 
> "I am the greatest deal maker this county has every seen."
> 
> “MY STYLE of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after. And I always get what I want."
> 
> "When it comes to negotiations, democrats are a push over"
> 
> Well it seems the greatest deal maker that ever lived has met his match simply because he does not know how to deal with congress.  In order to get any money for his wall he has to offer House democrats concessions on immigration and that's not going to be easy because almost anything he offers will cost far right votes.
> 
> House democrats shouldn't cave in.  They have the votes and they have the public.  Neither the wall nor Trump's government shutdown is popular. Cowing down to the school yard bully would cost them dearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats get nothing until Trump gets his wall. No bill passes. Veto everyfuckingthing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would be foolish for House democrats to give in to Trump.  They have the votes and they have the public.  Trump's wall and his shutdown which he takes credit for is not popular with the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit, we want him to do his job and build the damn wall. No wall no bills.
Click to expand...

No, his job is not building a wall unless Congress says so by allocating funds and that's not likely to happen anytime soon.

What is happening thanks to Trump, the border patrol is working without pay, most immigration courts have been shutdown delaying hearings and deportations, and E-Verify is not available so immigration status can't be verified.

However, the end may be in sight as the first republican senator calls for an end to the shutdown without funds for a border wall.  There is little real support in the Senate for the wall but republicans are still doing their duty of supporting their president.  That may well change in few days.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still have a government shut down...and Trump is claiming it's because of a wall
> 
> But I guess the Trumpers don't want to talk about it any more since well...it's not actually a wall but a fence...and it's not actually going to run across the whole southern border...because ya know....like the sane ones of us have been saying...that would be a stupid  waste of money that pretty much could never happen anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's Trump's fault or the Democrats?
> 
> Trump asked for 25 billion originally.  HIs asking price now is 1/5 of that, and the Democrats are going to fight him tooth and nail for it.  So now you blame less quality on Trump instead of them?
> 
> What is it with you on the left that never......ever want to assume responsibility for your actions?  Now if the Democrats approved 25 billion and Trump didn't deliver, then you'd have a solid argument.  But to say Trump failed us when it was actually the Democrats is an out and out lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is Trump's fault. Don't you remember the Trump campaign rhetoric.
> 
> "I am the greatest deal maker this county has every seen."
> 
> “MY STYLE of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after. And I always get what I want."
> 
> "When it comes to negotiations, democrats are a push over"
> 
> Well it seems the greatest deal maker that ever lived has met his match simply because he does not know how to deal with congress.  In order to get any money for his wall he has to offer House democrats concessions on immigration and that's not going to be easy because almost anything he offers will cost far right votes.
> 
> House democrats shouldn't cave in.  They have the votes and they have the public.  Neither the wall nor Trump's government shutdown is popular. Cowing down to the school yard bully would cost them dearly.
Click to expand...


So would the surrender of this country to foreigners.  Trump has two choices: go with his instinct and give people what they elected him for, or give into polls Lord knows how badly manipulated.  

If he chooses the latter, what we are looking at is the beginning of the end of the Great Experiment; the end our our country as we know it.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS
> 
> 
> 
> That was a fine sentiment in 1903...
> 
> The population of the US was then 76,000,000...
> 
> There was still plenty of land to be had...
> 
> There was a job for anyone who wanted one...
> 
> Today, however...
> 
> The population of the US is 330,000,000...
> 
> The land has all been parceled out...
> 
> We struggle to keep our own employed...
> 
> We struggle to provide educational and medical and social services for our own one-third of a billion souls...
> 
> Never mind 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens now present upon United States soil without our express prior consent...
> 
> Never mind the millions more invaders who will flood across our borders, should we be stupid enough to allow it...
> 
> That plaque represented a fine sentiment, in its time...
> 
> Unfortunately, it's time is over... those sentiments are no longer practical... best to hang-up a 'No Vacancy' sign.
> 
> Perhaps it's time to declare a two- or four-year moratorium on *all *immigration to the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a 6 million job surplus now and that is likely to grow to 24 million in the next decade as the workforce shrinks do to baby boomers exiting the workforce and low birthrates.  There is plenty of room for growth in America.
> 
> We should not open our borders nor should we seal them.  We need more legal immigrants and we need workable immigration laws and policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Automation could kill 73 million U.S. jobs by 2030
Click to expand...

Automation does kill jobs but it creates more jobs than it eliminates in most industries. A study by Deloitte found found 800,000 jobs were eliminated as the result of AI and other automation technologies. But get this: 3.5 million new jobs were created as well, and those jobs paid on average nearly $13,000 more per year than the ones that were lost.

A company might automate and eliminate thousands of factory floor workers but by doing so, they increase profitability making possible investments in new products and plants.


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government shouldn't restrict travel. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the conceit of a most of the new authoritarians. They want to pretend that their laws will only be violating the rights of certain targeted groups (immigrants, terrorists, drug-users, etc...). But it doesn't work that way. Laws effect everyone. When you build walls they are in everyone's way. When you pass police state laws authorizing the government to short-circuit due process, everyone loses the right to due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls don't have that ability, only government does.  And once Democrats secure their single-party government thanks to these immigrants that's exactly what's going to happen and worse.  If you know anything about Democrats; anything about their history, WTF do you think they're going to do with this country once there is no opposition?
Click to expand...


FEAR!


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still have a government shut down...and Trump is claiming it's because of a wall
> 
> But I guess the Trumpers don't want to talk about it any more since well...it's not actually a wall but a fence...and it's not actually going to run across the whole southern border...because ya know....like the sane ones of us have been saying...that would be a stupid  waste of money that pretty much could never happen anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's Trump's fault or the Democrats?
> 
> Trump asked for 25 billion originally.  HIs asking price now is 1/5 of that, and the Democrats are going to fight him tooth and nail for it.  So now you blame less quality on Trump instead of them?
> 
> What is it with you on the left that never......ever want to assume responsibility for your actions?  Now if the Democrats approved 25 billion and Trump didn't deliver, then you'd have a solid argument.  But to say Trump failed us when it was actually the Democrats is an out and out lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is Trump's fault. Don't you remember the Trump campaign rhetoric.
> 
> "I am the greatest deal maker this county has every seen."
> 
> “MY STYLE of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after. And I always get what I want."
> 
> "When it comes to negotiations, democrats are a push over"
> 
> Well it seems the greatest deal maker that ever lived has met his match simply because he does not know how to deal with congress.  In order to get any money for his wall he has to offer House democrats concessions on immigration and that's not going to be easy because almost anything he offers will cost far right votes.
> 
> House democrats shouldn't cave in.  They have the votes and they have the public.  Neither the wall nor Trump's government shutdown is popular. Cowing down to the school yard bully would cost them dearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So would the surrender of this country to foreigners.  Trump has two choices: go with his instinct and give people what they elected him for, or give into polls Lord knows how badly manipulated.
> 
> If he chooses the latter, what we are looking at is the beginning of the end of the Great Experiment; the end our our country as we know it.
Click to expand...

Trump voters may have voted for Trump because he promised to build a wall and reduce illegal immigration but they didn't elect him shutdown legal immigration.

Trump has threaten to close US borders if he doesn't get his wall.  Hopefully he will do this.  His people would certainly advise against this but as we know, Trump listens to no one.


----------



## Kondor3

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS
> 
> 
> 
> That was a fine sentiment in 1903...
> 
> The population of the US was then 76,000,000...
> 
> There was still plenty of land to be had...
> 
> There was a job for anyone who wanted one...
> 
> Today, however...
> 
> The population of the US is 330,000,000...
> 
> The land has all been parceled out...
> 
> We struggle to keep our own employed...
> 
> We struggle to provide educational and medical and social services for our own one-third of a billion souls...
> 
> Never mind 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens now present upon United States soil without our express prior consent...
> 
> Never mind the millions more invaders who will flood across our borders, should we be stupid enough to allow it...
> 
> That plaque represented a fine sentiment, in its time...
> 
> Unfortunately, it's time is over... those sentiments are no longer practical... best to hang-up a 'No Vacancy' sign.
> 
> Perhaps it's time to declare a two- or four-year moratorium on *all *immigration to the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a 6 million job surplus now and that is likely to grow to 24 million in the next decade as the workforce shrinks do to baby boomers exiting the workforce and low birthrates.  There is plenty of room for growth in America.
> 
> We should not open our borders nor should we seal them.  We need more legal immigrants and we need workable immigration laws and policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Automation could kill 73 million U.S. jobs by 2030
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Automation does kill jobs but it creates more jobs than it eliminates in most industries. A study by Deloitte found found 800,000 jobs were eliminated as the result of AI and other automation technologies. But get this: 3.5 million new jobs were created as well, and those jobs paid on average nearly $13,000 more per year than the ones that were lost.
> 
> A company might automate and eliminate thousands of factory floor workers but by doing so, they increase profitability making possible investments in new products and plants.
Click to expand...

Vast numbers of Americans (myself included) see no reason to take a chance on there being enough jobs in future...

Best to eject the 11-12,000,000 invaders now, and de-incentivize the millions more who are considering crossing our borders...

Best to do it now, while there's a still a POTUS agreeable to such an approach, and a SCOTUS and other court appointees to firm it up.


----------



## Kondor3

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's Trump's fault or the Democrats?
> 
> Trump asked for 25 billion originally.  HIs asking price now is 1/5 of that, and the Democrats are going to fight him tooth and nail for it.  So now you blame less quality on Trump instead of them?
> 
> What is it with you on the left that never......ever want to assume responsibility for your actions?  Now if the Democrats approved 25 billion and Trump didn't deliver, then you'd have a solid argument.  But to say Trump failed us when it was actually the Democrats is an out and out lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is Trump's fault. Don't you remember the Trump campaign rhetoric.
> 
> "I am the greatest deal maker this county has every seen."
> 
> “MY STYLE of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after. And I always get what I want."
> 
> "When it comes to negotiations, democrats are a push over"
> 
> Well it seems the greatest deal maker that ever lived has met his match simply because he does not know how to deal with congress.  In order to get any money for his wall he has to offer House democrats concessions on immigration and that's not going to be easy because almost anything he offers will cost far right votes.
> 
> House democrats shouldn't cave in.  They have the votes and they have the public.  Neither the wall nor Trump's government shutdown is popular. Cowing down to the school yard bully would cost them dearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So would the surrender of this country to foreigners.  Trump has two choices: go with his instinct and give people what they elected him for, or give into polls Lord knows how badly manipulated.
> 
> If he chooses the latter, what we are looking at is the beginning of the end of the Great Experiment; the end our our country as we know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump voters may have voted for Trump because he promised to build a wall and reduce illegal immigration but they didn't elect him shutdown legal immigration.
> 
> Trump has threaten to close US borders if he doesn't get his wall.  Hopefully he will do this.  His people would certainly advise against this but as we know, Trump listens to no one.
Click to expand...

Trump is unfit to hold office...

His wall is a stupid idea...

Nevertheless, even a broken clock is right twice a day...

Closing down the border and putting the hammer down on Illegal Aliens are a correct and effective approach...

Hell, declare a Federal-level State of Emergency along the whole friggin' southern border, which frees the military of posse comitatus restrictions.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS
> 
> 
> 
> That was a fine sentiment in 1903...
> 
> The population of the US was then 76,000,000...
> 
> There was still plenty of land to be had...
> 
> There was a job for anyone who wanted one...
> 
> Today, however...
> 
> The population of the US is 330,000,000...
> 
> The land has all been parceled out...
> 
> We struggle to keep our own employed...
> 
> We struggle to provide educational and medical and social services for our own one-third of a billion souls...
> 
> Never mind 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens now present upon United States soil without our express prior consent...
> 
> Never mind the millions more invaders who will flood across our borders, should we be stupid enough to allow it...
> 
> That plaque represented a fine sentiment, in its time...
> 
> Unfortunately, it's time is over... those sentiments are no longer practical... best to hang-up a 'No Vacancy' sign.
> 
> Perhaps it's time to declare a two- or four-year moratorium on *all *immigration to the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a 6 million job surplus now and that is likely to grow to 24 million in the next decade as the workforce shrinks do to baby boomers exiting the workforce and low birthrates.  There is plenty of room for growth in America.
> 
> We should not open our borders nor should we seal them.  We need more legal immigrants and we need workable immigration laws and policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Automation could kill 73 million U.S. jobs by 2030
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Automation does kill jobs but it creates more jobs than it eliminates in most industries. A study by Deloitte found found 800,000 jobs were eliminated as the result of AI and other automation technologies. But get this: 3.5 million new jobs were created as well, and those jobs paid on average nearly $13,000 more per year than the ones that were lost.
> 
> A company might automate and eliminate thousands of factory floor workers but by doing so, they increase profitability making possible investments in new products and plants.
Click to expand...


There is never a net increase in jobs because of automation.  Automation company X employs 1000 workers.  They make a robot that eliminates 500 jobs in a window manufacturing company.  That means there is a net gain of 500 jobs except for the fact they don't make just one machine, they make hundreds or thousands.  The cost is in the engineering of the product.  After it's produced, it's merely a process of duplicating the first one which is much less expensive than creating the first one. 

The next job eliminator is driverless cars.  It will eventually wipeout cab drivers and Uber drivers all across the country.  Will it create jobs to make these products?  Yes it will, but it will eliminate more jobs than it created.  They are doing the same with over the road tractor-trailers although that will take some years to perfect.  But companies are already buying and using them.  

How do I know all this?  Because I've been working in industry for decades.  I've seen our customers shrink in staff while increasing their product output.  I seen the closure of businesses because they didn't make the same investments as their competitors.  

Bottom line is this:  Don't let this great economy fool you.  It's not going to last forever and neither are the employee deficits we see today.  Once you bring in all these low-skilled worker and that happens, there will be few jobs for Americans.  Then it will be a wage competition between the foreigners and the natives which of course is a battle we will lose.  Our standard of living is decreasing for blue collar workers much thanks to the foreigners that are here today, and I see no advantage in accelerating that.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a wall in some places and a fence in others.  It depends on the application of the area.  Trump isn't an engineer.
> 
> Furthermore it's the Democrats stopping Trump from what he would like to spend, so put the blame where it really belongs.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's Trump's fault or the Democrats?
> 
> Trump asked for 25 billion originally.  HIs asking price now is 1/5 of that, and the Democrats are going to fight him tooth and nail for it.  So now you blame less quality on Trump instead of them?
> 
> What is it with you on the left that never......ever want to assume responsibility for your actions?  Now if the Democrats approved 25 billion and Trump didn't deliver, then you'd have a solid argument.  But to say Trump failed us when it was actually the Democrats is an out and out lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is Trump's fault. Don't you remember the Trump campaign rhetoric.
> 
> "I am the greatest deal maker this county has every seen."
> 
> “MY STYLE of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after. And I always get what I want."
> 
> "When it comes to negotiations, democrats are a push over"
> 
> Well it seems the greatest deal maker that ever lived has met his match simply because he does not know how to deal with congress.  In order to get any money for his wall he has to offer House democrats concessions on immigration and that's not going to be easy because almost anything he offers will cost far right votes.
> 
> House democrats shouldn't cave in.  They have the votes and they have the public.  Neither the wall nor Trump's government shutdown is popular. Cowing down to the school yard bully would cost them dearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So would the surrender of this country to foreigners.  Trump has two choices: go with his instinct and give people what they elected him for, or give into polls Lord knows how badly manipulated.
> 
> If he chooses the latter, what we are looking at is the beginning of the end of the Great Experiment; the end our our country as we know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump voters may have voted for Trump because he promised to build a wall and reduce illegal immigration but they didn't elect him shutdown legal immigration.
> 
> Trump has threaten to close US borders if he doesn't get his wall.  Hopefully he will do this.  His people would certainly advise against this but as we know, Trump listens to no one.
Click to expand...


Trump never said anything about halting all immigration although I think that would be great.  His stance was to stop further illegal immigration from taking place slowing down the drug flow, the criminals, the murderers and possibly terrorists which Homeland Security already confirmed are crossing or trying to cross that border.  

Correct, Trump relies on instinct and common sense than polls.  He doesn't care about reelection either.  He has better things to do in life than run this country and battle with the Democrats trying to destroy it.  The one thing I can agree with you on is I hope he shuts down the border.


----------



## Flopper

Kondor3 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS
> 
> 
> 
> That was a fine sentiment in 1903...
> 
> The population of the US was then 76,000,000...
> 
> There was still plenty of land to be had...
> 
> There was a job for anyone who wanted one...
> 
> Today, however...
> 
> The population of the US is 330,000,000...
> 
> The land has all been parceled out...
> 
> We struggle to keep our own employed...
> 
> We struggle to provide educational and medical and social services for our own one-third of a billion souls...
> 
> Never mind 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens now present upon United States soil without our express prior consent...
> 
> Never mind the millions more invaders who will flood across our borders, should we be stupid enough to allow it...
> 
> That plaque represented a fine sentiment, in its time...
> 
> Unfortunately, it's time is over... those sentiments are no longer practical... best to hang-up a 'No Vacancy' sign.
> 
> Perhaps it's time to declare a two- or four-year moratorium on *all *immigration to the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a 6 million job surplus now and that is likely to grow to 24 million in the next decade as the workforce shrinks do to baby boomers exiting the workforce and low birthrates.  There is plenty of room for growth in America.
> 
> We should not open our borders nor should we seal them.  We need more legal immigrants and we need workable immigration laws and policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Automation could kill 73 million U.S. jobs by 2030
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Automation does kill jobs but it creates more jobs than it eliminates in most industries. A study by Deloitte found found 800,000 jobs were eliminated as the result of AI and other automation technologies. But get this: 3.5 million new jobs were created as well, and those jobs paid on average nearly $13,000 more per year than the ones that were lost.
> 
> A company might automate and eliminate thousands of factory floor workers but by doing so, they increase profitability making possible investments in new products and plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Vast numbers of Americans (myself included) see no reason to take a chance on there being enough jobs in future...
> 
> Best to eject the 11-12,000,000 invaders now, and de-incentivize the millions more who are considering crossing our borders...
> 
> Best to do it now, while there's a still a POTUS agreeable to such an approach, and a SCOTUS and other court appointees to firm it up.
Click to expand...

What you don't seem to understand is the increase in the size of the workforce without immigrant labor is less than the number of jobs being created.  So without immigrants we have a growing shortage of workers.  If we don't have the workers, the jobs go out of the country and with it economic expansion.

This trend will continue throughout most of this century due to baby boomers leaving the workforce, earlier retirements and a falling birth rate.  This trend also creates another serious problem.  How are we going to finance the additional cost of Medicare and Social Security with an aging population without a lot more  younger workers paying taxes?


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a fine sentiment in 1903...
> 
> The population of the US was then 76,000,000...
> 
> There was still plenty of land to be had...
> 
> There was a job for anyone who wanted one...
> 
> Today, however...
> 
> The population of the US is 330,000,000...
> 
> The land has all been parceled out...
> 
> We struggle to keep our own employed...
> 
> We struggle to provide educational and medical and social services for our own one-third of a billion souls...
> 
> Never mind 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens now present upon United States soil without our express prior consent...
> 
> Never mind the millions more invaders who will flood across our borders, should we be stupid enough to allow it...
> 
> That plaque represented a fine sentiment, in its time...
> 
> Unfortunately, it's time is over... those sentiments are no longer practical... best to hang-up a 'No Vacancy' sign.
> 
> Perhaps it's time to declare a two- or four-year moratorium on *all *immigration to the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a 6 million job surplus now and that is likely to grow to 24 million in the next decade as the workforce shrinks do to baby boomers exiting the workforce and low birthrates.  There is plenty of room for growth in America.
> 
> We should not open our borders nor should we seal them.  We need more legal immigrants and we need workable immigration laws and policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Automation could kill 73 million U.S. jobs by 2030
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Automation does kill jobs but it creates more jobs than it eliminates in most industries. A study by Deloitte found found 800,000 jobs were eliminated as the result of AI and other automation technologies. But get this: 3.5 million new jobs were created as well, and those jobs paid on average nearly $13,000 more per year than the ones that were lost.
> 
> A company might automate and eliminate thousands of factory floor workers but by doing so, they increase profitability making possible investments in new products and plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Vast numbers of Americans (myself included) see no reason to take a chance on there being enough jobs in future...
> 
> Best to eject the 11-12,000,000 invaders now, and de-incentivize the millions more who are considering crossing our borders...
> 
> Best to do it now, while there's a still a POTUS agreeable to such an approach, and a SCOTUS and other court appointees to firm it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you don't seem to understand is the increase in the size of the workforce without immigrant labor is less than the number of jobs being created.  So without immigrants we have a growing shortage of workers.  If we don't have the workers, the jobs go out of the country and with it economic expansion.
> 
> This trend will continue throughout most of this century due to baby boomers leaving the workforce, earlier retirements and a falling birth rate.
Click to expand...

Then we bring in legal immigrants after every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tourists that wouldn't want to go home to their native paradise. Something like that?
> 
> 
> 
> why not?  Capitalism works.  They could make money here and go home when there is a decent exchange rate.  They could "set up shop" back home.  With our current, lousy right wing management, they are stuck in the US and merely increase their risk leaving and returning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The door is currently closed on beaners. At least until we have a fresh batch of new lawns to mow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you merely have an inferior argument.  that is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Door is still closed on tamale chuggers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need a superior argument.
Click to expand...

No I don’t, the door is already closed.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be jealous of white people that they can create great countries, and you short brown people can't create anything but shitholes.
> 
> 
> 
> they were already created.  it must be your turn or whitey would not get so much of the blame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were created by our ancestors. Your ancestors build the shitholes you all want to get away from. Now go suck an enchilada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is Daniel Hispanic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, he admitted to trying to bring up the rest of his family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ever Yodle on your mountains?
Click to expand...

Do you ever mistake a female beaner’s pussy for a hairy taco?


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's campaign promise was a big beautiful wall  covering the southern border which would stop illegal immigration from the south. Then the big beautiful wall covering the border became a 1000 mile wall. Then the big beautiful wall became a project to replace a 112 miles of reinforced fencing with a 216 mile slatted steel fence, increased electronic motoring, and aerial surveillance.  This is beginning to sound a lot like the increased border security under Obama and Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's Trump's fault or the Democrats?
> 
> Trump asked for 25 billion originally.  HIs asking price now is 1/5 of that, and the Democrats are going to fight him tooth and nail for it.  So now you blame less quality on Trump instead of them?
> 
> What is it with you on the left that never......ever want to assume responsibility for your actions?  Now if the Democrats approved 25 billion and Trump didn't deliver, then you'd have a solid argument.  But to say Trump failed us when it was actually the Democrats is an out and out lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is Trump's fault. Don't you remember the Trump campaign rhetoric.
> 
> "I am the greatest deal maker this county has every seen."
> 
> “MY STYLE of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after. And I always get what I want."
> 
> "When it comes to negotiations, democrats are a push over"
> 
> Well it seems the greatest deal maker that ever lived has met his match simply because he does not know how to deal with congress.  In order to get any money for his wall he has to offer House democrats concessions on immigration and that's not going to be easy because almost anything he offers will cost far right votes.
> 
> House democrats shouldn't cave in.  They have the votes and they have the public.  Neither the wall nor Trump's government shutdown is popular. Cowing down to the school yard bully would cost them dearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So would the surrender of this country to foreigners.  Trump has two choices: go with his instinct and give people what they elected him for, or give into polls Lord knows how badly manipulated.
> 
> If he chooses the latter, what we are looking at is the beginning of the end of the Great Experiment; the end our our country as we know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump voters may have voted for Trump because he promised to build a wall and reduce illegal immigration but they didn't elect him shutdown legal immigration.
> 
> Trump has threaten to close US borders if he doesn't get his wall.  Hopefully he will do this.  His people would certainly advise against this but as we know, Trump listens to no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump never said anything about halting all immigration although I think that would be great.  His stance was to stop further illegal immigration from taking place slowing down the drug flow, the criminals, the murderers and possibly terrorists which Homeland Security already confirmed are crossing or trying to cross that border.
> 
> Correct, Trump relies on instinct and common sense than polls.  He doesn't care about reelection either.  He has better things to do in life than run this country and battle with the Democrats trying to destroy it.  The one thing I can agree with you on is I hope he shuts down the border.
Click to expand...

I didn't say Trump was going to halt all immigration.  He said he might shutdown the border if he can't get his wall.  If he shutdowns down the border, the Senate would join the House in a resolution to nullify his EO.  That would probably also end the shutdown.  Most Senate Republican are facing reelection in 2020 and they certain would not support a presidential action that caused serious problems for tens of million of Americans, not to mention the financial repercussions.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's Trump's fault or the Democrats?
> 
> Trump asked for 25 billion originally.  HIs asking price now is 1/5 of that, and the Democrats are going to fight him tooth and nail for it.  So now you blame less quality on Trump instead of them?
> 
> What is it with you on the left that never......ever want to assume responsibility for your actions?  Now if the Democrats approved 25 billion and Trump didn't deliver, then you'd have a solid argument.  But to say Trump failed us when it was actually the Democrats is an out and out lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is Trump's fault. Don't you remember the Trump campaign rhetoric.
> 
> "I am the greatest deal maker this county has every seen."
> 
> “MY STYLE of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after. And I always get what I want."
> 
> "When it comes to negotiations, democrats are a push over"
> 
> Well it seems the greatest deal maker that ever lived has met his match simply because he does not know how to deal with congress.  In order to get any money for his wall he has to offer House democrats concessions on immigration and that's not going to be easy because almost anything he offers will cost far right votes.
> 
> House democrats shouldn't cave in.  They have the votes and they have the public.  Neither the wall nor Trump's government shutdown is popular. Cowing down to the school yard bully would cost them dearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So would the surrender of this country to foreigners.  Trump has two choices: go with his instinct and give people what they elected him for, or give into polls Lord knows how badly manipulated.
> 
> If he chooses the latter, what we are looking at is the beginning of the end of the Great Experiment; the end our our country as we know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump voters may have voted for Trump because he promised to build a wall and reduce illegal immigration but they didn't elect him shutdown legal immigration.
> 
> Trump has threaten to close US borders if he doesn't get his wall.  Hopefully he will do this.  His people would certainly advise against this but as we know, Trump listens to no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump never said anything about halting all immigration although I think that would be great.  His stance was to stop further illegal immigration from taking place slowing down the drug flow, the criminals, the murderers and possibly terrorists which Homeland Security already confirmed are crossing or trying to cross that border.
> 
> Correct, Trump relies on instinct and common sense than polls.  He doesn't care about reelection either.  He has better things to do in life than run this country and battle with the Democrats trying to destroy it.  The one thing I can agree with you on is I hope he shuts down the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say Trump was going to halt all immigration.  He said he might shutdown the border if he can't get his wall.  If he shutdowns down the border, the Senate would join the House in a resolution to nullify his EO.  That would probably also end the shutdown.  Most Senate Republican are facing reelection in 2020 and they certain would not support a presidential action that caused serious problems for tens of million of Americans, not to mention the financial repercussions.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a fine sentiment in 1903...
> 
> The population of the US was then 76,000,000...
> 
> There was still plenty of land to be had...
> 
> There was a job for anyone who wanted one...
> 
> Today, however...
> 
> The population of the US is 330,000,000...
> 
> The land has all been parceled out...
> 
> We struggle to keep our own employed...
> 
> We struggle to provide educational and medical and social services for our own one-third of a billion souls...
> 
> Never mind 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens now present upon United States soil without our express prior consent...
> 
> Never mind the millions more invaders who will flood across our borders, should we be stupid enough to allow it...
> 
> That plaque represented a fine sentiment, in its time...
> 
> Unfortunately, it's time is over... those sentiments are no longer practical... best to hang-up a 'No Vacancy' sign.
> 
> Perhaps it's time to declare a two- or four-year moratorium on *all *immigration to the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a 6 million job surplus now and that is likely to grow to 24 million in the next decade as the workforce shrinks do to baby boomers exiting the workforce and low birthrates.  There is plenty of room for growth in America.
> 
> We should not open our borders nor should we seal them.  We need more legal immigrants and we need workable immigration laws and policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Automation could kill 73 million U.S. jobs by 2030
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Automation does kill jobs but it creates more jobs than it eliminates in most industries. A study by Deloitte found found 800,000 jobs were eliminated as the result of AI and other automation technologies. But get this: 3.5 million new jobs were created as well, and those jobs paid on average nearly $13,000 more per year than the ones that were lost.
> 
> A company might automate and eliminate thousands of factory floor workers but by doing so, they increase profitability making possible investments in new products and plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Vast numbers of Americans (myself included) see no reason to take a chance on there being enough jobs in future...
> 
> Best to eject the 11-12,000,000 invaders now, and de-incentivize the millions more who are considering crossing our borders...
> 
> Best to do it now, while there's a still a POTUS agreeable to such an approach, and a SCOTUS and other court appointees to firm it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you don't seem to understand is the increase in the size of the workforce without immigrant labor is less than the number of jobs being created.  So without immigrants we have a growing shortage of workers.  If we don't have the workers, the jobs go out of the country and with it economic expansion.
> 
> This trend will continue throughout most of this century due to baby boomers leaving the workforce, earlier retirements and a falling birth rate.  This trend also creates another serious problem.  How are we going to finance the additional cost of Medicare and Social Security with an aging population without a lot more  younger workers paying taxes?
Click to expand...


As per the article I posted, automation will easily offset baby boomers retiring.  Businesses will not move because the cost is so great.  They would opt to offer more money to AMERICANS to attract workers to their place of business.  In the long run it would be cheaper to pay higher wages to Americans than it would be to move and have to export their products back to the US. 

The business world is not the same as it was before Trump.  Businesses used to have to struggle with the combination of high taxation and employee costs.  Now that their taxes are lower, it gives them more room to increase wages whereas before, the cost of both would make it more inviting to move out of the country. 

The only thing that could F this all up is Democrats getting in charge of the federal government again--not just the House.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's Trump's fault or the Democrats?
> 
> Trump asked for 25 billion originally.  HIs asking price now is 1/5 of that, and the Democrats are going to fight him tooth and nail for it.  So now you blame less quality on Trump instead of them?
> 
> What is it with you on the left that never......ever want to assume responsibility for your actions?  Now if the Democrats approved 25 billion and Trump didn't deliver, then you'd have a solid argument.  But to say Trump failed us when it was actually the Democrats is an out and out lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is Trump's fault. Don't you remember the Trump campaign rhetoric.
> 
> "I am the greatest deal maker this county has every seen."
> 
> “MY STYLE of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after. And I always get what I want."
> 
> "When it comes to negotiations, democrats are a push over"
> 
> Well it seems the greatest deal maker that ever lived has met his match simply because he does not know how to deal with congress.  In order to get any money for his wall he has to offer House democrats concessions on immigration and that's not going to be easy because almost anything he offers will cost far right votes.
> 
> House democrats shouldn't cave in.  They have the votes and they have the public.  Neither the wall nor Trump's government shutdown is popular. Cowing down to the school yard bully would cost them dearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So would the surrender of this country to foreigners.  Trump has two choices: go with his instinct and give people what they elected him for, or give into polls Lord knows how badly manipulated.
> 
> If he chooses the latter, what we are looking at is the beginning of the end of the Great Experiment; the end our our country as we know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump voters may have voted for Trump because he promised to build a wall and reduce illegal immigration but they didn't elect him shutdown legal immigration.
> 
> Trump has threaten to close US borders if he doesn't get his wall.  Hopefully he will do this.  His people would certainly advise against this but as we know, Trump listens to no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump never said anything about halting all immigration although I think that would be great.  His stance was to stop further illegal immigration from taking place slowing down the drug flow, the criminals, the murderers and possibly terrorists which Homeland Security already confirmed are crossing or trying to cross that border.
> 
> Correct, Trump relies on instinct and common sense than polls.  He doesn't care about reelection either.  He has better things to do in life than run this country and battle with the Democrats trying to destroy it.  The one thing I can agree with you on is I hope he shuts down the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say Trump was going to halt all immigration.  He said he might shutdown the border if he can't get his wall.  If he shutdowns down the border, the Senate would join the House in a resolution to nullify his EO.  That would probably also end the shutdown.  Most Senate Republican are facing reelection in 2020 and they certain would not support a presidential action that caused serious problems for tens of million of Americans, not to mention the financial repercussions.
Click to expand...

Trump would have to sign any such resolution, so what are the odds of that becoming law?


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is Trump's fault. Don't you remember the Trump campaign rhetoric.
> 
> "I am the greatest deal maker this county has every seen."
> 
> “MY STYLE of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after. And I always get what I want."
> 
> "When it comes to negotiations, democrats are a push over"
> 
> Well it seems the greatest deal maker that ever lived has met his match simply because he does not know how to deal with congress.  In order to get any money for his wall he has to offer House democrats concessions on immigration and that's not going to be easy because almost anything he offers will cost far right votes.
> 
> House democrats shouldn't cave in.  They have the votes and they have the public.  Neither the wall nor Trump's government shutdown is popular. Cowing down to the school yard bully would cost them dearly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So would the surrender of this country to foreigners.  Trump has two choices: go with his instinct and give people what they elected him for, or give into polls Lord knows how badly manipulated.
> 
> If he chooses the latter, what we are looking at is the beginning of the end of the Great Experiment; the end our our country as we know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump voters may have voted for Trump because he promised to build a wall and reduce illegal immigration but they didn't elect him shutdown legal immigration.
> 
> Trump has threaten to close US borders if he doesn't get his wall.  Hopefully he will do this.  His people would certainly advise against this but as we know, Trump listens to no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump never said anything about halting all immigration although I think that would be great.  His stance was to stop further illegal immigration from taking place slowing down the drug flow, the criminals, the murderers and possibly terrorists which Homeland Security already confirmed are crossing or trying to cross that border.
> 
> Correct, Trump relies on instinct and common sense than polls.  He doesn't care about reelection either.  He has better things to do in life than run this country and battle with the Democrats trying to destroy it.  The one thing I can agree with you on is I hope he shuts down the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say Trump was going to halt all immigration.  He said he might shutdown the border if he can't get his wall.  If he shutdowns down the border, the Senate would join the House in a resolution to nullify his EO.  That would probably also end the shutdown.  Most Senate Republican are facing reelection in 2020 and they certain would not support a presidential action that caused serious problems for tens of million of Americans, not to mention the financial repercussions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 238332
Click to expand...

Since congress created the law, congress can pass a resolution to override it.  Congress can block any action of the president that is not specifically granted in the constitution.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So would the surrender of this country to foreigners.  Trump has two choices: go with his instinct and give people what they elected him for, or give into polls Lord knows how badly manipulated.
> 
> If he chooses the latter, what we are looking at is the beginning of the end of the Great Experiment; the end our our country as we know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump voters may have voted for Trump because he promised to build a wall and reduce illegal immigration but they didn't elect him shutdown legal immigration.
> 
> Trump has threaten to close US borders if he doesn't get his wall.  Hopefully he will do this.  His people would certainly advise against this but as we know, Trump listens to no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump never said anything about halting all immigration although I think that would be great.  His stance was to stop further illegal immigration from taking place slowing down the drug flow, the criminals, the murderers and possibly terrorists which Homeland Security already confirmed are crossing or trying to cross that border.
> 
> Correct, Trump relies on instinct and common sense than polls.  He doesn't care about reelection either.  He has better things to do in life than run this country and battle with the Democrats trying to destroy it.  The one thing I can agree with you on is I hope he shuts down the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say Trump was going to halt all immigration.  He said he might shutdown the border if he can't get his wall.  If he shutdowns down the border, the Senate would join the House in a resolution to nullify his EO.  That would probably also end the shutdown.  Most Senate Republican are facing reelection in 2020 and they certain would not support a presidential action that caused serious problems for tens of million of Americans, not to mention the financial repercussions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 238332
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since congress created the law, congress can pass a resolution to override it.  Congress can block any action of the president that is not specifically granted in the constitution.
Click to expand...

Congress can pass nothing into law without the President's signature.  What part of that don't you get?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So would the surrender of this country to foreigners.  Trump has two choices: go with his instinct and give people what they elected him for, or give into polls Lord knows how badly manipulated.
> 
> If he chooses the latter, what we are looking at is the beginning of the end of the Great Experiment; the end our our country as we know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump voters may have voted for Trump because he promised to build a wall and reduce illegal immigration but they didn't elect him shutdown legal immigration.
> 
> Trump has threaten to close US borders if he doesn't get his wall.  Hopefully he will do this.  His people would certainly advise against this but as we know, Trump listens to no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump never said anything about halting all immigration although I think that would be great.  His stance was to stop further illegal immigration from taking place slowing down the drug flow, the criminals, the murderers and possibly terrorists which Homeland Security already confirmed are crossing or trying to cross that border.
> 
> Correct, Trump relies on instinct and common sense than polls.  He doesn't care about reelection either.  He has better things to do in life than run this country and battle with the Democrats trying to destroy it.  The one thing I can agree with you on is I hope he shuts down the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say Trump was going to halt all immigration.  He said he might shutdown the border if he can't get his wall.  If he shutdowns down the border, the Senate would join the House in a resolution to nullify his EO.  That would probably also end the shutdown.  Most Senate Republican are facing reelection in 2020 and they certain would not support a presidential action that caused serious problems for tens of million of Americans, not to mention the financial repercussions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 238332
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since congress created the law, congress can pass a resolution to override it.  Congress can block any action of the president that is not specifically granted in the constitution.
Click to expand...


No they cannot.  The House and SENATE passed that law and only the House and Senate can rescind it with the Presidents signature.  The House has no authority to block anything; only the Supreme Court can if somebody challenges it's constitutionally, and good luck with that one. 

Until that time, the President has the sole authority to not only close the border, but to stop any foreigners from entering our country.


----------



## Ame®icano

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So would the surrender of this country to foreigners.  Trump has two choices: go with his instinct and give people what they elected him for, or give into polls Lord knows how badly manipulated.
> 
> If he chooses the latter, what we are looking at is the beginning of the end of the Great Experiment; the end our our country as we know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump voters may have voted for Trump because he promised to build a wall and reduce illegal immigration but they didn't elect him shutdown legal immigration.
> 
> Trump has threaten to close US borders if he doesn't get his wall.  Hopefully he will do this.  His people would certainly advise against this but as we know, Trump listens to no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump never said anything about halting all immigration although I think that would be great.  His stance was to stop further illegal immigration from taking place slowing down the drug flow, the criminals, the murderers and possibly terrorists which Homeland Security already confirmed are crossing or trying to cross that border.
> 
> Correct, Trump relies on instinct and common sense than polls.  He doesn't care about reelection either.  He has better things to do in life than run this country and battle with the Democrats trying to destroy it.  The one thing I can agree with you on is I hope he shuts down the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say Trump was going to halt all immigration.  He said he might shutdown the border if he can't get his wall.  If he shutdowns down the border, the Senate would join the House in a resolution to nullify his EO.  That would probably also end the shutdown.  Most Senate Republican are facing reelection in 2020 and they certain would not support a presidential action that caused serious problems for tens of million of Americans, not to mention the financial repercussions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 238332
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since congress created the law, congress can pass a resolution to override it.  Congress can block any action of the president that is not specifically granted in the constitution.
Click to expand...


Unless you're referring to overriding president's veto, can you point to Article where Congress has that power?


----------



## Lesh

bripat9643 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump voters may have voted for Trump because he promised to build a wall and reduce illegal immigration but they didn't elect him shutdown legal immigration.
> 
> Trump has threaten to close US borders if he doesn't get his wall.  Hopefully he will do this.  His people would certainly advise against this but as we know, Trump listens to no one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump never said anything about halting all immigration although I think that would be great.  His stance was to stop further illegal immigration from taking place slowing down the drug flow, the criminals, the murderers and possibly terrorists which Homeland Security already confirmed are crossing or trying to cross that border.
> 
> Correct, Trump relies on instinct and common sense than polls.  He doesn't care about reelection either.  He has better things to do in life than run this country and battle with the Democrats trying to destroy it.  The one thing I can agree with you on is I hope he shuts down the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say Trump was going to halt all immigration.  He said he might shutdown the border if he can't get his wall.  If he shutdowns down the border, the Senate would join the House in a resolution to nullify his EO.  That would probably also end the shutdown.  Most Senate Republican are facing reelection in 2020 and they certain would not support a presidential action that caused serious problems for tens of million of Americans, not to mention the financial repercussions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 238332
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since congress created the law, congress can pass a resolution to override it.  Congress can block any action of the president that is not specifically granted in the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress can pass nothing into law without the President's signature.  What part of that don't you get?
Click to expand...

That's actually not true.

Take a civics class


----------



## Ame®icano

By the way... not even a moron could misinterpret these facts.


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump never said anything about halting all immigration although I think that would be great.  His stance was to stop further illegal immigration from taking place slowing down the drug flow, the criminals, the murderers and possibly terrorists which Homeland Security already confirmed are crossing or trying to cross that border.
> 
> Correct, Trump relies on instinct and common sense than polls.  He doesn't care about reelection either.  He has better things to do in life than run this country and battle with the Democrats trying to destroy it.  The one thing I can agree with you on is I hope he shuts down the border.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say Trump was going to halt all immigration.  He said he might shutdown the border if he can't get his wall.  If he shutdowns down the border, the Senate would join the House in a resolution to nullify his EO.  That would probably also end the shutdown.  Most Senate Republican are facing reelection in 2020 and they certain would not support a presidential action that caused serious problems for tens of million of Americans, not to mention the financial repercussions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 238332
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since congress created the law, congress can pass a resolution to override it.  Congress can block any action of the president that is not specifically granted in the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress can pass nothing into law without the President's signature.  What part of that don't you get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's actually not true.
> 
> Take a civics class
Click to expand...

They need a 2/3 vote to override his veto, and we all know they haven't got that.


----------



## Lesh

Kondor3 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS
> 
> 
> 
> That was a fine sentiment in 1903...
> 
> The population of the US was then 76,000,000...
> 
> There was still plenty of land to be had...
> 
> There was a job for anyone who wanted one...
> 
> Today, however...
> 
> The population of the US is 330,000,000...
> 
> The land has all been parceled out...
> 
> We struggle to keep our own employed...
> 
> We struggle to provide educational and medical and social services for our own one-third of a billion souls...
> 
> Never mind 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens now present upon United States soil without our express prior consent...
> 
> Never mind the millions more invaders who will flood across our borders, should we be stupid enough to allow it...
> 
> That plaque represented a fine sentiment, in its time...
> 
> Unfortunately, it's time is over... those sentiments are no longer practical... best to hang-up a 'No Vacancy' sign.
> 
> Perhaps it's time to declare a two- or four-year moratorium on *all *immigration to the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a 6 million job surplus now and that is likely to grow to 24 million in the next decade as the workforce shrinks do to baby boomers exiting the workforce and low birthrates.  There is plenty of room for growth in America.
> 
> We should not open our borders nor should we seal them.  We need more legal immigrants and we need workable immigration laws and policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Automation could kill 73 million U.S. jobs by 2030
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Automation does kill jobs but it creates more jobs than it eliminates in most industries. A study by Deloitte found found 800,000 jobs were eliminated as the result of AI and other automation technologies. But get this: 3.5 million new jobs were created as well, and those jobs paid on average nearly $13,000 more per year than the ones that were lost.
> 
> A company might automate and eliminate thousands of factory floor workers but by doing so, they increase profitability making possible investments in new products and plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Vast numbers of Americans (myself included) see no reason to take a chance on there being enough jobs in future...
> 
> Best to eject the 11-12,000,000 invaders now, and de-incentivize the millions more who are considering crossing our borders...
> 
> Best to do it now, while there's a still a POTUS agreeable to such an approach, and a SCOTUS and other court appointees to firm it up.
Click to expand...

Deporting 11-12 million people is simply not possible.''


One needs only to look at the Holocaust to understand that


----------



## Lesh

bripat9643 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say Trump was going to halt all immigration.  He said he might shutdown the border if he can't get his wall.  If he shutdowns down the border, the Senate would join the House in a resolution to nullify his EO.  That would probably also end the shutdown.  Most Senate Republican are facing reelection in 2020 and they certain would not support a presidential action that caused serious problems for tens of million of Americans, not to mention the financial repercussions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 238332
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since congress created the law, congress can pass a resolution to override it.  Congress can block any action of the president that is not specifically granted in the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress can pass nothing into law without the President's signature.  What part of that don't you get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's actually not true.
> 
> Take a civics class
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They need a 2/3 vote to override his veto, and we all know they haven't got that.
Click to expand...

Glad you understand how it works now


----------



## Ame®icano

Lesh said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a fine sentiment in 1903...
> 
> The population of the US was then 76,000,000...
> 
> There was still plenty of land to be had...
> 
> There was a job for anyone who wanted one...
> 
> Today, however...
> 
> The population of the US is 330,000,000...
> 
> The land has all been parceled out...
> 
> We struggle to keep our own employed...
> 
> We struggle to provide educational and medical and social services for our own one-third of a billion souls...
> 
> Never mind 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens now present upon United States soil without our express prior consent...
> 
> Never mind the millions more invaders who will flood across our borders, should we be stupid enough to allow it...
> 
> That plaque represented a fine sentiment, in its time...
> 
> Unfortunately, it's time is over... those sentiments are no longer practical... best to hang-up a 'No Vacancy' sign.
> 
> Perhaps it's time to declare a two- or four-year moratorium on *all *immigration to the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a 6 million job surplus now and that is likely to grow to 24 million in the next decade as the workforce shrinks do to baby boomers exiting the workforce and low birthrates.  There is plenty of room for growth in America.
> 
> We should not open our borders nor should we seal them.  We need more legal immigrants and we need workable immigration laws and policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Automation could kill 73 million U.S. jobs by 2030
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Automation does kill jobs but it creates more jobs than it eliminates in most industries. A study by Deloitte found found 800,000 jobs were eliminated as the result of AI and other automation technologies. But get this: 3.5 million new jobs were created as well, and those jobs paid on average nearly $13,000 more per year than the ones that were lost.
> 
> A company might automate and eliminate thousands of factory floor workers but by doing so, they increase profitability making possible investments in new products and plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Vast numbers of Americans (myself included) see no reason to take a chance on there being enough jobs in future...
> 
> Best to eject the 11-12,000,000 invaders now, and de-incentivize the millions more who are considering crossing our borders...
> 
> Best to do it now, while there's a still a POTUS agreeable to such an approach, and a SCOTUS and other court appointees to firm it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deporting 11-12 million people is simply not possible.''
> 
> 
> One needs only to look at the Holocaust to understand that
Click to expand...


Funny, back in 1954 nobody called it "Holocaust" when Operation Wetback was enacted. 3 million deported.

If someone has no right to be here, than of course it's possible.


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a fine sentiment in 1903...
> 
> The population of the US was then 76,000,000...
> 
> There was still plenty of land to be had...
> 
> There was a job for anyone who wanted one...
> 
> Today, however...
> 
> The population of the US is 330,000,000...
> 
> The land has all been parceled out...
> 
> We struggle to keep our own employed...
> 
> We struggle to provide educational and medical and social services for our own one-third of a billion souls...
> 
> Never mind 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens now present upon United States soil without our express prior consent...
> 
> Never mind the millions more invaders who will flood across our borders, should we be stupid enough to allow it...
> 
> That plaque represented a fine sentiment, in its time...
> 
> Unfortunately, it's time is over... those sentiments are no longer practical... best to hang-up a 'No Vacancy' sign.
> 
> Perhaps it's time to declare a two- or four-year moratorium on *all *immigration to the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a 6 million job surplus now and that is likely to grow to 24 million in the next decade as the workforce shrinks do to baby boomers exiting the workforce and low birthrates.  There is plenty of room for growth in America.
> 
> We should not open our borders nor should we seal them.  We need more legal immigrants and we need workable immigration laws and policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Automation could kill 73 million U.S. jobs by 2030
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Automation does kill jobs but it creates more jobs than it eliminates in most industries. A study by Deloitte found found 800,000 jobs were eliminated as the result of AI and other automation technologies. But get this: 3.5 million new jobs were created as well, and those jobs paid on average nearly $13,000 more per year than the ones that were lost.
> 
> A company might automate and eliminate thousands of factory floor workers but by doing so, they increase profitability making possible investments in new products and plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Vast numbers of Americans (myself included) see no reason to take a chance on there being enough jobs in future...
> 
> Best to eject the 11-12,000,000 invaders now, and de-incentivize the millions more who are considering crossing our borders...
> 
> Best to do it now, while there's a still a POTUS agreeable to such an approach, and a SCOTUS and other court appointees to firm it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deporting 11-12 million people is simply not possible.''
> 
> 
> One needs only to look at the Holocaust to understand that
Click to expand...


The Holocaust shows exactly the opposite, moron.  Furthermore, deportation doesn't mean sending people to death camps.

You're such a fucking douchebag.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a 6 million job surplus now and that is likely to grow to 24 million in the next decade as the workforce shrinks do to baby boomers exiting the workforce and low birthrates.  There is plenty of room for growth in America.
> 
> We should not open our borders nor should we seal them.  We need more legal immigrants and we need workable immigration laws and policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Automation could kill 73 million U.S. jobs by 2030
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Automation does kill jobs but it creates more jobs than it eliminates in most industries. A study by Deloitte found found 800,000 jobs were eliminated as the result of AI and other automation technologies. But get this: 3.5 million new jobs were created as well, and those jobs paid on average nearly $13,000 more per year than the ones that were lost.
> 
> A company might automate and eliminate thousands of factory floor workers but by doing so, they increase profitability making possible investments in new products and plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Vast numbers of Americans (myself included) see no reason to take a chance on there being enough jobs in future...
> 
> Best to eject the 11-12,000,000 invaders now, and de-incentivize the millions more who are considering crossing our borders...
> 
> Best to do it now, while there's a still a POTUS agreeable to such an approach, and a SCOTUS and other court appointees to firm it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you don't seem to understand is the increase in the size of the workforce without immigrant labor is less than the number of jobs being created.  So without immigrants we have a growing shortage of workers.  If we don't have the workers, the jobs go out of the country and with it economic expansion.
> 
> This trend will continue throughout most of this century due to baby boomers leaving the workforce, earlier retirements and a falling birth rate.  This trend also creates another serious problem.  How are we going to finance the additional cost of Medicare and Social Security with an aging population without a lot more  younger workers paying taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As per the article I posted, automation will easily offset baby boomers retiring.  Businesses will not move because the cost is so great.  They would opt to offer more money to AMERICANS to attract workers to their place of business.  In the long run it would be cheaper to pay higher wages to Americans than it would be to move and have to export their products back to the US.
> 
> The business world is not the same as it was before Trump.  Businesses used to have to struggle with the combination of high taxation and employee costs.  Now that their taxes are lower, it gives them more room to increase wages whereas before, the cost of both would make it more inviting to move out of the country.
> 
> The only thing that could F this all up is Democrats getting in charge of the federal government again--not just the House.
Click to expand...

If you take the time to read the article quoted you'll see the following quote:
"Automation could destroy as many as 73 million U.S. jobs by 2030, but economic growth, rising productivity and other forces could more than offset the losses, according to a new report by McKinseyGlobal Institute.

If you read on, the article explains that many dislocated workers can easily move on the other jobs.

I read this article and other that speak of millions of job losses do to automation.  However, those loses are not net losses, it does not take into account jobs created.  

Study after study has shown that automation reduces the cost of products which increases sales and profits which leads to more products, more factories, more distribution chains and more jobs than were originally lost due to the automation.  

The problem is not a lack jobs due to automation but the problems caused by dislocation of jobs.


----------



## Flopper

Ame®icano said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a 6 million job surplus now and that is likely to grow to 24 million in the next decade as the workforce shrinks do to baby boomers exiting the workforce and low birthrates.  There is plenty of room for growth in America.
> 
> We should not open our borders nor should we seal them.  We need more legal immigrants and we need workable immigration laws and policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Automation could kill 73 million U.S. jobs by 2030
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Automation does kill jobs but it creates more jobs than it eliminates in most industries. A study by Deloitte found found 800,000 jobs were eliminated as the result of AI and other automation technologies. But get this: 3.5 million new jobs were created as well, and those jobs paid on average nearly $13,000 more per year than the ones that were lost.
> 
> A company might automate and eliminate thousands of factory floor workers but by doing so, they increase profitability making possible investments in new products and plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Vast numbers of Americans (myself included) see no reason to take a chance on there being enough jobs in future...
> 
> Best to eject the 11-12,000,000 invaders now, and de-incentivize the millions more who are considering crossing our borders...
> 
> Best to do it now, while there's a still a POTUS agreeable to such an approach, and a SCOTUS and other court appointees to firm it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deporting 11-12 million people is simply not possible.''
> 
> 
> One needs only to look at the Holocaust to understand that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, back in 1954 nobody called it "Holocaust" when Operation Wetback was enacted. 3 million deported.
> 
> If someone has no right to be here, than of course it's possible.
Click to expand...

Operation Wetback originated from a request by the Mexican government to stop the illegal entry of Mexican laborers into the United States.  Mexico was concerned about the loss of low cost labor.  Although the deportation figures may attract praises of conservatives today, the operation was basically a failure.  Almost as fast as the Mexicans were deported, they came right back into the US because the size of the border patrol was so small it couldn't keep them out.

By 1962, all operations had stopped.  The number of illegals immigrants in the country were judge to be about the same as there were 1950.
Operation Wetback - Wikipedia


----------



## Ame®icano

Flopper said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Automation could kill 73 million U.S. jobs by 2030
> 
> 
> 
> Automation does kill jobs but it creates more jobs than it eliminates in most industries. A study by Deloitte found found 800,000 jobs were eliminated as the result of AI and other automation technologies. But get this: 3.5 million new jobs were created as well, and those jobs paid on average nearly $13,000 more per year than the ones that were lost.
> 
> A company might automate and eliminate thousands of factory floor workers but by doing so, they increase profitability making possible investments in new products and plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Vast numbers of Americans (myself included) see no reason to take a chance on there being enough jobs in future...
> 
> Best to eject the 11-12,000,000 invaders now, and de-incentivize the millions more who are considering crossing our borders...
> 
> Best to do it now, while there's a still a POTUS agreeable to such an approach, and a SCOTUS and other court appointees to firm it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deporting 11-12 million people is simply not possible.''
> 
> 
> One needs only to look at the Holocaust to understand that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, back in 1954 nobody called it "Holocaust" when Operation Wetback was enacted. 3 million deported.
> 
> If someone has no right to be here, than of course it's possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Operation Wetback originated from a request by the Mexican government to stop the illegal entry of Mexican laborers into the United States.  Mexico was concerned about the loss of low cost labor.  Although the deportation figures may attract praises of conservatives today, the operation was basically a failure.  Almost as fast as the Mexicans were deported, they came right back into the US because the size of the border patrol was so small it couldn't keep them out.
> 
> By 1962, all operations had stopped.  The number of illegals immigrants in the country were judge to be about the same as there were 1950.
> Operation Wetback - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


That is not the issue... comparison to Holocaust is.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump voters may have voted for Trump because he promised to build a wall and reduce illegal immigration but they didn't elect him shutdown legal immigration.
> 
> Trump has threaten to close US borders if he doesn't get his wall.  Hopefully he will do this.  His people would certainly advise against this but as we know, Trump listens to no one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump never said anything about halting all immigration although I think that would be great.  His stance was to stop further illegal immigration from taking place slowing down the drug flow, the criminals, the murderers and possibly terrorists which Homeland Security already confirmed are crossing or trying to cross that border.
> 
> Correct, Trump relies on instinct and common sense than polls.  He doesn't care about reelection either.  He has better things to do in life than run this country and battle with the Democrats trying to destroy it.  The one thing I can agree with you on is I hope he shuts down the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say Trump was going to halt all immigration.  He said he might shutdown the border if he can't get his wall.  If he shutdowns down the border, the Senate would join the House in a resolution to nullify his EO.  That would probably also end the shutdown.  Most Senate Republican are facing reelection in 2020 and they certain would not support a presidential action that caused serious problems for tens of million of Americans, not to mention the financial repercussions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 238332
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since congress created the law, congress can pass a resolution to override it.  Congress can block any action of the president that is not specifically granted in the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they cannot.  The House and SENATE passed that law and only the House and Senate can rescind it with the Presidents signature.  The House has no authority to block anything; only the Supreme Court can if somebody challenges it's constitutionally, and good luck with that one.
> 
> Until that time, the President has the sole authority to not only close the border, but to stop any foreigners from entering our country.
Click to expand...

Wrong congress can pass a bill to resend or modify any piece of legislation previously passed. They can nullify any executive order and freeze funds. All it takes is 2/3 vote in the House and Senate to override a presidential veto.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> All criminals are responsible for being separated from their children. Go out and commit a crime and see how fast you're separated form your family. The parents put their children in the situation, yes, they are to blame.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> People seeking asylum are not criminals, you fucking piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are when they cross our border illegally and it turns out their asylum claims are bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum.  It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States.  If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
Click to expand...


If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.

Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.


----------



## Kondor3

Flopper said:


> ...What you don't seem to understand is the increase in the size of the workforce without immigrant labor is less than the number of jobs being created...


Doubtful, in either the short-term, or, most importantly, the long-term, as a sustainable trend.



> ...So without immigrants we have a growing shortage of workers...


Then we have a shortage of workers.

Fine. Great. Wonderful. So be it. Let the games begin.

Folks don't trust Dem interpretations and projections on this stuff anyway.

Time to do it the other way, and put these alarmist predictions to the test.

Time to begin doing for ourselves, again, rather than exploiting near-slave labor any longer.



> ... If we don't have the workers, the jobs go out of the country and with it economic expansion...


Jobs have been leaving the country in their millions anyway... thanks to greedy business-folk and incompetent Gubmint critters.



> ...This trend will continue throughout most of this century due to baby boomers leaving the workforce, earlier retirements and a falling birth rate...


Then we slow down for a while. Let's tighten the screws on the border, and employers of Illegals, and find out.



> ...This trend also creates another serious problem.  How are we going to finance the additional cost of Medicare and Social Security with an aging population without a lot more  younger workers paying taxes?


No idea. But lying down and letting Barbarians walk-in by the dozens of millions is not the answer, either. We don't need more riff-raff.


----------



## Kondor3

Flopper said:


> ...Wrong congress can pass a bill to resend or modify any piece of legislation previously passed. They can nullify any executive order and freeze funds. All it takes is 2/3 vote in the House and Senate to override a presidential veto.


You do not have a 2/3 majority in Congress.

You certainly will not *get* a 2/3 majority in Congress, overriding Executive Orders related to border security and Illegal Aliens.

Predictably, you clowns failed to learn the primary lesson of November 8, 2016...

Namely... that Americans are disgusted with your polices towards large-scale immigration... both Illegal and otherwise.

The only reason you won November 6, 2018, was because of The Creature's behaviors - *not* because of policy related to Illegals.

You do not have a 2/3 majority in Congress, for this purpose, and you will have not one anytime soon.

You people need to get your heads out of your asses and begin standing alongside your fellow Americans rather than Illegal Aliens.

Continue to advocate cultural and economic and political suicide - taking sides with Illegals - at your own very great political peril.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump never said anything about halting all immigration although I think that would be great.  His stance was to stop further illegal immigration from taking place slowing down the drug flow, the criminals, the murderers and possibly terrorists which Homeland Security already confirmed are crossing or trying to cross that border.
> 
> Correct, Trump relies on instinct and common sense than polls.  He doesn't care about reelection either.  He has better things to do in life than run this country and battle with the Democrats trying to destroy it.  The one thing I can agree with you on is I hope he shuts down the border.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say Trump was going to halt all immigration.  He said he might shutdown the border if he can't get his wall.  If he shutdowns down the border, the Senate would join the House in a resolution to nullify his EO.  That would probably also end the shutdown.  Most Senate Republican are facing reelection in 2020 and they certain would not support a presidential action that caused serious problems for tens of million of Americans, not to mention the financial repercussions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 238332
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since congress created the law, congress can pass a resolution to override it.  Congress can block any action of the president that is not specifically granted in the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they cannot.  The House and SENATE passed that law and only the House and Senate can rescind it with the Presidents signature.  The House has no authority to block anything; only the Supreme Court can if somebody challenges it's constitutionally, and good luck with that one.
> 
> Until that time, the President has the sole authority to not only close the border, but to stop any foreigners from entering our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong congress can pass a bill to resend or modify any piece of legislation previously passed. They can nullify any executive order and freeze funds. All it takes is 2/3 vote in the House and Senate to override a presidential veto.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's all it takes.  With a bill that would be grossly unpopular with the voters, your chances of winning the Lottery are a lot better.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> All criminals are responsible for being separated from their children. Go out and commit a crime and see how fast you're separated form your family. The parents put their children in the situation, yes, they are to blame.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> People seeking asylum are not criminals, you fucking piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are when they cross our border illegally and it turns out their asylum claims are bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum.  It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States.  If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
Click to expand...


Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.  

Your avatar suggests that you are against big government, but the stance you take says otherwise.  

"And it says in the Farmer's Almanac: If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble."  Johnny Cash in the song Farmer's Almanac

Which is more important to you:  that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> People seeking asylum are not criminals, you fucking piece of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> They are when they cross our border illegally and it turns out their asylum claims are bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum.  It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States.  If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
> 
> Your avatar suggests that you are against big government, but the stance you take says otherwise.
> 
> "And it says in the Farmer's Almanac: If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble."  Johnny Cash in the song Farmer's Almanac
> 
> Which is more important to you:  that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?
Click to expand...





Porter Rockwell said:


> Which is more important to you: that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?


Trick question, right? Neither are mutually exclusive.

.


----------



## bripat9643

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are when they cross our border illegally and it turns out their asylum claims are bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum.  It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States.  If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
> 
> Your avatar suggests that you are against big government, but the stance you take says otherwise.
> 
> "And it says in the Farmer's Almanac: If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble."  Johnny Cash in the song Farmer's Almanac
> 
> Which is more important to you:  that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is more important to you: that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trick question, right? Neither are mutually exclusive.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Actually, they are synonymous.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS
> 
> 
> 
> That was a fine sentiment in 1903...
> 
> The population of the US was then 76,000,000...
> 
> There was still plenty of land to be had...
> 
> There was a job for anyone who wanted one...
> 
> Today, however...
> 
> The population of the US is 330,000,000...
> 
> The land has all been parceled out...
> 
> We struggle to keep our own employed...
> 
> We struggle to provide educational and medical and social services for our own one-third of a billion souls...
> 
> Never mind 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens now present upon United States soil without our express prior consent...
> 
> Never mind the millions more invaders who will flood across our borders, should we be stupid enough to allow it...
> 
> That plaque represented a fine sentiment, in its time...
> 
> Unfortunately, it's time is over... those sentiments are no longer practical... best to hang-up a 'No Vacancy' sign.
> 
> Perhaps it's time to declare a two- or four-year moratorium on *all *immigration to the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a 6 million job surplus now and that is likely to grow to 24 million in the next decade as the workforce shrinks do to baby boomers exiting the workforce and low birthrates.  There is plenty of room for growth in America.
> 
> We should not open our borders nor should we seal them.  We need more legal immigrants and we need workable immigration laws and policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Automation could kill 73 million U.S. jobs by 2030
Click to expand...

Employment is at the will of either party.  

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed can solve for that problem and help automatically stabilize our economy at the same time.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government shouldn't restrict travel. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the conceit of a most of the new authoritarians. They want to pretend that their laws will only be violating the rights of certain targeted groups (immigrants, terrorists, drug-users, etc...). But it doesn't work that way. Laws effect everyone. When you build walls they are in everyone's way. When you pass police state laws authorizing the government to short-circuit due process, everyone loses the right to due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls don't have that ability, only government does.  And once Democrats secure their single-party government thanks to these immigrants that's exactly what's going to happen and worse.  If you know anything about Democrats; anything about their history, WTF do you think they're going to do with this country once there is no opposition?
Click to expand...

who's fault is that; we need the competition of better solutions at lower cost from the right wing, not nothing but repeal.  that really is worthless. echelon order and only one party is necessary for that.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I guess you don't think immigrants aren't THAT cool.
> 
> 
> 
> The government sets quotas based on several factors. If they decide we need more, then ok. But not just because of nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, no there are no quotas.  Congress sets the maximum number immigrants at about 675,000 per year plus about half dozen categories of immigration that pushes the total to about a million a year or higher.
> 
> Then the law establishes the maximum number of immigrants from any country as 7% of the total, about 70,000 excluding certain categories.  However, this figure is reduced by the number of legal residents from that country living in the US who change immigration status to permanent resident.  Immigrants being sponsored by family members further reduces the number as well as employment sponsoring and other categories of immigration.
> 
> So for most countries if you do not have family living in the US or have special skills that will attract an employer to sponsor you or you don't fit in one of the other special categories, you simple can not immigrate to the US, no matter how long you wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah?  So what?  Since when does anyone have a right to emigrate to the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When the colonists came here from Europe 500 years ago, it was they who claimed anyone had the right to immigrate here, and now we are stuck with that legal precedent.  But it is even more complex because when we negotiated treaties to buy CA, AZ, NM, NV, CO, UT, TX, FL and others, there were already over a million Mexicans living here, so we agreed to treaties that prohibited any infringement on travel by Mexicans.  Those million Mexicans were not required to become US citizens or leave.  So we can't now close the border or else be in violation of the treaties and be in default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where have you been?  We've had immigration policies for generations limiting people who can come here, and no treaties violated.
Click to expand...

some of them were unconstitutional.  we don't have an immigration clause it is a naturalization clause.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

danielpalos said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS
> 
> 
> 
> That was a fine sentiment in 1903...
> 
> The population of the US was then 76,000,000...
> 
> There was still plenty of land to be had...
> 
> There was a job for anyone who wanted one...
> 
> Today, however...
> 
> The population of the US is 330,000,000...
> 
> The land has all been parceled out...
> 
> We struggle to keep our own employed...
> 
> We struggle to provide educational and medical and social services for our own one-third of a billion souls...
> 
> Never mind 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens now present upon United States soil without our express prior consent...
> 
> Never mind the millions more invaders who will flood across our borders, should we be stupid enough to allow it...
> 
> That plaque represented a fine sentiment, in its time...
> 
> Unfortunately, it's time is over... those sentiments are no longer practical... best to hang-up a 'No Vacancy' sign.
> 
> Perhaps it's time to declare a two- or four-year moratorium on *all *immigration to the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a 6 million job surplus now and that is likely to grow to 24 million in the next decade as the workforce shrinks do to baby boomers exiting the workforce and low birthrates.  There is plenty of room for growth in America.
> 
> We should not open our borders nor should we seal them.  We need more legal immigrants and we need workable immigration laws and policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Automation could kill 73 million U.S. jobs by 2030
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.
> 
> Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed can solve for that problem and help automatically stabilize our economy at the same time.
Click to expand...


Still beating this dead horse eh? LMAO.


----------



## mudwhistle

Timmy said:


> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .


Nonsense. 
Laws stop nothing. 
Laws are easier to get around than a wall when you're a Democrat.


----------



## danielpalos

AzogtheDefiler said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS
> 
> 
> 
> That was a fine sentiment in 1903...
> 
> The population of the US was then 76,000,000...
> 
> There was still plenty of land to be had...
> 
> There was a job for anyone who wanted one...
> 
> Today, however...
> 
> The population of the US is 330,000,000...
> 
> The land has all been parceled out...
> 
> We struggle to keep our own employed...
> 
> We struggle to provide educational and medical and social services for our own one-third of a billion souls...
> 
> Never mind 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens now present upon United States soil without our express prior consent...
> 
> Never mind the millions more invaders who will flood across our borders, should we be stupid enough to allow it...
> 
> That plaque represented a fine sentiment, in its time...
> 
> Unfortunately, it's time is over... those sentiments are no longer practical... best to hang-up a 'No Vacancy' sign.
> 
> Perhaps it's time to declare a two- or four-year moratorium on *all *immigration to the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a 6 million job surplus now and that is likely to grow to 24 million in the next decade as the workforce shrinks do to baby boomers exiting the workforce and low birthrates.  There is plenty of room for growth in America.
> 
> We should not open our borders nor should we seal them.  We need more legal immigrants and we need workable immigration laws and policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Automation could kill 73 million U.S. jobs by 2030
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.
> 
> Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed can solve for that problem and help automatically stabilize our economy at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still beating this dead horse eh? LMAO.
Click to expand...

don't care about the law; why whine about less fortunate illegals.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are when they cross our border illegally and it turns out their asylum claims are bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum.  It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States.  If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
> 
> Your avatar suggests that you are against big government, but the stance you take says otherwise.
> 
> "And it says in the Farmer's Almanac: If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble."  Johnny Cash in the song Farmer's Almanac
> 
> Which is more important to you:  that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is more important to you: that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trick question, right? Neither are mutually exclusive.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


There are plenty of unconstitutional laws on the books.  We simply have an uninformed, lazy and apathetic citizenry that don't give two hoots in Hell.


----------



## Ame®icano

Mandatory.
Nationwide.
Federal Law.
Now.


----------



## dblack

Ame®icano said:


> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.



Wall cowards gonna cower. "Protect me! I'm afraid! Of all the scary stories you've been telling me!"

You morons are turning our nation toward fascism.

Why don't you just move to a country that doesn't give a shit about freedom and loves authoritarian government as much as you do?


----------



## Slyhunter

dblack said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wall cowards gonna cower. "Protect me! I'm afraid! Of all the scary stories you've been telling me!"
> 
> You morons are turning our nation toward fascism.
> 
> Why don't just just move to a country that doesn't give a shit about freedom and loves authoritarian government as much as you do?
Click to expand...

You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ame®icano said:


> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.



See there.  We only had to wait minutes on it.  On this issue, we have to, unfortunately give danielpalos a half right.  

"Congress shall have the power to  ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits states - or the people for that matter from inviting foreigners into the United States.  Congress has a very limited power here.  

You cannot fall back on that default that the people from south of the border are invading.  They are being welcomed.  Even the great pretender Democrat Donald Trump has undocumented foreigners on his payroll AND he is actually pro-immigration:

Former Trump club employee says management kept her off Secret Service screening list because she is undocumented

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/us/trump-bedminster-golf-undocumented-workers.html

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0801/Who-is-Donald-Trump-hiring-Foreign-workers

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...r-is-anyone-surprised/?utm_term=.0f2221cf8915

Trump supporters can pretend Donnie didn't know, but we know that's B.S.  He knew and he hired foreign workers over Americans regardless of immigration status.  He might still be doing it.  It's profitable.  Ultimately, given the rhetoric, Trump should be in prison.  He hired so - called "illegals."  That crap that he didn't know don't fly.  Those who support Trump should hold him to the same standard ALL other employers should be held.

I give Trump a pass because I have said, consistently, that the employer is constitutionally free to hire the job candidate the employer wants.


----------



## Ame®icano

dblack said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wall cowards gonna cower. "Protect me! I'm afraid! Of all the scary stories you've been telling me!"
> 
> You morons are turning our nation toward fascism.
> 
> Why don't just just move to a country that doesn't give a shit about freedom and loves authoritarian government as much as you do?
Click to expand...


Oh, I am sorry, did I upset you?

Maybe I should've posted trigger warning first.

Here.






If you prefer the no walls and doors, maybe you should chose the country more suited for your mindset, like Cuba or Venezuela. You'll be freed there... of everything. And take your pal danielpalos with you.


----------



## dblack

Slyhunter said:


> You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.



Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## danielpalos

Ame®icano said:


> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.


where is the express wall building power in our federal Constitution?  We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.


----------



## Slyhunter

dblack said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Click to expand...

you'd prefer a cyberpunk fantasy land? Without safety nets we'd have Americans living in the streets. We'd be walking over their dead starving bodies. Is that what you really want for your fellow American? Every American who wants a job should have a job that pays a living wage.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wall cowards gonna cower. "Protect me! I'm afraid! Of all the scary stories you've been telling me!"
> 
> You morons are turning our nation toward fascism.
> 
> Why don't just just move to a country that doesn't give a shit about freedom and loves authoritarian government as much as you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.
Click to expand...

stop creating so many refugees with your public policies, right wingers.


----------



## Ame®icano

dblack said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Click to expand...


Having control over who is allowed to enter and stay in this country has nothing to do with fascism.


----------



## danielpalos

Ame®icano said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wall cowards gonna cower. "Protect me! I'm afraid! Of all the scary stories you've been telling me!"
> 
> You morons are turning our nation toward fascism.
> 
> Why don't just just move to a country that doesn't give a shit about freedom and loves authoritarian government as much as you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I am sorry, did I upset you?
> 
> Maybe I should've posted trigger warning first.
> 
> Here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you prefer the no walls and doors, maybe you should chose the country more suited for your mindset, like Cuba or Venezuela. You'll be freed there... of everything. And take your pal danielpalos with you.
Click to expand...

Capitalism; What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing.


----------



## toobfreak

dblack said:


> Wall cowards gonna cower. "Protect me! I'm afraid! Of all the scary stories you've been telling me!"  You morons are turning our nation toward fascism.



*That's funny, you use the exact same reasoning calling for gun confiscation.*  You demand 100% gun confiscation out of fear and need to protect yourself, willing to accept fascist tactics of any degree to attain it.  You've worked harder than anything trying to move us to a fascist, authoritarian government out of "concern for the children" and every other lame excuse when it is the ABSENCE of guns, meaning the inability for many to protect themselves and the announcement of zones where any violent person knows they'll receive no resistance or threat to themselves that invites much of our crime, yet you stupidly have the *BALLS* to come here and try to make fascist and authoritarian claims about people just because we want to defend and protect the sovereignty of our country, the FIRST duty of the federal government, after 9/11 and 3,000 people were murdered, and considering the nearly 150 billion dollars a year illegal people cost us in processing, housing, courtrooms, healthcare, food and everything else, not to mention bringing disease and not even knowing who they are or why they are coming here, whether they'll be able to support themselves (skills and solvency) or if they intend us any harm?


----------



## dblack

toobfreak said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wall cowards gonna cower. "Protect me! I'm afraid! Of all the scary stories you've been telling me!"  You morons are turning our nation toward fascism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That's funny, you use the exact same reasoning calling for gun confiscation.*
Click to expand...


Yep. It's exactly the same. Politicians drum up phony fears to get people to give up their freedom.



> You demand 100% gun confiscation ...



Uh... nope. You got the wrong guy. I'm opposed to gun control for the same reasons I oppose the wall.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum.  It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States.  If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
> 
> Your avatar suggests that you are against big government, but the stance you take says otherwise.
> 
> "And it says in the Farmer's Almanac: If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble."  Johnny Cash in the song Farmer's Almanac
> 
> Which is more important to you:  that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is more important to you: that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trick question, right? Neither are mutually exclusive.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are plenty of unconstitutional laws on the books.  We simply have an uninformed, lazy and apathetic citizenry that don't give two hoots in Hell.
Click to expand...



Sure, but that wasn't the premise of your question.

.


----------



## Ame®icano

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See there.  We only had to wait minutes on it.  On this issue, we have to, unfortunately give danielpalos a half right.
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to  ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
> 
> There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits states - or the people for that matter from inviting foreigners into the United States.  Congress has a very limited power here.
Click to expand...


It's interesting that you're referring to the "state rights" when just few years back left rejected any state's jurisdiction over the immigration. 

The federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.

When Arizona signed SB 1070 into law in 2010, the DOJ stated in a brief that Arizona lawmakers "crossed a constitutional line" with the new law. A federal judge blocked four of the most controversial elements, including the requirement that police check the immigration status of anyone they stop or suspect is in the state illegally. 

Don't get me wrong, I think that individual states should have control over what's happening within their borders, except over citizenship and naturalization (that is federal jurisdiction), but you lefties cannot have it both way depending on who's in power.


----------



## Ame®icano

danielpalos said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.
> 
> 
> 
> where is the express wall building power in our federal Constitution?  We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.
Click to expand...


The "general welfare clause" doesn't mean what you think it means.


----------



## dblack

Slyhunter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you'd prefer a cyberpunk fantasy land? Without safety nets we'd have Americans living in the streets. We'd be walking over their dead starving bodies. Is that what you really want for your fellow American? Every American who wants a job should have a job that pays a living wage.
Click to expand...


LOL - this is why I say there's not a dime's worth of difference between the left and the right.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
> 
> Your avatar suggests that you are against big government, but the stance you take says otherwise.
> 
> "And it says in the Farmer's Almanac: If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble."  Johnny Cash in the song Farmer's Almanac
> 
> Which is more important to you:  that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is more important to you: that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trick question, right? Neither are mutually exclusive.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are plenty of unconstitutional laws on the books.  We simply have an uninformed, lazy and apathetic citizenry that don't give two hoots in Hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but that wasn't the premise of your question.
> 
> .[/QUOTE
> 
> I asked if one prefers that actions be done constitutionally or legally.  It is an error to presume the terminology is synonymous.
Click to expand...


----------



## dblack

Ame®icano said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having control over who is allowed to enter and stay in this country has nothing to do with fascism.
Click to expand...


Actually, cracking down on travel is one of the first things a fascist state does.


----------



## Ame®icano

dblack said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having control over who is allowed to enter and stay in this country has nothing to do with fascism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, cracking down on travel is one of the first things a fascist state does.
Click to expand...


We discussed this. Nobody is cracking up on my travel, or citizen's travel or any of my constitutional rights.

Illegals have no rights to be here, therefore they have no constitutional rights that citizens have.


----------



## dblack

Ame®icano said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having control over who is allowed to enter and stay in this country has nothing to do with fascism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, cracking down on travel is one of the first things a fascist state does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We discussed this.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Did you forget what we talked about? Already?


----------



## danielpalos

Ame®icano said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.
> 
> 
> 
> where is the express wall building power in our federal Constitution?  We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "general welfare clause" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Click to expand...

it doesn't mean what You think it means.


----------



## Ame®icano

dblack said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having control over who is allowed to enter and stay in this country has nothing to do with fascism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, cracking down on travel is one of the first things a fascist state does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We discussed this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah. Did you forget what we talked about? Already?
Click to expand...


Why don't you quote my whole post?

I'ts been discussed earlier in the thread. 

Again. Nobody is cracking up on my travel, or citizen's travel or any of my constitutional rights.
Illegals have no rights to be here, therefore they have no constitutional rights that citizens have.


----------



## Ame®icano

danielpalos said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.
> 
> 
> 
> where is the express wall building power in our federal Constitution?  We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "general welfare clause" doesn't mean what you think it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesn't mean what You think it means.
Click to expand...


What you think it means is already in place in Venezuela, not here.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ame®icano said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See there.  We only had to wait minutes on it.  On this issue, we have to, unfortunately give danielpalos a half right.
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to  ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
> 
> There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits states - or the people for that matter from inviting foreigners into the United States.  Congress has a very limited power here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you're referring to the "state rights" when just few years back left rejected any state's jurisdiction over the immigration.
> 
> The federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.
> 
> When Arizona signed SB 1070 into law in 2010, the DOJ stated in a brief that Arizona lawmakers "crossed a constitutional line" with the new law. A federal judge blocked four of the most controversial elements, including the requirement that police check the immigration status of anyone they stop or suspect is in the state illegally.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think that individual states should have control over what's happening within their borders, except over citizenship and naturalization (that is federal jurisdiction), but you lefties cannot have it both way depending on who's in power.
Click to expand...


I will overlook your ignorance.  I'm not a lefty.  In the more than thirty years of voting - never missing a single election, I have voted for exactly ONE Democrat (and that was for the PSC.)  I've also been an officer in my local Republican Party.

In my lifetime, I've been consistent.  I didn't change; the people on the right did.  My introduction into politics began as a young man who lost his job (as did a lot of guys) due to affirmative action and racial quotas.  My position then, as now, is that employers have the right to determine WHO they want to hire.  Now, let us get our facts straight.

During the lives of *ALL* the founders of this country, the states had control over immigration while the federal government had control over naturalization.  Each and every one of the founders would be buried before the SCOTUS would do something downright dirty.

In 1875 the SCOTUS, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman granted plenary powers over immigration to Congress after the defendants in California failed to mount a defense.  While the SCOTUS scolded the defendants for not presenting a defense, they went above and beyond their authority.

The SCOTUS is authorized only to interpret the laws; they have NO authority to grant any power to any other branch of government.  If you can show me that authority I will change my views.  It's hypocritical for us to whine and complain when the SCOTUS - or government in general tries to subvert the Second Amendment, but then try and defend the government when they use an illegal / unconstitutional tactic if we think we benefit off it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ame®icano said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having control over who is allowed to enter and stay in this country has nothing to do with fascism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, cracking down on travel is one of the first things a fascist state does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We discussed this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah. Did you forget what we talked about? Already?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you quote my whole post?
> 
> I'ts been discussed earlier in the thread.
> 
> Again. Nobody is cracking up on my travel, or citizen's travel or any of my constitutional rights.
> Illegals have no rights to be here, therefore they have no constitutional rights that citizens have.
Click to expand...


From where do you get your unalienable Rights from?


----------



## Ame®icano

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having control over who is allowed to enter and stay in this country has nothing to do with fascism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, cracking down on travel is one of the first things a fascist state does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We discussed this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah. Did you forget what we talked about? Already?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you quote my whole post?
> 
> I'ts been discussed earlier in the thread.
> 
> Again. Nobody is cracking up on my travel, or citizen's travel or any of my constitutional rights.
> Illegals have no rights to be here, therefore they have no constitutional rights that citizens have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From where do you get your unalienable Rights from?
Click to expand...


I see where your'e heading. No, I haven't said that illegals don't have any rights, they just don't have all constitutional rights and/or protections that citizens have.


----------



## Ame®icano

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See there.  We only had to wait minutes on it.  On this issue, we have to, unfortunately give danielpalos a half right.
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to  ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
> 
> There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits states - or the people for that matter from inviting foreigners into the United States.  Congress has a very limited power here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you're referring to the "state rights" when just few years back left rejected any state's jurisdiction over the immigration.
> 
> The federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.
> 
> When Arizona signed SB 1070 into law in 2010, the DOJ stated in a brief that Arizona lawmakers "crossed a constitutional line" with the new law. A federal judge blocked four of the most controversial elements, including the requirement that police check the immigration status of anyone they stop or suspect is in the state illegally.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think that individual states should have control over what's happening within their borders, except over citizenship and naturalization (that is federal jurisdiction), but you lefties cannot have it both way depending on who's in power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will overlook your ignorance.
Click to expand...


Beside you're not being a leftist, what else in my post is not correct?


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wall cowards gonna cower. "Protect me! I'm afraid! Of all the scary stories you've been telling me!"
> 
> You morons are turning our nation toward fascism.
> 
> Why don't you just move to a country that doesn't give a shit about freedom and loves authoritarian government as much as you do?
Click to expand...

Tell us something, dumbass:  why don't you stick your finger in a light socket?  Are you afraid?  Are you a light socket coward?

That's exactly how stupid your post sounds.

Why should I care about the freedom of illegal aliens?

Are you able to commit logic?


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
> 
> Your avatar suggests that you are against big government, but the stance you take says otherwise.
> 
> "And it says in the Farmer's Almanac: If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble."  Johnny Cash in the song Farmer's Almanac
> 
> Which is more important to you:  that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is more important to you: that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trick question, right? Neither are mutually exclusive.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are plenty of unconstitutional laws on the books.  We simply have an uninformed, lazy and apathetic citizenry that don't give two hoots in Hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but that wasn't the premise of your question.
> 
> .[/QUOTE
> 
> I asked if one prefers that actions be done constitutionally or legally.  It is an error to presume the terminology is synonymous.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Actually they are synonymous, a law isn't legal if it's unconstitutional. We just need judges that follow the Constitution.

.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Click to expand...

Enforcing our immigration laws and building a wall will turn this nation into a fascist hell hole?  Based on what evidence?


----------



## Ame®icano

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforcing our immigration laws and building a wall will turn this nation into a fascist hell hole?  Based on what evidence?
Click to expand...


It's not that we're putting citizens into internment camps or something.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wall cowards gonna cower. "Protect me! I'm afraid! Of all the scary stories you've been telling me!"  You morons are turning our nation toward fascism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That's funny, you use the exact same reasoning calling for gun confiscation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. It's exactly the same. Politicians drum up phony fears to get people to give up their freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You demand 100% gun confiscation ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh... nope. You got the wrong guy. I'm opposed to gun control for the same reasons I oppose the wall.
Click to expand...

There's nothing "phony" about the problems that illegals cause.  They are real and demonstrable.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having control over who is allowed to enter and stay in this country has nothing to do with fascism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, cracking down on travel is one of the first things a fascist state does.
Click to expand...

No one is proposing to crack down on the travel of Americans, fool.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you'd prefer a cyberpunk fantasy land? Without safety nets we'd have Americans living in the streets. We'd be walking over their dead starving bodies. Is that what you really want for your fellow American? Every American who wants a job should have a job that pays a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL - this is why I say there's not a dime's worth of difference between the left and the right.
Click to expand...

Why is it that the people say that are always leftwingers?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ame®icano said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, cracking down on travel is one of the first things a fascist state does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We discussed this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah. Did you forget what we talked about? Already?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you quote my whole post?
> 
> I'ts been discussed earlier in the thread.
> 
> Again. Nobody is cracking up on my travel, or citizen's travel or any of my constitutional rights.
> Illegals have no rights to be here, therefore they have no constitutional rights that citizens have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From where do you get your unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see where your'e heading. No, I haven't said that illegals don't have any rights, they just don't have all constitutional rights and/or protections that citizens have.
Click to expand...



The Courts disagree with you on that one.  So, I have to ask you again, from where do your Rights come from?

Since you don't want to answer because you realize a very uncomfortable truth, is there any special reason you think you need the government to help you protect yourself from your own actions?


----------



## OKTexas

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wall cowards gonna cower. "Protect me! I'm afraid! Of all the scary stories you've been telling me!"
> 
> You morons are turning our nation toward fascism.
> 
> Why don't you just move to a country that doesn't give a shit about freedom and loves authoritarian government as much as you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us something, dumbass:  why don't you stick your finger in a light socket?  Are you afraid?  Are you a light socket coward?
> 
> That's exactly how stupid your post sounds.
> 
> Why should I care about the freedom of illegal aliens?
> 
> Are you able to commit logic?
Click to expand...



It's simply immoral to reward people who break our laws. It's simple as that.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ame®icano said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See there.  We only had to wait minutes on it.  On this issue, we have to, unfortunately give danielpalos a half right.
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to  ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
> 
> There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits states - or the people for that matter from inviting foreigners into the United States.  Congress has a very limited power here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you're referring to the "state rights" when just few years back left rejected any state's jurisdiction over the immigration.
> 
> The federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.
> 
> When Arizona signed SB 1070 into law in 2010, the DOJ stated in a brief that Arizona lawmakers "crossed a constitutional line" with the new law. A federal judge blocked four of the most controversial elements, including the requirement that police check the immigration status of anyone they stop or suspect is in the state illegally.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think that individual states should have control over what's happening within their borders, except over citizenship and naturalization (that is federal jurisdiction), but you lefties cannot have it both way depending on who's in power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will overlook your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beside you're not being a leftist, what else in my post is not correct?
Click to expand...


Not every law on the books is constitutional and, consequently, we don't have any legal obligation to obey unconstitutional laws.


----------



## bripat9643

Ame®icano said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforcing our immigration laws and building a wall will turn this nation into a fascist hell hole?  Based on what evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not that we're putting citizens into internment camps or something.
Click to expand...

These boneheads are actually trying to argue that foreigners have a right to emigrate to the United States.


----------



## dblack

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> We discussed this.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. Did you forget what we talked about? Already?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you quote my whole post?
> 
> I'ts been discussed earlier in the thread.
> 
> Again. Nobody is cracking up on my travel, or citizen's travel or any of my constitutional rights.
> Illegals have no rights to be here, therefore they have no constitutional rights that citizens have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From where do you get your unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see where your'e heading. No, I haven't said that illegals don't have any rights, they just don't have all constitutional rights and/or protections that citizens have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Courts disagree with you on that one.  So, I have to ask you again, from where do your Rights come from?
Click to expand...


It depends on who is in power. Their values blow with the wind.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
> 
> Your avatar suggests that you are against big government, but the stance you take says otherwise.
> 
> "And it says in the Farmer's Almanac: If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble."  Johnny Cash in the song Farmer's Almanac
> 
> Which is more important to you:  that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is more important to you: that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trick question, right? Neither are mutually exclusive.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are plenty of unconstitutional laws on the books.  We simply have an uninformed, lazy and apathetic citizenry that don't give two hoots in Hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but that wasn't the premise of your question.
> 
> .[/QUOTE
> 
> I asked if one prefers that actions be done constitutionally or legally.  It is an error to presume the terminology is synonymous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they are synonymous, a law isn't legal if it's unconstitutional. We just need judges that follow the Constitution.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



You're still wrong on two counts.  Not all laws that are on the books are constitutional; we don't have a legal obligation to obey them AND, secondly, the citizenry has to step up to the plate and own their part in what's going on.  

You can't sit back and think the government is going to do what they're supposed to if YOU don't do what you're supposed to do.  In addition, it's YOUR duty to hold government accountable.  They can't hear you if all you're doing is complaining on discussion boards.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforcing our immigration laws and building a wall will turn this nation into a fascist hell hole?  Based on what evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not that we're putting citizens into internment camps or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These boneheads are actually trying to argue that foreigners have a right to emigrate to the United States.
Click to expand...


Where do you get YOUR Rights from?

Some boneheads believe that Liberty is an unalienable Right and citizenship is a privilege.  What do you think?  Do you think that only some elite group of people were "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?

Instead of making allegations, I dare you to answer the questions and quit trying to anticipate where I'm going.  If you knew that, you wouldn't have an immigration problem today.


----------



## dblack

Porter Rockwell said:


> I will overlook your ignorance.  I'm not a lefty.  In the more than thirty years of voting - never missing a single election, I have voted for exactly ONE Democrat (and that was for the PSC.)  I've also been an officer in my local Republican Party.



But their ignorance is central to the argument. Trumpsters aren't conservatives. They don't know the difference between left and right. They are authoritarians. They're insecure idiots who long for a daddy figure to protect them from their lurid nightmares.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforcing our immigration laws and building a wall will turn this nation into a fascist hell hole?  Based on what evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not that we're putting citizens into internment camps or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These boneheads are actually trying to argue that foreigners have a right to emigrate to the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get YOUR Rights from?
> 
> Some boneheads believe that Liberty is an unalienable Right and citizenship is a privilege.  What do you think?  Do you think that only some elite group of people were "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?
> 
> Instead of making allegations, I dare you to answer the questions and quit trying to anticipate where I'm going.  If you knew that, you wouldn't have an immigration problem today.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is that foreigners have no right to live in the United States.

End of story.


----------



## danielpalos

Ame®icano said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.
> 
> 
> 
> where is the express wall building power in our federal Constitution?  We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "general welfare clause" doesn't mean what you think it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesn't mean what You think it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you think it means is already in place in Venezuela, not here.
Click to expand...

FDR gave us our examples.  Thank Goodness he was a left winger.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforcing our immigration laws and building a wall will turn this nation into a fascist hell hole?  Based on what evidence?
Click to expand...

we don't have an immigration clause or express wall building clause.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

dblack said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will overlook your ignorance.  I'm not a lefty.  In the more than thirty years of voting - never missing a single election, I have voted for exactly ONE Democrat (and that was for the PSC.)  I've also been an officer in my local Republican Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But their ignorance is central to the argument. Trumpsters aren't conservatives. They don't know the difference between left and right. They are authoritarians. They're insecure idiots who long for a daddy figure to protect them from their lurid nightmares.
Click to expand...


I think that if they were honest with us and with themselves, they might understand that.  It's really frustrating that they cannot divorce themselves from right v. left; conservative v. liberal; Republican v. Democrat and engage in an honest and civil discussion.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wall cowards gonna cower. "Protect me! I'm afraid! Of all the scary stories you've been telling me!"  You morons are turning our nation toward fascism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That's funny, you use the exact same reasoning calling for gun confiscation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. It's exactly the same. Politicians drum up phony fears to get people to give up their freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You demand 100% gun confiscation ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh... nope. You got the wrong guy. I'm opposed to gun control for the same reasons I oppose the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's nothing "phony" about the problems that illegals cause.  They are real and demonstrable.
Click to expand...

you think that is Bad; our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror create more of those people.


----------



## toobfreak

dblack said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wall cowards gonna cower. "Protect me! I'm afraid! Of all the scary stories you've been telling me!"  You morons are turning our nation toward fascism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That's funny, you use the exact same reasoning calling for gun confiscation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. It's exactly the same. Politicians drum up phony fears to get people to give up their freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You demand 100% gun confiscation ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh... nope. You got the wrong guy. I'm opposed to gun control for the same reasons I oppose the wall.
Click to expand...


Fair enough, but you oppose the wall (protecting sovereignty against invasion) for the same reason you oppose gun-confiscation (LOSING sovereignty against invasion)?  When they are two opposites?  OH YES THEY ARE.  Better think about it again.


----------



## Ame®icano

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> We discussed this.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. Did you forget what we talked about? Already?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you quote my whole post?
> 
> I'ts been discussed earlier in the thread.
> 
> Again. Nobody is cracking up on my travel, or citizen's travel or any of my constitutional rights.
> Illegals have no rights to be here, therefore they have no constitutional rights that citizens have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From where do you get your unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see where your'e heading. No, I haven't said that illegals don't have any rights, they just don't have all constitutional rights and/or protections that citizens have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Courts disagree with you on that one.  So, I have to ask you again, from where do your Rights come from?
> 
> Since you don't want to answer because you realize a very uncomfortable truth, is there any special reason you think you need the government to help you protect yourself from your own actions?
Click to expand...


What court disagree with me? Do illegals have rights to be here or not? Do they have right to vote? 

Where did you get that I am uncomfortable answering? I told you that I see where you're heading with it and I stay with my statement that illegals don't have all constitutional rights and/or protections that citizens have.

Now, you asked where my rights come from? 

To answer that question, can you clarify what you considering that "rights" are?


----------



## danielpalos

OKTexas said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wall cowards gonna cower. "Protect me! I'm afraid! Of all the scary stories you've been telling me!"
> 
> You morons are turning our nation toward fascism.
> 
> Why don't you just move to a country that doesn't give a shit about freedom and loves authoritarian government as much as you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us something, dumbass:  why don't you stick your finger in a light socket?  Are you afraid?  Are you a light socket coward?
> 
> That's exactly how stupid your post sounds.
> 
> Why should I care about the freedom of illegal aliens?
> 
> Are you able to commit logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's simply immoral to reward people who break our laws. It's simple as that.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

break what laws?  we don't have an immigration clause.  we have a naturalization clause.


----------



## dblack

toobfreak said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wall cowards gonna cower. "Protect me! I'm afraid! Of all the scary stories you've been telling me!"  You morons are turning our nation toward fascism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That's funny, you use the exact same reasoning calling for gun confiscation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. It's exactly the same. Politicians drum up phony fears to get people to give up their freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You demand 100% gun confiscation ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh... nope. You got the wrong guy. I'm opposed to gun control for the same reasons I oppose the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough, but you oppose the wall (protecting sovereignty against invasion) for the same reason you oppose gun-confiscation (LOSING sovereignty against invasion)?  When they are two opposites?  OH YES THEY ARE.  Better think about it again.
Click to expand...


I've thought about it plenty. The wall isn't about protecting sovereignty against invasion. The fact that you call a mob of desperate poor people an "invasion" makes your whole argument laughable. But it's not a joke. The walls, and other authoritarian laws that you're clamoring for, will still be there when the mob dwindles - a testament to fear and stupidity. And they will be used against you.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforcing our immigration laws and building a wall will turn this nation into a fascist hell hole?  Based on what evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not that we're putting citizens into internment camps or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These boneheads are actually trying to argue that foreigners have a right to emigrate to the United States.
Click to expand...

natural rights are natural.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trick question, right? Neither are mutually exclusive.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of unconstitutional laws on the books.  We simply have an uninformed, lazy and apathetic citizenry that don't give two hoots in Hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but that wasn't the premise of your question.
> 
> .[/QUOTE
> 
> I asked if one prefers that actions be done constitutionally or legally.  It is an error to presume the terminology is synonymous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they are synonymous, a law isn't legal if it's unconstitutional. We just need judges that follow the Constitution.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're still wrong on two counts.  Not all laws that are on the books are constitutional; we don't have a legal obligation to obey them AND, secondly, the citizenry has to step up to the plate and own their part in what's going on.
> 
> You can't sit back and think the government is going to do what they're supposed to if YOU don't do what you're supposed to do.  In addition, it's YOUR duty to hold government accountable.  They can't hear you if all you're doing is complaining on discussion boards.
Click to expand...



First, laws already on the books wasn't part of the discussion, but they do verify what I said about judges that need to follow the Constitution and what makes you think all I do is complain on a discussion board? I'm going to be dropping by my congressman's office this afternoon.

.

.


----------



## Ame®icano

danielpalos said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.
> 
> 
> 
> where is the express wall building power in our federal Constitution?  We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "general welfare clause" doesn't mean what you think it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesn't mean what You think it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you think it means is already in place in Venezuela, not here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FDR gave us our examples.  Thank Goodness he was a left winger.
Click to expand...


You sure know your idols. If is not a communist, than is a progressive socialist.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> 
> 
> Enforcing our immigration laws and building a wall will turn this nation into a fascist hell hole?  Based on what evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not that we're putting citizens into internment camps or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These boneheads are actually trying to argue that foreigners have a right to emigrate to the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get YOUR Rights from?
> 
> Some boneheads believe that Liberty is an unalienable Right and citizenship is a privilege.  What do you think?  Do you think that only some elite group of people were "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?
> 
> Instead of making allegations, I dare you to answer the questions and quit trying to anticipate where I'm going.  If you knew that, you wouldn't have an immigration problem today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is that foreigners have no right to live in the United States.
> 
> End of story.
Click to expand...

we have a naturalization clause not an immigration clause.  

Government can't do anything right, remember.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wall cowards gonna cower. "Protect me! I'm afraid! Of all the scary stories you've been telling me!"  You morons are turning our nation toward fascism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That's funny, you use the exact same reasoning calling for gun confiscation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. It's exactly the same. Politicians drum up phony fears to get people to give up their freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You demand 100% gun confiscation ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh... nope. You got the wrong guy. I'm opposed to gun control for the same reasons I oppose the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough, but you oppose the wall (protecting sovereignty against invasion) for the same reason you oppose gun-confiscation (LOSING sovereignty against invasion)?  When they are two opposites?  OH YES THEY ARE.  Better think about it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've thought about it plenty. The wall isn't about protecting sovereignty against invasion. The fact that you call a mob of desperate poor people an "invasion" makes your whole argument laughable. But it's not a joke. The walls, and other authoritarian laws that you're clamoring for, will still be there when the mob dwindles - a testament to fear and stupidity. And they will be used against you.
Click to expand...

There's nothing authoritarian about the wall, moron.  When a mob of people say they are going to violate our border, that pretty much defines an invasion.  If the wall was in place, then the mob can "dwindle" on the other side of the border.

The bottom line is that we gain nothing by admitting these people into our country, so why should we?


----------



## danielpalos

Ame®icano said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> where is the express wall building power in our federal Constitution?  We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "general welfare clause" doesn't mean what you think it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesn't mean what You think it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you think it means is already in place in Venezuela, not here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FDR gave us our examples.  Thank Goodness he was a left winger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sure know your idols. If is not a communist, than is a progressive socialist.
Click to expand...

Government solves all problems for the right wing.


----------



## OKTexas

danielpalos said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wall cowards gonna cower. "Protect me! I'm afraid! Of all the scary stories you've been telling me!"
> 
> You morons are turning our nation toward fascism.
> 
> Why don't you just move to a country that doesn't give a shit about freedom and loves authoritarian government as much as you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us something, dumbass:  why don't you stick your finger in a light socket?  Are you afraid?  Are you a light socket coward?
> 
> That's exactly how stupid your post sounds.
> 
> Why should I care about the freedom of illegal aliens?
> 
> Are you able to commit logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's simply immoral to reward people who break our laws. It's simple as that.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> break what laws?  we don't have an immigration clause.  we have a naturalization clause.
Click to expand...



I've already proven you're a liar on that one. So run along child.

.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> When a mob of people say they are going to violate our border, that pretty much defines an invasion.



No, it pretty much doesn't. You're equivocating - using the imagery of war to provoke fear.


----------



## toobfreak

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wall cowards gonna cower. "Protect me! I'm afraid! Of all the scary stories you've been telling me!"  You morons are turning our nation toward fascism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That's funny, you use the exact same reasoning calling for gun confiscation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. It's exactly the same. Politicians drum up phony fears to get people to give up their freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You demand 100% gun confiscation ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh... nope. You got the wrong guy. I'm opposed to gun control for the same reasons I oppose the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's nothing "phony" about the problems that illegals cause.  They are real and demonstrable.
Click to expand...



Just for starters:

Problems With Illegal Immigration


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> 
> 
> Enforcing our immigration laws and building a wall will turn this nation into a fascist hell hole?  Based on what evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not that we're putting citizens into internment camps or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These boneheads are actually trying to argue that foreigners have a right to emigrate to the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get YOUR Rights from?
> 
> Some boneheads believe that Liberty is an unalienable Right and citizenship is a privilege.  What do you think?  Do you think that only some elite group of people were "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?
> 
> Instead of making allegations, I dare you to answer the questions and quit trying to anticipate where I'm going.  If you knew that, you wouldn't have an immigration problem today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is that foreigners have no right to live in the United States.
> 
> End of story.
Click to expand...


Based upon what, exactly?


----------



## mudwhistle

dblack said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wall cowards gonna cower. "Protect me! I'm afraid! Of all the scary stories you've been telling me!"
> 
> You morons are turning our nation toward fascism.
> 
> Why don't you just move to a country that doesn't give a shit about freedom and loves authoritarian government as much as you do?
Click to expand...

People that live in those shit holes are why we need a wall in the first place.


----------



## Ame®icano

bripat9643 said:


> The bottom line is that foreigners have no right to live in the United States.
> 
> End of story.



I actually have to disagree on this one. Partially.

Foreigners that are given permission to enter/live/work in the country do have right to be here. 

If you were thinking of illegals, then I agree.


----------



## toobfreak

dblack said:


> The wall isn't about protecting sovereignty against invasion.


But wide open borders are?


> The fact that you call a mob of desperate poor people an "invasion" makes your whole argument laughable.


Nothing funny about up to 700,000 illegal aliens invading our country against our laws every year.  If I'm desperate and poor and break into your home to rob you because you have more, you'd shoot me.


> But it's not a joke. The walls, and other authoritarian laws that you're clamoring for, will still be there when the mob dwindles


If the mob ever dwindles, it will only be because they realize they can no longer easily get in, or there is no one left on the other side wanting in.


> - a testament to fear and stupidity. And they will be used against you.


Yep.  Can't wait to see how the wall on the Mexican border will be used against me.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ame®icano said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. Did you forget what we talked about? Already?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you quote my whole post?
> 
> I'ts been discussed earlier in the thread.
> 
> Again. Nobody is cracking up on my travel, or citizen's travel or any of my constitutional rights.
> Illegals have no rights to be here, therefore they have no constitutional rights that citizens have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From where do you get your unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see where your'e heading. No, I haven't said that illegals don't have any rights, they just don't have all constitutional rights and/or protections that citizens have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Courts disagree with you on that one.  So, I have to ask you again, from where do your Rights come from?
> 
> Since you don't want to answer because you realize a very uncomfortable truth, is there any special reason you think you need the government to help you protect yourself from your own actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What court disagree with me? Do illegals have rights to be here or not? Do they have right to vote?
> 
> Where did you get that I am uncomfortable answering? I told you that I see where you're heading with it and I stay with my statement that illegals don't have all constitutional rights and/or protections that citizens have.
> 
> Now, you asked where my rights come from?
> 
> To answer that question, can you clarify what you considering that "rights" are?
Click to expand...


America was founded on the principle that each person is born with unalienable Rights.  The Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So, when I ask you where your Rights come from, I am in reference to the foundational principle found in the DOI as quoted above.  Where do YOUR Rights come from?

Some people have a problem with inherent, natural, God given, unalienable, absolute, irrevocable Rights.  So, as per the DOI all men have been bestowed by their Creator (their God, whomever they deem that to be) with unalienable Rights.  If you disagree, I'm only asking where you get your Rights from.  I'm not trying to start some shit with you, only looking for the disconnect.  I'm trying to get beyond all the accusations and counter-accusations.

Do so - called "illegals" have a right (sic) to be here?  I'm asking the question of if they do not have a right (sic) to be here, then are you of the opinion that government creates and / or grants rights?  

I'm looking for where the disconnect is, not which side is right or wrong.  I'm not here to ask you a question and then go off on a tangent calling you an idiot as most of these end up being like.  I'm asking a question to see, exactly, where the disconnect is.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ame®icano said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that foreigners have no right to live in the United States.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually have to disagree on this one. Partially.
> 
> Foreigners that are given permission to enter/live/work in the country do have right to be here.
> 
> If you were thinking of illegals, then I agree.
Click to expand...


Where do you get your unalienable Rights from?


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enforcing our immigration laws and building a wall will turn this nation into a fascist hell hole?  Based on what evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that we're putting citizens into internment camps or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These boneheads are actually trying to argue that foreigners have a right to emigrate to the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get YOUR Rights from?
> 
> Some boneheads believe that Liberty is an unalienable Right and citizenship is a privilege.  What do you think?  Do you think that only some elite group of people were "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?
> 
> Instead of making allegations, I dare you to answer the questions and quit trying to anticipate where I'm going.  If you knew that, you wouldn't have an immigration problem today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is that foreigners have no right to live in the United States.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based upon what, exactly?
Click to expand...

Based on the Constitution and plain logic.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that foreigners have no right to live in the United States.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually have to disagree on this one. Partially.
> 
> Foreigners that are given permission to enter/live/work in the country do have right to be here.
> 
> If you were thinking of illegals, then I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get your unalienable Rights from?
Click to expand...

My Constitutional rights come from the Constitution.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that we're putting citizens into internment camps or something.
> 
> 
> 
> These boneheads are actually trying to argue that foreigners have a right to emigrate to the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get YOUR Rights from?
> 
> Some boneheads believe that Liberty is an unalienable Right and citizenship is a privilege.  What do you think?  Do you think that only some elite group of people were "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?
> 
> Instead of making allegations, I dare you to answer the questions and quit trying to anticipate where I'm going.  If you knew that, you wouldn't have an immigration problem today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is that foreigners have no right to live in the United States.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based upon what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based on the Constitution and plain logic.
Click to expand...


Can you show me what section of the Constitution that says foreigners have no right to live in the United States?


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you quote my whole post?
> 
> I'ts been discussed earlier in the thread.
> 
> Again. Nobody is cracking up on my travel, or citizen's travel or any of my constitutional rights.
> Illegals have no rights to be here, therefore they have no constitutional rights that citizens have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From where do you get your unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see where your'e heading. No, I haven't said that illegals don't have any rights, they just don't have all constitutional rights and/or protections that citizens have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Courts disagree with you on that one.  So, I have to ask you again, from where do your Rights come from?
> 
> Since you don't want to answer because you realize a very uncomfortable truth, is there any special reason you think you need the government to help you protect yourself from your own actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What court disagree with me? Do illegals have rights to be here or not? Do they have right to vote?
> 
> Where did you get that I am uncomfortable answering? I told you that I see where you're heading with it and I stay with my statement that illegals don't have all constitutional rights and/or protections that citizens have.
> 
> Now, you asked where my rights come from?
> 
> To answer that question, can you clarify what you considering that "rights" are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America was founded on the principle that each person is born with unalienable Rights.  The Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> So, when I ask you where your Rights come from, I am in reference to the foundational principle found in the DOI as quoted above.  Where do YOUR Rights come from?
> 
> Some people have a problem with inherent, natural, God given, unalienable, absolute, irrevocable Rights.  So, as per the DOI all men have been bestowed by their Creator (their God, whomever they deem that to be) with unalienable Rights.  If you disagree, I'm only asking where you get your Rights from.  I'm not trying to start some shit with you, only looking for the disconnect.  I'm trying to get beyond all the accusations and counter-accusations.
> 
> Do so - called "illegals" have a right (sic) to be here?  I'm asking the question of if they do not have a right (sic) to be here, then are you of the opinion that government creates and / or grants rights?
> 
> I'm looking for where the disconnect is, not which side is right or wrong.  I'm not here to ask you a question and then go off on a tangent calling you an idiot as most of these end up being like.  I'm asking a question to see, exactly, where the disconnect is.
Click to expand...

The Constitution protects Americans, not foreigners.  The countries where they live are responsible for providing them with protection, not us.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These boneheads are actually trying to argue that foreigners have a right to emigrate to the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get YOUR Rights from?
> 
> Some boneheads believe that Liberty is an unalienable Right and citizenship is a privilege.  What do you think?  Do you think that only some elite group of people were "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?
> 
> Instead of making allegations, I dare you to answer the questions and quit trying to anticipate where I'm going.  If you knew that, you wouldn't have an immigration problem today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is that foreigners have no right to live in the United States.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based upon what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based on the Constitution and plain logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you show me what section of the Constitution that says foreigners have no right to live in the United States?
Click to expand...


_The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization....

 Article I, Section 8, Clause 4_​


----------



## bripat9643

Ame®icano said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that foreigners have no right to live in the United States.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually have to disagree on this one. Partially.
> 
> Foreigners that are given permission to enter/live/work in the country do have right to be here.
> 
> If you were thinking of illegals, then I agree.
Click to expand...

"They are given permission" means it's totally up to us, not them.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that foreigners have no right to live in the United States.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually have to disagree on this one. Partially.
> 
> Foreigners that are given permission to enter/live/work in the country do have right to be here.
> 
> If you were thinking of illegals, then I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get your unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My Constitutional rights come from the Constitution.
Click to expand...


So, for you, your Rights do NOT come from a Creator as per the Declaration of Independence.  So, if they come for your gun, tell you that you WILL accept the Muslim faith, and your children will become wards of the state, you have told us you will support that proposition.

I'm only paraphrasing what you've said.  Your claim is that government (i.e. the Constitution) is where your Rights originate from.


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enforcing our immigration laws and building a wall will turn this nation into a fascist hell hole?  Based on what evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that we're putting citizens into internment camps or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These boneheads are actually trying to argue that foreigners have a right to emigrate to the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get YOUR Rights from?
> 
> Some boneheads believe that Liberty is an unalienable Right and citizenship is a privilege.  What do you think?  Do you think that only some elite group of people were "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?
> 
> Instead of making allegations, I dare you to answer the questions and quit trying to anticipate where I'm going.  If you knew that, you wouldn't have an immigration problem today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is that foreigners have no right to live in the United States.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based upon what, exactly?
Click to expand...



You ARE an idiot, aren't you?  Only natural born Americans have any RIGHT to this country.  To all others, it is a privilege to be here, just as I have no "right" to live in England, France or Germany.  I can go there, apply for a visa or citizenship, go for a visit, but I have no "right" to be there.  I exist in their country ultimately at their pleasure.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get YOUR Rights from?
> 
> Some boneheads believe that Liberty is an unalienable Right and citizenship is a privilege.  What do you think?  Do you think that only some elite group of people were "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?
> 
> Instead of making allegations, I dare you to answer the questions and quit trying to anticipate where I'm going.  If you knew that, you wouldn't have an immigration problem today.
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that foreigners have no right to live in the United States.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based upon what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based on the Constitution and plain logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you show me what section of the Constitution that says foreigners have no right to live in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization....
> 
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 4_​
Click to expand...


Naturalization is about citizenship.  Not everyone who comes to the United States wants to become a citizen.  Citizenship is a privilege.  

Liberty is an unalienable Right.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that foreigners have no right to live in the United States.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually have to disagree on this one. Partially.
> 
> Foreigners that are given permission to enter/live/work in the country do have right to be here.
> 
> If you were thinking of illegals, then I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get your unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My Constitutional rights come from the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, for you, your Rights do NOT come from a Creator as per the Declaration of Independence.  So, if they come for your gun, tell you that you WILL accept the Muslim faith, and your children will become wards of the state, you have told us you will support that proposition.
> 
> I'm only paraphrasing what you've said.  Your claim is that government (i.e. the Constitution) is where your Rights originate from.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter where rights come from.  The irrefutable fact is that government is what protects our rights, and our government was created to protect the rights of Americans, not foreigners.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that foreigners have no right to live in the United States.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based upon what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based on the Constitution and plain logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you show me what section of the Constitution that says foreigners have no right to live in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization....
> 
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 4_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naturalization is about citizenship.  Not everyone who comes to the United States wants to become a citizen.  Citizenship is a privilege.
> 
> Liberty is an unalienable Right.
Click to expand...

You're saying the US doesn't have the right to control who crosses our borders?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

toobfreak said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that we're putting citizens into internment camps or something.
> 
> 
> 
> These boneheads are actually trying to argue that foreigners have a right to emigrate to the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get YOUR Rights from?
> 
> Some boneheads believe that Liberty is an unalienable Right and citizenship is a privilege.  What do you think?  Do you think that only some elite group of people were "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?
> 
> Instead of making allegations, I dare you to answer the questions and quit trying to anticipate where I'm going.  If you knew that, you wouldn't have an immigration problem today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is that foreigners have no right to live in the United States.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based upon what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You ARE an idiot, aren't you?  Only natural born Americans have any RIGHT to this country.  To all others, it is a privilege to be here, just as I have no "right" to live in England, France or Germany.  I can go there, apply for a visa or citizenship, go for a visit, but I have no "right" to be there.  I exist in their country ultimately at their pleasure.
Click to expand...


The United States is the only country on earth wherein you have Rights that are, literally, above the law.  Actually we fought a war to get away from the tyranny of England; France is so unstable it has changed its form of government more than a dozen times in my lifetime.  I don't think they will allow you have an AR 15 in Germany.

So, in essence, our Creator, the one who bestows upon us our Rights, is government.  I wonder if there are any Christians that are for the wall and if they believe that only natural American born citizens have Rights.

When an employer hires a foreigner, then they have that employer's permission to be here.  Why do they need YOUR permission?  Do you own the jobs created in the private sector by way of a government / god?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based upon what, exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the Constitution and plain logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you show me what section of the Constitution that says foreigners have no right to live in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization....
> 
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 4_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naturalization is about citizenship.  Not everyone who comes to the United States wants to become a citizen.  Citizenship is a privilege.
> 
> Liberty is an unalienable Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're saying the US doesn't have the right to control who crosses our borders?
Click to expand...


Control over the border is a different issue.  Is it possible for you to stay with me for a minute and answer my questions?  I'm not calling you names; not slinging skeet at you.  I've been so hung up on my own four decades of research and experience that I'm not sure where you're coming from.

As I've stated many times, patriots and constitutionalists didn't change, the people did.  And, you represent a new breed of people with a concept that I'm trying to understand.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the Constitution and plain logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you show me what section of the Constitution that says foreigners have no right to live in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization....
> 
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 4_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naturalization is about citizenship.  Not everyone who comes to the United States wants to become a citizen.  Citizenship is a privilege.
> 
> Liberty is an unalienable Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're saying the US doesn't have the right to control who crosses our borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Control over the border is a different issue.  Is it possible for you to stay with me for a minute and answer my questions?  I'm not calling you names; not slinging skeet at you.  I've been so hung up on my own four decades of research and experience that I'm not sure where you're coming from.
> 
> As I've stated many times, patriots and constitutionalists didn't change, the people did.  And, you represent a new breed of people with a concept that I'm trying to understand.
Click to expand...

Answer the question:  do we have the right to control who crosses our border or not?


----------



## dblack

toobfreak said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall isn't about protecting sovereignty against invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> But wide open borders are?
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, it's not a choice between one or the other.


> The fact that you call a mob of desperate poor people an "invasion" makes your whole argument laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing funny about up to 700,000 illegal aliens invading our country against our laws every year.  If I'm desperate and poor and break into your home to rob you because you have more, you'd shoot me.
Click to expand...


So shoot them. Just don't turn our nation into a prison because you're frightened.


> But it's not a joke. The walls, and other authoritarian laws that you're clamoring for, will still be there when the mob dwindles
> 
> 
> 
> If the mob ever dwindles, it will only be because they realize they can no longer easily get in, or there is no one left on the other side wanting in.
Click to expand...

The mob will dwindle as soon as the TV crews leave. It's all a staged melodrama to provoke fear. And you're falling for it.


> - a testament to fear and stupidity. And they will be used against you.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Can't wait to see how the wall on the Mexican border will be used against me.
Click to expand...


You don't have to wait. Look up the Berlin Wall.


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> When an employer hires a foreigner, then they have that employer's permission to be here.  Why do they need YOUR permission?



So, you THINK that if some Mexican comes here and starts a business in this country and hires an illegal alien, his "permission" to be here for whatever reason to work for him usurps all federal law and authority no matter what laws have been broken?   So I can hire an illegal, deported criminal snuck back into the country under orders never to enter here again is now made NULL AND VOID because I simply disregarded all laws and hired him?  What kind of unbelievable shameless TWIT are you?


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall isn't about protecting sovereignty against invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> But wide open borders are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Believe it or not, it's not a choice between one or the other.
Click to expand...


We already admit a million aliens in every year legally.  

What's obvious is that douchebags like you want no controls on immigration.


----------



## toobfreak

dblack said:


> Just don't turn our nation into a prison because you're frightened.



I'm not afraid of anything.  YOU are the one scared shitless about a simple wall.  There has been a wall or fence down there in parts for decades but only NOW does it create a prison for Me by protecting me from illegals getting in???  How do you proffer such GARBAGE with a straight face???  You've lost all credibility here.

If I put a fence and a gate around my property, it doesn't make ME a prisoner, boob!  I can come and go as I please and I can leave this country any time I want.


----------



## dblack

toobfreak said:


> Only natural born Americans have any RIGHT to this country..



This a dangerous idea that's been brewing since the "war" on terror nonsense. Some of you are convinced that only the rights of citizens should be protected by government. But freedoms that are protected for some, and not for others, are privileges. Rights are universal and unalienable. Giving government the power to pick and choose as to whose rights are protected, and whose aren't, puts all of us at risk.


----------



## toobfreak

bripat9643 said:


> What's obvious is that douchebags like you want no controls on immigration.



Unrestricted unregulated immigration is another name for flat out invasion.  The United States has ceased to exist.


----------



## dblack

toobfreak said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just don't turn our nation into a prison because you're frightened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not afraid of anything.  YOU are the one scared shitless about a simple wall.
Click to expand...

I'm not scared of the wall - it's little more than a symbol. I'm scared of the kind of government you morons are clamoring for.  You really want an authoritarian police state, and I don't want to live like that.


----------



## toobfreak

dblack said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only natural born Americans have any RIGHT to this country..
> 
> 
> 
> This a dangerous idea
Click to expand...


YOU are a dangerous idea.  If what I said were not true, then any foreigner could come here, run for office, become president, then turn over sovereignty of the USA to his home country, asshole.    NO ONE makes assholes like the Left.


----------



## toobfreak

dblack said:


> I'm scared of the kind of government you morons are clamoring for.



You mean a Constitutional Republic such as this nation was founded on?  I bet you ARE.


----------



## Clementine

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux




It would reduce the number of potential Dem voters.     That is all the left cares about.    It would also reduce the number of trafficking victims, drugs, terrorists and gang members.     The left doesn't care about that because the safety of American citizens is no where on their agenda.   

Walls work and that has been proven.     Most sheeple can only repeat the talking points by claiming it's racist. 

Hillary talked about one world government and supports it.    So, having no borders, no U.S. constitution, no rights, and ceding all freedom to government is the endgame.


----------



## bripat9643

toobfreak said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just don't turn our nation into a prison because you're frightened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not afraid of anything.  YOU are the one scared shitless about a simple wall.  There has been a wall or fence down there in parts for decades but only NOW does it create a prison for Me by protecting me from illegals getting in???  How do you proffer such GARBAGE with a straight face???  You've lost all credibility here.
> 
> If I put a fence and a gate around my property, it doesn't make ME a prisoner, boob!  I can come and go as I please and I can leave this country any time I want.
Click to expand...

I marvel at this argument snowflakes use that we should accept unlimited immigration to show how brave we are.

I can't imagine any idea dumber than that.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just don't turn our nation into a prison because you're frightened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not afraid of anything.  YOU are the one scared shitless about a simple wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not scared of the wall - it's little more than a symbol. I'm scared of the kind of government you morons are clamoring for.  You really want an authoritarian police state, and I don't want to live like that.
Click to expand...

We want a government that builds a wall.  How is that "authoritarian?"  The ACA was actual authoritarianism.  The wall, on the other hand, doesn't prevent me from doing Jack.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you show me what section of the Constitution that says foreigners have no right to live in the United States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization....
> 
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 4_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naturalization is about citizenship.  Not everyone who comes to the United States wants to become a citizen.  Citizenship is a privilege.
> 
> Liberty is an unalienable Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're saying the US doesn't have the right to control who crosses our borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Control over the border is a different issue.  Is it possible for you to stay with me for a minute and answer my questions?  I'm not calling you names; not slinging skeet at you.  I've been so hung up on my own four decades of research and experience that I'm not sure where you're coming from.
> 
> As I've stated many times, patriots and constitutionalists didn't change, the people did.  And, you represent a new breed of people with a concept that I'm trying to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answer the question:  do we have the right to control who crosses our border or not?
Click to expand...


The military has the responsibility of protecting us from foreign invasions; states have the right to regulate who they allow to come and go.  If conditions warrant, we could shut the border down in a national emergency.  

Is there any special reason you can't focus on one issue at a time?


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just don't turn our nation into a prison because you're frightened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not afraid of anything.  YOU are the one scared shitless about a simple wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not scared of the wall - it's little more than a symbol. I'm scared of the kind of government you morons are clamoring for.  You really want an authoritarian police state, and I don't want to live like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We want a government that builds a wall.  How is that "authoritarian?"  The ACA was actual authoritarianism.  The wall, on the other hand, doesn't prevent me from doing Jack.
Click to expand...


They're both authoritarian. "It's different when we do it".


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization....
> 
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 4_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naturalization is about citizenship.  Not everyone who comes to the United States wants to become a citizen.  Citizenship is a privilege.
> 
> Liberty is an unalienable Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're saying the US doesn't have the right to control who crosses our borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Control over the border is a different issue.  Is it possible for you to stay with me for a minute and answer my questions?  I'm not calling you names; not slinging skeet at you.  I've been so hung up on my own four decades of research and experience that I'm not sure where you're coming from.
> 
> As I've stated many times, patriots and constitutionalists didn't change, the people did.  And, you represent a new breed of people with a concept that I'm trying to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answer the question:  do we have the right to control who crosses our border or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The military has the responsibility of protecting us from foreign invasions; states have the right to regulate who they allow to come and go.  If conditions warrant, we could shut the border down in a national emergency.
> 
> Is there any special reason you can't focus on one issue at a time?
Click to expand...

In other words, you believe we don't have the right to control who crosses our borders.  That's the end of the discussion.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

toobfreak said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> When an employer hires a foreigner, then they have that employer's permission to be here.  Why do they need YOUR permission?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you THINK that if some Mexican comes here and starts a business in this country and hires an illegal alien, his "permission" to be here for whatever reason to work for him usurps all federal law and authority no matter what laws have been broken?   So I can hire an illegal, deported criminal snuck back into the country under orders never to enter here again is now made NULL AND VOID because I simply disregarded all laws and hired him?  What kind of unbelievable shameless TWIT are you?
Click to expand...


Federal jurisdiction does not extend to the daily business of individuals and businesses. It's not in the Constitution.  I have fully responded to this in post  #2806.

Aside from the name calling, do you have anything productive to add to this conversation?


----------



## dblack

toobfreak said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only natural born Americans have any RIGHT to this country..
> 
> 
> 
> This a dangerous idea
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU are a dangerous idea.  If what I said were not true, then any foreigner could come here, run for office, become president, then turn over sovereignty of the USA to his home country, asshole.    NO ONE makes assholes like the Left.
Click to expand...


Are you still convinced I'm on "the left"? Is it so hard for you to acknowledge your most strident enemies are libertarians and conservatives?


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> That's the end of the discussion.



Excellent. Seeya!


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just don't turn our nation into a prison because you're frightened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not afraid of anything.  YOU are the one scared shitless about a simple wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not scared of the wall - it's little more than a symbol. I'm scared of the kind of government you morons are clamoring for.  You really want an authoritarian police state, and I don't want to live like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We want a government that builds a wall.  How is that "authoritarian?"  The ACA was actual authoritarianism.  The wall, on the other hand, doesn't prevent me from doing Jack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're both authoritarian. "It's different when we do it".
Click to expand...

Controlling our borders is a legitimate government function.  Controlling our healthcare isn't.  

A wall doesn't impact my freedom in any way.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naturalization is about citizenship.  Not everyone who comes to the United States wants to become a citizen.  Citizenship is a privilege.
> 
> Liberty is an unalienable Right.
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying the US doesn't have the right to control who crosses our borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Control over the border is a different issue.  Is it possible for you to stay with me for a minute and answer my questions?  I'm not calling you names; not slinging skeet at you.  I've been so hung up on my own four decades of research and experience that I'm not sure where you're coming from.
> 
> As I've stated many times, patriots and constitutionalists didn't change, the people did.  And, you represent a new breed of people with a concept that I'm trying to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answer the question:  do we have the right to control who crosses our border or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The military has the responsibility of protecting us from foreign invasions; states have the right to regulate who they allow to come and go.  If conditions warrant, we could shut the border down in a national emergency.
> 
> Is there any special reason you can't focus on one issue at a time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you believe we don't have the right to control who crosses our borders.  That's the end of the discussion.
Click to expand...


If you want it to be the end, it's the end.  If protecting the border from foreign invasion and the state's rights to regulate who comes and goes within a state does not meet your standard of "control" then that's okay by me.

Unless I'm mistaken, the entire issue for you is *control*.   I got it.  I'm in conversations with others who may or may not agree at the end of the day.  We will see.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just don't turn our nation into a prison because you're frightened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not afraid of anything.  YOU are the one scared shitless about a simple wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not scared of the wall - it's little more than a symbol. I'm scared of the kind of government you morons are clamoring for.  You really want an authoritarian police state, and I don't want to live like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We want a government that builds a wall.  How is that "authoritarian?"  The ACA was actual authoritarianism.  The wall, on the other hand, doesn't prevent me from doing Jack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're both authoritarian. "It's different when we do it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Controlling our borders is a legitimate government function.  Controlling our healthcare isn't.
> 
> A wall doesn't impact my freedom in any way.
Click to expand...


Sure. Try walking through one dipshit.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just don't turn our nation into a prison because you're frightened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not afraid of anything.  YOU are the one scared shitless about a simple wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not scared of the wall - it's little more than a symbol. I'm scared of the kind of government you morons are clamoring for.  You really want an authoritarian police state, and I don't want to live like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We want a government that builds a wall.  How is that "authoritarian?"  The ACA was actual authoritarianism.  The wall, on the other hand, doesn't prevent me from doing Jack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're both authoritarian. "It's different when we do it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Controlling our borders is a legitimate government function.  Controlling our healthcare isn't.
> 
> A wall doesn't impact my freedom in any way.
Click to expand...


Did you grow up in a prison?


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not afraid of anything.  YOU are the one scared shitless about a simple wall.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not scared of the wall - it's little more than a symbol. I'm scared of the kind of government you morons are clamoring for.  You really want an authoritarian police state, and I don't want to live like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We want a government that builds a wall.  How is that "authoritarian?"  The ACA was actual authoritarianism.  The wall, on the other hand, doesn't prevent me from doing Jack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're both authoritarian. "It's different when we do it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Controlling our borders is a legitimate government function.  Controlling our healthcare isn't.
> 
> A wall doesn't impact my freedom in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Try walking through one dipshit.
Click to expand...

Why would I do that when I can simply go to a port of entry?


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not scared of the wall - it's little more than a symbol. I'm scared of the kind of government you morons are clamoring for.  You really want an authoritarian police state, and I don't want to live like that.
> 
> 
> 
> We want a government that builds a wall.  How is that "authoritarian?"  The ACA was actual authoritarianism.  The wall, on the other hand, doesn't prevent me from doing Jack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're both authoritarian. "It's different when we do it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Controlling our borders is a legitimate government function.  Controlling our healthcare isn't.
> 
> A wall doesn't impact my freedom in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Try walking through one dipshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I do that when I can simply go to a port of entry?
Click to expand...


Who knows? Maybe you want a nice hike along the Rio Grande. Point is, it does impact your freedom, and has the potential to do so in much more draconian ways. But you go ahead and bury your head in the sane, and whine for more authoritarian government. Clearly, you can't get enough.


----------



## toobfreak

dblack said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just don't turn our nation into a prison because you're frightened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not afraid of anything.  YOU are the one scared shitless about a simple wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not scared of the wall - it's little more than a symbol. I'm scared of the kind of government you morons are clamoring for.  You really want an authoritarian police state, and I don't want to live like that.
Click to expand...


How 65 countries have erected security walls on their borders | Daily Mail Online

https://www.quora.com/Which-countries-have-real-walls-in-their-borders

List of countries and territories by land borders - Wikipedia

In Opinion: Why Nations need to control their borders

West Texas sheriff says U.S. only nation not to use military to secure 'our border'

The POSTED PENALTY for Illegally Crossing the Border         ~          Thunder Pig

This last one is most significant.  If we assume the conservative estimate of 10.5 million illegals (some estimates go to 12), and at having committed a federal crime punishable by $5,000, if we simply collected on that ONE PENALTY ALONE, we'd have *FIFTY-THREE BILLION DOLLARS*.  Enough to build the wall three times over.  And Mexico would have paid for it.




 

 

 

 



The whole point to borders, ANY borders, be they between states or countries, is to DELINEATE TERRITORY.  Territory defines responsibility and control.  To all the quacked up fuckheads calling it doom and gloom just because the USA wants to actually CONTROL who crosses our border like most other countries, I say:


*UP YOURS*, Mental Cases.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not afraid of anything.  YOU are the one scared shitless about a simple wall.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not scared of the wall - it's little more than a symbol. I'm scared of the kind of government you morons are clamoring for.  You really want an authoritarian police state, and I don't want to live like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We want a government that builds a wall.  How is that "authoritarian?"  The ACA was actual authoritarianism.  The wall, on the other hand, doesn't prevent me from doing Jack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're both authoritarian. "It's different when we do it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Controlling our borders is a legitimate government function.  Controlling our healthcare isn't.
> 
> A wall doesn't impact my freedom in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you grow up in a prison?
Click to expand...

We're discussing a wall on the border, moron.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

dblack said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only natural born Americans have any RIGHT to this country..
> 
> 
> 
> This a dangerous idea
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU are a dangerous idea.  If what I said were not true, then any foreigner could come here, run for office, become president, then turn over sovereignty of the USA to his home country, asshole.    NO ONE makes assholes like the Left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you still convinced I'm on "the left"? Is it so hard for you to acknowledge your most strident enemies are libertarians and conservatives?
Click to expand...


These guys are so focused on their talking points that they can't see the forest for the trees.

I'm a laissez-faire kind of guy.  The less government we have, the better things will work.


----------



## dblack

toobfreak said:


> How 65 countries have erected security walls on their borders | Daily Mail Online
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Which-countries-have-real-walls-in-their-borders
> 
> List of countries and territories by land borders - Wikipedia
> 
> ...



This reads like the posts clamoring for state controlled health care. "All of the other countries are doing it!!!!"


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We want a government that builds a wall.  How is that "authoritarian?"  The ACA was actual authoritarianism.  The wall, on the other hand, doesn't prevent me from doing Jack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're both authoritarian. "It's different when we do it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Controlling our borders is a legitimate government function.  Controlling our healthcare isn't.
> 
> A wall doesn't impact my freedom in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Try walking through one dipshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I do that when I can simply go to a port of entry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who knows? Maybe you want a nice hike along the Rio Grande. Point is, it does impact your freedom, and has the potential to do so in much more draconian ways. But you go ahead and bury your head in the sane, and whine for more authoritarian government. Clearly, you can't get enough.
Click to expand...


The impact on my freedom is infinitesimal.  How would it affect my freedom in more draconian ways?

Who do you think you're fooling?


----------



## dblack

Porter Rockwell said:


> These guys are so focused on their talking points that they can't see the forest for the trees.
> 
> I'm a laissez-faire kind of guy.  The less government we have, the better things will work.



A lot of people think it's racism that's driving the wall nonsense, but when you push most of them it comes down to protectionism. They don't want to have to compete.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not scared of the wall - it's little more than a symbol. I'm scared of the kind of government you morons are clamoring for.  You really want an authoritarian police state, and I don't want to live like that.
> 
> 
> 
> We want a government that builds a wall.  How is that "authoritarian?"  The ACA was actual authoritarianism.  The wall, on the other hand, doesn't prevent me from doing Jack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're both authoritarian. "It's different when we do it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Controlling our borders is a legitimate government function.  Controlling our healthcare isn't.
> 
> A wall doesn't impact my freedom in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you grow up in a prison?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're discussing a wall on the border, moron.
Click to expand...



You are REALLY insecure.  The question being asked in the OP is: why is building the wall wrong?  If there is a moron in the room, it appears you are looking in a mirror.

I'm working to get past the name calling and political rhetoric.  I'm committed to figuring out what it is* you're selling*, not defending my own positions - as you don't give a flying fu(% what I think.


----------



## dblack

Porter Rockwell said:


> I'm working to get past the name calling and political rhetoric.  I'm committed to figuring out what it is* you're selling*, not defending my own positions - as you don't give a flying fu(% what I think.



If you want to get past name calling you'll need to put bri on ignore. Hint: his avatar is NOT ironic.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> How 65 countries have erected security walls on their borders | Daily Mail Online
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Which-countries-have-real-walls-in-their-borders
> 
> List of countries and territories by land borders - Wikipedia
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This reads like the posts clamoring for state controlled health care. "All of the other countries are doing it!!!!"
Click to expand...

They're doing it and it works, dumbass.  That's called empirical evidence.  On the other hand, the empirical evidence shows that government run healthcare doesn't work.  Furthermore, the wall is only going to cost $25 billion, not $5 trillion.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We want a government that builds a wall.  How is that "authoritarian?"  The ACA was actual authoritarianism.  The wall, on the other hand, doesn't prevent me from doing Jack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're both authoritarian. "It's different when we do it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Controlling our borders is a legitimate government function.  Controlling our healthcare isn't.
> 
> A wall doesn't impact my freedom in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you grow up in a prison?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're discussing a wall on the border, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are REALLY insecure.  The question being asked in the OP is: why is building the wall wrong?  If there is a moron in the room, it appears you are looking in a mirror.
> 
> I'm working to get past the name calling and political rhetoric.  I'm committed to figuring out what it is* you're selling*, not defending my own positions - as you don't give a flying fu(% what I think.
Click to expand...

I'm looking at what you're selling, which is open borders.

That's not an option.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> How 65 countries have erected security walls on their borders | Daily Mail Online
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Which-countries-have-real-walls-in-their-borders
> 
> List of countries and territories by land borders - Wikipedia
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This reads like the posts clamoring for state controlled health care. "All of the other countries are doing it!!!!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're doing it and it works, dumbass. That's called empirical evidence.  On the other hand, the empirical evidence shows that government run healthcare doesn't work.  Furthermore, the wall is only going to cost $25 billion, not $5 trillion.
Click to expand...


Actually, the empirical evidence shows government controlled health care does "work" - in as much as it gives government much more power. I'm surprised you're not in favor of it as well, for that reason alone.

How do you keep track of which side you're on on any given issue? Is it just whatever King Donald says?


----------



## toobfreak

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> How 65 countries have erected security walls on their borders | Daily Mail Online
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Which-countries-have-real-walls-in-their-borders
> 
> List of countries and territories by land borders - Wikipedia
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This reads like the posts clamoring for state controlled health care. "All of the other countries are doing it!!!!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're doing it and it works, dumbass. That's called empirical evidence.  On the other hand, the empirical evidence shows that government run healthcare doesn't work.  Furthermore, the wall is only going to cost $25 billion, not $5 trillion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the empirical evidence shows government controlled health care does "work" - in as much as it gives government much more power. I'm surprised you're not in favor of it as well, for that reason alone.
> 
> How do you keep track of which side you're on on any given issue? Is it just whatever King Donald says?
Click to expand...



Don't even try to go there with THAT kind of BULLSHIT.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

dblack said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> These guys are so focused on their talking points that they can't see the forest for the trees.
> 
> I'm a laissez-faire kind of guy.  The less government we have, the better things will work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of people think it's racism that's driving the wall nonsense, but when you push most of them it comes down to protectionism. They don't want to have to compete.
Click to expand...


It gets *REAL* confusing to me.  The originators of the talking points we're being subjected to WERE the ones pioneered by racists.  But, honestly, if someone admitted that they were racist, it would not change my opinion of the topic.

Blaming this on racism alone would be like blaming your whole car for not running when it might just need a battery and a fuel pump to work right.  No doubt there is a racist element, but there has got to be more than that.  Here's why:

A lot of the people wanting the wall seem oblivious to the "legal" variety of foreigners like the two Muslim women who got elected to Congress or maybe the Muslim woman that became a legislator only to have it exposed that her brother was supposedly her husband when she got her citizenship.  We are now electing politicians at the local through federal level whose religion teaches that they are to convert or kill us.  

Still, the obsession is on the southern border.  It doesn't add up.  It's okay to take over America if you do it "legally?"


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> These guys are so focused on their talking points that they can't see the forest for the trees.
> 
> I'm a laissez-faire kind of guy.  The less government we have, the better things will work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of people think it's racism that's driving the wall nonsense, but when you push most of them it comes down to protectionism. They don't want to have to compete.
Click to expand...

Controlling immigration is not protectionism, and, yes, I don't want to compete with labor willing to work for 1/3 the wage.  Why should I?  Do you actually want that?  If you do, then you're a damn fool.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> Controlling immigration is not protectionism, and, yes, I don't want to compete with labor willing to work for 1/3 the wage.  Why should I?  Do you actually want that?  If you do, then you're a damn fool.



I don't want government protecting privilege, regardless of whether or not it's my privilege that's being protected. That's not what government is for. I want it protecting freedom.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're both authoritarian. "It's different when we do it".
> 
> 
> 
> Controlling our borders is a legitimate government function.  Controlling our healthcare isn't.
> 
> A wall doesn't impact my freedom in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you grow up in a prison?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're discussing a wall on the border, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are REALLY insecure.  The question being asked in the OP is: why is building the wall wrong?  If there is a moron in the room, it appears you are looking in a mirror.
> 
> I'm working to get past the name calling and political rhetoric.  I'm committed to figuring out what it is* you're selling*, not defending my own positions - as you don't give a flying fu(% what I think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm looking at what you're selling, which is open borders.
> 
> That's not an option.
Click to expand...



I'm not advocating anything.  You have not seen me offer up a single  proposed solution.  I think you're so scared that you might be exposed for something sinister that you cannot hold an intelligent conversation.

Your entire line of deflections, name calling, and refusal to engage intelligently are causing all your arguments to collapse right in front of you.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm working to get past the name calling and political rhetoric.  I'm committed to figuring out what it is* you're selling*, not defending my own positions - as you don't give a flying fu(% what I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to get past name calling you'll need to put bri on ignore. Hint: his avatar is NOT ironic.
Click to expand...

That's right.  Facts and logic are wasted on idiots like you.  That's why I always dish out a healthy serving of verbal abuse.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Controlling immigration is not protectionism, and, yes, I don't want to compete with labor willing to work for 1/3 the wage.  Why should I?  Do you actually want that?  If you do, then you're a damn fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want government protecting privilege, regardless of whether or not it's my privilege that's being protected. That's not what government is for. I want it protecting freedom.
Click to expand...

ROFL!  The idea that you want to work for 1/3 the wage you make now doesn't pass the laugh test.  Apparently you're in a field that doesn't have to compete with imported coolies from the third world.  That's the only reason you're saying that.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm working to get past the name calling and political rhetoric.  I'm committed to figuring out what it is* you're selling*, not defending my own positions - as you don't give a flying fu(% what I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to get past name calling you'll need to put bri on ignore. Hint: his avatar is NOT ironic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right.  Facts and logic are wasted on idiots like you.  That's why I always dish out a healthy serving of verbal abuse.
Click to expand...


Abuse? Don't be so hard on yourself. Spouting vulgarities and making a fool of yourself abuses no one.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Controlling our borders is a legitimate government function.  Controlling our healthcare isn't.
> 
> A wall doesn't impact my freedom in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you grow up in a prison?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're discussing a wall on the border, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are REALLY insecure.  The question being asked in the OP is: why is building the wall wrong?  If there is a moron in the room, it appears you are looking in a mirror.
> 
> I'm working to get past the name calling and political rhetoric.  I'm committed to figuring out what it is* you're selling*, not defending my own positions - as you don't give a flying fu(% what I think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm looking at what you're selling, which is open borders.
> 
> That's not an option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not advocating anything.  You have not seen me offer up a single  proposed solution.  I think you're so scared that you might be exposed for something sinister that you cannot hold an intelligent conversation.
> 
> Your entire line of deflections, name calling, and refusal to engage intelligently are causing all your arguments to collapse right in front of you.
Click to expand...


You attack any measure to control the border.  Therefor, you are for open borders.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm working to get past the name calling and political rhetoric.  I'm committed to figuring out what it is* you're selling*, not defending my own positions - as you don't give a flying fu(% what I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to get past name calling you'll need to put bri on ignore. Hint: his avatar is NOT ironic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right.  Facts and logic are wasted on idiots like you.  That's why I always dish out a healthy serving of verbal abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abuse? Don't be so hard on yourself. Spouting vulgarities and making a fool of yourself abuses no one.
Click to expand...


ROFL!

Fail.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> ROFL!  The idea that you want to work for 1/3 the wage you make now doesn't pass the laugh test.  Apparently you're in a field that doesn't have to compete with imported coolies from the third world.  That's the only reason you're saying that.



No, I just take liberty seriously. The funny thing here is that you're adopting all the arguments of progressives and labor advocates. You want government to cater to your cowardly ass at the expense of others. Classic statist liberal mentality.


----------



## BlackFlag

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> These guys are so focused on their talking points that they can't see the forest for the trees.
> 
> I'm a laissez-faire kind of guy.  The less government we have, the better things will work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of people think it's racism that's driving the wall nonsense, but when you push most of them it comes down to protectionism. They don't want to have to compete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Controlling immigration is not protectionism, and, yes, I don't want to compete with labor willing to work for 1/3 the wage.  Why should I?  Do you actually want that?  If you do, then you're a damn fool.
Click to expand...



In all reality, YOU are the one who invoked the term *control*.  It's the only word you've given me to work with.

Now your theory moves from control to a concern about labor and jobs.  The fact is, there are more jobs available today than there are people to fill them.  You may think you can make two thirds more if the foreign labor goes away, but a couple of things you need to know:

1) Over-regulation kills businesses and drives them out of the U.S.

2)  Some people want to buys goods and they *need* services.  No matter how much you think you're worth, if a person cannot afford you, they will hire someone they can afford.  The poor, disabled and those on fixed incomes cannot afford to pay a surgeon's wages to people who have a skill set that was learned by an illiterate Mexican in six months.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm working to get past the name calling and political rhetoric.  I'm committed to figuring out what it is* you're selling*, not defending my own positions - as you don't give a flying fu(% what I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to get past name calling you'll need to put bri on ignore. Hint: his avatar is NOT ironic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right.  Facts and logic are wasted on idiots like you.  That's why I always dish out a healthy serving of verbal abuse.
Click to expand...


You dish out verbal abuse because you have neither facts NOR logic.

I'm waiting to see how many people agree with your proposition that you got your Rights from the Constitution.  The SCOTUS disagrees with your proposition:

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* rights,-'life, *liberty*, and the pursuit of happiness;' *and to 'secure*,' *not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. *That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of*, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  The idea that you want to work for 1/3 the wage you make now doesn't pass the laugh test.  Apparently you're in a field that doesn't have to compete with imported coolies from the third world.  That's the only reason you're saying that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I just take liberty seriously. The funny thing here is that you're adopting all the arguments of progressives and labor advocates. You want government to cater to your cowardly ass at the expense of others. Classic statist liberal mentality.
Click to expand...

I don't give a damn about the liberty in other countries.  Those people can secure if for themselves.  That isn't why our government exists.  What you're claiming is that foreigners have a right to live in this country.  You have to be a fucking moron to believe that.  I won't even discuss the point because it's so fucking stupid and absurd.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> People seeking asylum are not criminals, you fucking piece of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> They are when they cross our border illegally and it turns out their asylum claims are bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum.  It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States.  If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
> 
> Your avatar suggests that you are against big government, but the stance you take says otherwise.
> 
> "And it says in the Farmer's Almanac: If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble."  Johnny Cash in the song Farmer's Almanac
> 
> Which is more important to you:  that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?
Click to expand...


Our nation has laws on how foreign immigrants may become citizens, none of which is unconstitutional.  I can site several judicial ruling opinions to very specific Supreme Court cases to back the right of the Federal Government regarding their Federal authority regarding immigration. You would have an extremely difficult time proving your case that laws regarding citizenship, as it pertains to an immigrant seeking to aquire citizenship IS unconstitutional.  You are free to choose to go down this path regarding the Constitution if you choose, but in the end you will be proven wrong - you can take that to the bank.

Anytime you’re ready.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> I won't even discuss the point because it's so fucking stupid and absurd.



Promise, promises...


----------



## dblack

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are when they cross our border illegally and it turns out their asylum claims are bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum.  It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States.  If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
> 
> Your avatar suggests that you are against big government, but the stance you take says otherwise.
> 
> "And it says in the Farmer's Almanac: If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble."  Johnny Cash in the song Farmer's Almanac
> 
> Which is more important to you:  that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our nation has laws on how foreign immigrants may become citizens, none of which is unconstitutional.  I can site several judicial ruling opinions to very specific Supreme Court cases to back that statement.  You would have an extremely difficult time proving your case that laws regarding citizenship, as it pertains to an immigrant seeking to aquire citizenship IS unconstitutional.  You are free to choose to go down this path regarding the Constitution if you choose, but in the end you will be proven wrong - you can take that to the bank.
> 
> Anytime you’re ready.
Click to expand...


Who's talking about citizenship?? We're talking about freedom of association, freedom of travel, freedom to do business with whomever we please.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm working to get past the name calling and political rhetoric.  I'm committed to figuring out what it is* you're selling*, not defending my own positions - as you don't give a flying fu(% what I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to get past name calling you'll need to put bri on ignore. Hint: his avatar is NOT ironic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right.  Facts and logic are wasted on idiots like you.  That's why I always dish out a healthy serving of verbal abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dish out verbal abuse because you have neither facts NOR logic.
> 
> I'm waiting to see how many people agree with your proposition that you got your Rights from the Constitution.  The SCOTUS disagrees with your proposition:
> 
> "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* rights,-'life, *liberty*, and the pursuit of happiness;' *and to 'secure*,' *not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. *That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of*, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
Click to expand...

I dish out abuse to morons who are immune to facts and logic.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum.  It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States.  If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
> 
> Your avatar suggests that you are against big government, but the stance you take says otherwise.
> 
> "And it says in the Farmer's Almanac: If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble."  Johnny Cash in the song Farmer's Almanac
> 
> Which is more important to you:  that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our nation has laws on how foreign immigrants may become citizens, none of which is unconstitutional.  I can site several judicial ruling opinions to very specific Supreme Court cases to back that statement.  You would have an extremely difficult time proving your case that laws regarding citizenship, as it pertains to an immigrant seeking to aquire citizenship IS unconstitutional.  You are free to choose to go down this path regarding the Constitution if you choose, but in the end you will be proven wrong - you can take that to the bank.
> 
> Anytime you’re ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's talking about citizenship?? We're talking about freedom of association, freedom of travel, freedom to do business with whomever we please.
Click to expand...

You're talking about foreigners having freedom to live here.  They have no such right, and we have no rational justification to allow it.


----------



## Wry Catcher

task0778 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we need to abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror if we need a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  A wall on the southern border would help to reduce the inflow of illegals, which in turn helps combat crime, drugs, and terrorism.
Click to expand...


A wall is not the be all, end all that too many believe is sufficient and necessary to make our nation safe.  It ain't.

First, what type of Steel will be used to build the wall?  Anyone know?

Different Steel Alloys Have Different Properties and Uses

Once that becomes known, the type of torch and fuel will determine how easy or hard it might be to cut a hole.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

dblack said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum.  It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States.  If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
> 
> Your avatar suggests that you are against big government, but the stance you take says otherwise.
> 
> "And it says in the Farmer's Almanac: If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble."  Johnny Cash in the song Farmer's Almanac
> 
> Which is more important to you:  that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our nation has laws on how foreign immigrants may become citizens, none of which is unconstitutional.  I can site several judicial ruling opinions to very specific Supreme Court cases to back that statement.  You would have an extremely difficult time proving your case that laws regarding citizenship, as it pertains to an immigrant seeking to aquire citizenship IS unconstitutional.  You are free to choose to go down this path regarding the Constitution if you choose, but in the end you will be proven wrong - you can take that to the bank.
> 
> Anytime you’re ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's talking about citizenship?? We're talking about freedom of association, freedom of travel, freedom to do business with whomever we please.
Click to expand...


My reply (if you were following) was in reference to the Federal law of citizenship VS those who sneak across our southern border illegally. Porter Rockwell wanted to go down the path of “equality”, as I replied there is none when illegals are not following the same laws as foreign immigrants overseas that wish to become citizens.

Pay attention.


----------



## dblack

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> My reply (if you were following) was in reference to the Federal law of citizenship VS those who sneak across our southern border illegally.



OK. And I'm pointing out those issues have nothing to do with each other. Opposition to the wall isn't about granting anyone citizenship. It's about the freedom of people to travel here, work here and live here.


----------



## dblack

Wry Catcher said:


> First, what type of Steel will be used to build the wall?  Anyone know?



They're going to use the recycled iron and copper recovered from the Statue of Liberty when they tear it down.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are when they cross our border illegally and it turns out their asylum claims are bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum.  It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States.  If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
> 
> Your avatar suggests that you are against big government, but the stance you take says otherwise.
> 
> "And it says in the Farmer's Almanac: If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble."  Johnny Cash in the song Farmer's Almanac
> 
> Which is more important to you:  that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our nation has laws on how foreign immigrants may become citizens, none of which is unconstitutional.  I can site several judicial ruling opinions to very specific Supreme Court cases to back the right of the Federal Government regarding their Federal authority regarding immigration. You would have an extremely difficult time proving your case that laws regarding citizenship, as it pertains to an immigrant seeking to aquire citizenship IS unconstitutional.  You are free to choose to go down this path regarding the Constitution if you choose, but in the end you will be proven wrong - you can take that to the bank.
> 
> Anytime you’re ready.
Click to expand...



Game on.  First off, check out post # 2806.  

Then, think about it.  When the founders were alive, the *states*, NOT the federal government were in charge of immigration.

Now, the SCOTUS can make any decision they like, but if they took your gun, outlawed your religion (or lack thereof) or maybe took your personal property without just compensation, you could look at this a bit more objectively.  But, bottom line here:  the SCOTUS does not have any *AUTHORITY* to legislate from the bench, grant powers to any other branch of government, nor deprive any individual of unalienable Rights. 

If you disagree, you'll have no problem pointing that section of the Constitution out to us.  Now, here is an opinion, not a ruling, but the opinion of SCOTUS:

" The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256) 

The biggest problem we have right now is a lack of people to call the SCOTUS out and hold them accountable.  They have POWER, but what they lack is constitutional AUTHORITY.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
> 
> Your avatar suggests that you are against big government, but the stance you take says otherwise.
> 
> "And it says in the Farmer's Almanac: If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble."  Johnny Cash in the song Farmer's Almanac
> 
> Which is more important to you:  that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our nation has laws on how foreign immigrants may become citizens, none of which is unconstitutional.  I can site several judicial ruling opinions to very specific Supreme Court cases to back that statement.  You would have an extremely difficult time proving your case that laws regarding citizenship, as it pertains to an immigrant seeking to aquire citizenship IS unconstitutional.  You are free to choose to go down this path regarding the Constitution if you choose, but in the end you will be proven wrong - you can take that to the bank.
> 
> Anytime you’re ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's talking about citizenship?? We're talking about freedom of association, freedom of travel, freedom to do business with whomever we please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're talking about foreigners having freedom to live here.  They have no such right, and we have no rational justification to allow it.
Click to expand...


Based upon what?


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> My reply (if you were following) was in reference to the Federal law of citizenship VS those who sneak across our southern border illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. And I'm pointing out those issues have nothing to do with each other. Opposition to the wall isn't about granting anyone citizenship. It's about the freedom of people to travel here, work here and live here.
Click to expand...

They have no such freedom.  They can come here if we give them permission.  That's it.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> You're talking about foreigners having freedom to live here.  They have no such right, and we have no rational justification to allow it.



Of course they do. Rights are held by individuals, they are innate and unalienable. They are not "gifts" from the government. They aren't privileges afforded to the chosen few.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> They have no such freedom.  They can come here if we give them permission.  That's it.



They do have that freedom, unless it is violated by a government.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  The idea that you want to work for 1/3 the wage you make now doesn't pass the laugh test.  Apparently you're in a field that doesn't have to compete with imported coolies from the third world.  That's the only reason you're saying that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I just take liberty seriously. The funny thing here is that you're adopting all the arguments of progressives and labor advocates. You want government to cater to your cowardly ass at the expense of others. Classic statist liberal mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't give a damn about the liberty in other countries.  Those people can secure if for themselves.  That isn't why our government exists.  What you're claiming is that foreigners have a right to live in this country.  You have to be a fucking moron to believe that.  I won't even discuss the point because it's so fucking stupid and absurd.
Click to expand...


These “open borders” supporters don’t even have a clue as to what national sovereignty is.  Every nation has a right to defend its own borders, and we are not the first nation to propose a wall as a means of border enforcement.  It’s *not* *unconstitutional*, it’s never been *proven* to be, and each administration has set limits as to how many refugees and immigrants they are willing to allow to enter.  They simply don’t know what they are taking about.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking about foreigners having freedom to live here.  They have no such right, and we have no rational justification to allow it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do. Rights are held by individuals, they are innate and unalienable. They are not "gifts" from the government. They aren't privileges afforded to the chosen few.
Click to expand...

Yes, rights are held by individual, and no foreign individual has a right to come to this country and live in it.  Citizens have a right to live here.  Aliens don't.  

Your premise is a non sequitur.

Repeat after me:  Foreigners have no right to come here.  Foreigners have no right to come here.  Foreigners have no right to come here.  Foreigners have no right to come here.  Foreigners have no right to come here.

When you finally figure that out, perhaps you'll have something rational to say on the subject of immigration.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have no such freedom.  They can come here if we give them permission.  That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do have that freedom, unless it is violated by a government.
Click to expand...


ROFL!  According to whom?

Government can't violate a right that doesn't exist.


----------



## bripat9643

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  The idea that you want to work for 1/3 the wage you make now doesn't pass the laugh test.  Apparently you're in a field that doesn't have to compete with imported coolies from the third world.  That's the only reason you're saying that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I just take liberty seriously. The funny thing here is that you're adopting all the arguments of progressives and labor advocates. You want government to cater to your cowardly ass at the expense of others. Classic statist liberal mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't give a damn about the liberty in other countries.  Those people can secure if for themselves.  That isn't why our government exists.  What you're claiming is that foreigners have a right to live in this country.  You have to be a fucking moron to believe that.  I won't even discuss the point because it's so fucking stupid and absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These “open borders” supporters don’t even have a clue as to what national sovereignty is.  Every nation has a right to defend its own borders, and we are not the first nation to propose a wall as a means of border enforcement.  It’s *not* *unconstitutional*, it’s never been *proven* to be, and each administration has set limits as to how many refugees and immigrants they are willing to allow to enter.  They simply don’t know what they are taking about.
Click to expand...

These idiots are actually saying the foreigners have a right to cross our border and live here despite what American citizens want.

I won't even bother arguing with that kind of horseshit.


----------



## dblack

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> These “open borders” supporters don’t even have a clue as to what national sovereignty is.


Mexicans aren't a threat to our national sovereignty. It's exactly that kind of hysterical claim that makes it hard to take to wall cowards seriously. If you're all so fucking scared of the "huddled masses", what will you do if we're actually attacked by an enemy?


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> I won't even bother arguing with that kind of horseshit.



Again with your false promises...


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have no such freedom.  They can come here if we give them permission.  That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do have that freedom, unless it is violated by a government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!  According to whom?
> 
> Government can't violate a right that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


Clearly, you don't understand what unalienable rights are. But that's not terribly surprising.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> These “open borders” supporters don’t even have a clue as to what national sovereignty is.
> 
> 
> 
> Mexicans aren't a threat to our national sovereignty. It's exactly that kind of hysterical claim that makes it hard to take to wall cowards seriously. If you're all so fucking scared of the "huddled masses", what will you do if we're actually attacked by an enemy?
Click to expand...

Having foreigners walk across our border with impunity is a violation of our sovereign.  That's not a "threat."  It's the actuality.  

You're the threat to our sovereignty.  You want to repeal all laws that allow the government to control our borders.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> Repeat after me:  Foreigners have no right to come here.  Foreigners have no right to come here.  Foreigners have no right to come here.  Foreigners have no right to come here.  Foreigners have no right to come here.



Is that how you got converted? Did they make you say that over and over again until you believed it? Talk about abuse ...


----------



## Flopper

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> All criminals are responsible for being separated from their children. Go out and commit a crime and see how fast you're separated form your family. The parents put their children in the situation, yes, they are to blame.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> People seeking asylum are not criminals, you fucking piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are when they cross our border illegally and it turns out their asylum claims are bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum.  It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States.  If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
Click to expand...

Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process.  After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally.   So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have no such freedom.  They can come here if we give them permission.  That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do have that freedom, unless it is violated by a government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!  According to whom?
> 
> Government can't violate a right that doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly, you don't understand what unalienable rights are. But that's not terribly surprising.
Click to expand...

Sure I do.  The difference is that I know their extent.  It doesn't include any right of aliens to cross our borders and live here.  People don't have the inalienable right to kill or rob other people, and they don't have the right to trespass in foreign countries.  It's that simple.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> People seeking asylum are not criminals, you fucking piece of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> They are when they cross our border illegally and it turns out their asylum claims are bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum.  It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States.  If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process.  After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally.   So no, is not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.
Click to expand...

So what?   Why do you think we're obligated to allow everyone who lives in a shit hole country to move here?


----------



## Slyhunter

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeat after me:  Foreigners have no right to come here.  Foreigners have no right to come here.  Foreigners have no right to come here.  Foreigners have no right to come here.  Foreigners have no right to come here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that how you got converted? Did they make you say that over and over again until you believed it? Talk about abuse ...
Click to expand...

If we allowed everyone to come to America that wanted to we would no longer be America.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeat after me:  Foreigners have no right to come here.  Foreigners have no right to come here.  Foreigners have no right to come here.  Foreigners have no right to come here.  Foreigners have no right to come here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that how you got converted? Did they make you say that over and over again until you believed it? Talk about abuse ...
Click to expand...

Prove it's wrong.


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> People seeking asylum are not criminals, you fucking piece of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> They are when they cross our border illegally and it turns out their asylum claims are bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum.  It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States.  If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process.  After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally.   So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.
Click to expand...

Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.


----------



## Flopper

dblack said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wall cowards gonna cower. "Protect me! I'm afraid! Of all the scary stories you've been telling me!"
> 
> You morons are turning our nation toward fascism.
> 
> Why don't you just move to a country that doesn't give a shit about freedom and loves authoritarian government as much as you do?
Click to expand...

Since Trump took office, we are living in one.


----------



## irosie91

dblack said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> These “open borders” supporters don’t even have a clue as to what national sovereignty is.
> 
> 
> 
> Mexicans aren't a threat to our national sovereignty. It's exactly that kind of hysterical claim that makes it hard to take to wall cowards seriously. If you're all so fucking scared of the "huddled masses", what will you do if we're actually attacked by an enemy?
Click to expand...


the very porous southern border is not porous to ONLY impoverished MEXICANS---
looking for a job.    It is porous to all sorts of persons seeking to GET 
INTO THE USA for all kinds of reasons.    The people who MOST
object to the wall are those with an agenda to ALLOW ALL KINDS
of harmful persons to get into the USA to fulfill a whole host of
unwholesome agendas.    I have absolutely nothing against impoverished
Mexicans.


----------



## irosie91

Slyhunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are when they cross our border illegally and it turns out their asylum claims are bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum.  It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States.  If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process.  After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally.   So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.
Click to expand...


Mexicans on welfare is the least of our problems


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> Sure I do.  The difference is that I know their extent.  It doesn't include any right of aliens to cross our borders and live here.


Yeah, it really does. We might pass laws that violate that right, but freedom of travel is still an inalienable right that all people possess. But again, you have to understand the concept to appreciate that.



> People don't have the inalienable right to kill or rob other people, and they don't have the right to trespass in foreign countries.  It's that simple.



You don't see how robbing and killing are different than traveling and working???

Robbing and killing violate the freedom of others - it would be a contradiction of the concept to describe them as "rights". Traveling and working violate no one's rights. And those freedoms shouldn't be restricted simply because you're overpaid.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm working to get past the name calling and political rhetoric.  I'm committed to figuring out what it is* you're selling*, not defending my own positions - as you don't give a flying fu(% what I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to get past name calling you'll need to put bri on ignore. Hint: his avatar is NOT ironic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right.  Facts and logic are wasted on idiots like you.  That's why I always dish out a healthy serving of verbal abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dish out verbal abuse because you have neither facts NOR logic.
> 
> I'm waiting to see how many people agree with your proposition that you got your Rights from the Constitution.  The SCOTUS disagrees with your proposition:
> 
> "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* rights,-'life, *liberty*, and the pursuit of happiness;' *and to 'secure*,' *not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. *That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of*, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dish out abuse to morons who are immune to facts and logic.
Click to expand...


You must bitch at yourself all day.


----------



## Flopper

Ame®icano said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having control over who is allowed to enter and stay in this country has nothing to do with fascism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, cracking down on travel is one of the first things a fascist state does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We discussed this. Nobody is cracking up on my travel, or citizen's travel or any of my constitutional rights.
> 
> Illegals have no rights to be here, therefore they have no constitutional rights that citizens have.
Click to expand...

Wrong they have a right to due process.  The courts have affirmed that several times.

For those of you that disagree consider what would happen to Americans in those countries when accused of a crime if we denied due process to their people.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> My reply (if you were following) was in reference to the Federal law of citizenship VS those who sneak across our southern border illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. And I'm pointing out those issues have nothing to do with each other. Opposition to the wall isn't about granting anyone citizenship. It's about the freedom of people to travel here, work here and live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have no such freedom.  They can come here if we give them permission.  That's it.
Click to expand...


Your permission or mine?  Please cite me that part of the Constitution.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do.  The difference is that I know their extent.  It doesn't include any right of aliens to cross our borders and live here.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it really does. We might pass laws that violate that right, but freedom of travel is still an inalienable right that all people possess. But again, you have to understand the concept to appreciate that.
Click to expand...


You have failed utterly to provide any evidence that it does.  Until you do, there is no point in discussing it.



> People don't have the inalienable right to kill or rob other people, and they don't have the right to trespass in foreign countries.  It's that simple.



You don't see how robbing and killing are different than traveling and working???



dblack said:


> Robbing and killing violate the freedom of others - it would be contradiction of the concept to describe them as "rights". Traveling and working violate no one's rights. And those freedoms shouldn't be restricted simply because you're overpaid.



Foreigners who come here to live without the permission of our government do violate my rights.  This country is a pleasant place to live because people like me and my ancestors built it into a pleasant place to live.  The people who created it have the right to determine who gets a chance to share in it.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wall cowards gonna cower. "Protect me! I'm afraid! Of all the scary stories you've been telling me!"
> 
> You morons are turning our nation toward fascism.
> 
> Why don't you just move to a country that doesn't give a shit about freedom and loves authoritarian government as much as you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since Trump took office, we are living in one.
Click to expand...

Oh you poor witto snowflake.  Show us on the doll where Trump touched you.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> The people who created it have the right to determine who gets a chance to share in it.



They have a right to decide who they share their own property with. They have no right to tell others who they can share with. If I want to invite a bunch of Mexicans to live at my place and sell tacos, it's none of your fucking business.


----------



## Flopper

dblack said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will overlook your ignorance.  I'm not a lefty.  In the more than thirty years of voting - never missing a single election, I have voted for exactly ONE Democrat (and that was for the PSC.)  I've also been an officer in my local Republican Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But their ignorance is central to the argument. Trumpsters aren't conservatives. They don't know the difference between left and right. They are authoritarians. They're insecure idiots who long for a daddy figure to protect them from their lurid nightmares.
Click to expand...

You put it pretty susyncally.  People that worship authoritarians are as dangerous to society as anarchists.   No dictator or totalitarian can rise to power without their support.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who created it have the right to determine who gets a chance to share in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have a right to decide who they share their own property with. They have no right to tell others who they can share with. If I want to invite a bunch of Mexicans to live at my place and sell tacos, it's none of your fucking business.
Click to expand...


The entire country is our property.  The idea that we don't have the right to control who crosses our border doesn't pass the laugh test.  You keep claiming it's a right, but you have posted nothing to support your contention.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will overlook your ignorance.  I'm not a lefty.  In the more than thirty years of voting - never missing a single election, I have voted for exactly ONE Democrat (and that was for the PSC.)  I've also been an officer in my local Republican Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But their ignorance is central to the argument. Trumpsters aren't conservatives. They don't know the difference between left and right. They are authoritarians. They're insecure idiots who long for a daddy figure to protect them from their lurid nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You put it pretty susyncally.  People that worship authoritarians are as dangerous to society as anarchists.   No dictator or totalitarian can rise to power without their support.
Click to expand...

That would be all the people who voted for Hillary.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

dblack said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> My reply (if you were following) was in reference to the Federal law of citizenship VS those who sneak across our southern border illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. And I'm pointing out those issues have nothing to do with each other. Opposition to the wall isn't about granting anyone citizenship. It's about the freedom of people to travel here, work here and live here.
Click to expand...


If it was about the freedoms to travel here, they would not be avoiding national check points that are established to get into this country.  If you were to travel with the desire to live in Canada, would you be required to go through designated check points with a passport, or do you make it a point to go out of your way in avoiding them?


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who created it have the right to determine who gets a chance to share in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have a right to decide who they share their own property with. They have no right to tell others who they can share with. If I want to invite a bunch of Mexicans to live at my place and sell tacos, it's none of your fucking business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire country is our property.
Click to expand...


Once again, you're adopting the convictions of the liberal statists you pretend to oppose. Society isn't the property of government. It's the other way around.


----------



## dblack

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> If it was about the freedoms to travel here, they would not be avoiding national check points that are established to get into this country.


Which brings us to the core problem: all the barriers we've put in place to prevent people from traveling here legally. The only valid reason for restricting entry is if the person in question represents a real threat. Mowing lawns for below minimum wage is not a 'threat'.



> If you were to travel with the desire to live in Canada, would you be required to go through designated check points with a passport, or do you make it a point to go out of your way in avoiding them?



Not sure. I don't know what Canada's travel policies are. *If* I was desperate to make a living for my family, and *if *Canada had all the good jobs, and* if* Canada passed laws preventing me from working there legally - I suppose I'd avoid their check points.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who created it have the right to determine who gets a chance to share in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have a right to decide who they share their own property with. They have no right to tell others who they can share with. If I want to invite a bunch of Mexicans to live at my place and sell tacos, it's none of your fucking business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire country is our property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you're adopting the convictions of the liberal statists you pretend to oppose. Society isn't the property of government. It's the other way around.
Click to expand...


This country is the property of the citizens who live here.  Who owns the public highways and the public streets?  We do.  Everything that isn't privately owned is publicly owned.  

What gives some peasant from Honduras the right to travel on the streets and highways that we built?  Nothing.  They have no such right.  You have failed to prove they do.  You only stamp your foot and insist they do.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it was about the freedoms to travel here, they would not be avoiding national check points that are established to get into this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Which brings us to the core problem: all the barriers we've put in place to prevent people from traveling here legally. The only valid reason for restricting entry is if the person in question represents a real threat. Mowing lawns for below minimum wage is not a 'threat'.
Click to expand...


If they have a right to be here, then why is that an excuse?  We can't deport ex-cons even though they are a threat.  Why should we be allowed to exclude anyone if your claim is true?


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> If they have a right to be here, then why is that an excuse?  We can't deport ex-cons even though they are a threat.  Why should we be allowed to exclude anyone if your claim is true?



Can't make any sense out of that. Can you rephrase?


----------



## longknife




----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they have a right to be here, then why is that an excuse?  We can't deport ex-cons even though they are a threat.  Why should we be allowed to exclude anyone if your claim is true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't make any sense out of that. Can you rephrase?
Click to expand...


You are like a dear in the headlights when confronted by your own illogic.  You keep saying that foreigners have a right to come here.  If it's a right, then how can you justify excluding some because we think they're dangerous?  We have people in this country who are citizens that we think are dangerous but we can't deport them.  That's because they have a right to be here, the same right that you claim foreigners have.


----------



## basquebromance

our steel industry's come roaring back. Trump has promised to build a steel wall instead of a concrete wall


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> My reply (if you were following) was in reference to the Federal law of citizenship VS those who sneak across our southern border illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. And I'm pointing out those issues have nothing to do with each other. Opposition to the wall isn't about granting anyone citizenship. It's about the freedom of people to travel here, work here and live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was about the freedoms to travel here, they would not be avoiding national check points that are established to get into this country.  If you were to travel with the desire to live in Canada, would you be required to go through designated check points with a passport, or do you make it a point to go out of your way in avoiding them?
Click to expand...


dblack gave the greatest response to you with respect to Canada.

The problem with those who cannot articulate their position on this issue realize they have a major obstacle to overcome:

The United States is not Canada, Mexico, Israel, or China.  We are what was once the leaders of the free world and the laws of other countries do not apply here. And I'm not limiting this to statutory laws, but the laws of economics.

In some countries they are at war; we are not.  In some countries the people have been flooding their neighbors and there are no jobs; America has plenty of jobs; in some countries they are protecting a given culture (race); we won't allow that here.  It's as if the rest of the world were driving a Ford Taurus with a bad transmission and we had a Lexus that needs a tune up.

I'm still struggling to figure out what the *real issue* is. Every time we address one symptom, a poster will move the goal posts, provide no authorities for their position (like a section of the United States Constitution), and give us yet another of the standard party lines.  It's like listening to Marco Rubio try the same canned speech only to have Pillsbury boy Chris Christie call him out.  

The only point I've read where it was unequivocally stated by anyone in favor of the wall is that this is about *control*.  I'm about to call it a day and if someone can come up with a few answers and actually discuss the issue, I look forward to it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they have a right to be here, then why is that an excuse?  We can't deport ex-cons even though they are a threat.  Why should we be allowed to exclude anyone if your claim is true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't make any sense out of that. Can you rephrase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are like a dear in the headlights when confronted by your own illogic.  You keep saying that foreigners have a right to come here.  If it's a right, then how can you justify excluding some because we think they're dangerous?  We have people in this country who are citizens that we think are dangerous but we can't deport them.  That's because they have a right to be here, the same right that you claim foreigners have.
Click to expand...


I have not stated my opinion as to whether it's a right or not, but all you've done is sling skeet, make assertions because you cannot cobble a coherent reply to honest questions and do your best to remain in a pissing match instead of a conversation.

All that says is that whatever it is you believe in cannot withstand scrutiny and those who would use critical thinking skills to think this out.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

dblack said:

"They have a right to decide who they share their own property with. They have no right to tell others who they can share with. If I want to invite a bunch of Mexicans to live at my place and sell tacos, it's none of your fucking business."

*BEST POST ON THIS THREAD   *


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who created it have the right to determine who gets a chance to share in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have a right to decide who they share their own property with. They have no right to tell others who they can share with. If I want to invite a bunch of Mexicans to live at my place and sell tacos, it's none of your fucking business.
Click to expand...


Correct provided they stay on your property and not in public, because if in public, they need to have our governments permission to be here.  

Your property has always been under the jurisdiction of government.  There are only so many children allowed to live in your home based on amount of bedrooms.  You can't fence off your front yard or even have hedges beyond the limit the city or town puts in place.  If your driveway or sidewalk is cracked or busted up, you are required by the city to repair or replace it.  You can't paint your home bright orange and so on.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Yeah, it really does. We might pass laws that violate that right, but freedom of travel is still an inalienable right that all people possess. But again, you have to understand the concept to appreciate that.



No, outsiders have no rights in our country unless they are here.  But nobody has the right to come here without the permission of the people which is our government.  Saying anybody has a right to come to America is like saying any one of your neighbors is allowed to share your home or property.  

You have no inalienable right to  live in Germany.  If it's your desire to join their society, you need their permission to do it.  They may accept or deny you for any reason they want.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> My reply (if you were following) was in reference to the Federal law of citizenship VS those who sneak across our southern border illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. And I'm pointing out those issues have nothing to do with each other. Opposition to the wall isn't about granting anyone citizenship. It's about the freedom of people to travel here, work here and live here.
Click to expand...


They do that at the point of entry after they've been checked out, not sneaking across the desert in the middle of the night or hiding in a tractor-trailer.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> If it's a right, then how can you justify excluding some because we think they're dangerous?



sigh... I'm pretty sure you've had this explained to you before (and are just playing stupid to avoid admitting that you're wrong) but I'll give it a shot anyway. Saying someone has a right to do something doesn't mean they have a right to do it in a way that endangers others. This idea is summed up succinctly in the phrase "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose".

So, if someone is a proven threat, and this has been established via due process, the government has no obligation to protect their rights. Indeed, it has an obligation to prevent them from harming others, to arrest them, imprison them, or even kill them if that's what it takes to stop them.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> The military has the responsibility of protecting us from foreign invasions; states have the right to regulate who they allow to come and go.



No they do not.  DumBama took Arizona to court when they created their own immigration policies and he won.  The court ruled that immigration is a federal policy and not state.


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> But nobody has the right to come here without the permission of the people which is our government.



The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?



> Saying anybody has a right to come to America is like saying any one of your neighbors is allowed to share your home or property.


No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.


----------



## The Original Tree

*It’s wrong because it would impinge on Pelosi and Schummer’s Acceptance of Political Donations from Drug Cartel Shell Corporations*


----------



## Geaux4it

BlackFlag said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

It is needed to repel the invaders intent on weakening our society through dependence on social subsidies. 

-Geaux


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they have a right to be here, then why is that an excuse?  We can't deport ex-cons even though they are a threat.  Why should we be allowed to exclude anyone if your claim is true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't make any sense out of that. Can you rephrase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are like a dear in the headlights when confronted by your own illogic.  You keep saying that foreigners have a right to come here.  If it's a right, then how can you justify excluding some because we think they're dangerous?  We have people in this country who are citizens that we think are dangerous but we can't deport them.  That's because they have a right to be here, the same right that you claim foreigners have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not stated my opinion as to whether it's a right or not, but all you've done is sling skeet, make assertions because you cannot cobble a coherent reply to honest questions and do your best to remain in a pissing match instead of a conversation.
> 
> All that says is that whatever it is you believe in cannot withstand scrutiny and those who would use critical thinking skills to think this out.
Click to expand...

It can easily withstand scrutiny.  Here's the crux of the issue:  do foreigners have a right to cross our border or not?  If you claim they do, you are full of shit.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it's a right, then how can you justify excluding some because we think they're dangerous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sigh... I'm pretty sure you've had this explained to you before (and are just playing stupid to avoid admitting that you're wrong) but I'll give it a shot anyway. Saying someone has a right to do something doesn't mean they have a right to do it in a way that endangers others. This idea is summed up succinctly in the phrase "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose".
> 
> So, if someone is a proven threat, and this has been established via due process, the government has no obligation to protect their rights. Indeed, it has an obligation to prevent them from harming others, to arrest them, imprison them, or even kill them if that's what it takes to stop them.
Click to expand...

You admit that them simply being here is a danger to others.  The same goes for ex cons.  Why is it OK for one but not the other?  You can't answer that, which is how we know you're full of shit.  How is an illegal alien with a criminal record any different than an American citizen with a criminal record?  From the standpoint of your argument, there is no difference.

You have already conceded that foreigners don't have a right to be here.  Just give up while you're behind.  No foreigner has a right to live in the USA.  The claim that they do doesn't pass the laugh test.


----------



## bripat9643

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> My reply (if you were following) was in reference to the Federal law of citizenship VS those who sneak across our southern border illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. And I'm pointing out those issues have nothing to do with each other. Opposition to the wall isn't about granting anyone citizenship. It's about the freedom of people to travel here, work here and live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do that at the point of entry after they've been checked out, not sneaking across the desert in the middle of the night or hiding in a tractor-trailer.
Click to expand...

Even then, they don't have a right to travel here.  They do so only with our permission.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> But nobody has the right to come here without the permission of the people which is our government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saying anybody has a right to come to America is like saying any one of your neighbors is allowed to share your home or property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.
Click to expand...

Actually, no you don't.  You can have guests for a limited amount of time, but you can't invite entire families to live in your home permanently.  There are regulations that prevent that.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> Actually, no you don't.  You can have guests for a limited amount of time, but you can't invite entire families to live in your home permanently.  There are regulations that prevent that.



Indeed there are. And they violate my rights. Yours too, but presumably you don't care.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> You admit that them simply being here is a danger to others.  The same goes for ex cons.  Why is it OK for one but not the other?


Them? Who are you referring to? I'm saying if the have warrants out for their arrest, or they are known criminals or terrorists (and this has been established via legitimate due process) then it's reasonable to prevent entry.


> You can't answer that, which is how we know you're full of shit.


I just did, so does that prove you are full of shit?



> You have already conceded that foreigners don't have a right to be here.


Nope. You have quite an imagination.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no you don't.  You can have guests for a limited amount of time, but you can't invite entire families to live in your home permanently.  There are regulations that prevent that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed there are. And they violate my rights. Yours too, but presumably you don't care.
Click to expand...

If you think there are no limits to what you can do with your property, you are sadly mistaken.  You can't have 10 or 20 people who aren't related to you living there.  You can have immediately family members, and that's it.  Anything more has an impact on your neighbors.  That's why they don't allow it.  That doesn't violate your rights.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You admit that them simply being here is a danger to others.  The same goes for ex cons.  Why is it OK for one but not the other?
> 
> 
> 
> Them? Who are you referring to? I'm saying if the have warrants out for their arrest, or they are known criminals or terrorists (and this has been established via legitimate due process) then it's reasonable to prevent entry.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't answer that, which is how we know you're full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just did, so does that prove you are full of shit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have already conceded that foreigners don't have a right to be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. You have quite an imagination.
Click to expand...

What does "reasonable" have to do with anything?  If they have a right to be here, then they have a right to be here.  It doesn't matter whether they are criminals or not.  According to you our government has no authority to prevent entry.


----------



## Slyhunter

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You admit that them simply being here is a danger to others.  The same goes for ex cons.  Why is it OK for one but not the other?
> 
> 
> 
> Them? Who are you referring to? I'm saying if the have warrants out for their arrest, or they are known criminals or terrorists (and this has been established via legitimate due process) then it's reasonable to prevent entry.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't answer that, which is how we know you're full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just did, so does that prove you are full of shit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have already conceded that foreigners don't have a right to be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. You have quite an imagination.
Click to expand...

How are we supposed to control entry so we know whether they are one of the ones with criminal record not allowed entry if we don't build a wall so they can't illegally enter?


----------



## dblack

Slyhunter said:


> How are we supposed to control entry so we know whether they are one of the ones with criminal record not allowed entry if we don't build a wall so they can't illegally enter?



The same way we prevent other crimes. You might just as well ask how we're supposed to prevent shootings without taking everyone's guns? It's the same logic. The same desire to control other people.


----------



## Flopper

toobfreak said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just don't turn our nation into a prison because you're frightened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not afraid of anything.  YOU are the one scared shitless about a simple wall.  There has been a wall or fence down there in parts for decades but only NOW does it create a prison for Me by protecting me from illegals getting in???  How do you proffer such GARBAGE with a straight face???  You've lost all credibility here.
> 
> If I put a fence and a gate around my property, it doesn't make ME a prisoner, boob!  I can come and go as I please and I can leave this country any time I want.
Click to expand...

The disagreement in Washington is not whether to secure the border or not but the most efficient and economically way to deal with illegal immigration.

Trump sees a great beautiful wall that will stop illegal immigration.  What democrats see is a 212 mile 4 billion dollar wall that's 6 feet hiring than existing reinforced fencing that will most probably not even be complete during Trump's term in office.  That will leave the border barriers in 1800 miles of border the same as they are now.

The real problems in immigration such as immigration law, illegal entry through ports of entry, 10 million illegal immigrants living in the country, millions overstaying visas, a 300,000 case backlog in immigration court, and an E-Verify system that's uselessly to most employers all untouched.


----------



## dblack

The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.


----------



## Slyhunter

dblack said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are we supposed to control entry so we know whether they are one of the ones with criminal record not allowed entry if we don't build a wall so they can't illegally enter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way we prevent other crimes. You might just as well ask how we're supposed to prevent shootings without taking everyone's guns? It's the same logic. The same desire to control other people.
Click to expand...

bad premise you can't prevent shootings with laws. Mass shooters don't respect gun free zones.


----------



## dblack

Slyhunter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are we supposed to control entry so we know whether they are one of the ones with criminal record not allowed entry if we don't build a wall so they can't illegally enter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way we prevent other crimes. You might just as well ask how we're supposed to prevent shootings without taking everyone's guns? It's the same logic. The same desire to control other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bad premise you can't prevent shootings with laws. Mass shooters don't respect gun free zones.
Click to expand...


It's the same bad premise you're using for the wall.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.


The "legal walls?"  What makes them legal and Trump's wall illegal?


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> The "legal walls?"  What makes them legal and Trump's wall illegal?
Click to expand...

??? I'm referring to laws that limit legal immigration based on your fear of competition.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> The "legal walls?"  What makes them legal and Trump's wall illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ??? I'm referring to laws that limit legal immigration based on your fear of competition.
Click to expand...

How does that define what a "legal wall" is?


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> The "legal walls?"  What makes them legal and Trump's wall illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ??? I'm referring to laws that limit legal immigration based on your fear of competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that define what a "legal wall" is?
Click to expand...


It's a metaphor for laws prohibiting legal entry. You aren't really that stupid, are you?


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> The "legal walls?"  What makes them legal and Trump's wall illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ??? I'm referring to laws that limit legal immigration based on your fear of competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that define what a "legal wall" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a metaphor for laws prohibiting legal entry. You aren't really that stupid, are you?
Click to expand...

Try dealing in reality.  What distinguishes a "legal wall" from an "illegal wall?"


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> The "legal walls?"  What makes them legal and Trump's wall illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ??? I'm referring to laws that limit legal immigration based on your fear of competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that define what a "legal wall" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a metaphor for laws prohibiting legal entry. You aren't really that stupid, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try dealing in reality.  What distinguishes a "legal wall" from an "illegal wall?"
Click to expand...


I have no idea what has you confused. I'm referring to visa application rules the prevent legal entry. Is that really so hard for you to understand?


----------



## Flopper

toobfreak said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just don't turn our nation into a prison because you're frightened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not afraid of anything.  YOU are the one scared shitless about a simple wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not scared of the wall - it's little more than a symbol. I'm scared of the kind of government you morons are clamoring for.  You really want an authoritarian police state, and I don't want to live like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How 65 countries have erected security walls on their borders | Daily Mail Online
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Which-countries-have-real-walls-in-their-borders
> 
> List of countries and territories by land borders - Wikipedia
> 
> In Opinion: Why Nations need to control their borders
> 
> West Texas sheriff says U.S. only nation not to use military to secure 'our border'
> 
> The POSTED PENALTY for Illegally Crossing the Border         ~          Thunder Pig
> 
> This last one is most significant.  If we assume the conservative estimate of 10.5 million illegals (some estimates go to 12), and at having committed a federal crime punishable by $5,000, if we simply collected on that ONE PENALTY ALONE, we'd have *FIFTY-THREE BILLION DOLLARS*.  Enough to build the wall three times over.  And Mexico would have paid for it.
> 
> 
> View attachment 238441 View attachment 238442 View attachment 238443 View attachment 238444 View attachment 238445
> 
> The whole point to borders, ANY borders, be they between states or countries, is to DELINEATE TERRITORY.  Territory defines responsibility and control.  To all the quacked up fuckheads calling it doom and gloom just because the USA wants to actually CONTROL who crosses our border like most other countries, I say:
> 
> 
> *UP YOURS*, Mental Cases.
Click to expand...

fences not walls.  Look at your link


----------



## Slyhunter

dblack said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are we supposed to control entry so we know whether they are one of the ones with criminal record not allowed entry if we don't build a wall so they can't illegally enter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way we prevent other crimes. You might just as well ask how we're supposed to prevent shootings without taking everyone's guns? It's the same logic. The same desire to control other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bad premise you can't prevent shootings with laws. Mass shooters don't respect gun free zones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the same bad premise you're using for the wall.
Click to expand...

No, the wall funnels them through the open ports where we can vet them.


----------



## Flopper

Slyhunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are when they cross our border illegally and it turns out their asylum claims are bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum.  It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States.  If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process.  After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally.   So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.
Click to expand...

The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.


----------



## longknife

Flopper said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum.  It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States.  If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process.  After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally.   So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.
Click to expand...


*We welcome those who come here LEGALLY!*


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum.  It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States.  If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process.  After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally.   So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.
Click to expand...

If you don't build a wall how do you stop them from coming in?
Catch and release doesn't work.


----------



## longknife

Slyhunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process.  After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally.   So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't build a wall how do you stop them from coming in?
> Catch and release doesn't work.
Click to expand...


*Name a single country anywhere in the world that doesn't have some kind of border control.*


----------



## dblack

Slyhunter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are we supposed to control entry so we know whether they are one of the ones with criminal record not allowed entry if we don't build a wall so they can't illegally enter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way we prevent other crimes. You might just as well ask how we're supposed to prevent shootings without taking everyone's guns? It's the same logic. The same desire to control other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bad premise you can't prevent shootings with laws. Mass shooters don't respect gun free zones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the same bad premise you're using for the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the wall funnels them through the open ports where we can vet them.
Click to expand...


Right... because the criminals and rapists will just announce themselves for vetting at your "open ports"?

There's a pathetic contradiction at the heart of the wall logic. The people who intend to do us harm won't have any problem circumventing your silly wall. The only people who will be impacted are the poor families who come here looking for work. But then they're the real target, aren't they? It's not rapists and murders we're afraid of. It's people less fortunate than ourselves. We're afraid they'll work harder for less money than us and earn some of our wealth. 

As I said, pathetic.


----------



## dblack

longknife said:


> *Name a single country anywhere in the world that doesn't have some kind of border control.*



*Name a single person anywhere in this thread who's said we shouldn't have some kind of border control.*


----------



## Slyhunter

longknife said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process.  After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally.   So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't build a wall how do you stop them from coming in?
> Catch and release doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Name a single country anywhere in the world that doesn't have some kind of border control.*
Click to expand...

no, you're arguing with the wrong person.


----------



## Flopper

dblack said:


> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.


Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing.  After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck.  The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing.  After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck.  The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.
Click to expand...

Those who don't have $150 will be kept out.


----------



## Flopper

Slyhunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process.  After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally.   So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't build a wall how do you stop them from coming in?
> Catch and release doesn't work.
Click to expand...


First off people climbing fences to get into the country are not the major problem.  We should go after the real problems:
The major source of illegal immigration is the border crossing, not fences out the desert.  You stop people at the border crossing.  You enforce visa time limits.  You provide reasonable immigration limitations.  You limit family sponsored immigration to the immediate family. You have people apply for asylum at embassies and consulates eliminating the caravans. Lastly, you stop supporting dictatorships that serve criminal gangs and the cartel making life a living hell for the poor which drives them to the US.


----------



## Flopper

No, they'll just 


Slyhunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing.  After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck.  The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who don't have $150 will be kept out.
Click to expand...

No, they'll just buy a ladder.  We have been building taller and taller border barriers for over 50 years.  Maybe we should look at something different and stop repeating the same mistakes.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> No, they'll just
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing.  After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck.  The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who don't have $150 will be kept out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they'll just buy a ladder.  We have been building taller and taller border barriers for over 50 years.  Maybe we should look at something different and stop repeating the same mistakes.
Click to expand...


So how many ladder crossers do you suppose were successful with the walls we have today?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> You provide reasonable immigration limitations.



You mean allowing a million people a year to become citizens and passing out 11,000 VISAs a year is not reasonable?  What other country is more reasonable than ours?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing.  After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck.  The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm.  Must be one desperate trucker to do that:

_*Penalties under Section 274(a)(1)(a) can include a fine under under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, a prison term of up to ten years, or both – and the punishment gets multiplied by the number of people smuggled. If someone gets injured as a result of the crime, the penalty can be increased to a 20-year prison term; and if someone dies as a result, the prison term can be extended to life.*_

Smuggling Noncitizens Into the U.S.: Possible Legal Consequences

Thank goodness I don't need a hundred fifty bucks that badly.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are we supposed to control entry so we know whether they are one of the ones with criminal record not allowed entry if we don't build a wall so they can't illegally enter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way we prevent other crimes. You might just as well ask how we're supposed to prevent shootings without taking everyone's guns? It's the same logic. The same desire to control other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bad premise you can't prevent shootings with laws. Mass shooters don't respect gun free zones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the same bad premise you're using for the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the wall funnels them through the open ports where we can vet them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right... because the criminals and rapists will just announce themselves for vetting at your "open ports"?
> 
> There's a pathetic contradiction at the heart of the wall logic. The people who intend to do us harm won't have any problem circumventing your silly wall. The only people who will be impacted are the poor families who come here looking for work. But then they're the real target, aren't they? It's not rapists and murders we're afraid of. It's people less fortunate than ourselves. We're afraid they'll work harder for less money than us and earn some of our wealth.
> 
> As I said, pathetic.
Click to expand...


Let me tell you what's really pathetic:  Selling out your own countrymen.  That's pathetic.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum.  It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States.  If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process.  After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally.   So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.
Click to expand...


What conservatives are doing is trying to stop illegals coming in--not legal outsiders.  What Democrats are doing is trying to continue illegals coming in; so to the point they'll even shut down the government for it's continuation.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.



Good.  The more the merrier.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> The disagreement in Washington is not whether to secure the border or not but the most efficient and economically way to deal with illegal immigration.



If you really believe that, I have a bridge for sale if interested.  

The disagreement is Democrats don't want any barrier that works the best and can't be removed.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are we supposed to control entry so we know whether they are one of the ones with criminal record not allowed entry if we don't build a wall so they can't illegally enter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way we prevent other crimes. You might just as well ask how we're supposed to prevent shootings without taking everyone's guns? It's the same logic. The same desire to control other people.
Click to expand...


And we have said it repeatedly: the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.  The best way to stop border jumpers is with a wall.  In other words, our stance is a proper deterrent to help solve a problem.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The military has the responsibility of protecting us from foreign invasions; states have the right to regulate who they allow to come and go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they do not.  DumBama took Arizona to court when they created their own immigration policies and he won.  The court ruled that immigration is a federal policy and not state.
Click to expand...


See post # 2806


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they have a right to be here, then why is that an excuse?  We can't deport ex-cons even though they are a threat.  Why should we be allowed to exclude anyone if your claim is true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't make any sense out of that. Can you rephrase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are like a dear in the headlights when confronted by your own illogic.  You keep saying that foreigners have a right to come here.  If it's a right, then how can you justify excluding some because we think they're dangerous?  We have people in this country who are citizens that we think are dangerous but we can't deport them.  That's because they have a right to be here, the same right that you claim foreigners have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not stated my opinion as to whether it's a right or not, but all you've done is sling skeet, make assertions because you cannot cobble a coherent reply to honest questions and do your best to remain in a pissing match instead of a conversation.
> 
> All that says is that whatever it is you believe in cannot withstand scrutiny and those who would use critical thinking skills to think this out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It can easily withstand scrutiny.  Here's the crux of the issue:  do foreigners have a right to cross our border or not?  If you claim they do, you are full of shit.
Click to expand...


I'm not stating an opinion either way.  Opinions are like posteriors.  Everybody has one.

You have claimed that you get your Rights from the government.  I'm just collecting the facts so as to make some determination.

All that name calling and abuse you dish out doesn't impress anyone; doesn't change anyone's mind - except that those who agree with you, but are embarrassed by your tone might be open to answering my questions.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Them? Who are you referring to? I'm saying if the have warrants out for their arrest, or they are known criminals or terrorists (and this has been established via legitimate due process) then it's reasonable to prevent entry.



Criminals and terrorists don't enter our country through a place of legal entry.  They cross our border because WE DON'T HAVE A BORDER WALL and make their way into our country.  The lowlife that killed the cop in CA had a record of past DUI's and deportation, yet he was still able to make it back to the US to get drunk again, and this time kill a  police officer who was also an immigrant, only a legal immigrant.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Flopper said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum.  It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States.  If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process.  After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally.   So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.
Click to expand...


The people parroting Trump are so busy chanting the party line that they cannot afford a discussion.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

longknife said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process.  After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally.   So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *We welcome those who come here LEGALLY!*
Click to expand...


Why?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no you don't.  You can have guests for a limited amount of time, but you can't invite entire families to live in your home permanently.  There are regulations that prevent that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed there are. And they violate my rights. Yours too, but presumably you don't care.
Click to expand...


If you have a right to harbor foreigners.....any foreigners, tell me where that right is written.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process.  After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally.   So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't build a wall how do you stop them from coming in?
> Catch and release doesn't work.
Click to expand...


Unless you're willing to wage a race war on behalf of the whites, you will never keep the foreigners out.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good.  The more the merrier.
Click to expand...


Are you on record then that you support a militarized border, the POLICE STATE, and severe limitations on unalienable Rights?


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they'll just
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing.  After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck.  The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who don't have $150 will be kept out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they'll just buy a ladder.  We have been building taller and taller border barriers for over 50 years.  Maybe we should look at something different and stop repeating the same mistakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how many ladder crossers do you suppose were successful with the walls we have today?
Click to expand...

The success of getting over a border barrier depends on how well it's monitored. Barriers don't stop migrants, they only slow them down.  The Southern California border wall had border patrol vehicles running less than 5 mins apart and were very successful.  Around El Paeso they ran about 15 to 20 mins apart and there were a lots of crossings.  What it really amounts to is the more guards you have monitoring the border, the more people you will apprehend.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are we supposed to control entry so we know whether they are one of the ones with criminal record not allowed entry if we don't build a wall so they can't illegally enter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way we prevent other crimes. You might just as well ask how we're supposed to prevent shootings without taking everyone's guns? It's the same logic. The same desire to control other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we have said it repeatedly: the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.  The best way to stop border jumpers is with a wall.  In other words, our stance is a proper deterrent to help solve a problem.
Click to expand...


Precisely what problem are you trying to solve?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?



Yes, the government is the people.  We elect representatives to carry out our will.  And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me.  It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me. 



dblack said:


> No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.



And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing.  After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck.  The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who don't have $150 will be kept out.
Click to expand...


Let me see if you can be the first on this thread:

How come you want people from south of the border to be kept out?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are we supposed to control entry so we know whether they are one of the ones with criminal record not allowed entry if we don't build a wall so they can't illegally enter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way we prevent other crimes. You might just as well ask how we're supposed to prevent shootings without taking everyone's guns? It's the same logic. The same desire to control other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we have said it repeatedly: the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.  The best way to stop border jumpers is with a wall.  In other words, our stance is a proper deterrent to help solve a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Precisely what problem are you trying to solve?
Click to expand...


Illegal immigration, drugs, keeping our pay scales lower, taking our jobs, foreigners sending American dollars back to their country......is that good enough for you?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they'll just
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing.  After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck.  The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who don't have $150 will be kept out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they'll just buy a ladder.  We have been building taller and taller border barriers for over 50 years.  Maybe we should look at something different and stop repeating the same mistakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how many ladder crossers do you suppose were successful with the walls we have today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The success of getting over a border barrier depends on how well it's monitored. Barriers don't stop migrants, they only slow them down.  The Southern California border wall had border patrol vehicles running less than 5 mins apart and were very successful.  Around El Paeso they ran about 15 to 20 mins apart and there were a lots of crossings.  What it really amounts to is the more guards you have monitoring the border, the more people you will apprehend.
Click to expand...


When we learned of the Caravan and where they were heading, our military and border patrol erected make-shift walls to keep them out.  They hurled rocks and bottles at our agents (because that's what nannies and gardeners do) and broke down the wall; not one ladder. 

If they didn't create those temporary barriers, thousands and thousands would have entered this country and little to stop them.  But because they did put those barriers up, they were able to get enough personnel there to stop and arrest those who broke through it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the government is the people.  We elect representatives to carry out our will.  And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me.  It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
Click to expand...


I am struggling to understand your argument.

We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?

If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good.  The more the merrier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you on record then that you support a militarized border, the POLICE STATE, and severe limitations on unalienable Rights?
Click to expand...


Nobody outside of our country has any rights to be here.  That's why Congress created laws to stop them.  That's why we have checkpoints to enter this country.  That's why we have immigration courts; because you have no inalienable right to be here.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing.  After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck.  The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.  Must be one desperate trucker to do that:
> 
> _*Penalties under Section 274(a)(1)(a) can include a fine under under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, a prison term of up to ten years, or both – and the punishment gets multiplied by the number of people smuggled. If someone gets injured as a result of the crime, the penalty can be increased to a 20-year prison term; and if someone dies as a result, the prison term can be extended to life.*_
> 
> Smuggling Noncitizens Into the U.S.: Possible Legal Consequences
> 
> Thank goodness I don't need a hundred fifty bucks that badly.
Click to expand...

Less than 1% of the vehicles are searched and most of those searches are for suspected drug transportation not people.  Getting into the US in a truck hauling freight is relatively easy.  Hiding in trunks and storage compartments is even more common.   To catch them you have to search the vehicle and with more 50,000 vehicles a day crossing and most of them during peak periods, there is not enough people are facilities to search a high percent of vehicles.  Migrants certainly do pay truckers and vehicle operators to take them across.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the government is the people.  We elect representatives to carry out our will.  And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me.  It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am struggling to understand your argument.
> 
> We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
> 
> If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
Click to expand...


Trump threatened to cut funds to Sanctuary cities, and like always, the left got their activist judges to stop him.

The problem with illegals is not a state issue--it's a federal issue because any one of those illegals can go to any state they desire.  I live in Ohio all the way north of the border, and we have illegals here.  In fact, ICE busted two companies that had a bunch of them working illegally. 

About three years ago I was on my way to work and sitting at a stop light.  Next thing you know my car was rammed from the rear.  The Mexican (who barely spoke English) kept telling me not to call the cops.  His passenger was more concerned about it, but he didn't speak any English.

When the cop got there, I made the report and it turns out the guy's brakes were barely able to slow the vehicle down yet alone come to a stop.  His friend disappeared by the time the cops got there.  I have no idea where he went because I had my own concerns at hand and it was pitch dark. 

So don't say it's a state issue.  It's not.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing.  After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck.  The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.  Must be one desperate trucker to do that:
> 
> _*Penalties under Section 274(a)(1)(a) can include a fine under under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, a prison term of up to ten years, or both – and the punishment gets multiplied by the number of people smuggled. If someone gets injured as a result of the crime, the penalty can be increased to a 20-year prison term; and if someone dies as a result, the prison term can be extended to life.*_
> 
> Smuggling Noncitizens Into the U.S.: Possible Legal Consequences
> 
> Thank goodness I don't need a hundred fifty bucks that badly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Less than 1% of the vehicles are searched and most of those searches are for suspected drug transportation not people.  Getting into the US in a truck hauling freight is repetitively easy.
Click to expand...


Oh come on.  The dogs that aid our border patrol are trained to find both: drugs and people.  A German Shepard can hear a human heartbeat from over 15 feet away.  

The truth is very few try to smuggle illegals into our country. The penalty is too great just for some spending money.  Let me ask: would you be willing to do anything for a hundred fifty bucks if failure meant spending over ten years in prison?


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you quote my whole post?
> 
> I'ts been discussed earlier in the thread.
> 
> Again. Nobody is cracking up on my travel, or citizen's travel or any of my constitutional rights.
> Illegals have no rights to be here, therefore they have no constitutional rights that citizens have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From where do you get your unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see where your'e heading. No, I haven't said that illegals don't have any rights, they just don't have all constitutional rights and/or protections that citizens have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Courts disagree with you on that one.  So, I have to ask you again, from where do your Rights come from?
> 
> Since you don't want to answer because you realize a very uncomfortable truth, is there any special reason you think you need the government to help you protect yourself from your own actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What court disagree with me? Do illegals have rights to be here or not? Do they have right to vote?
> 
> Where did you get that I am uncomfortable answering? I told you that I see where you're heading with it and I stay with my statement that illegals don't have all constitutional rights and/or protections that citizens have.
> 
> Now, you asked where my rights come from?
> 
> To answer that question, can you clarify what you considering that "rights" are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America was founded on the principle that each person is born with unalienable Rights.  The Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> So, when I ask you where your Rights come from, I am in reference to the foundational principle found in the DOI as quoted above.  Where do YOUR Rights come from?
> 
> Some people have a problem with inherent, natural, God given, unalienable, absolute, irrevocable Rights.  So, as per the DOI all men have been bestowed by their Creator (their God, whomever they deem that to be) with unalienable Rights.  If you disagree, I'm only asking where you get your Rights from.  I'm not trying to start some shit with you, only looking for the disconnect.  I'm trying to get beyond all the accusations and counter-accusations.
> 
> Do so - called "illegals" have a right (sic) to be here?  I'm asking the question of if they do not have a right (sic) to be here, then are you of the opinion that government creates and / or grants rights?
> 
> I'm looking for where the disconnect is, not which side is right or wrong.  I'm not here to ask you a question and then go off on a tangent calling you an idiot as most of these end up being like.  I'm asking a question to see, exactly, where the disconnect is.
Click to expand...



That has to be the damned funniest thing I've read on this board. Everyone in our country has rights, but they are also subject to our laws if they abuse those rights. The same damned thing applies to illegal aliens, that's how our LAW refers to them. So take you semantics game and shove it.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are we supposed to control entry so we know whether they are one of the ones with criminal record not allowed entry if we don't build a wall so they can't illegally enter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way we prevent other crimes. You might just as well ask how we're supposed to prevent shootings without taking everyone's guns? It's the same logic. The same desire to control other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we have said it repeatedly: the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.  The best way to stop border jumpers is with a wall.  In other words, our stance is a proper deterrent to help solve a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Precisely what problem are you trying to solve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration, drugs, keeping our pay scales lower, taking our jobs, foreigners sending American dollars back to their country......is that good enough for you?
Click to expand...


It will be good enough IF that is the pretexts you choose to stand by.  See, Ray, here is the problem:

If one poster says they want the foreigners out is for *control*, which they have, I must take him at his word.  Now you come around with a laundry list accusing the drug problem being the foreigners fault; that the foreigners reduce our pay scale and they send dollars to foreign countries.

The question in the OP is WHY IS BUILDING THE WALL WRONG?

How can anyone respond to that until they know exactly why those of you who have made this their religion explain why you want it put up in the first place?  So, I need to ask you:

Are foreigners chasing Americans down and forcing them to take drugs OR do Americans of their own free will and volition take the drugs?

You say foreigners are taking "our jobs."  How is that?  Do you own a job that is in the private sector that a foreigner *stole* from you? 

Are you saying that the jobs created in the private sector belong to the public, and if so, is that not a socialist argument?  Do we not own that which we create?

Finally, if foreigners are sending money back across the southern border, how much of it comes back as foreigners buy goods and services from Americans?  I'm sure you must have some facts to figure out a Cost / Benefits Analysis on this.

As for jobs, wages are rising, new jobs are opening every day and if you want to work, you need to apply for the jobs.  Even in YOUR profession there is a pressing need for more people in your industry.  That situation took place without a wall.  Were you aware of that?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process.  After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally.   So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't build a wall how do you stop them from coming in?
> Catch and release doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you're willing to wage a race war on behalf of the whites, you will never keep the foreigners out.
Click to expand...


That's what we are trying to do now, only legally.  The goal of the Democrat party is to wipe out whites in this country, essentially making whites a minority.  No other group of people would allow or support that from happening except liberal whites because they are not very bright.  A white liberal is like a frog in a pot of water on top of the stove.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These boneheads are actually trying to argue that foreigners have a right to emigrate to the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get YOUR Rights from?
> 
> Some boneheads believe that Liberty is an unalienable Right and citizenship is a privilege.  What do you think?  Do you think that only some elite group of people were "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?
> 
> Instead of making allegations, I dare you to answer the questions and quit trying to anticipate where I'm going.  If you knew that, you wouldn't have an immigration problem today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is that foreigners have no right to live in the United States.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based upon what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based on the Constitution and plain logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you show me what section of the Constitution that says foreigners have no right to live in the United States?
Click to expand...



Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.


.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they'll just
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing.  After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck.  The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.
> 
> 
> 
> Those who don't have $150 will be kept out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they'll just buy a ladder.  We have been building taller and taller border barriers for over 50 years.  Maybe we should look at something different and stop repeating the same mistakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how many ladder crossers do you suppose were successful with the walls we have today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The success of getting over a border barrier depends on how well it's monitored. Barriers don't stop migrants, they only slow them down.  The Southern California border wall had border patrol vehicles running less than 5 mins apart and were very successful.  Around El Paeso they ran about 15 to 20 mins apart and there were a lots of crossings.  What it really amounts to is the more guards you have monitoring the border, the more people you will apprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we learned of the Caravan and where they were heading, our military and border patrol erected make-shift walls to keep them out.  They hurled rocks and bottles at our agents (because that's what nannies and gardeners do) and broke down the wall; not one ladder.
> 
> If they didn't create those temporary barriers, thousands and thousands would have entered this country and little to stop them.  But because they did put those barriers up, they were able to get enough personnel there to stop and arrest those who broke through it.
Click to expand...


How come you suppose those caravans showed up AFTER Obama left office?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get YOUR Rights from?
> 
> Some boneheads believe that Liberty is an unalienable Right and citizenship is a privilege.  What do you think?  Do you think that only some elite group of people were "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?
> 
> Instead of making allegations, I dare you to answer the questions and quit trying to anticipate where I'm going.  If you knew that, you wouldn't have an immigration problem today.
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that foreigners have no right to live in the United States.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based upon what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based on the Constitution and plain logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you show me what section of the Constitution that says foreigners have no right to live in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Do you realize that the quoted section YOU cited says, quite unequivocally "as any of the* States* now existing shall think proper to admit?"

Each individual state can admit who they want to admit within their boundaries.  The federal government is limited:

"Congress shall have the power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution"

The feds have no jurisdiction in this issue unless and until the foreigner seeks citizenship.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization....
> 
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 4_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naturalization is about citizenship.  Not everyone who comes to the United States wants to become a citizen.  Citizenship is a privilege.
> 
> Liberty is an unalienable Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're saying the US doesn't have the right to control who crosses our borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Control over the border is a different issue.  Is it possible for you to stay with me for a minute and answer my questions?  I'm not calling you names; not slinging skeet at you.  I've been so hung up on my own four decades of research and experience that I'm not sure where you're coming from.
> 
> As I've stated many times, patriots and constitutionalists didn't change, the people did.  And, you represent a new breed of people with a concept that I'm trying to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answer the question:  do we have the right to control who crosses our border or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The military has the responsibility of protecting us from foreign invasions; states have the right to regulate who they allow to come and go.  If conditions warrant, we could shut the border down in a national emergency.
> 
> Is there any special reason you can't focus on one issue at a time?
Click to expand...





Porter Rockwell said:


> states have the right to regulate who they allow to come and go.


That right ended in 1808, you're not near as smart as you think.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the government is the people.  We elect representatives to carry out our will.  And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me.  It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am struggling to understand your argument.
> 
> We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
> 
> If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump threatened to cut funds to Sanctuary cities, and like always, the left got their activist judges to stop him.
> 
> The problem with illegals is not a state issue--it's a federal issue because any one of those illegals can go to any state they desire.  I live in Ohio all the way north of the border, and we have illegals here.  In fact, ICE busted two companies that had a bunch of them working illegally.
> 
> About three years ago I was on my way to work and sitting at a stop light.  Next thing you know my car was rammed from the rear.  The Mexican (who barely spoke English) kept telling me not to call the cops.  His passenger was more concerned about it, but he didn't speak any English.
> 
> When the cop got there, I made the report and it turns out the guy's brakes were barely able to slow the vehicle down yet alone come to a stop.  His friend disappeared by the time the cops got there.  I have no idea where he went because I had my own concerns at hand and it was pitch dark.
> 
> So don't say it's a state issue.  It's not.
Click to expand...


You have this uncanny ability to be consistently WRONG.  The *RIGHT* went to the United States Supreme Court over the gun issue.  They did not want the federal government to be able to  force state and local officials to enforce FEDERAL gun laws.  The right won the case in the United States Supreme Court.  

When the lawyers defending Sanctuary Cities went to court, they used the STANDING PRECEDENT THAT THE RIGHT USED TO KEEP THE FEDS FROM FORCING STATES TO ENFORCE THE BRADY BILL.  That, most assuredly, is NOT legislating from the bench. 

Again, read post # 2806.   You are wrong.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Are foreigners chasing Americans down and forcing them to take drugs OR do Americans of their own free will and volition take the drugs?



You can't use something that isn't there.  Given the fact most of our heroin comes across the southern border, it's only common sense to focus on that border to help stop the drugs.  However a wall is not just for drugs.  A wall is not just for illegals.  A wall is there to help retard the activity of both. 

Blaming the user who got hooked on drugs (because they are available) is like blaming the woman who got raped because she looked too good the way she dressed. 



Porter Rockwell said:


> You say foreigners are taking "our jobs." How is that? Do you own a job that is in the private sector that a foreigner *stole* from you?



Our highways are polluted with foreign drivers.  They are terrible at their job and can't even read the English signs on the road.  In the meantime, as long as employers can hire these people for next to nothing, it brings down wages for American drivers which means less will look into that field of work. 



Porter Rockwell said:


> Are you saying that the jobs created in the private sector belong to the public, and if so, is that not a socialist argument? Do we not own that which we create?



Jobs created in America are for the American people--not the entire world.  Just like jobs created in Italy are for Italian people, or jobs created in Indonesia are for Indonesians. 



Porter Rockwell said:


> Finally, if foreigners are sending money back across the southern border, how much of it comes back as foreigners buy goods and services from Americans? I'm sure you must have some facts to figure out a Cost / Benefits Analysis on this.



You don't know where they are buying their goods from once that money makes it to the other side of the border. 



Porter Rockwell said:


> As for jobs, wages are rising, new jobs are opening every day and if you want to work, you need to apply for the jobs. Even in YOUR profession there is a pressing need for more people in your industry. That situation took place without a wall. Were you aware of that?



I'm very aware of that.  However supply and demand comes into play.  If there is more demand than supply, the price goes up.  If there is more supply than demand, the price goes down.  If you satisfy the demand, the price remains steady.

Wages are going up because (at least for now) we have more demand than supply.  Left up to people like you, the supply would be satisfied and Americans would not see wage increases.  Then, when it turns around and we have more supply than demand because we let all these people here, wages decrease for Americans and all others.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naturalization is about citizenship.  Not everyone who comes to the United States wants to become a citizen.  Citizenship is a privilege.
> 
> Liberty is an unalienable Right.
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying the US doesn't have the right to control who crosses our borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Control over the border is a different issue.  Is it possible for you to stay with me for a minute and answer my questions?  I'm not calling you names; not slinging skeet at you.  I've been so hung up on my own four decades of research and experience that I'm not sure where you're coming from.
> 
> As I've stated many times, patriots and constitutionalists didn't change, the people did.  And, you represent a new breed of people with a concept that I'm trying to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answer the question:  do we have the right to control who crosses our border or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The military has the responsibility of protecting us from foreign invasions; states have the right to regulate who they allow to come and go.  If conditions warrant, we could shut the border down in a national emergency.
> 
> Is there any special reason you can't focus on one issue at a time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> states have the right to regulate who they allow to come and go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That right ended in 1808, you're not near as smart as you think.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


What Amendment changed that?  Again, read post # 2806.


----------



## dblack

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing.  After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck.  The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who don't have $150 will be kept out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me see if you can be the first on this thread:
> 
> How come you want people from south of the border to be kept out?
Click to expand...


Because they don't have $150?


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that foreigners have no right to live in the United States.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based upon what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based on the Constitution and plain logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you show me what section of the Constitution that says foreigners have no right to live in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you realize that the quoted section YOU cited says, quite unequivocally "as any of the* States* now existing shall think proper to admit?"
> 
> Each individual state can admit who they want to admit within their boundaries.  The federal government is limited:
> 
> "Congress shall have the power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution"
> 
> The feds have no jurisdiction in this issue unless and until the foreigner seeks citizenship.
Click to expand...



Read all of it.


> *Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1*
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,* but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.



.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the government is the people.  We elect representatives to carry out our will.  And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me.  It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am struggling to understand your argument.
> 
> We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
> 
> If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump threatened to cut funds to Sanctuary cities, and like always, the left got their activist judges to stop him.
> 
> The problem with illegals is not a state issue--it's a federal issue because any one of those illegals can go to any state they desire.  I live in Ohio all the way north of the border, and we have illegals here.  In fact, ICE busted two companies that had a bunch of them working illegally.
> 
> About three years ago I was on my way to work and sitting at a stop light.  Next thing you know my car was rammed from the rear.  The Mexican (who barely spoke English) kept telling me not to call the cops.  His passenger was more concerned about it, but he didn't speak any English.
> 
> When the cop got there, I made the report and it turns out the guy's brakes were barely able to slow the vehicle down yet alone come to a stop.  His friend disappeared by the time the cops got there.  I have no idea where he went because I had my own concerns at hand and it was pitch dark.
> 
> So don't say it's a state issue.  It's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have this uncanny ability to be consistently WRONG.  The *RIGHT* went to the United States Supreme Court over the gun issue.  They did not want the federal government to be able to  force state and local officials to enforce FEDERAL gun laws.  The right won the case in the United States Supreme Court.
> 
> When the lawyers defending Sanctuary Cities went to court, they used the STANDING PRECEDENT THAT THE RIGHT USED TO KEEP THE FEDS FROM FORCING STATES TO ENFORCE THE BRADY BILL.  That, most assuredly, is NOT legislating from the bench.
> 
> Again, read post # 2806.   You are wrong.
Click to expand...


Guns are a Constitutional right, illegals are not.  The federal government should decide which states are awarded money and which are not.  In other words, if we are giving California X amount of dollars to fight illegal immigration, and they welcome it instead, those funds should be cut because they are using the money for things other than illegal immigration.


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the government is the people.  We elect representatives to carry out our will.  And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me.  It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
Click to expand...


Huh. What IS your definition of a "progressive"? From what I've read they're big on that "we the people" shit to.



> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
Click to expand...


Well, you're not a conservative by _any_ stretch of the imagination, but I agree. You shouldn't have to share your property with anyone.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that foreigners have no right to live in the United States.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based upon what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based on the Constitution and plain logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you show me what section of the Constitution that says foreigners have no right to live in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you realize that the quoted section YOU cited says, quite unequivocally "as any of the* States* now existing shall think proper to admit?"
> 
> Each individual state can admit who they want to admit within their boundaries.  The federal government is limited:
> 
> "Congress shall have the power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution"
> 
> The feds have no jurisdiction in this issue unless and until the foreigner seeks citizenship.
Click to expand...


Then why did the federal courts support DumBama's suit against Arizona?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are foreigners chasing Americans down and forcing them to take drugs OR do Americans of their own free will and volition take the drugs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't use something that isn't there.  Given the fact most of our heroin comes across the southern border, it's only common sense to focus on that border to help stop the drugs.  However a wall is not just for drugs.  A wall is not just for illegals.  A wall is there to help retard the activity of both.
> 
> Blaming the user who got hooked on drugs (because they are available) is like blaming the woman who got raped because she looked too good the way she dressed.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say foreigners are taking "our jobs." How is that? Do you own a job that is in the private sector that a foreigner *stole* from you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our highways are polluted with foreign drivers.  They are terrible at their job and can't even read the English signs on the road.  In the meantime, as long as employers can hire these people for next to nothing, it brings down wages for American drivers which means less will look into that field of work.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the jobs created in the private sector belong to the public, and if so, is that not a socialist argument? Do we not own that which we create?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jobs created in America are for the American people--not the entire world.  Just like jobs created in Italy are for Italian people, or jobs created in Indonesia are for Indonesians.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, if foreigners are sending money back across the southern border, how much of it comes back as foreigners buy goods and services from Americans? I'm sure you must have some facts to figure out a Cost / Benefits Analysis on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know where they are buying their goods from once that money makes it to the other side of the border.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for jobs, wages are rising, new jobs are opening every day and if you want to work, you need to apply for the jobs. Even in YOUR profession there is a pressing need for more people in your industry. That situation took place without a wall. Were you aware of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm very aware of that.  However supply and demand comes into play.  If there is more demand than supply, the price goes up.  If there is more supply than demand, the price goes down.  If you satisfy the demand, the price remains steady.
> 
> Wages are going up because (at least for now) we have more demand than supply.  Left up to people like you, the supply would be satisfied and Americans would not see wage increases.  Then, when it turns around and we have more supply than demand because we let all these people here, wages decrease for Americans an all others.
Click to expand...


Ray, are you dense?  As long as you keep supplying a steady stream of government created drug addicts, you will have cartels. You are the most dishonest man on USM. 

Our drug problem exists by virtue of bad parenting, the government's obsession with creating drug addicts, the medical / mental health professions using drugs as a first option instead of a last option and Big Pharma doling out drugs like candy.

All you're doing is moving the goal posts and creating new pretexts.  So, let me ask you:  Where do you get your Rights from?

Why do you *REALLY *want a wall?

You and I have been over this ground at least three times since I came on this board.  You continue to KNOWINGLY misrepresent the facts.

You continue to make socialist arguments.  We are not Italy, Mexico, etc.  Jobs belong to the person who CREATES the job.  

And I can tell you that a lot of the money in Mexico comes right back to the U.S.  If you think not, go to any major company that has sales reps on the phones.  a large contingent are taking orders in Spanish and sending stuff to Hispanic countries.  Quit trying to blow smoke up our ass and come out with some substantial fact.

At least have the common decency to answer my questions without the deflections and long commentaries that don't address the issue.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they'll just
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who don't have $150 will be kept out.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they'll just buy a ladder.  We have been building taller and taller border barriers for over 50 years.  Maybe we should look at something different and stop repeating the same mistakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how many ladder crossers do you suppose were successful with the walls we have today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The success of getting over a border barrier depends on how well it's monitored. Barriers don't stop migrants, they only slow them down.  The Southern California border wall had border patrol vehicles running less than 5 mins apart and were very successful.  Around El Paeso they ran about 15 to 20 mins apart and there were a lots of crossings.  What it really amounts to is the more guards you have monitoring the border, the more people you will apprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we learned of the Caravan and where they were heading, our military and border patrol erected make-shift walls to keep them out.  They hurled rocks and bottles at our agents (because that's what nannies and gardeners do) and broke down the wall; not one ladder.
> 
> If they didn't create those temporary barriers, thousands and thousands would have entered this country and little to stop them.  But because they did put those barriers up, they were able to get enough personnel there to stop and arrest those who broke through it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come you suppose those caravans showed up AFTER Obama left office?
Click to expand...


Because they are not all that knowledgable of our politics.  They do know "however" the role our MSM plays in politics, and expected that to be their free ticket.  Look at how Trump had to cave when the MSM made phony reports how Trump was responsible for the separation of children from the adults (some claim were parents).  

When the Caravan was half-way to the US, it was reported others were forming; into the millions.  After Trump stopped the caravan, those others seemed to have disappeared.  A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based upon what, exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the Constitution and plain logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you show me what section of the Constitution that says foreigners have no right to live in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you realize that the quoted section YOU cited says, quite unequivocally "as any of the* States* now existing shall think proper to admit?"
> 
> Each individual state can admit who they want to admit within their boundaries.  The federal government is limited:
> 
> "Congress shall have the power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution"
> 
> The feds have no jurisdiction in this issue unless and until the foreigner seeks citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Read all of it.
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1*
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,* but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You know me better than that.  If you have something to say, spit it out.  Don't expect me to do your work for you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the government is the people.  We elect representatives to carry out our will.  And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me.  It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am struggling to understand your argument.
> 
> We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
> 
> If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump threatened to cut funds to Sanctuary cities, and like always, the left got their activist judges to stop him.
> 
> The problem with illegals is not a state issue--it's a federal issue because any one of those illegals can go to any state they desire.  I live in Ohio all the way north of the border, and we have illegals here.  In fact, ICE busted two companies that had a bunch of them working illegally.
> 
> About three years ago I was on my way to work and sitting at a stop light.  Next thing you know my car was rammed from the rear.  The Mexican (who barely spoke English) kept telling me not to call the cops.  His passenger was more concerned about it, but he didn't speak any English.
> 
> When the cop got there, I made the report and it turns out the guy's brakes were barely able to slow the vehicle down yet alone come to a stop.  His friend disappeared by the time the cops got there.  I have no idea where he went because I had my own concerns at hand and it was pitch dark.
> 
> So don't say it's a state issue.  It's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have this uncanny ability to be consistently WRONG.  The *RIGHT* went to the United States Supreme Court over the gun issue.  They did not want the federal government to be able to  force state and local officials to enforce FEDERAL gun laws.  The right won the case in the United States Supreme Court.
> 
> When the lawyers defending Sanctuary Cities went to court, they used the STANDING PRECEDENT THAT THE RIGHT USED TO KEEP THE FEDS FROM FORCING STATES TO ENFORCE THE BRADY BILL.  That, most assuredly, is NOT legislating from the bench.
> 
> Again, read post # 2806.   You are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns are a Constitutional right, illegals are not.  The federal government should decide which states are awarded money and which are not.  In other words, if we are giving California X amount of dollars to fight illegal immigration, and they welcome it instead, those funds should be cut because they are using the money for things other than illegal immigration.
Click to expand...


Ray, take a deep breath.  Answer my question:

Where do you get your Rights from?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based upon what, exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the Constitution and plain logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you show me what section of the Constitution that says foreigners have no right to live in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you realize that the quoted section YOU cited says, quite unequivocally "as any of the* States* now existing shall think proper to admit?"
> 
> Each individual state can admit who they want to admit within their boundaries.  The federal government is limited:
> 
> "Congress shall have the power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution"
> 
> The feds have no jurisdiction in this issue unless and until the foreigner seeks citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why did the federal courts support DumBama's suit against Arizona?
Click to expand...


Tell me what ruling you are in reference to and answer my questions, then I'll read your case citation and explain it to you.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are foreigners chasing Americans down and forcing them to take drugs OR do Americans of their own free will and volition take the drugs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't use something that isn't there.  Given the fact most of our heroin comes across the southern border, it's only common sense to focus on that border to help stop the drugs.  However a wall is not just for drugs.  A wall is not just for illegals.  A wall is there to help retard the activity of both.
> 
> Blaming the user who got hooked on drugs (because they are available) is like blaming the woman who got raped because she looked too good the way she dressed.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say foreigners are taking "our jobs." How is that? Do you own a job that is in the private sector that a foreigner *stole* from you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our highways are polluted with foreign drivers.  They are terrible at their job and can't even read the English signs on the road.  In the meantime, as long as employers can hire these people for next to nothing, it brings down wages for American drivers which means less will look into that field of work.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the jobs created in the private sector belong to the public, and if so, is that not a socialist argument? Do we not own that which we create?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jobs created in America are for the American people--not the entire world.  Just like jobs created in Italy are for Italian people, or jobs created in Indonesia are for Indonesians.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, if foreigners are sending money back across the southern border, how much of it comes back as foreigners buy goods and services from Americans? I'm sure you must have some facts to figure out a Cost / Benefits Analysis on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know where they are buying their goods from once that money makes it to the other side of the border.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for jobs, wages are rising, new jobs are opening every day and if you want to work, you need to apply for the jobs. Even in YOUR profession there is a pressing need for more people in your industry. That situation took place without a wall. Were you aware of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm very aware of that.  However supply and demand comes into play.  If there is more demand than supply, the price goes up.  If there is more supply than demand, the price goes down.  If you satisfy the demand, the price remains steady.
> 
> Wages are going up because (at least for now) we have more demand than supply.  Left up to people like you, the supply would be satisfied and Americans would not see wage increases.  Then, when it turns around and we have more supply than demand because we let all these people here, wages decrease for Americans an all others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ray, are you dense?  As long as you keep supplying a steady stream of government created drug addicts, you will have cartels. You are the most dishonest man on USM.
> 
> Our drug problem exists by virtue of bad parenting, the government's obsession with creating drug addicts, the medical / mental health professions using drugs as a first option instead of a last option and Big Pharma doling out drugs like candy.
> 
> All you're doing is moving the goal posts and creating new pretexts.  So, let me ask you:  Where do you get your Rights from?
> 
> Why do you *REALLY *want a wall?
> 
> You and I have been over this ground at least three times since I came on this board.  You continue to KNOWINGLY misrepresent the facts.
Click to expand...


As stated, I want a wall because it's a partial solution to several problems addressing our country. 

Opioid products have been around my entire life.  When I was a kid, pot was the big thing and readily available.  The difference is that opioid products were impossible to get.  In fact until this day, I can honestly say I've never seen heroin in my life.  Coke?  Here and there but very few had it. 

Today, opioid products are as common as pot was in my day.  But pot didn't kill 70,000 Americans a year--opioid products do, and that's not even counting the hundreds of thousands saved using new treatments.


----------



## Flopper

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the government is the people.  We elect representatives to carry out our will.  And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me.  It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am struggling to understand your argument.
> 
> We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
> 
> If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law.  In was passed in 1996.

Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:

Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)


Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)


Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)


Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)


Medicaid


Medicare


Social Security


Welfare
Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.

Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:

Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid


Schooling


Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants.  States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.

No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they'll just
> No, they'll just buy a ladder.  We have been building taller and taller border barriers for over 50 years.  Maybe we should look at something different and stop repeating the same mistakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how many ladder crossers do you suppose were successful with the walls we have today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The success of getting over a border barrier depends on how well it's monitored. Barriers don't stop migrants, they only slow them down.  The Southern California border wall had border patrol vehicles running less than 5 mins apart and were very successful.  Around El Paeso they ran about 15 to 20 mins apart and there were a lots of crossings.  What it really amounts to is the more guards you have monitoring the border, the more people you will apprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we learned of the Caravan and where they were heading, our military and border patrol erected make-shift walls to keep them out.  They hurled rocks and bottles at our agents (because that's what nannies and gardeners do) and broke down the wall; not one ladder.
> 
> If they didn't create those temporary barriers, thousands and thousands would have entered this country and little to stop them.  But because they did put those barriers up, they were able to get enough personnel there to stop and arrest those who broke through it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come you suppose those caravans showed up AFTER Obama left office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are not all that knowledgable of our politics.  They do know "however" the role our MSM plays in politics, and expected that to be their free ticket.  Look at how Trump had to cave when the MSM made phony reports how Trump was responsible for the separation of children from the adults (some claim were parents).
> 
> When the Caravan was half-way to the US, it was reported others were forming; into the millions.  After Trump stopped the caravan, those others seemed to have disappeared.  A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.
Click to expand...


Did it dawn on you at any point that the caravans were financed by rich guys like Trump, Soros, and Murdoch?  Are you really that naive that you don't know when they are playing you?


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process.  After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally.   So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't build a wall how do you stop them from coming in?
> Catch and release doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you're willing to wage a race war on behalf of the whites, you will never keep the foreigners out.
Click to expand...

Who wants to wage a race war. Limit immigration to those who'll make our country stronger. Not those who'll suck on Government benefits or work for substandard wages.


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they'll just
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing.  After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck.  The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who don't have $150 will be kept out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they'll just buy a ladder.  We have been building taller and taller border barriers for over 50 years.  Maybe we should look at something different and stop repeating the same mistakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how many ladder crossers do you suppose were successful with the walls we have today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The success of getting over a border barrier depends on how well it's monitored. Barriers don't stop migrants, they only slow them down.  The Southern California border wall had border patrol vehicles running less than 5 mins apart and were very successful.  Around El Paeso they ran about 15 to 20 mins apart and there were a lots of crossings.  What it really amounts to is the more guards you have monitoring the border, the more people you will apprehend.
Click to expand...

No point in apprehending if your just going to release them again, in country.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are foreigners chasing Americans down and forcing them to take drugs OR do Americans of their own free will and volition take the drugs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't use something that isn't there.  Given the fact most of our heroin comes across the southern border, it's only common sense to focus on that border to help stop the drugs.  However a wall is not just for drugs.  A wall is not just for illegals.  A wall is there to help retard the activity of both.
> 
> Blaming the user who got hooked on drugs (because they are available) is like blaming the woman who got raped because she looked too good the way she dressed.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say foreigners are taking "our jobs." How is that? Do you own a job that is in the private sector that a foreigner *stole* from you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our highways are polluted with foreign drivers.  They are terrible at their job and can't even read the English signs on the road.  In the meantime, as long as employers can hire these people for next to nothing, it brings down wages for American drivers which means less will look into that field of work.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the jobs created in the private sector belong to the public, and if so, is that not a socialist argument? Do we not own that which we create?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jobs created in America are for the American people--not the entire world.  Just like jobs created in Italy are for Italian people, or jobs created in Indonesia are for Indonesians.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, if foreigners are sending money back across the southern border, how much of it comes back as foreigners buy goods and services from Americans? I'm sure you must have some facts to figure out a Cost / Benefits Analysis on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know where they are buying their goods from once that money makes it to the other side of the border.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for jobs, wages are rising, new jobs are opening every day and if you want to work, you need to apply for the jobs. Even in YOUR profession there is a pressing need for more people in your industry. That situation took place without a wall. Were you aware of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm very aware of that.  However supply and demand comes into play.  If there is more demand than supply, the price goes up.  If there is more supply than demand, the price goes down.  If you satisfy the demand, the price remains steady.
> 
> Wages are going up because (at least for now) we have more demand than supply.  Left up to people like you, the supply would be satisfied and Americans would not see wage increases.  Then, when it turns around and we have more supply than demand because we let all these people here, wages decrease for Americans an all others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ray, are you dense?  As long as you keep supplying a steady stream of government created drug addicts, you will have cartels. You are the most dishonest man on USM.
> 
> Our drug problem exists by virtue of bad parenting, the government's obsession with creating drug addicts, the medical / mental health professions using drugs as a first option instead of a last option and Big Pharma doling out drugs like candy.
> 
> All you're doing is moving the goal posts and creating new pretexts.  So, let me ask you:  Where do you get your Rights from?
> 
> Why do you *REALLY *want a wall?
> 
> You and I have been over this ground at least three times since I came on this board.  You continue to KNOWINGLY misrepresent the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As stated, I want a wall because it's a partial solution to several problems addressing our country.
> 
> Opioid products have been around my entire life.  When I was a kid, pot was the big thing and readily available.  The difference is that opioid products were impossible to get.  In fact until this day, I can honestly say I've never seen heroin in my life.  Coke?  Here and there but very few had it.
> 
> Today, opioid products are as common as pot was in my day.  But pot didn't kill 70,000 Americans a year--opioid products do, and that's not even counting the hundreds of thousands saved using new treatments.
Click to expand...



So, you're contention is that a wall will keep the government from creating drug addicts.  That's a stretch there buddy.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the Constitution and plain logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you show me what section of the Constitution that says foreigners have no right to live in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you realize that the quoted section YOU cited says, quite unequivocally "as any of the* States* now existing shall think proper to admit?"
> 
> Each individual state can admit who they want to admit within their boundaries.  The federal government is limited:
> 
> "Congress shall have the power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution"
> 
> The feds have no jurisdiction in this issue unless and until the foreigner seeks citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why did the federal courts support DumBama's suit against Arizona?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me what ruling you are in reference to and answer my questions, then I'll read your case citation and explain it to you.
Click to expand...



_*The administration argued the Arizona law, which requires state and local police to investigate the immigration status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being an illegal immigrant, is unconstitutional and would sap law enforcement resources. 

The Republican-controlled Arizona legislature passed the controversial law to try to stem the flood of thousands of illegal immigrants who cross its border from Mexico and to cut down on drug trafficking and other crimes in the area. 

The lawsuit is part of a broader approach by President Barack Obama to deal with the 10.8 million illegal immigrants believed to be in the country, arguing that immigration is the responsibility of the federal government not each state.*_

Obama administration sues Arizona over immigration law | Reuters


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process.  After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally.   So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.
> 
> 
> 
> Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't build a wall how do you stop them from coming in?
> Catch and release doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you're willing to wage a race war on behalf of the whites, you will never keep the foreigners out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who wants to wage a race war. Limit immigration to those who'll make our country stronger. Not those who'll suck on Government benefits or work for substandard wages.
Click to expand...


Check out post #3056 then get back to us with a valid argument.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the Constitution and plain logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you show me what section of the Constitution that says foreigners have no right to live in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you realize that the quoted section YOU cited says, quite unequivocally "as any of the* States* now existing shall think proper to admit?"
> 
> Each individual state can admit who they want to admit within their boundaries.  The federal government is limited:
> 
> "Congress shall have the power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution"
> 
> The feds have no jurisdiction in this issue unless and until the foreigner seeks citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Read all of it.
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1*
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,* but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know me better than that.  If you have something to say, spit it out.  Don't expect me to do your work for you.
Click to expand...



I've said enough to prove you're nothing but a long winded troll and only took 3 short posts.

.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing.  After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck.  The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who don't have $150 will be kept out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me see if you can be the first on this thread:
> 
> How come you want people from south of the border to be kept out?
Click to expand...

Because they'll take jobs for substandard wages, construction, UBER, Taxi, etc and make it hard for Americans to get a living wage. And because they bear anchor babies, collect welfare and will bankrupt our government or force us to get rid of welfare so even Americans who need it don't get it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are foreigners chasing Americans down and forcing them to take drugs OR do Americans of their own free will and volition take the drugs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't use something that isn't there.  Given the fact most of our heroin comes across the southern border, it's only common sense to focus on that border to help stop the drugs.  However a wall is not just for drugs.  A wall is not just for illegals.  A wall is there to help retard the activity of both.
> 
> Blaming the user who got hooked on drugs (because they are available) is like blaming the woman who got raped because she looked too good the way she dressed.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say foreigners are taking "our jobs." How is that? Do you own a job that is in the private sector that a foreigner *stole* from you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our highways are polluted with foreign drivers.  They are terrible at their job and can't even read the English signs on the road.  In the meantime, as long as employers can hire these people for next to nothing, it brings down wages for American drivers which means less will look into that field of work.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the jobs created in the private sector belong to the public, and if so, is that not a socialist argument? Do we not own that which we create?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jobs created in America are for the American people--not the entire world.  Just like jobs created in Italy are for Italian people, or jobs created in Indonesia are for Indonesians.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, if foreigners are sending money back across the southern border, how much of it comes back as foreigners buy goods and services from Americans? I'm sure you must have some facts to figure out a Cost / Benefits Analysis on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know where they are buying their goods from once that money makes it to the other side of the border.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for jobs, wages are rising, new jobs are opening every day and if you want to work, you need to apply for the jobs. Even in YOUR profession there is a pressing need for more people in your industry. That situation took place without a wall. Were you aware of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm very aware of that.  However supply and demand comes into play.  If there is more demand than supply, the price goes up.  If there is more supply than demand, the price goes down.  If you satisfy the demand, the price remains steady.
> 
> Wages are going up because (at least for now) we have more demand than supply.  Left up to people like you, the supply would be satisfied and Americans would not see wage increases.  Then, when it turns around and we have more supply than demand because we let all these people here, wages decrease for Americans an all others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ray, are you dense?  As long as you keep supplying a steady stream of government created drug addicts, you will have cartels. You are the most dishonest man on USM.
> 
> Our drug problem exists by virtue of bad parenting, the government's obsession with creating drug addicts, the medical / mental health professions using drugs as a first option instead of a last option and Big Pharma doling out drugs like candy.
> 
> All you're doing is moving the goal posts and creating new pretexts.  So, let me ask you:  Where do you get your Rights from?
> 
> Why do you *REALLY *want a wall?
> 
> You and I have been over this ground at least three times since I came on this board.  You continue to KNOWINGLY misrepresent the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As stated, I want a wall because it's a partial solution to several problems addressing our country.
> 
> Opioid products have been around my entire life.  When I was a kid, pot was the big thing and readily available.  The difference is that opioid products were impossible to get.  In fact until this day, I can honestly say I've never seen heroin in my life.  Coke?  Here and there but very few had it.
> 
> Today, opioid products are as common as pot was in my day.  But pot didn't kill 70,000 Americans a year--opioid products do, and that's not even counting the hundreds of thousands saved using new treatments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're contention is that a wall will keep the government from creating drug addicts.  That's a stretch there buddy.
Click to expand...


No, my contention is that slowing down the drug availability in the US will help in less addicts becoming addicts in the first place.  The government doesn't create addicts.


----------



## Slyhunter

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process.  After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally.   So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.
> 
> 
> 
> Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't build a wall how do you stop them from coming in?
> Catch and release doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you're willing to wage a race war on behalf of the whites, you will never keep the foreigners out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what we are trying to do now, only legally.  The goal of the Democrat party is to wipe out whites in this country, essentially making whites a minority.  No other group of people would allow or support that from happening except liberal whites because they are not very bright.  A white liberal is like a frog in a pot of water on top of the stove.
Click to expand...

I never use that argument because it doesn't matter what anybody does eventually the so called White race will be watered down via interracial marriages.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how many ladder crossers do you suppose were successful with the walls we have today?
> 
> 
> 
> The success of getting over a border barrier depends on how well it's monitored. Barriers don't stop migrants, they only slow them down.  The Southern California border wall had border patrol vehicles running less than 5 mins apart and were very successful.  Around El Paeso they ran about 15 to 20 mins apart and there were a lots of crossings.  What it really amounts to is the more guards you have monitoring the border, the more people you will apprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we learned of the Caravan and where they were heading, our military and border patrol erected make-shift walls to keep them out.  They hurled rocks and bottles at our agents (because that's what nannies and gardeners do) and broke down the wall; not one ladder.
> 
> If they didn't create those temporary barriers, thousands and thousands would have entered this country and little to stop them.  But because they did put those barriers up, they were able to get enough personnel there to stop and arrest those who broke through it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come you suppose those caravans showed up AFTER Obama left office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are not all that knowledgable of our politics.  They do know "however" the role our MSM plays in politics, and expected that to be their free ticket.  Look at how Trump had to cave when the MSM made phony reports how Trump was responsible for the separation of children from the adults (some claim were parents).
> 
> When the Caravan was half-way to the US, it was reported others were forming; into the millions.  After Trump stopped the caravan, those others seemed to have disappeared.  A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it dawn on you at any point that the caravans were financed by rich guys like Trump, Soros, and Murdoch?  Are you really that naive that you don't know when they are playing you?
Click to expand...


No, they are not financed by Trump or any other groups.  There are several Hispanic-American organizations behind it.  In fact, they have sent their lawyers over the border to help law breakers entering this country by teaching them how to lie on their asylum application to get in.  If you need the names of those organizations, I'll be happy to look them up tomorrow.


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the government is the people.  We elect representatives to carry out our will.  And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me.  It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am struggling to understand your argument.
> 
> We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
> 
> If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law.  In was passed in 1996.
> 
> Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
> 
> Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
> 
> 
> Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
> 
> 
> Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
> 
> 
> Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
> 
> 
> Medicaid
> 
> 
> Medicare
> 
> 
> Social Security
> 
> 
> Welfare
> Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
> 
> Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
> 
> Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
> 
> 
> Schooling
> 
> 
> Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
> In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants.  States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
> 
> No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
Click to expand...

They can have an anchor baby and collect those benefits for their kid, thus bypassing that problem.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are foreigners chasing Americans down and forcing them to take drugs OR do Americans of their own free will and volition take the drugs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't use something that isn't there.  Given the fact most of our heroin comes across the southern border, it's only common sense to focus on that border to help stop the drugs.  However a wall is not just for drugs.  A wall is not just for illegals.  A wall is there to help retard the activity of both.
> 
> Blaming the user who got hooked on drugs (because they are available) is like blaming the woman who got raped because she looked too good the way she dressed.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say foreigners are taking "our jobs." How is that? Do you own a job that is in the private sector that a foreigner *stole* from you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our highways are polluted with foreign drivers.  They are terrible at their job and can't even read the English signs on the road.  In the meantime, as long as employers can hire these people for next to nothing, it brings down wages for American drivers which means less will look into that field of work.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the jobs created in the private sector belong to the public, and if so, is that not a socialist argument? Do we not own that which we create?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jobs created in America are for the American people--not the entire world.  Just like jobs created in Italy are for Italian people, or jobs created in Indonesia are for Indonesians.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, if foreigners are sending money back across the southern border, how much of it comes back as foreigners buy goods and services from Americans? I'm sure you must have some facts to figure out a Cost / Benefits Analysis on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know where they are buying their goods from once that money makes it to the other side of the border.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for jobs, wages are rising, new jobs are opening every day and if you want to work, you need to apply for the jobs. Even in YOUR profession there is a pressing need for more people in your industry. That situation took place without a wall. Were you aware of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm very aware of that.  However supply and demand comes into play.  If there is more demand than supply, the price goes up.  If there is more supply than demand, the price goes down.  If you satisfy the demand, the price remains steady.
> 
> Wages are going up because (at least for now) we have more demand than supply.  Left up to people like you, the supply would be satisfied and Americans would not see wage increases.  Then, when it turns around and we have more supply than demand because we let all these people here, wages decrease for Americans an all others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ray, are you dense?  As long as you keep supplying a steady stream of government created drug addicts, you will have cartels. You are the most dishonest man on USM.
> 
> Our drug problem exists by virtue of bad parenting, the government's obsession with creating drug addicts, the medical / mental health professions using drugs as a first option instead of a last option and Big Pharma doling out drugs like candy.
> 
> All you're doing is moving the goal posts and creating new pretexts.  So, let me ask you:  Where do you get your Rights from?
> 
> Why do you *REALLY *want a wall?
> 
> You and I have been over this ground at least three times since I came on this board.  You continue to KNOWINGLY misrepresent the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As stated, I want a wall because it's a partial solution to several problems addressing our country.
> 
> Opioid products have been around my entire life.  When I was a kid, pot was the big thing and readily available.  The difference is that opioid products were impossible to get.  In fact until this day, I can honestly say I've never seen heroin in my life.  Coke?  Here and there but very few had it.
> 
> Today, opioid products are as common as pot was in my day.  But pot didn't kill 70,000 Americans a year--opioid products do, and that's not even counting the hundreds of thousands saved using new treatments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're contention is that a wall will keep the government from creating drug addicts.  That's a stretch there buddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my contention is that slowing down the drug availability in the US will help in less addicts becoming addicts in the first place.  The government doesn't create addicts.
Click to expand...


As someone who works in social services, I've explained this to you and you know damn well you're lying.

What in the Hell do you think makes Americans take so many drugs that they consume 80 percent of the world's opioid supply?  Most of those drugs are legally dispensed.  If you want a discussion, you and I need to covering new ground.  It's getting tiresome to come here every day and rehash the same stuff.  You need some new material.

Do you have ANY facts?


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't build a wall how do you stop them from coming in?
> Catch and release doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you're willing to wage a race war on behalf of the whites, you will never keep the foreigners out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who wants to wage a race war. Limit immigration to those who'll make our country stronger. Not those who'll suck on Government benefits or work for substandard wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check out post #3056 then get back to us with a valid argument.
Click to expand...

anchor babies collect federal benefits and give that money to their illegal immigrant parent.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the government is the people.  We elect representatives to carry out our will.  And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me.  It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am struggling to understand your argument.
> 
> We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
> 
> If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law.  In was passed in 1996.
> 
> Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
> 
> Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
> 
> 
> Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
> 
> 
> Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
> 
> 
> Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
> 
> 
> Medicaid
> 
> 
> Medicare
> 
> 
> Social Security
> 
> 
> Welfare
> Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
> 
> Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
> 
> Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
> 
> 
> Schooling
> 
> 
> Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
> In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants.  States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
> 
> No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can have an anchor baby and collect those benefits for their kid, thus bypassing that problem.
Click to expand...


Did you know there is no such thing as an anchor baby and the U.S. only gives benefits to the American born "citizen?"  BTW, you know who passed the law that made those people citizens? 

Hint: It was NOT the Democrats AND they did it illegally.


----------



## dblack

Slyhunter said:


> anchor babies collect federal benefits and give that money to their illegal immigrant parent.



So let's get rid of birthright citizenship. I see no justification for it. It would beat the hell out of a big dumb wall.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Slyhunter said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't build a wall how do you stop them from coming in?
> Catch and release doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you're willing to wage a race war on behalf of the whites, you will never keep the foreigners out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what we are trying to do now, only legally.  The goal of the Democrat party is to wipe out whites in this country, essentially making whites a minority.  No other group of people would allow or support that from happening except liberal whites because they are not very bright.  A white liberal is like a frog in a pot of water on top of the stove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never use that argument because it doesn't matter what anybody does eventually the so called White race will be watered down via interracial marriages.
Click to expand...


That may be, but the point is that every other group outside of whites vote heavily Democrat.  Whites are in the way, so in effort to make the US a one-party government, they need to get rid of us for the first time in US history.  

Once they accomplish that (unless we fight hard enough) our country will quickly become Socialist, and then Communist.  What we are looking at today with this border issue is the end of the Great Experiment.  That's why it's a fight worth fighting.  

So the Democrat plot is to get as many of these foreigners into the country legal or not, and grant blanket citizenship once they get power of the federal government.  Citizenship comes with voting rights, and the Republican party will be history after that point.  

While we are trying to save this country, the anti-wall people are trying to destroy it forever.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The success of getting over a border barrier depends on how well it's monitored. Barriers don't stop migrants, they only slow them down.  The Southern California border wall had border patrol vehicles running less than 5 mins apart and were very successful.  Around El Paeso they ran about 15 to 20 mins apart and there were a lots of crossings.  What it really amounts to is the more guards you have monitoring the border, the more people you will apprehend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we learned of the Caravan and where they were heading, our military and border patrol erected make-shift walls to keep them out.  They hurled rocks and bottles at our agents (because that's what nannies and gardeners do) and broke down the wall; not one ladder.
> 
> If they didn't create those temporary barriers, thousands and thousands would have entered this country and little to stop them.  But because they did put those barriers up, they were able to get enough personnel there to stop and arrest those who broke through it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come you suppose those caravans showed up AFTER Obama left office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are not all that knowledgable of our politics.  They do know "however" the role our MSM plays in politics, and expected that to be their free ticket.  Look at how Trump had to cave when the MSM made phony reports how Trump was responsible for the separation of children from the adults (some claim were parents).
> 
> When the Caravan was half-way to the US, it was reported others were forming; into the millions.  After Trump stopped the caravan, those others seemed to have disappeared.  A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it dawn on you at any point that the caravans were financed by rich guys like Trump, Soros, and Murdoch?  Are you really that naive that you don't know when they are playing you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not financed by Trump or any other groups.  There are several Hispanic-American organizations behind it.  In fact, they have sent their lawyers over the border to help law breakers entering this country by teaching them how to lie on their asylum application to get in.  If you need the names of those organizations, I'll be happy to look them up tomorrow.
Click to expand...


And I will be happy to draw you a picture of how big money power brokers are playing you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't build a wall how do you stop them from coming in?
> Catch and release doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you're willing to wage a race war on behalf of the whites, you will never keep the foreigners out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who wants to wage a race war. Limit immigration to those who'll make our country stronger. Not those who'll suck on Government benefits or work for substandard wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check out post #3056 then get back to us with a valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anchor babies collect federal benefits and give that money to their illegal immigrant parent.
Click to expand...


The money is just enough for the child born in the United States.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we learned of the Caravan and where they were heading, our military and border patrol erected make-shift walls to keep them out.  They hurled rocks and bottles at our agents (because that's what nannies and gardeners do) and broke down the wall; not one ladder.
> 
> If they didn't create those temporary barriers, thousands and thousands would have entered this country and little to stop them.  But because they did put those barriers up, they were able to get enough personnel there to stop and arrest those who broke through it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How come you suppose those caravans showed up AFTER Obama left office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are not all that knowledgable of our politics.  They do know "however" the role our MSM plays in politics, and expected that to be their free ticket.  Look at how Trump had to cave when the MSM made phony reports how Trump was responsible for the separation of children from the adults (some claim were parents).
> 
> When the Caravan was half-way to the US, it was reported others were forming; into the millions.  After Trump stopped the caravan, those others seemed to have disappeared.  A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it dawn on you at any point that the caravans were financed by rich guys like Trump, Soros, and Murdoch?  Are you really that naive that you don't know when they are playing you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not financed by Trump or any other groups.  There are several Hispanic-American organizations behind it.  In fact, they have sent their lawyers over the border to help law breakers entering this country by teaching them how to lie on their asylum application to get in.  If you need the names of those organizations, I'll be happy to look them up tomorrow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I will be happy to draw you a picture of how big money power brokers are playing you.
Click to expand...


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the government is the people.  We elect representatives to carry out our will.  And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me.  It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am struggling to understand your argument.
> 
> We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
> 
> If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law.  In was passed in 1996.
> 
> Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
> 
> Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
> 
> 
> Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
> 
> 
> Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
> 
> 
> Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
> 
> 
> Medicaid
> 
> 
> Medicare
> 
> 
> Social Security
> 
> 
> Welfare
> Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
> 
> Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
> 
> Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
> 
> 
> Schooling
> 
> 
> Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
> In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants.  States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
> 
> No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can have an anchor baby and collect those benefits for their kid, thus bypassing that problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you know there is no such thing as an anchor baby and the U.S. only gives benefits to the American born "citizen?"  BTW, you know who passed the law that made those people citizens?
> 
> Hint: It was NOT the Democrats AND they did it illegally.
Click to expand...

Anchor Baby = a child born to illegals who becomes American simply because of where he was born.
You are wrong.
That child collects government benefits. The illegal parent lives on those benefits.


----------



## Slyhunter

dblack said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> anchor babies collect federal benefits and give that money to their illegal immigrant parent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let's get rid of birthright citizenship. I see no justification for it. It would beat the hell out of a big dumb wall.
Click to expand...

requires 2/3 majority of both houses in congress to change the 17th amendment. Or 2/3 of the states doing some legislature redo of the entire constitution.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't build a wall how do you stop them from coming in?
> Catch and release doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you're willing to wage a race war on behalf of the whites, you will never keep the foreigners out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what we are trying to do now, only legally.  The goal of the Democrat party is to wipe out whites in this country, essentially making whites a minority.  No other group of people would allow or support that from happening except liberal whites because they are not very bright.  A white liberal is like a frog in a pot of water on top of the stove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never use that argument because it doesn't matter what anybody does eventually the so called White race will be watered down via interracial marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may be, but the point is that every other group outside of whites vote heavily Democrat.  Whites are in the way, so in effort to make the US a one-party government, they need to get rid of us for the first time in US history.
> 
> Once they accomplish that (unless we fight hard enough) our country will quickly become Socialist, and then Communist.  What we are looking at today with this border issue is the end of the Great Experiment.  That's why it's a fight worth fighting.
> 
> So the Democrat plot is to get as many of these foreigners into the country legal or not, and grant blanket citizenship once they get power of the federal government.  Citizenship comes with voting rights, and the Republican party will be history after that point.
> 
> While we are trying to save this country, the anti-wall people are trying to destroy it forever.
Click to expand...


Again, you are *consistently* wrong.  You've argued in favor of socialism, communism and have dodged my questions.  You really should answer my questions and see if we can't get on the same page.  This one you really screwed the pooch on.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum.  It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States.  If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process.  After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally.   So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.
Click to expand...

Dblack is talking about letting everyone into the country.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't build a wall how do you stop them from coming in?
> Catch and release doesn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you're willing to wage a race war on behalf of the whites, you will never keep the foreigners out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who wants to wage a race war. Limit immigration to those who'll make our country stronger. Not those who'll suck on Government benefits or work for substandard wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check out post #3056 then get back to us with a valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anchor babies collect federal benefits and give that money to their illegal immigrant parent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The money is just enough for the child born in the United States.
Click to expand...

No, they live on it. Been doing it for decades. When one turns 18 they have another or their female child has one and continues the cycle. They pack a lot of people inside of a single house to do it but they do it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the government is the people.  We elect representatives to carry out our will.  And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me.  It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
> 
> And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am struggling to understand your argument.
> 
> We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
> 
> If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law.  In was passed in 1996.
> 
> Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
> 
> Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
> 
> 
> Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
> 
> 
> Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
> 
> 
> Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
> 
> 
> Medicaid
> 
> 
> Medicare
> 
> 
> Social Security
> 
> 
> Welfare
> Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
> 
> Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
> 
> Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
> 
> 
> Schooling
> 
> 
> Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
> In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants.  States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
> 
> No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can have an anchor baby and collect those benefits for their kid, thus bypassing that problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you know there is no such thing as an anchor baby and the U.S. only gives benefits to the American born "citizen?"  BTW, you know who passed the law that made those people citizens?
> 
> Hint: It was NOT the Democrats AND they did it illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anchor Baby = a child born to illegals who becomes American simply because of where he was born.
> You are wrong.
> That child collects government benefits. The illegal parent lives on those benefits.
Click to expand...


No offense, but you are wasting our time because you are not informed enough to give a valid opinion.

People called those kids anchor babies because the right USED TO allege that the baby "anchored" the parents into the U.S. and prevented them from being deported... then they got exposed as it was a lie.

The money is just enough for the child born in the United States.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you show me what section of the Constitution that says foreigners have no right to live in the United States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you realize that the quoted section YOU cited says, quite unequivocally "as any of the* States* now existing shall think proper to admit?"
> 
> Each individual state can admit who they want to admit within their boundaries.  The federal government is limited:
> 
> "Congress shall have the power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution"
> 
> The feds have no jurisdiction in this issue unless and until the foreigner seeks citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Read all of it.
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1*
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,* but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know me better than that.  If you have something to say, spit it out.  Don't expect me to do your work for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've said enough to prove you're nothing but a long winded troll and only took 3 short posts.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


As usual, you like to play mind games, prove nothing and make accusations that sound more like projection.  I don't speak cryptic and if you see a troll, it's the one you see in your mirror.

Do you have anything relevant to say about this subject OR are you just trying to prove that nobody can out - troll you?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't use something that isn't there.  Given the fact most of our heroin comes across the southern border, it's only common sense to focus on that border to help stop the drugs.  However a wall is not just for drugs.  A wall is not just for illegals.  A wall is there to help retard the activity of both.
> 
> Blaming the user who got hooked on drugs (because they are available) is like blaming the woman who got raped because she looked too good the way she dressed.
> 
> Our highways are polluted with foreign drivers.  They are terrible at their job and can't even read the English signs on the road.  In the meantime, as long as employers can hire these people for next to nothing, it brings down wages for American drivers which means less will look into that field of work.
> 
> Jobs created in America are for the American people--not the entire world.  Just like jobs created in Italy are for Italian people, or jobs created in Indonesia are for Indonesians.
> 
> You don't know where they are buying their goods from once that money makes it to the other side of the border.
> 
> I'm very aware of that.  However supply and demand comes into play.  If there is more demand than supply, the price goes up.  If there is more supply than demand, the price goes down.  If you satisfy the demand, the price remains steady.
> 
> Wages are going up because (at least for now) we have more demand than supply.  Left up to people like you, the supply would be satisfied and Americans would not see wage increases.  Then, when it turns around and we have more supply than demand because we let all these people here, wages decrease for Americans an all others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray, are you dense?  As long as you keep supplying a steady stream of government created drug addicts, you will have cartels. You are the most dishonest man on USM.
> 
> Our drug problem exists by virtue of bad parenting, the government's obsession with creating drug addicts, the medical / mental health professions using drugs as a first option instead of a last option and Big Pharma doling out drugs like candy.
> 
> All you're doing is moving the goal posts and creating new pretexts.  So, let me ask you:  Where do you get your Rights from?
> 
> Why do you *REALLY *want a wall?
> 
> You and I have been over this ground at least three times since I came on this board.  You continue to KNOWINGLY misrepresent the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As stated, I want a wall because it's a partial solution to several problems addressing our country.
> 
> Opioid products have been around my entire life.  When I was a kid, pot was the big thing and readily available.  The difference is that opioid products were impossible to get.  In fact until this day, I can honestly say I've never seen heroin in my life.  Coke?  Here and there but very few had it.
> 
> Today, opioid products are as common as pot was in my day.  But pot didn't kill 70,000 Americans a year--opioid products do, and that's not even counting the hundreds of thousands saved using new treatments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're contention is that a wall will keep the government from creating drug addicts.  That's a stretch there buddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my contention is that slowing down the drug availability in the US will help in less addicts becoming addicts in the first place.  The government doesn't create addicts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As someone who works in social services, I've explained this to you and you know damn well you're lying.
> 
> What in the Hell do you think makes Americans take so many drugs that they consume 80 percent of the world's opioid supply?  Most of those drugs are legally dispensed.  If you want a discussion, you and I need to covering new ground.  It's getting tiresome to come here every day and rehash the same stuff.  You need some new material.
> 
> Do you have ANY facts?
Click to expand...


I have used opioid products since a child as many other Americans.  Very little addiction problems.  Why?  Because even if you got addicted, there were few if any places to continue that addiction. 

If you had a problem getting off the drug, you addressed your practitioner and they provided a plan to wean you off.  Today?  Just ask the guy two doors down to get you a fix.  How is that possible?  By the availability of the narcotics.  

I've known several people who lost their life to these drugs; one of them a family member.  And in every case, if the drugs were not readily available, they would likely be alive today.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you're willing to wage a race war on behalf of the whites, you will never keep the foreigners out.
> 
> 
> 
> Who wants to wage a race war. Limit immigration to those who'll make our country stronger. Not those who'll suck on Government benefits or work for substandard wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check out post #3056 then get back to us with a valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anchor babies collect federal benefits and give that money to their illegal immigrant parent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The money is just enough for the child born in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they live on it. Been doing it for decades. When one turns 18 they have another or their female child has one and continues the cycle. They pack a lot of people inside of a single house to do it but they do it.
Click to expand...


So you work in social services?


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am struggling to understand your argument.
> 
> We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
> 
> If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law.  In was passed in 1996.
> 
> Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
> 
> Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
> 
> 
> Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
> 
> 
> Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
> 
> 
> Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
> 
> 
> Medicaid
> 
> 
> Medicare
> 
> 
> Social Security
> 
> 
> Welfare
> Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
> 
> Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
> 
> Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
> 
> 
> Schooling
> 
> 
> Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
> In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants.  States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
> 
> No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can have an anchor baby and collect those benefits for their kid, thus bypassing that problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you know there is no such thing as an anchor baby and the U.S. only gives benefits to the American born "citizen?"  BTW, you know who passed the law that made those people citizens?
> 
> Hint: It was NOT the Democrats AND they did it illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anchor Baby = a child born to illegals who becomes American simply because of where he was born.
> You are wrong.
> That child collects government benefits. The illegal parent lives on those benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No offense, but you are wasting our time because you are not informed enough to give a valid opinion.
> 
> People called those kids anchor babies because the right USED TO allege that the baby "anchored" the parents into the U.S. and prevented them from being deported... then they got exposed as it was a lie.
> 
> The money is just enough for the child born in the United States.
Click to expand...

The Citizenship And Immigration Problems Of Anchor Babies And Surrogacy


> Roughly one out of every 12 newborns in the United States can be classified as a so-called ‘anchor baby.’ Pew research shows that some 295,000 children were born to undocumented immigrants in 2013, while the number of pregnant 'birth tourists' who come here legally to take advantage of the fact that all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States was recently estimated at 36,000 a year. That right to citizenship is guaranteed by the 14thAmendment. There is a problem here. Who is paying for the costs involved?


ok it's the 14th amendment not the 17th, oopsie.


> In the U.S., as I pointed out previously, “birth tourism” is a flourishing business. Pregnant women fly here, stay at special hotels and pay sometimes extraordinarily high costs for “concierge services” designed to facilitate the birth of their children. The benefit to the family is that the child is thereby eligible to claim U.S. social welfare, be educated at much lower cost and obtain certain medical benefits for life here.
> 
> In summary, anchor babies, birth tourism and surrogacy are pushing the envelope of what are the rights of citizenship in North America. People are rightfully becoming more concerned about those who take advantage of “free and easy” citizenship, so their children can benefit from social, educational and medical programs.


----------



## toobfreak

Flopper said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just don't turn our nation into a prison because you're frightened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not afraid of anything.  YOU are the one scared shitless about a simple wall.  There has been a wall or fence down there in parts for decades but only NOW does it create a prison for Me by protecting me from illegals getting in???  How do you proffer such GARBAGE with a straight face???  You've lost all credibility here.
> 
> If I put a fence and a gate around my property, it doesn't make ME a prisoner, boob!  I can come and go as I please and I can leave this country any time I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The disagreement in Washington is not whether to secure the border or not but the most efficient and economically way to deal with illegal immigration.
> 
> Trump sees a great beautiful wall that will stop illegal immigration.  What democrats see is a 212 mile 4 billion dollar wall that's 6 feet hiring than existing reinforced fencing that will most probably not even be complete during Trump's term in office.  That will leave the border barriers in 1800 miles of border the same as they are now.
> 
> The real problems in immigration such as immigration law, illegal entry through ports of entry, 10 million illegal immigrants living in the country, millions overstaying visas, a 300,000 case backlog in immigration court, and an E-Verify system that's uselessly to most employers all untouched.
Click to expand...



The real problem is that if the fed simply collected the $5,000 penalty due it from the 10.5 million illegals here for each illegally entering the country, they'd have their 53 billion dollars from Mexico to not only build the wall coast to coast 60 feet high and 40 feet underground, but to maintain it for a thousand years.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray, are you dense?  As long as you keep supplying a steady stream of government created drug addicts, you will have cartels. You are the most dishonest man on USM.
> 
> Our drug problem exists by virtue of bad parenting, the government's obsession with creating drug addicts, the medical / mental health professions using drugs as a first option instead of a last option and Big Pharma doling out drugs like candy.
> 
> All you're doing is moving the goal posts and creating new pretexts.  So, let me ask you:  Where do you get your Rights from?
> 
> Why do you *REALLY *want a wall?
> 
> You and I have been over this ground at least three times since I came on this board.  You continue to KNOWINGLY misrepresent the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As stated, I want a wall because it's a partial solution to several problems addressing our country.
> 
> Opioid products have been around my entire life.  When I was a kid, pot was the big thing and readily available.  The difference is that opioid products were impossible to get.  In fact until this day, I can honestly say I've never seen heroin in my life.  Coke?  Here and there but very few had it.
> 
> Today, opioid products are as common as pot was in my day.  But pot didn't kill 70,000 Americans a year--opioid products do, and that's not even counting the hundreds of thousands saved using new treatments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're contention is that a wall will keep the government from creating drug addicts.  That's a stretch there buddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my contention is that slowing down the drug availability in the US will help in less addicts becoming addicts in the first place.  The government doesn't create addicts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As someone who works in social services, I've explained this to you and you know damn well you're lying.
> 
> What in the Hell do you think makes Americans take so many drugs that they consume 80 percent of the world's opioid supply?  Most of those drugs are legally dispensed.  If you want a discussion, you and I need to covering new ground.  It's getting tiresome to come here every day and rehash the same stuff.  You need some new material.
> 
> Do you have ANY facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have used opioid products since a child as many other Americans.  Very little addiction problems.  Why?  Because even if you got addicted, there were few if any places to continue that addiction.
> 
> If you had a problem getting off the drug, you addressed your practitioner and they provided a plan to wean you off.  Today?  Just ask the guy two doors down to get you a fix.  How is that possible?  By the availability of the narcotics.
> 
> I've known several people who lost their life to these drugs; one of them a family member.  And in every case, if the drugs were not readily available, they would likely be alive today.
Click to expand...


People get on drugs at an early age.  I'm going to bed, Ray.  I'll repeat this for you tomorrow.  You know better.


----------



## Butch_Coolidge

Timmy said:


> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .



Keep illegals from coming in without proper permission. We don’t need the rest. That’s better use of money. Less crime, less money spent to support non tax payers. And libs piss away more money for foreign aid, than is spent on legitimate tax paying citizens. The libs are just trying to block Don from keeping campaigning promises that will benefit our citizens and economy. They will give everything away for free, and raise taxes to pay for it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The disagreement in Washington is not whether to secure the border or not but the most efficient and economically way to deal with illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you really believe that, I have a bridge for sale if interested.
> 
> The disagreement is Democrats don't want any barrier that works the best and can't be removed.
Click to expand...

If democrats welcomed illegal immigration or didn't want a barrier against, why would democrats support the 2006 Border Fence Act which authorized 700 hundred miles of reinforced fences and why would democrats in congress support a bill that doubled the size of the border patrol and why would Bill Clinton sign a law that denies federal funds to undocumented immigrants and why would Obama, remove 2.5 million illegal immigrants.  I think your claims are based on supposition, not facts.


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The disagreement in Washington is not whether to secure the border or not but the most efficient and economically way to deal with illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you really believe that, I have a bridge for sale if interested.
> 
> The disagreement is Democrats don't want any barrier that works the best and can't be removed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that was case, why would democrats support the 2006 Border Fence Act which authorized 700 hundred miles of reinforced fences and why would democrats in congress support a bill that doubled the size of the border patrol and why would Bill Clinton sign a law that denies federal funds to undocumented immigrants and why would Obama, remove 2.5 million illegal immigrants.  I think your claim is based on supposition, not facts.
Click to expand...

They were for it before they were against it.
Their minds were changed  by those who feed their coffers.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the government is the people.  We elect representatives to carry out our will.  And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me.  It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am struggling to understand your argument.
> 
> We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
> 
> If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law.  In was passed in 1996.
> 
> Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
> 
> Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
> 
> 
> Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
> 
> 
> Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
> 
> 
> Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
> 
> 
> Medicaid
> 
> 
> Medicare
> 
> 
> Social Security
> 
> 
> Welfare
> Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
> 
> Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
> 
> Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
> 
> 
> Schooling
> 
> 
> Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
> In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants.  States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
> 
> No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
Click to expand...



They're not forbidden for their anchor babies and yes the government reimburses hospitals about 4 billion a year to treat illegal aliens. And what do you think it costs the country for jails, prisons, schooling, property damage in auto accidents, courts (State, local and federal). Then you have property theft, identity theft, murder, kidnapping, assault, rape and various other crimes, none are free to their victims. And the lists go on and on, 100 billion a year is a conservative estimate.

Oh I forgot border and interior law enforcement to round those suckers up, then it costs almost 12,000 each to deport them.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how many ladder crossers do you suppose were successful with the walls we have today?
> 
> 
> 
> The success of getting over a border barrier depends on how well it's monitored. Barriers don't stop migrants, they only slow them down.  The Southern California border wall had border patrol vehicles running less than 5 mins apart and were very successful.  Around El Paeso they ran about 15 to 20 mins apart and there were a lots of crossings.  What it really amounts to is the more guards you have monitoring the border, the more people you will apprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we learned of the Caravan and where they were heading, our military and border patrol erected make-shift walls to keep them out.  They hurled rocks and bottles at our agents (because that's what nannies and gardeners do) and broke down the wall; not one ladder.
> 
> If they didn't create those temporary barriers, thousands and thousands would have entered this country and little to stop them.  But because they did put those barriers up, they were able to get enough personnel there to stop and arrest those who broke through it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come you suppose those caravans showed up AFTER Obama left office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are not all that knowledgable of our politics.  They do know "however" the role our MSM plays in politics, and expected that to be their free ticket.  Look at how Trump had to cave when the MSM made phony reports how Trump was responsible for the separation of children from the adults (some claim were parents).
> 
> When the Caravan was half-way to the US, it was reported others were forming; into the millions.  After Trump stopped the caravan, those others seemed to have disappeared.  A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it dawn on you at any point that the caravans were financed by rich guys like Trump, Soros, and Murdoch?  Are you really that naive that you don't know when they are playing you?
Click to expand...



Soros maybe, it's the Cloward and Piven strategy, designed to collapse the system and the commies in congress are plying right into their hands.

.


----------



## dblack

Slyhunter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> anchor babies collect federal benefits and give that money to their illegal immigrant parent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let's get rid of birthright citizenship. I see no justification for it. It would beat the hell out of a big dumb wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> requires 2/3 majority of both houses in congress to change the 17th amendment. Or 2/3 of the states doing some legislature redo of the entire constitution.
Click to expand...


So? At least then we'd have real consensus, and not just some slim partisan majority that will be reversed with the next election.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the government is the people.  We elect representatives to carry out our will.  And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me.  It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am struggling to understand your argument.
> 
> We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
> 
> If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law.  In was passed in 1996.
> 
> Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
> 
> Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
> 
> 
> Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
> 
> 
> Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
> 
> 
> Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
> 
> 
> Medicaid
> 
> 
> Medicare
> 
> 
> Social Security
> 
> 
> Welfare
> Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
> 
> Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
> 
> Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
> 
> 
> Schooling
> 
> 
> Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
> In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants.  States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
> 
> No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can have an anchor baby and collect those benefits for their kid, thus bypassing that problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you know there is no such thing as an anchor baby and the U.S. only gives benefits to the American born "citizen?"  BTW, you know who passed the law that made those people citizens?
> 
> Hint: It was NOT the Democrats AND they did it illegally.
Click to expand...



Wrong again, it was the courts that bastardized the 14th.

.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What *IS*
> 
> "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."  _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities
> 
> Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process.  After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally.   So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dblack is talking about letting everyone into the country.
Click to expand...

No he's not. He's talking about letting everyone in unless there's a reason to keep them out - a reason besides the irrational fears of rednecks.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that the quoted section YOU cited says, quite unequivocally "as any of the* States* now existing shall think proper to admit?"
> 
> Each individual state can admit who they want to admit within their boundaries.  The federal government is limited:
> 
> "Congress shall have the power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution"
> 
> The feds have no jurisdiction in this issue unless and until the foreigner seeks citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Read all of it.
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1*
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,* but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know me better than that.  If you have something to say, spit it out.  Don't expect me to do your work for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've said enough to prove you're nothing but a long winded troll and only took 3 short posts.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you like to play mind games, prove nothing and make accusations that sound more like projection.  I don't speak cryptic and if you see a troll, it's the one you see in your mirror.
> 
> Do you have anything relevant to say about this subject OR are you just trying to prove that nobody can out - troll you?
Click to expand...



Maybe you should have an adult explain my responses to your ridiculous rants. A constitutional amendment to give congress the power over immigration, indeed. ROFLMFAO

.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process.  After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally.   So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dblack is talking about letting everyone into the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No he's not. He's talking about letting everyone in unless there's a reason to keep them out - a reason besides the irrational fears of rednecks.
Click to expand...

Of course, your definition of "irrational fear" means "sensible objection."  You have further declined to explain why we have any obligation to let these aspiring immigrants into the country.  Your premise that they have a right to be here is clearly false.  Until you do then simply preferring to keep them out is ample justification.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> Of course, your definition of "irrational fear" means "sensible objection."  You have further declined to explain why we have any obligation to let these aspiring immigrants into the country.



I've explained that to you several times in this thread alone. Unfortunately, you're too stupid and ignorant to comprehend.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, your definition of "irrational fear" means "sensible objection."  You have further declined to explain why we have any obligation to let these aspiring immigrants into the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained that to you several times in this thread alone. Unfortunately, you're too stupid and ignorant to comprehend.
Click to expand...

No you haven't.  You've simply assumed it.


----------



## Butch_Coolidge

dblack said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing.  After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck.  The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who don't have $150 will be kept out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me see if you can be the first on this thread:
> 
> How come you want people from south of the border to be kept out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they don't have $150?
Click to expand...


They sometimes also are put into slavery by people who drive them over the border, are beaten, raped, and made to carry drugs by swallowing them or having them surgically implanted in their bodies. Their children are also abused. But many don’t care about children, as clearly demonstrated by illegals throwing rocks at border enforcement without regard for children, and using them as human shields. Then they cross wherever they can, and don’t know where they are going to stay, work, live, eat, etc. In other words, they are homeless. Obama had tons of them in camps that were not exactly nice accommodations. In other words, jail. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Slyhunter

dblack said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> anchor babies collect federal benefits and give that money to their illegal immigrant parent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let's get rid of birthright citizenship. I see no justification for it. It would beat the hell out of a big dumb wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> requires 2/3 majority of both houses in congress to change the 17th amendment. Or 2/3 of the states doing some legislature redo of the entire constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? At least then we'd have real consensus, and not just some slim partisan majority that will be reversed with the next election.
Click to expand...

You're not going to get 2/3'ds consensus.


----------



## Slyhunter

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.
> 
> Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process.  After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally.   So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people talking about letting everyone into the country are conservatives that don't want anyone coming in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dblack is talking about letting everyone into the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No he's not. He's talking about letting everyone in unless there's a reason to keep them out - a reason besides the irrational fears of rednecks.
Click to expand...

Easily explained why we need to not open the floodgates and let them all in.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The disagreement in Washington is not whether to secure the border or not but the most efficient and economically way to deal with illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you really believe that, I have a bridge for sale if interested.
> 
> The disagreement is Democrats don't want any barrier that works the best and can't be removed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If democrats welcomed illegal immigration or didn't want a barrier against, why would democrats support the 2006 Border Fence Act which authorized 700 hundred miles of reinforced fences and why would democrats in congress support a bill that doubled the size of the border patrol and why would Bill Clinton sign a law that denies federal funds to undocumented immigrants and why would Obama, remove 2.5 million illegal immigrants.  I think your claims are based on supposition, not facts.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah? 

Then where is that 700 miles of border fence?

Why are they fighting so hard to keep their sanctuary cities and now states? 

Why did they stop Kate's Law in the Senate when Democrats had leadership? 

Why do they provide illegals with drivers licenses in their states and allow their kids to attend school? 

LA Times

Court Deportations Drop 43 Percent in Past Five Years

Report: 42 percent of new Medicaid signups are immigrants, their children

The Democrats can't say they are for illegals, so they put on this dog and pony show for the sheep that can't see beyond their BS.


----------



## sparky

more evidence a_ penny _of legislation would amount to a _dollar _of wall Ray......~S~


----------



## Slyhunter

The Dems say "experts" say the wall won't work. They need to name these so called experts or admit they're lying. Border Patrol, the actual experts on the border, say they want and need the wall to slow down illegals crossing the border.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Slyhunter said:


> The Dems say "experts" say the wall won't work. They need to name these so called experts or admit they're lying. Border Patrol, the actual experts on the border, say they want and need the wall to slow down illegals crossing the border.



When Trump addressed Piglosi and Shoemaker, he gave the stats of how successful our walls are working here and overseas.  Neither Piglosi or Shoemaker ever challenged his facts because he got his stats from the Border Patrol.  

The way I see it, if we had another 911 or worse and it was learned the terrorists came in from that southern border, Democrats would still insist we don't need a wall.  Democrats never cared for our people.  They only care about what advances their agenda like my signature states.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Butch_Coolidge said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep illegals from coming in without proper permission. We don’t need the rest. That’s better use of money. Less crime, less money spent to support non tax payers. And libs piss away more money for foreign aid, than is spent on legitimate tax paying citizens. The libs are just trying to block Don from keeping campaigning promises that will benefit our citizens and economy. They will give everything away for free, and raise taxes to pay for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Facts to substantiate this?  

You are calling people "illegals" before they come here.  So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the government is the people.  We elect representatives to carry out our will.  And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me.  It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am struggling to understand your argument.
> 
> We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
> 
> If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law.  In was passed in 1996.
> 
> Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
> 
> Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
> 
> 
> Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
> 
> 
> Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
> 
> 
> Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
> 
> 
> Medicaid
> 
> 
> Medicare
> 
> 
> Social Security
> 
> 
> Welfare
> Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
> 
> Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
> 
> Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
> 
> 
> Schooling
> 
> 
> Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
> In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants.  States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
> 
> No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They're not forbidden for their anchor babies and yes the government reimburses hospitals about 4 billion a year to treat illegal aliens. And what do you think it costs the country for jails, prisons, schooling, property damage in auto accidents, courts (State, local and federal). Then you have property theft, identity theft, murder, kidnapping, assault, rape and various other crimes, none are free to their victims. And the lists go on and on, 100 billion a year is a conservative estimate.
> 
> Oh I forgot border and interior law enforcement to round those suckers up, then it costs almost 12,000 each to deport them.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



The first time I ever heard the allegation that the children of undocumented parents "cost" taxpayers, I went to the hospital and spoke to a woman quoted in the article used to prove the allegation.

The lady I spoke to was Paula Martin. Remember, I spoke to her in person, face to face.  When presented with the article, she told me that the taxpayers do NOT reimburse the hospital for any INDIGENT patient.  When those who hate the foreigners revised the story, they lied again.  Instead of admitting this, the next time the right commented on it, they said:

"The Gwinnett (GA.) Hospital System expects more illegal immigrants will present themselves for urgent care this year and has established a $34 million reserve to cover its outlay."

The Social Contract - Illegal Aliens - The Health Cost Dimension

The $34 million dollar set aside is for INDIGENT patients, not undocumented foreigners.  Do undocumented foreigners represent some of those?  Yes, they do.  But, there are people like the homeless and the downright lazy who avail themselves of this set aside.  I have a worthless POS relative (by marriage) that is on the hook to that hospital for $54,000 right now.

So, how do the hospitals generate this $34 million dollars?

Most of the money is generated from uninsured people who pay for their services.  And the bad part for those who don't like the undocumented, they pay into that amount as well.  They do so because if they pay their income taxes via an Individual Tax Identification Number and keep their bills paid up, they are the first to be considered when amnesties roll around.

Additionally, the undocumented use the hospital for their primary care.  And, as long as they pay on their bill, they can continue to use the hospital for routine services.  

So, I know, for a fact, you're peddling a lie here.  Why do you REALLY not want undocumented foreigners to come here?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The success of getting over a border barrier depends on how well it's monitored. Barriers don't stop migrants, they only slow them down.  The Southern California border wall had border patrol vehicles running less than 5 mins apart and were very successful.  Around El Paeso they ran about 15 to 20 mins apart and there were a lots of crossings.  What it really amounts to is the more guards you have monitoring the border, the more people you will apprehend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we learned of the Caravan and where they were heading, our military and border patrol erected make-shift walls to keep them out.  They hurled rocks and bottles at our agents (because that's what nannies and gardeners do) and broke down the wall; not one ladder.
> 
> If they didn't create those temporary barriers, thousands and thousands would have entered this country and little to stop them.  But because they did put those barriers up, they were able to get enough personnel there to stop and arrest those who broke through it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come you suppose those caravans showed up AFTER Obama left office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are not all that knowledgable of our politics.  They do know "however" the role our MSM plays in politics, and expected that to be their free ticket.  Look at how Trump had to cave when the MSM made phony reports how Trump was responsible for the separation of children from the adults (some claim were parents).
> 
> When the Caravan was half-way to the US, it was reported others were forming; into the millions.  After Trump stopped the caravan, those others seemed to have disappeared.  A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it dawn on you at any point that the caravans were financed by rich guys like Trump, Soros, and Murdoch?  Are you really that naive that you don't know when they are playing you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Soros maybe, it's the Cloward and Piven strategy, designed to collapse the system and the commies in congress are plying right into their hands.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



If you actually read this thread, as opposed to popping in and out, we've already discussed the fact that Trump KNOWINGLY hires undocumented workers.  IF he's gotten rid of them, it was just before he ran for president, but he's the kind of man you loathe and despise - you're just too ignorant to admit the truth about him.

BTW, Trump is a friend to globalist Rupert Murdoch, a board of director of the CFR.  They speak on the phone on a regular basis.  You still don't know when you've been had by the politicians.

Donald Trump talks to Rupert Murdoch every week to discuss strategy


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the government is the people.  We elect representatives to carry out our will.  And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me.  It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
> 
> And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am struggling to understand your argument.
> 
> We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
> 
> If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law.  In was passed in 1996.
> 
> Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
> 
> Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
> 
> 
> Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
> 
> 
> Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
> 
> 
> Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
> 
> 
> Medicaid
> 
> 
> Medicare
> 
> 
> Social Security
> 
> 
> Welfare
> Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
> 
> Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
> 
> Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
> 
> 
> Schooling
> 
> 
> Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
> In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants.  States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
> 
> No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can have an anchor baby and collect those benefits for their kid, thus bypassing that problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you know there is no such thing as an anchor baby and the U.S. only gives benefits to the American born "citizen?"  BTW, you know who passed the law that made those people citizens?
> 
> Hint: It was NOT the Democrats AND they did it illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, it was the courts that bastardized the 14th.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and if ignorant people like you had stayed at home or got educated before you got in the fight, the patriot community was taking the 14th Amendment off the table.  We could have won that issue over a decade ago.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that the quoted section YOU cited says, quite unequivocally "as any of the* States* now existing shall think proper to admit?"
> 
> Each individual state can admit who they want to admit within their boundaries.  The federal government is limited:
> 
> "Congress shall have the power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution"
> 
> The feds have no jurisdiction in this issue unless and until the foreigner seeks citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read all of it.
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1*
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,* but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know me better than that.  If you have something to say, spit it out.  Don't expect me to do your work for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've said enough to prove you're nothing but a long winded troll and only took 3 short posts.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you like to play mind games, prove nothing and make accusations that sound more like projection.  I don't speak cryptic and if you see a troll, it's the one you see in your mirror.
> 
> Do you have anything relevant to say about this subject OR are you just trying to prove that nobody can out - troll you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should have an adult explain my responses to your ridiculous rants. A constitutional amendment to give congress the power over immigration, indeed. ROFLMFAO
> 
> .
Click to expand...


That criticism was a blatant lie.  Do you have ANY capacity for the truth?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the government is the people.  We elect representatives to carry out our will.  And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me.  It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am struggling to understand your argument.
> 
> We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
> 
> If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law.  In was passed in 1996.
> 
> Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
> 
> Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
> 
> 
> Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
> 
> 
> Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
> 
> 
> Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
> 
> 
> Medicaid
> 
> 
> Medicare
> 
> 
> Social Security
> 
> 
> Welfare
> Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
> 
> Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
> 
> Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
> 
> 
> Schooling
> 
> 
> Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
> In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants.  States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
> 
> No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They're not forbidden for their anchor babies and yes the government reimburses hospitals about 4 billion a year to treat illegal aliens. And what do you think it costs the country for jails, prisons, schooling, property damage in auto accidents, courts (State, local and federal). Then you have property theft, identity theft, murder, kidnapping, assault, rape and various other crimes, none are free to their victims. And the lists go on and on, 100 billion a year is a conservative estimate.
> 
> Oh I forgot border and interior law enforcement to round those suckers up, then it costs almost 12,000 each to deport them.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The first time I ever heard the allegation that the children of undocumented parents "cost" taxpayers, I went to the hospital and spoke to a woman quoted in the article used to prove the allegation.
> 
> The lady I spoke to was Paula Martin. Remember, I spoke to her in person, face to face.  When presented with the article, she told me that the taxpayers do NOT reimburse the hospital for any INDIGENT patient.  When those who hate the foreigners revised the story, they lied again.  Instead of admitting this, the next time the right commented on it, they said:
> 
> "The Gwinnett (GA.) Hospital System expects more illegal immigrants will present themselves for urgent care this year and has established a $34 million reserve to cover its outlay."
> 
> The Social Contract - Illegal Aliens - The Health Cost Dimension
> 
> The $34 million dollar set aside is for INDIGENT patients, not undocumented foreigners.  Do undocumented foreigners represent some of those?  Yes, they do.  But, there are people like the homeless and the downright lazy who avail themselves of this set aside.  I have a worthless POS relative (by marriage) that is on the hook to that hospital for $54,000 right now.
> 
> So, how do the hospitals generate this $34 million dollars?
> 
> Most of the money is generated from uninsured people who pay for their services.  And the bad part for those who don't like the undocumented, they pay into that amount as well.  They do so because if they pay their income taxes via an Individual Tax Identification Number and keep their bills paid up, they are the first to be considered when amnesties roll around.
> 
> Additionally, the undocumented use the hospital for their primary care.  And, as long as they pay on their bill, they can continue to use the hospital for routine services.
> 
> So, I know, for a fact, you're peddling a lie here.  Why do you REALLY not want undocumented foreigners to come here?
Click to expand...


How American Citizens Finance $18.5 Billion In Health Care For Unauthorized Immigrants


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

dblack said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it was about the freedoms to travel here, they would not be avoiding national check points that are established to get into this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Which brings us to the core problem: all the barriers we've put in place to prevent people from traveling here legally. The only valid reason for restricting entry is if the person in question represents a real threat. Mowing lawns for below minimum wage is not a 'threat'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were to travel with the desire to live in Canada, would you be required to go through designated check points with a passport, or do you make it a point to go out of your way in avoiding them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure. I don't know what Canada's travel policies are. *If* I was desperate to make a living for my family, and *if *Canada had all the good jobs, and* if* Canada passed laws preventing me from working there legally - I suppose I'd avoid their check points.
Click to expand...


First — site for me the specific law you’re “suggesting” that was passed by Congress, the year it took place, the president who signed it, that allowed illegals to work here “legally”. 

Second your claim “all the barriers we've put in place to prevent people from traveling here legally.“ is incorrect.  Let’s be crystal clear, if you are crossing the border to enter a country through *Intentionally* *avoiding* designated entry points, then you are NOT crossing the border “legally”.  There hasn’t been provided any valid example to prove otherwise, because we are a nation of laws which includes customs laws and passports or work visas provided through the government for entry.

It’s not about your list of “IF’s” .... this is about government enforcement of Federal law passed through Congress and signed into law through executive signature.  Each nation has their own laws surrounding border crossings and enforcement, and I have yet to see the opposition provide one valid argument on this thread.

I have used Canada as an example of how another nation enforces their border, which even DEBUNKS  this notion that somehow it prevents an individual from freely crossing the border.  Has allowing designated entry points through the use of passports, to aid in securing THEIR own border actually prevented an individual’s “ability to travel freely”?  No.  Such a claim is absurd to suggest, as there is no evidence of such.  It the same as having certain designated entry points at our southern border.

Now with regard to encouraging illegals to come here, perhaps you are not aware of California TGREATENING companies which follow Federal laws in preventing illegals from reviving and maintaining employment.

California attorney general threatens $10,000 fine for businesses that share employee information with immigration agents

Unlike you, I have actually done the research on this subject surrounding illegal immigration.  I have plenty more links and evidence to back up my point.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The disagreement in Washington is not whether to secure the border or not but the most efficient and economically way to deal with illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you really believe that, I have a bridge for sale if interested.
> 
> The disagreement is Democrats don't want any barrier that works the best and can't be removed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If democrats welcomed illegal immigration or didn't want a barrier against, why would democrats support the 2006 Border Fence Act which authorized 700 hundred miles of reinforced fences and why would democrats in congress support a bill that doubled the size of the border patrol and why would Bill Clinton sign a law that denies federal funds to undocumented immigrants and why would Obama, remove 2.5 million illegal immigrants.  I think your claims are based on supposition, not facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah?
> 
> Then where is that 700 miles of border fence?
> 
> Why are they fighting so hard to keep their sanctuary cities and now states?
> 
> Why did they stop Kate's Law in the Senate when Democrats had leadership?
> 
> Why do they provide illegals with drivers licenses in their states and allow their kids to attend school?
> 
> LA Times
> 
> Court Deportations Drop 43 Percent in Past Five Years
> 
> Report: 42 percent of new Medicaid signups are immigrants, their children
> 
> The Democrats can't say they are for illegals, so they put on this dog and pony show for the sheep that can't see beyond their BS.
Click to expand...


People sling numbers around like they were picked from air.  Here is an article that disputes the numbers.  But, might I remind you that radio commentators are claiming that $5 BILLION DOLLARS is a drop in the bucket of federal spending.

How Undocumented Immigrants Sometimes Receive Medicaid Treatment

Herein is the irony.  Ray and those like him vehemently defend the 14th Amendment, yet the Courts have ruled that if you're born here you are a citizen - as per the 14th Amendment.  The money he is bitching about is used to the benefit of what will be "legal" American citizens.

Ray, had your kind stayed out of the fight, patriots were busy getting rid of the 14th Amendment.  Without it, this issue would have been taken off the table.  So, what are you REALLY whining about?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the government is the people.  We elect representatives to carry out our will.  And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me.  It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
> 
> And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am struggling to understand your argument.
> 
> We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
> 
> If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law.  In was passed in 1996.
> 
> Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
> 
> Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
> 
> 
> Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
> 
> 
> Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
> 
> 
> Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
> 
> 
> Medicaid
> 
> 
> Medicare
> 
> 
> Social Security
> 
> 
> Welfare
> Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
> 
> Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
> 
> Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
> 
> 
> Schooling
> 
> 
> Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
> In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants.  States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
> 
> No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They're not forbidden for their anchor babies and yes the government reimburses hospitals about 4 billion a year to treat illegal aliens. And what do you think it costs the country for jails, prisons, schooling, property damage in auto accidents, courts (State, local and federal). Then you have property theft, identity theft, murder, kidnapping, assault, rape and various other crimes, none are free to their victims. And the lists go on and on, 100 billion a year is a conservative estimate.
> 
> Oh I forgot border and interior law enforcement to round those suckers up, then it costs almost 12,000 each to deport them.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The first time I ever heard the allegation that the children of undocumented parents "cost" taxpayers, I went to the hospital and spoke to a woman quoted in the article used to prove the allegation.
> 
> The lady I spoke to was Paula Martin. Remember, I spoke to her in person, face to face.  When presented with the article, she told me that the taxpayers do NOT reimburse the hospital for any INDIGENT patient.  When those who hate the foreigners revised the story, they lied again.  Instead of admitting this, the next time the right commented on it, they said:
> 
> "The Gwinnett (GA.) Hospital System expects more illegal immigrants will present themselves for urgent care this year and has established a $34 million reserve to cover its outlay."
> 
> The Social Contract - Illegal Aliens - The Health Cost Dimension
> 
> The $34 million dollar set aside is for INDIGENT patients, not undocumented foreigners.  Do undocumented foreigners represent some of those?  Yes, they do.  But, there are people like the homeless and the downright lazy who avail themselves of this set aside.  I have a worthless POS relative (by marriage) that is on the hook to that hospital for $54,000 right now.
> 
> So, how do the hospitals generate this $34 million dollars?
> 
> Most of the money is generated from uninsured people who pay for their services.  And the bad part for those who don't like the undocumented, they pay into that amount as well.  They do so because if they pay their income taxes via an Individual Tax Identification Number and keep their bills paid up, they are the first to be considered when amnesties roll around.
> 
> Additionally, the undocumented use the hospital for their primary care.  And, as long as they pay on their bill, they can continue to use the hospital for routine services.
> 
> So, I know, for a fact, you're peddling a lie here.  Why do you REALLY not want undocumented foreigners to come here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How American Citizens Finance $18.5 Billion In Health Care For Unauthorized Immigrants
Click to expand...



OMG, Ray.  First you have an article that claims $2 Billion dollars.  I find another that says $4 Billion dollars.  Now we're up to $18.5  Billion dollars.  Let me quote something from your article:

*"Medicare DSH Payments*. In a similar fashion, although the formula is much more complicated, Medicare also pays hospitals a DSH payment that effectively serves as a general subsidy to offset aggregate uncompensated care losses without making any distinction between uncompensated costs generated by unauthorized immigrants and those generated by American citizens or legal immigrants."

Translated into English, the general public is too stupid to understand the partisan figures so they devise "formulas" that we're not supposed to understand.

Instead of trying to enlighten me with these idiotic articles, see if you can spend your day finding out the truth.

Where do your Rights come from?

Do some research on your article and show me the amount those undocumented foreigners contribute to offset the alleged cost.  

This is really idiotic Ray.  There are a finite number of people here reading this.  You guys that want a border wall parrot the trash that was put together by white supremacists.  I'm not condemning you for that.

What I'm saying is that you cannot build your philosophy on lies to the point that you can no longer distinguish between reality and propaganda.  Today, I'd like to see something NEW from you.  You see, I'm more to the right than you because I am a constitutionalist.  

When you bring debunked B.S. to the table every day, we cannot use it to persuade those who have stayed isolated from this issue and are just learning.  When they do a little research, your facts don't hold up and *if* you're honest - ever since Trump has been put in charge, public opinion has swung left.  No politician has jumped parties to be on Trump's side.  Some office holders have left the Republican Party to become Democrats.  The House of Representatives is indicative of the fact that what you're doing isn't working.

Can you answer my questions Ray?  Can you tell us where you get your Rights from?  Can you give us a legitimate reason you're so opposed to foreigners?

Don't try to pee down my neck and tell me it's raining.  If it were an issue like the Medicare / Medicaid stuff, you will find it easier to make it harder for undocumented foreigners to get the benefits and privileges of citizenship rather than transform America into a third world socialist cesspool.


----------



## my2¢

As I hear Trump speak of people and think back to how he spoke of Hispanics during the campaign, I see the wall as a symbol of hate rather than an object of protection.  If it happens, it happens.  But I want nothing to do with it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> The Dems say "experts" say the wall won't work. They need to name these so called experts or admit they're lying. Border Patrol, the actual experts on the border, say they want and need the wall to slow down illegals crossing the border.



There are people OTHER THAN Dems telling you the wall won't work.  It won't work for us because we are* unlike* other nations.  

It wont' work for us because the foreigners are coming here because we jobs and Americans WILLING to do business with them.  That is not the case in other countries.


----------



## danielpalos

OKTexas said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wall cowards gonna cower. "Protect me! I'm afraid! Of all the scary stories you've been telling me!"
> 
> You morons are turning our nation toward fascism.
> 
> Why don't you just move to a country that doesn't give a shit about freedom and loves authoritarian government as much as you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us something, dumbass:  why don't you stick your finger in a light socket?  Are you afraid?  Are you a light socket coward?
> 
> That's exactly how stupid your post sounds.
> 
> Why should I care about the freedom of illegal aliens?
> 
> Are you able to commit logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's simply immoral to reward people who break our laws. It's simple as that.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> break what laws?  we don't have an immigration clause.  we have a naturalization clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've already proven you're a liar on that one. So run along child.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

i resort to the fewest fallacies.  there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  It is an establishment clause for naturalization.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> These guys are so focused on their talking points that they can't see the forest for the trees.
> 
> I'm a laissez-faire kind of guy.  The less government we have, the better things will work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of people think it's racism that's driving the wall nonsense, but when you push most of them it comes down to protectionism. They don't want to have to compete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Controlling immigration is not protectionism, and, yes, I don't want to compete with labor willing to work for 1/3 the wage.  Why should I?  Do you actually want that?  If you do, then you're a damn fool.
Click to expand...

capitalism is supposed to be improving their standard of living.  why rely on Government.


----------



## Ame®icano

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The disagreement in Washington is not whether to secure the border or not but the most efficient and economically way to deal with illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you really believe that, I have a bridge for sale if interested.
> 
> The disagreement is Democrats don't want any barrier that works the best and can't be removed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If democrats welcomed illegal immigration or didn't want a barrier against, why would democrats support the 2006 Border Fence Act which authorized 700 hundred miles of reinforced fences and why would democrats in congress support a bill that doubled the size of the border patrol and why would Bill Clinton sign a law that denies federal funds to undocumented immigrants and why would Obama, remove 2.5 million illegal immigrants.  I think your claims are based on supposition, not facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah?
> 
> Then where is that 700 miles of border fence?
> 
> Why are they fighting so hard to keep their sanctuary cities and now states?
> 
> Why did they stop Kate's Law in the Senate when Democrats had leadership?
> 
> Why do they provide illegals with drivers licenses in their states and allow their kids to attend school?
> 
> LA Times
> 
> Court Deportations Drop 43 Percent in Past Five Years
> 
> Report: 42 percent of new Medicaid signups are immigrants, their children
> 
> The Democrats can't say they are for illegals, so they put on this dog and pony show for the sheep that can't see beyond their BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People sling numbers around like they were picked from air.  Here is an article that disputes the numbers.  But, might I remind you that radio commentators are claiming that $5 BILLION DOLLARS is a drop in the bucket of federal spending.
> 
> How Undocumented Immigrants Sometimes Receive Medicaid Treatment
> 
> Herein is the irony.  Ray and those like him vehemently defend the 14th Amendment, yet the Courts have ruled that if you're born here you are a citizen - as per the 14th Amendment.  The money he is bitching about is used to the benefit of what will be "legal" American citizens.
> 
> Ray, had your kind stayed out of the fight, patriots were busy getting rid of the 14th Amendment.  Without it, this issue would have been taken off the table.  So, what are you REALLY whining about?
Click to expand...


Quick reply here. 

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. When you say "courts" then specify the case, ruling and then we can discuss it.


----------



## danielpalos

Why does Government solve all problems for the right wing on the border?  Capitalism; What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing.  only national socialists lose money on border policy.  national capitalists make money on border policy.


----------



## Butch_Coolidge

Porter Rockwell said:


> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep illegals from coming in without proper permission. We don’t need the rest. That’s better use of money. Less crime, less money spent to support non tax payers. And libs piss away more money for foreign aid, than is spent on legitimate tax paying citizens. The libs are just trying to block Don from keeping campaigning promises that will benefit our citizens and economy. They will give everything away for free, and raise taxes to pay for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts to substantiate this?
> 
> You are calling people "illegals" before they come here.  So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?
Click to expand...


When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ame®icano said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The disagreement in Washington is not whether to secure the border or not but the most efficient and economically way to deal with illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you really believe that, I have a bridge for sale if interested.
> 
> The disagreement is Democrats don't want any barrier that works the best and can't be removed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If democrats welcomed illegal immigration or didn't want a barrier against, why would democrats support the 2006 Border Fence Act which authorized 700 hundred miles of reinforced fences and why would democrats in congress support a bill that doubled the size of the border patrol and why would Bill Clinton sign a law that denies federal funds to undocumented immigrants and why would Obama, remove 2.5 million illegal immigrants.  I think your claims are based on supposition, not facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah?
> 
> Then where is that 700 miles of border fence?
> 
> Why are they fighting so hard to keep their sanctuary cities and now states?
> 
> Why did they stop Kate's Law in the Senate when Democrats had leadership?
> 
> Why do they provide illegals with drivers licenses in their states and allow their kids to attend school?
> 
> LA Times
> 
> Court Deportations Drop 43 Percent in Past Five Years
> 
> Report: 42 percent of new Medicaid signups are immigrants, their children
> 
> The Democrats can't say they are for illegals, so they put on this dog and pony show for the sheep that can't see beyond their BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People sling numbers around like they were picked from air.  Here is an article that disputes the numbers.  But, might I remind you that radio commentators are claiming that $5 BILLION DOLLARS is a drop in the bucket of federal spending.
> 
> How Undocumented Immigrants Sometimes Receive Medicaid Treatment
> 
> Herein is the irony.  Ray and those like him vehemently defend the 14th Amendment, yet the Courts have ruled that if you're born here you are a citizen - as per the 14th Amendment.  The money he is bitching about is used to the benefit of what will be "legal" American citizens.
> 
> Ray, had your kind stayed out of the fight, patriots were busy getting rid of the 14th Amendment.  Without it, this issue would have been taken off the table.  So, what are you REALLY whining about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quick reply here.
> 
> The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. When you say "courts" then specify the case, ruling and then we can discuss it.
Click to expand...



Irrelevant counselor.  

Children of Undocumented Immigrants in the U.S.: Rights and Opportunities - Lawyers.com

Also:

"there are many people within the United States who believe that children of illegal immigrants should not be given U.S. citizenship status. They argue that allowing such children citizenship was not the original intent of the drafters of the 14th Amendment (who didn't even address the topic of immigration, *because no limits then existed on who could enter the United States in the first place*..."

Can the Child of an Undocumented Immigrant Become a U.S. Citizen?

Then there is this:

"In recent years, some have argued the 14th amendment does not apply to children whose parents are undocumented.

"It's not the mainstream understanding," Sanders said. "But some have argued that the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' excludes children whose parents are not legal residents."

The argument is that because the child's parents remain in the U.S. illegally, they are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and neither are their children.

"As I said, that's not the mainstream understanding of the 14th amendment," Sanders said.

Excluding children of undocumented immigrants from birthright citizenship would require either a new amendment to the constitution or for the Supreme Court to decide the current constitution excludes such children."

Birthright citizenship applies to children of undocumented immigrants


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Butch_Coolidge said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep illegals from coming in without proper permission. We don’t need the rest. That’s better use of money. Less crime, less money spent to support non tax payers. And libs piss away more money for foreign aid, than is spent on legitimate tax paying citizens. The libs are just trying to block Don from keeping campaigning promises that will benefit our citizens and economy. They will give everything away for free, and raise taxes to pay for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts to substantiate this?
> 
> You are calling people "illegals" before they come here.  So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea.  For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first.  Now, they are admitting it.

What a difference a day makes.  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.

That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread.  So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> My reply (if you were following) was in reference to the Federal law of citizenship VS those who sneak across our southern border illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. And I'm pointing out those issues have nothing to do with each other. Opposition to the wall isn't about granting anyone citizenship. It's about the freedom of people to travel here, work here and live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have no such freedom.  They can come here if we give them permission.  That's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your permission or mine?  Please cite me that part of the Constitution.
Click to expand...


*U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9*

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight


----------



## danielpalos

Butch_Coolidge said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep illegals from coming in without proper permission. We don’t need the rest. That’s better use of money. Less crime, less money spent to support non tax payers. And libs piss away more money for foreign aid, than is spent on legitimate tax paying citizens. The libs are just trying to block Don from keeping campaigning promises that will benefit our citizens and economy. They will give everything away for free, and raise taxes to pay for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts to substantiate this?
> 
> You are calling people "illegals" before they come here.  So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Upgrading Ellis Island could process thousands per day.  It is more cost effective and humane.


----------



## Butch_Coolidge

Porter Rockwell said:


> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep illegals from coming in without proper permission. We don’t need the rest. That’s better use of money. Less crime, less money spent to support non tax payers. And libs piss away more money for foreign aid, than is spent on legitimate tax paying citizens. The libs are just trying to block Don from keeping campaigning promises that will benefit our citizens and economy. They will give everything away for free, and raise taxes to pay for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts to substantiate this?
> 
> You are calling people "illegals" before they come here.  So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea.  For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first.  Now, they are admitting it.
> 
> What a difference a day makes.  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread.  So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.
Click to expand...


Agree to disagree. We are not putting America on surveillance, just the borders. Obviously an issue of national security currently. No one is saying put cameras on your home or mine. But, go anywhere in our country and you have been recorded for posterity. This does actually solve a lot of crime throughout the country. If you think we have a lot of surveillance here, England for example is that much more. This is a done deal, and not going anywhere. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## danielpalos

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> My reply (if you were following) was in reference to the Federal law of citizenship VS those who sneak across our southern border illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. And I'm pointing out those issues have nothing to do with each other. Opposition to the wall isn't about granting anyone citizenship. It's about the freedom of people to travel here, work here and live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have no such freedom.  They can come here if we give them permission.  That's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your permission or mine?  Please cite me that part of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9*
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight
Click to expand...

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep illegals from coming in without proper permission. We don’t need the rest. That’s better use of money. Less crime, less money spent to support non tax payers. And libs piss away more money for foreign aid, than is spent on legitimate tax paying citizens. The libs are just trying to block Don from keeping campaigning promises that will benefit our citizens and economy. They will give everything away for free, and raise taxes to pay for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts to substantiate this?
> 
> You are calling people "illegals" before they come here.  So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island could process thousands per day.  It is more cost effective and humane.
Click to expand...

Too far from the border.
Besides we don't want to process more immigrants through the border into our country than we already have been. Didn't you watch that video?


----------



## danielpalos

Butch_Coolidge said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep illegals from coming in without proper permission. We don’t need the rest. That’s better use of money. Less crime, less money spent to support non tax payers. And libs piss away more money for foreign aid, than is spent on legitimate tax paying citizens. The libs are just trying to block Don from keeping campaigning promises that will benefit our citizens and economy. They will give everything away for free, and raise taxes to pay for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts to substantiate this?
> 
> You are calling people "illegals" before they come here.  So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea.  For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first.  Now, they are admitting it.
> 
> What a difference a day makes.  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread.  So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree. We are not putting America on surveillance, just the borders. Obviously an issue of national security currently. No one is saying put cameras on your home or mine. But, go anywhere in our country and you have been recorded for posterity. This does actually solve a lot of crime throughout the country. If you think we have a lot of surveillance here, England for example is that much more. This is a done deal, and not going anywhere.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.


----------



## Butch_Coolidge

danielpalos said:


> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep illegals from coming in without proper permission. We don’t need the rest. That’s better use of money. Less crime, less money spent to support non tax payers. And libs piss away more money for foreign aid, than is spent on legitimate tax paying citizens. The libs are just trying to block Don from keeping campaigning promises that will benefit our citizens and economy. They will give everything away for free, and raise taxes to pay for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts to substantiate this?
> 
> You are calling people "illegals" before they come here.  So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island could process thousands per day.  It is more cost effective and humane.
Click to expand...


Totally agree. The governor of NY would be eating his words if this was to occur. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep illegals from coming in without proper permission. We don’t need the rest. That’s better use of money. Less crime, less money spent to support non tax payers. And libs piss away more money for foreign aid, than is spent on legitimate tax paying citizens. The libs are just trying to block Don from keeping campaigning promises that will benefit our citizens and economy. They will give everything away for free, and raise taxes to pay for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts to substantiate this?
> 
> You are calling people "illegals" before they come here.  So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island could process thousands per day.  It is more cost effective and humane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too far from the border.
> Besides we don't want to process more immigrants through the border into our country than we already have been. Didn't you watch that video?
Click to expand...

we have a Constitution.  That Constitution expresses an establishment clause concerning naturalization not immigration.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> What a difference a day makes. Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.



So who's giving up liberty?  Build a wall and I won't lose a speck of liberty.


----------



## danielpalos

Butch_Coolidge said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep illegals from coming in without proper permission. We don’t need the rest. That’s better use of money. Less crime, less money spent to support non tax payers. And libs piss away more money for foreign aid, than is spent on legitimate tax paying citizens. The libs are just trying to block Don from keeping campaigning promises that will benefit our citizens and economy. They will give everything away for free, and raise taxes to pay for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts to substantiate this?
> 
> You are calling people "illegals" before they come here.  So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrading Ellis Island could process thousands per day.  It is more cost effective and humane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally agree. The governor of NY would be eating his words if this was to occur.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

We should be upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure and generating revenue from foreign nationals to pay for it.


----------



## dblack

Slyhunter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> anchor babies collect federal benefits and give that money to their illegal immigrant parent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let's get rid of birthright citizenship. I see no justification for it. It would beat the hell out of a big dumb wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> requires 2/3 majority of both houses in congress to change the 17th amendment. Or 2/3 of the states doing some legislature redo of the entire constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? At least then we'd have real consensus, and not just some slim partisan majority that will be reversed with the next election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not going to get 2/3'ds consensus.
Click to expand...


I think we could. I haven't heard any compelling arguments for keeping birthright citizenship. It was passed originally to overrule states that were refusing to honor the rights of freed slaves. It's no longer needed.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dems say "experts" say the wall won't work. They need to name these so called experts or admit they're lying. Border Patrol, the actual experts on the border, say they want and need the wall to slow down illegals crossing the border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are people OTHER THAN Dems telling you the wall won't work.  It won't work for us because we are* unlike* other nations.
> 
> It wont' work for us because the foreigners are coming here because we jobs and Americans WILLING to do business with them.  That is not the case in other countries.
Click to expand...


If people are sneaking into countries, they have a reason just like the people sneaking in here.  A wall works or it doesn't because a wall works on people the same way regardless of circumstance.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

my2¢ said:


> As I hear Trump speak of people and think back to how he spoke of Hispanics during the campaign, I see the wall as a symbol of hate rather than an object of protection.  If it happens, it happens.  But I want nothing to do with it.



We'll be sure to leave you out of it.

Trump campaigned on the wall because it's what his voters wanted.  That's what a representative is supposed to do, represent the people.  And just how did he speak of Hispanics that you find so offensive?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am struggling to understand your argument.
> 
> We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
> 
> If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law.  In was passed in 1996.
> 
> Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
> 
> Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
> 
> 
> Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
> 
> 
> Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
> 
> 
> Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
> 
> 
> Medicaid
> 
> 
> Medicare
> 
> 
> Social Security
> 
> 
> Welfare
> Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
> 
> Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
> 
> Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
> 
> 
> Schooling
> 
> 
> Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
> In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants.  States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
> 
> No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They're not forbidden for their anchor babies and yes the government reimburses hospitals about 4 billion a year to treat illegal aliens. And what do you think it costs the country for jails, prisons, schooling, property damage in auto accidents, courts (State, local and federal). Then you have property theft, identity theft, murder, kidnapping, assault, rape and various other crimes, none are free to their victims. And the lists go on and on, 100 billion a year is a conservative estimate.
> 
> Oh I forgot border and interior law enforcement to round those suckers up, then it costs almost 12,000 each to deport them.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The first time I ever heard the allegation that the children of undocumented parents "cost" taxpayers, I went to the hospital and spoke to a woman quoted in the article used to prove the allegation.
> 
> The lady I spoke to was Paula Martin. Remember, I spoke to her in person, face to face.  When presented with the article, she told me that the taxpayers do NOT reimburse the hospital for any INDIGENT patient.  When those who hate the foreigners revised the story, they lied again.  Instead of admitting this, the next time the right commented on it, they said:
> 
> "The Gwinnett (GA.) Hospital System expects more illegal immigrants will present themselves for urgent care this year and has established a $34 million reserve to cover its outlay."
> 
> The Social Contract - Illegal Aliens - The Health Cost Dimension
> 
> The $34 million dollar set aside is for INDIGENT patients, not undocumented foreigners.  Do undocumented foreigners represent some of those?  Yes, they do.  But, there are people like the homeless and the downright lazy who avail themselves of this set aside.  I have a worthless POS relative (by marriage) that is on the hook to that hospital for $54,000 right now.
> 
> So, how do the hospitals generate this $34 million dollars?
> 
> Most of the money is generated from uninsured people who pay for their services.  And the bad part for those who don't like the undocumented, they pay into that amount as well.  They do so because if they pay their income taxes via an Individual Tax Identification Number and keep their bills paid up, they are the first to be considered when amnesties roll around.
> 
> Additionally, the undocumented use the hospital for their primary care.  And, as long as they pay on their bill, they can continue to use the hospital for routine services.
> 
> So, I know, for a fact, you're peddling a lie here.  Why do you REALLY not want undocumented foreigners to come here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How American Citizens Finance $18.5 Billion In Health Care For Unauthorized Immigrants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, Ray.  First you have an article that claims $2 Billion dollars.  I find another that says $4 Billion dollars.  Now we're up to $18.5  Billion dollars.  Let me quote something from your article:
> 
> *"Medicare DSH Payments*. In a similar fashion, although the formula is much more complicated, Medicare also pays hospitals a DSH payment that effectively serves as a general subsidy to offset aggregate uncompensated care losses without making any distinction between uncompensated costs generated by unauthorized immigrants and those generated by American citizens or legal immigrants."
> 
> Translated into English, the general public is too stupid to understand the partisan figures so they devise "formulas" that we're not supposed to understand.
> 
> Instead of trying to enlighten me with these idiotic articles, see if you can spend your day finding out the truth.
> 
> Where do your Rights come from?
> 
> Do some research on your article and show me the amount those undocumented foreigners contribute to offset the alleged cost.
> 
> This is really idiotic Ray.  There are a finite number of people here reading this.  You guys that want a border wall parrot the trash that was put together by white supremacists.  I'm not condemning you for that.
> 
> What I'm saying is that you cannot build your philosophy on lies to the point that you can no longer distinguish between reality and propaganda.  Today, I'd like to see something NEW from you.  You see, I'm more to the right than you because I am a constitutionalist.
> 
> When you bring debunked B.S. to the table every day, we cannot use it to persuade those who have stayed isolated from this issue and are just learning.  When they do a little research, your facts don't hold up and *if* you're honest - ever since Trump has been put in charge, public opinion has swung left.  No politician has jumped parties to be on Trump's side.  Some office holders have left the Republican Party to become Democrats.  The House of Representatives is indicative of the fact that what you're doing isn't working.
> 
> Can you answer my questions Ray?  Can you tell us where you get your Rights from?  Can you give us a legitimate reason you're so opposed to foreigners?
> 
> Don't try to pee down my neck and tell me it's raining.  If it were an issue like the Medicare / Medicaid stuff, you will find it easier to make it harder for undocumented foreigners to get the benefits and privileges of citizenship rather than transform America into a third world socialist cesspool.
Click to expand...


I gave you several reasons I'm opposed to these foreigners, but YOU LEFTISTS put your hands against your ears and sing aloud.  You people have a tendency to do that when the truth smacks you in the head.  

Now you're pissed off because I posted an article from a very reliable well known source.  Judging by your response, you barely read the thing.  And your argument is stupid that foreigners offset what they use in government funding.  It's as ridiculous as Piglosi's argument that welfare and unemployment benefits stimulate the economy.


----------



## danielpalos

shutting down Government for the sake of a wall is wrong.  there is no express wall building clause.


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a difference a day makes. Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who's giving up liberty?  Build a wall and I won't lose a speck of liberty.
Click to expand...

Sure you will. You might not care. It might be a trade off you're willing to make. But walling off our nation will restrict everyone's liberty. It'll also a disgraceful monument to fear mongering. 

And we'll simply tear it down when the deplorables are gone.


----------



## basquebromance

the wall makes us safe from crime. i'm not saying it makes us safe economically but it ultimately does when you think about it


----------



## dblack

basquebromance said:


> the wall makes us safe from crime. i'm not saying it makes us safe economically but it ultimately does when you think about it


How? I just don't see it. Criminals are resourceful. I seriously doubt a fence/wall will be more than an inconvenience.

The point of the wall is to stop the flow of Mexican labor, not to thwart crime.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a difference a day makes. Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who's giving up liberty?  Build a wall and I won't lose a speck of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you will. You might not care. It might be a trade off you're willing to make. But walling off our nation will restrict everyone's liberty. It'll also a disgraceful monument to fear mongering.
> 
> And we'll simply tear it down when the deplorables are gone.
Click to expand...

It won't restrict my liberty in the slightest.  In fact, it will reduce the need for checking identification in the interior, which means it will actually enhance my liberty.

You're totally full of shit.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a difference a day makes. Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who's giving up liberty?  Build a wall and I won't lose a speck of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you will. You might not care. It might be a trade off you're willing to make. But walling off our nation will restrict everyone's liberty. It'll also a disgraceful monument to fear mongering.
> 
> And we'll simply tear it down when the deplorables are gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't restrict my liberty in the slightest.  In fact, it will reduce the need for checking identification in the interior, which means it will actually enhance my liberty.
> 
> You're totally full of shit.
Click to expand...


Your liberty is limited whether you want to use it or not. Again, understanding this requires an understanding of inalienable rights - something that's evaded you so far.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> the wall makes us safe from crime. i'm not saying it makes us safe economically but it ultimately does when you think about it
> 
> 
> 
> How? I just don't see it. Criminals are resourceful. I seriously doubt a fence/wall will be more than an inconvenience.
> 
> The point of the wall is to stop the flow of Mexican labor, not to thwart crime.
Click to expand...


Only Mexican labor that comes in illegally.  Yes, that's what it's supposed to stop.


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> the wall makes us safe from crime. i'm not saying it makes us safe economically but it ultimately does when you think about it
> 
> 
> 
> How? I just don't see it. Criminals are resourceful. I seriously doubt a fence/wall will be more than an inconvenience.
> 
> The point of the wall is to stop the flow of Mexican labor, not to thwart crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only Mexican labor that comes in illegally.  Yes, that's what it's supposed to stop.
Click to expand...

 
So let's drop the pretense that this is about criminals and rapists, mkay?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a difference a day makes. Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who's giving up liberty?  Build a wall and I won't lose a speck of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you will. You might not care. It might be a trade off you're willing to make. But walling off our nation will restrict everyone's liberty. It'll also a disgraceful monument to fear mongering.
> 
> And we'll simply tear it down when the deplorables are gone.
Click to expand...


You still  didn't give me one example of any lost liberty by a wall, and you never will because it's a phony claim. 

Get rid of the wall?  I can't wait to see that one.  For the longest time, the left has told us they were for border control and security and doing the exact opposite.  Tearing down a wall will eliminate that false claim and everybody in the country will know where they stand.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> the wall makes us safe from crime. i'm not saying it makes us safe economically but it ultimately does when you think about it
> 
> 
> 
> How? I just don't see it. Criminals are resourceful. I seriously doubt a fence/wall will be more than an inconvenience.
> 
> The point of the wall is to stop the flow of Mexican labor, not to thwart crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only Mexican labor that comes in illegally.  Yes, that's what it's supposed to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let's drop the pretense that this is about criminals and rapists, mkay?
Click to expand...


How did that lowlife get into California to kill that police officer? 

The wall is about all matters of concern: the illegals, the criminals, the illegal narcotics, the diseases, all of it.


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a difference a day makes. Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who's giving up liberty?  Build a wall and I won't lose a speck of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you will. You might not care. It might be a trade off you're willing to make. But walling off our nation will restrict everyone's liberty. It'll also a disgraceful monument to fear mongering.
> 
> And we'll simply tear it down when the deplorables are gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still  didn't give me one example of any lost liberty by a wall, and you never will because it's a phony claim.
Click to expand...


Have you been to Big Bend national park? There's a really beautiful hiking trail that goes along the Rio Grande. Kiss it goodbye.

Again, you might not want to exercise your liberty, that doesn't mean it's not been limited. 



> For the longest time, the left has told us they were for border control and security and doing the exact opposite.  Tearing down a wall will eliminate that false claim and everybody in the country will know where they stand.



Can you stop whining about the left long enough to make a sane argument? No, you can't.


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> the wall makes us safe from crime. i'm not saying it makes us safe economically but it ultimately does when you think about it
> 
> 
> 
> How? I just don't see it. Criminals are resourceful. I seriously doubt a fence/wall will be more than an inconvenience.
> 
> The point of the wall is to stop the flow of Mexican labor, not to thwart crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only Mexican labor that comes in illegally.  Yes, that's what it's supposed to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let's drop the pretense that this is about criminals and rapists, mkay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did that lowlife get into California to kill that police officer?
Click to expand...


So, you're changing your mind already? Flippin' and floppin.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Have you been to Big Bend national park? There's a really beautiful hiking trail that goes along the Rio Grande. Kiss it goodbye.
> 
> Again, you might not want to exercise your liberty, that doesn't mean it's not been limited.



Well when you can give me an example of a liberty I will lose by the wall, present your evidence and I'll read it.  You lose no liberty if a hiking trail is not as beautiful.  If that's what you think freedom is, then you don't know what the word means.  



dblack said:


> Can you stop whining about the left long enough to make a sane argument? No, you can't.



How can I?  It's a left vs right issue.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> the wall makes us safe from crime. i'm not saying it makes us safe economically but it ultimately does when you think about it
> 
> 
> 
> How? I just don't see it. Criminals are resourceful. I seriously doubt a fence/wall will be more than an inconvenience.
> 
> The point of the wall is to stop the flow of Mexican labor, not to thwart crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only Mexican labor that comes in illegally.  Yes, that's what it's supposed to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let's drop the pretense that this is about criminals and rapists, mkay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did that lowlife get into California to kill that police officer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you're changing your mind already? Flippin' and floppin.
Click to expand...


If it makes you happy saying so, go right ahead.  However to your chagrin, I've been consistent in this discussion all along.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the government is the people.  We elect representatives to carry out our will.  And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me.  It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am struggling to understand your argument.
> 
> We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
> 
> If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law.  In was passed in 1996.
> 
> Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
> 
> Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
> 
> 
> Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
> 
> 
> Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
> 
> 
> Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
> 
> 
> Medicaid
> 
> 
> Medicare
> 
> 
> Social Security
> 
> 
> Welfare
> Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
> 
> Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
> 
> Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
> 
> 
> Schooling
> 
> 
> Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
> In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants.  States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
> 
> No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They're not forbidden for their anchor babies and yes the government reimburses hospitals about 4 billion a year to treat illegal aliens. And what do you think it costs the country for jails, prisons, schooling, property damage in auto accidents, courts (State, local and federal). Then you have property theft, identity theft, murder, kidnapping, assault, rape and various other crimes, none are free to their victims. And the lists go on and on, 100 billion a year is a conservative estimate.
> 
> Oh I forgot border and interior law enforcement to round those suckers up, then it costs almost 12,000 each to deport them.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The first time I ever heard the allegation that the children of undocumented parents "cost" taxpayers, I went to the hospital and spoke to a woman quoted in the article used to prove the allegation.
> 
> The lady I spoke to was Paula Martin. Remember, I spoke to her in person, face to face.  When presented with the article, she told me that the taxpayers do NOT reimburse the hospital for any INDIGENT patient.  When those who hate the foreigners revised the story, they lied again.  Instead of admitting this, the next time the right commented on it, they said:
> 
> "The Gwinnett (GA.) Hospital System expects more illegal immigrants will present themselves for urgent care this year and has established a $34 million reserve to cover its outlay."
> 
> The Social Contract - Illegal Aliens - The Health Cost Dimension
> 
> The $34 million dollar set aside is for INDIGENT patients, not undocumented foreigners.  Do undocumented foreigners represent some of those?  Yes, they do.  But, there are people like the homeless and the downright lazy who avail themselves of this set aside.  I have a worthless POS relative (by marriage) that is on the hook to that hospital for $54,000 right now.
> 
> So, how do the hospitals generate this $34 million dollars?
> 
> Most of the money is generated from uninsured people who pay for their services.  And the bad part for those who don't like the undocumented, they pay into that amount as well.  They do so because if they pay their income taxes via an Individual Tax Identification Number and keep their bills paid up, they are the first to be considered when amnesties roll around.
> 
> Additionally, the undocumented use the hospital for their primary care.  And, as long as they pay on their bill, they can continue to use the hospital for routine services.
> 
> So, I know, for a fact, you're peddling a lie here.  Why do you REALLY not want undocumented foreigners to come here?
Click to expand...



Medicaid Helps Hospitals Pay For Illegal Immigrants’ Care

.


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you stop whining about the left long enough to make a sane argument? No, you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> How can I?  It's a left vs right issue.
Click to expand...


It's just getting old hearing each party justify shitty policies "because the other side". It's just like arguing with liberals about ACA. When they are forced to admit that ACA was a sellout to the insurance industry, they blame it on the Republicans - even though exactly no Republicans voted for it.

Likewise, when your wall horseshit is shown to be nothing more than protectionist trade policy lathered up in fear mongering, you blame it on the left, or point out all the horrible things the left has done as if to justify the horrible things you want to do.

If we don't do something to bust up the stranglehold of the two-party system, your partisan pissing match is going to flush the whole country down the toilet.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am struggling to understand your argument.
> 
> We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
> 
> If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law.  In was passed in 1996.
> 
> Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
> 
> Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
> 
> 
> Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
> 
> 
> Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
> 
> 
> Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
> 
> 
> Medicaid
> 
> 
> Medicare
> 
> 
> Social Security
> 
> 
> Welfare
> Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
> 
> Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
> 
> Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
> 
> 
> Schooling
> 
> 
> Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
> In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants.  States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
> 
> No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can have an anchor baby and collect those benefits for their kid, thus bypassing that problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you know there is no such thing as an anchor baby and the U.S. only gives benefits to the American born "citizen?"  BTW, you know who passed the law that made those people citizens?
> 
> Hint: It was NOT the Democrats AND they did it illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, it was the courts that bastardized the 14th.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and if ignorant people like you had stayed at home or got educated before you got in the fight, the patriot community was taking the 14th Amendment off the table.  We could have won that issue over a decade ago.
Click to expand...



Yeah, take that argument to court, I'm sure you'll be as successful there as you are here. LMAO

.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read all of it.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know me better than that.  If you have something to say, spit it out.  Don't expect me to do your work for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've said enough to prove you're nothing but a long winded troll and only took 3 short posts.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you like to play mind games, prove nothing and make accusations that sound more like projection.  I don't speak cryptic and if you see a troll, it's the one you see in your mirror.
> 
> Do you have anything relevant to say about this subject OR are you just trying to prove that nobody can out - troll you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should have an adult explain my responses to your ridiculous rants. A constitutional amendment to give congress the power over immigration, indeed. ROFLMFAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That criticism was a blatant lie.  Do you have ANY capacity for the truth?
Click to expand...



Really?


Porter Rockwell said:


> What Amendment changed that?




.


----------



## Rigby5

bripat9643 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I guess you don't think immigrants aren't THAT cool.
> 
> 
> 
> The government sets quotas based on several factors. If they decide we need more, then ok. But not just because of nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, no there are no quotas.  Congress sets the maximum number immigrants at about 675,000 per year plus about half dozen categories of immigration that pushes the total to about a million a year or higher.
> 
> Then the law establishes the maximum number of immigrants from any country as 7% of the total, about 70,000 excluding certain categories.  However, this figure is reduced by the number of legal residents from that country living in the US who change immigration status to permanent resident.  Immigrants being sponsored by family members further reduces the number as well as employment sponsoring and other categories of immigration.
> 
> So for most countries if you do not have family living in the US or have special skills that will attract an employer to sponsor you or you don't fit in one of the other special categories, you simple can not immigrate to the US, no matter how long you wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah?  So what?  Since when does anyone have a right to emigrate to the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When the colonists came here from Europe 500 years ago, it was they who claimed anyone had the right to immigrate here, and now we are stuck with that legal precedent.  But it is even more complex because when we negotiated treaties to buy CA, AZ, NM, NV, CO, UT, TX, FL and others, there were already over a million Mexicans living here, so we agreed to treaties that prohibited any infringement on travel by Mexicans.  Those million Mexicans were not required to become US citizens or leave.  So we can't now close the border or else be in violation of the treaties and be in default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those treaties were all defunct long ago.  Our government isn't bound by any of them.
Click to expand...


Does not work that way.
Treaties have to be ratified by Congress and then become US law.
The only way for them to become defunct is for a party to fall into default, in which case the treaty is negated, and the states return to Mexican ownership.
That is the way law works.
It is not transient.


----------



## OKTexas

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it was about the freedoms to travel here, they would not be avoiding national check points that are established to get into this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Which brings us to the core problem: all the barriers we've put in place to prevent people from traveling here legally. The only valid reason for restricting entry is if the person in question represents a real threat. Mowing lawns for below minimum wage is not a 'threat'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were to travel with the desire to live in Canada, would you be required to go through designated check points with a passport, or do you make it a point to go out of your way in avoiding them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure. I don't know what Canada's travel policies are. *If* I was desperate to make a living for my family, and *if *Canada had all the good jobs, and* if* Canada passed laws preventing me from working there legally - I suppose I'd avoid their check points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First — site for me the specific law you’re “suggesting” that was passed by Congress, the year it took place, the president who signed it, that allowed illegals to work here “legally”.
> 
> Second your claim “all the barriers we've put in place to prevent people from traveling here legally.“ is incorrect.  Let’s be crystal clear, if you are crossing the border to enter a country through *Intentionally* *avoiding* designated entry points, then you are NOT crossing the border “legally”.  There hasn’t been provided any valid example to prove otherwise, because we are a nation of laws which includes customs laws and passports or work visas provided through the government for entry.
> 
> It’s not about your list of “IF’s” .... this is about government enforcement of Federal law passed through Congress and signed into law through executive signature.  Each nation has their own laws surrounding border crossings and enforcement, and I have yet to see the opposition provide one valid argument on this thread.
> 
> I have used Canada as an example of how another nation enforces their border, which even DEBUNKS  this notion that somehow it prevents an individual from freely crossing the border.  Has allowing designated entry points through the use of passports, to aid in securing THEIR own border actually prevented an individual’s “ability to travel freely”?  No.  Such a claim is absurd to suggest, as there is no evidence of such.  It the same as having certain designated entry points at our southern border.
> 
> Now with regard to encouraging illegals to come here, perhaps you are not aware of California TGREATENING companies which follow Federal laws in preventing illegals from reviving and maintaining employment.
> 
> California attorney general threatens $10,000 fine for businesses that share employee information with immigration agents
> 
> Unlike you, I have actually done the research on this subject surrounding illegal immigration.  I have plenty more links and evidence to back up my point.
Click to expand...





ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> California TGREATENING companies which follow Federal laws in preventing illegals from reviving and maintaining employment.


Not only is that obstruction of justice, it's a 1st amendment violation, every citizen has a right to report a crime to appropriate authorities.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> My reply (if you were following) was in reference to the Federal law of citizenship VS those who sneak across our southern border illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. And I'm pointing out those issues have nothing to do with each other. Opposition to the wall isn't about granting anyone citizenship. It's about the freedom of people to travel here, work here and live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have no such freedom.  They can come here if we give them permission.  That's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your permission or mine?  Please cite me that part of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9*
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight
Click to expand...


OMG.  Are you kidding?  That was tried once today.  The rest of the article deals with a ten dollar tax per person after 1808.  One only need to look at the year in which they Chy Lung decision was laid down to see that.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Butch_Coolidge said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep illegals from coming in without proper permission. We don’t need the rest. That’s better use of money. Less crime, less money spent to support non tax payers. And libs piss away more money for foreign aid, than is spent on legitimate tax paying citizens. The libs are just trying to block Don from keeping campaigning promises that will benefit our citizens and economy. They will give everything away for free, and raise taxes to pay for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts to substantiate this?
> 
> You are calling people "illegals" before they come here.  So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea.  For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first.  Now, they are admitting it.
> 
> What a difference a day makes.  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread.  So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree. We are not putting America on surveillance, just the borders. Obviously an issue of national security currently. No one is saying put cameras on your home or mine. But, go anywhere in our country and you have been recorded for posterity. This does actually solve a lot of crime throughout the country. If you think we have a lot of surveillance here, England for example is that much more. This is a done deal, and not going anywhere.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


You are arguing against common sense in legal technicalities.  Since the border wall people argue this is a legal issue (Trump is wisely calling it a National Security issue) you don't know how the precedent will be used.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, the same court decision used to keep the feds from forcing local police into enforcing the Brady Bill is the same decision that saved Sanctuary Cities.

Giving the feds more tools to put you under surveillance is pure madness.  BTW, that damn 14th Amendment some of those who agree with you want to save will be the issue (equal protection of the laws) that will enhance government surveillance on you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a difference a day makes. Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who's giving up liberty?  Build a wall and I won't lose a speck of liberty.
Click to expand...


It's ridiculous to try and have a sane conversation with a madman.  So you really think suspending the Constitution in order to enforce your dumb ass wall is not a threat to your Liberty?

Who are you going to try and make believe that?  Me or you?


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep illegals from coming in without proper permission. We don’t need the rest. That’s better use of money. Less crime, less money spent to support non tax payers. And libs piss away more money for foreign aid, than is spent on legitimate tax paying citizens. The libs are just trying to block Don from keeping campaigning promises that will benefit our citizens and economy. They will give everything away for free, and raise taxes to pay for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts to substantiate this?
> 
> You are calling people "illegals" before they come here.  So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea.  For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first.  Now, they are admitting it.
> 
> What a difference a day makes.  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread.  So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.
Click to expand...



What a crock of shit, no one is trying to deny Americans their liberty. They are trying to secure our country to prevent the loss of lives, liberty and property.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law.  In was passed in 1996.
> 
> Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
> 
> Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
> 
> 
> Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
> 
> 
> Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
> 
> 
> Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
> 
> 
> Medicaid
> 
> 
> Medicare
> 
> 
> Social Security
> 
> 
> Welfare
> Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
> 
> Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
> 
> Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
> 
> 
> Schooling
> 
> 
> Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
> In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants.  States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
> 
> No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not forbidden for their anchor babies and yes the government reimburses hospitals about 4 billion a year to treat illegal aliens. And what do you think it costs the country for jails, prisons, schooling, property damage in auto accidents, courts (State, local and federal). Then you have property theft, identity theft, murder, kidnapping, assault, rape and various other crimes, none are free to their victims. And the lists go on and on, 100 billion a year is a conservative estimate.
> 
> Oh I forgot border and interior law enforcement to round those suckers up, then it costs almost 12,000 each to deport them.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The first time I ever heard the allegation that the children of undocumented parents "cost" taxpayers, I went to the hospital and spoke to a woman quoted in the article used to prove the allegation.
> 
> The lady I spoke to was Paula Martin. Remember, I spoke to her in person, face to face.  When presented with the article, she told me that the taxpayers do NOT reimburse the hospital for any INDIGENT patient.  When those who hate the foreigners revised the story, they lied again.  Instead of admitting this, the next time the right commented on it, they said:
> 
> "The Gwinnett (GA.) Hospital System expects more illegal immigrants will present themselves for urgent care this year and has established a $34 million reserve to cover its outlay."
> 
> The Social Contract - Illegal Aliens - The Health Cost Dimension
> 
> The $34 million dollar set aside is for INDIGENT patients, not undocumented foreigners.  Do undocumented foreigners represent some of those?  Yes, they do.  But, there are people like the homeless and the downright lazy who avail themselves of this set aside.  I have a worthless POS relative (by marriage) that is on the hook to that hospital for $54,000 right now.
> 
> So, how do the hospitals generate this $34 million dollars?
> 
> Most of the money is generated from uninsured people who pay for their services.  And the bad part for those who don't like the undocumented, they pay into that amount as well.  They do so because if they pay their income taxes via an Individual Tax Identification Number and keep their bills paid up, they are the first to be considered when amnesties roll around.
> 
> Additionally, the undocumented use the hospital for their primary care.  And, as long as they pay on their bill, they can continue to use the hospital for routine services.
> 
> So, I know, for a fact, you're peddling a lie here.  Why do you REALLY not want undocumented foreigners to come here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How American Citizens Finance $18.5 Billion In Health Care For Unauthorized Immigrants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, Ray.  First you have an article that claims $2 Billion dollars.  I find another that says $4 Billion dollars.  Now we're up to $18.5  Billion dollars.  Let me quote something from your article:
> 
> *"Medicare DSH Payments*. In a similar fashion, although the formula is much more complicated, Medicare also pays hospitals a DSH payment that effectively serves as a general subsidy to offset aggregate uncompensated care losses without making any distinction between uncompensated costs generated by unauthorized immigrants and those generated by American citizens or legal immigrants."
> 
> Translated into English, the general public is too stupid to understand the partisan figures so they devise "formulas" that we're not supposed to understand.
> 
> Instead of trying to enlighten me with these idiotic articles, see if you can spend your day finding out the truth.
> 
> Where do your Rights come from?
> 
> Do some research on your article and show me the amount those undocumented foreigners contribute to offset the alleged cost.
> 
> This is really idiotic Ray.  There are a finite number of people here reading this.  You guys that want a border wall parrot the trash that was put together by white supremacists.  I'm not condemning you for that.
> 
> What I'm saying is that you cannot build your philosophy on lies to the point that you can no longer distinguish between reality and propaganda.  Today, I'd like to see something NEW from you.  You see, I'm more to the right than you because I am a constitutionalist.
> 
> When you bring debunked B.S. to the table every day, we cannot use it to persuade those who have stayed isolated from this issue and are just learning.  When they do a little research, your facts don't hold up and *if* you're honest - ever since Trump has been put in charge, public opinion has swung left.  No politician has jumped parties to be on Trump's side.  Some office holders have left the Republican Party to become Democrats.  The House of Representatives is indicative of the fact that what you're doing isn't working.
> 
> Can you answer my questions Ray?  Can you tell us where you get your Rights from?  Can you give us a legitimate reason you're so opposed to foreigners?
> 
> Don't try to pee down my neck and tell me it's raining.  If it were an issue like the Medicare / Medicaid stuff, you will find it easier to make it harder for undocumented foreigners to get the benefits and privileges of citizenship rather than transform America into a third world socialist cesspool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you several reasons I'm opposed to these foreigners, but YOU LEFTISTS put your hands against your ears and sing aloud.  You people have a tendency to do that when the truth smacks you in the head.
> 
> Now you're pissed off because I posted an article from a very reliable well known source.  Judging by your response, you barely read the thing.  And your argument is stupid that foreigners offset what they use in government funding.  It's as ridiculous as Piglosi's argument that welfare and unemployment benefits stimulate the economy.
Click to expand...


I think you are a joke.  I quoted your silly article and it says, basically, you're too moronic to understand it so take their word for it.

If you think I'm a leftist, it's more proof you are not qualified to be in this kind of discussion.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a difference a day makes. Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who's giving up liberty?  Build a wall and I won't lose a speck of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's ridiculous to try and have a sane conversation with a madman.  So you really think suspending the Constitution in order to enforce your dumb ass wall is not a threat to your Liberty?
> 
> Who are you going to try and make believe that?  Me or you?
Click to expand...


You're not suspending anything.  We Americans have the right to have a secure border and to permit (or deny) foreigners of entry by wall or any means.  It's been going on for generations.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're not forbidden for their anchor babies and yes the government reimburses hospitals about 4 billion a year to treat illegal aliens. And what do you think it costs the country for jails, prisons, schooling, property damage in auto accidents, courts (State, local and federal). Then you have property theft, identity theft, murder, kidnapping, assault, rape and various other crimes, none are free to their victims. And the lists go on and on, 100 billion a year is a conservative estimate.
> 
> Oh I forgot border and interior law enforcement to round those suckers up, then it costs almost 12,000 each to deport them.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first time I ever heard the allegation that the children of undocumented parents "cost" taxpayers, I went to the hospital and spoke to a woman quoted in the article used to prove the allegation.
> 
> The lady I spoke to was Paula Martin. Remember, I spoke to her in person, face to face.  When presented with the article, she told me that the taxpayers do NOT reimburse the hospital for any INDIGENT patient.  When those who hate the foreigners revised the story, they lied again.  Instead of admitting this, the next time the right commented on it, they said:
> 
> "The Gwinnett (GA.) Hospital System expects more illegal immigrants will present themselves for urgent care this year and has established a $34 million reserve to cover its outlay."
> 
> The Social Contract - Illegal Aliens - The Health Cost Dimension
> 
> The $34 million dollar set aside is for INDIGENT patients, not undocumented foreigners.  Do undocumented foreigners represent some of those?  Yes, they do.  But, there are people like the homeless and the downright lazy who avail themselves of this set aside.  I have a worthless POS relative (by marriage) that is on the hook to that hospital for $54,000 right now.
> 
> So, how do the hospitals generate this $34 million dollars?
> 
> Most of the money is generated from uninsured people who pay for their services.  And the bad part for those who don't like the undocumented, they pay into that amount as well.  They do so because if they pay their income taxes via an Individual Tax Identification Number and keep their bills paid up, they are the first to be considered when amnesties roll around.
> 
> Additionally, the undocumented use the hospital for their primary care.  And, as long as they pay on their bill, they can continue to use the hospital for routine services.
> 
> So, I know, for a fact, you're peddling a lie here.  Why do you REALLY not want undocumented foreigners to come here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How American Citizens Finance $18.5 Billion In Health Care For Unauthorized Immigrants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, Ray.  First you have an article that claims $2 Billion dollars.  I find another that says $4 Billion dollars.  Now we're up to $18.5  Billion dollars.  Let me quote something from your article:
> 
> *"Medicare DSH Payments*. In a similar fashion, although the formula is much more complicated, Medicare also pays hospitals a DSH payment that effectively serves as a general subsidy to offset aggregate uncompensated care losses without making any distinction between uncompensated costs generated by unauthorized immigrants and those generated by American citizens or legal immigrants."
> 
> Translated into English, the general public is too stupid to understand the partisan figures so they devise "formulas" that we're not supposed to understand.
> 
> Instead of trying to enlighten me with these idiotic articles, see if you can spend your day finding out the truth.
> 
> Where do your Rights come from?
> 
> Do some research on your article and show me the amount those undocumented foreigners contribute to offset the alleged cost.
> 
> This is really idiotic Ray.  There are a finite number of people here reading this.  You guys that want a border wall parrot the trash that was put together by white supremacists.  I'm not condemning you for that.
> 
> What I'm saying is that you cannot build your philosophy on lies to the point that you can no longer distinguish between reality and propaganda.  Today, I'd like to see something NEW from you.  You see, I'm more to the right than you because I am a constitutionalist.
> 
> When you bring debunked B.S. to the table every day, we cannot use it to persuade those who have stayed isolated from this issue and are just learning.  When they do a little research, your facts don't hold up and *if* you're honest - ever since Trump has been put in charge, public opinion has swung left.  No politician has jumped parties to be on Trump's side.  Some office holders have left the Republican Party to become Democrats.  The House of Representatives is indicative of the fact that what you're doing isn't working.
> 
> Can you answer my questions Ray?  Can you tell us where you get your Rights from?  Can you give us a legitimate reason you're so opposed to foreigners?
> 
> Don't try to pee down my neck and tell me it's raining.  If it were an issue like the Medicare / Medicaid stuff, you will find it easier to make it harder for undocumented foreigners to get the benefits and privileges of citizenship rather than transform America into a third world socialist cesspool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you several reasons I'm opposed to these foreigners, but YOU LEFTISTS put your hands against your ears and sing aloud.  You people have a tendency to do that when the truth smacks you in the head.
> 
> Now you're pissed off because I posted an article from a very reliable well known source.  Judging by your response, you barely read the thing.  And your argument is stupid that foreigners offset what they use in government funding.  It's as ridiculous as Piglosi's argument that welfare and unemployment benefits stimulate the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are a joke.  I quoted your silly article and it says, basically, you're too moronic to understand it so take their word for it.
> 
> If you think I'm a leftist, it's more proof you are not qualified to be in this kind of discussion.
Click to expand...


You are certainly taking a leftist position.  If it walks like a duck.......quacks like a duck.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> the wall makes us safe from crime. i'm not saying it makes us safe economically but it ultimately does when you think about it
> 
> 
> 
> How? I just don't see it. Criminals are resourceful. I seriously doubt a fence/wall will be more than an inconvenience.
> 
> The point of the wall is to stop the flow of Mexican labor, not to thwart crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only Mexican labor that comes in illegally.  Yes, that's what it's supposed to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let's drop the pretense that this is about criminals and rapists, mkay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did that lowlife get into California to kill that police officer?
> 
> The wall is about all matters of concern: the illegals, the criminals, the illegal narcotics, the diseases, all of it.
Click to expand...


One minute you're all about making this a drug issue and then changing the goal posts to argue it again.  WTH???


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you stop whining about the left long enough to make a sane argument? No, you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> How can I?  It's a left vs right issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's just getting old hearing each party justify shitty policies "because the other side". It's just like arguing with liberals about ACA. When they are forced to admit that ACA was a sellout to the insurance industry, they blame it on the Republicans - even though exactly no Republicans voted for it.
> 
> Likewise, when your wall horseshit is shown to be nothing more than protectionist trade policy lathered up in fear mongering, you blame it on the left, or point out all the horrible things the left has done as if to justify the horrible things you want to do.
> 
> If we don't do something to bust up the stranglehold of the two-party system, your partisan pissing match is going to flush the whole country down the toilet.
Click to expand...


Do you deny that this is mostly on partisan lines?  If you can tell me that people in both parties feel differently, then show me that evidence.  But thus far, I've yet to see a lefty in support of Trump or border security for that matter.  Everybody on the left doesn't want the wall.  Everybody on the right does.  After all, the wall issue is what won Trump the presidency.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first time I ever heard the allegation that the children of undocumented parents "cost" taxpayers, I went to the hospital and spoke to a woman quoted in the article used to prove the allegation.
> 
> The lady I spoke to was Paula Martin. Remember, I spoke to her in person, face to face.  When presented with the article, she told me that the taxpayers do NOT reimburse the hospital for any INDIGENT patient.  When those who hate the foreigners revised the story, they lied again.  Instead of admitting this, the next time the right commented on it, they said:
> 
> "The Gwinnett (GA.) Hospital System expects more illegal immigrants will present themselves for urgent care this year and has established a $34 million reserve to cover its outlay."
> 
> The Social Contract - Illegal Aliens - The Health Cost Dimension
> 
> The $34 million dollar set aside is for INDIGENT patients, not undocumented foreigners.  Do undocumented foreigners represent some of those?  Yes, they do.  But, there are people like the homeless and the downright lazy who avail themselves of this set aside.  I have a worthless POS relative (by marriage) that is on the hook to that hospital for $54,000 right now.
> 
> So, how do the hospitals generate this $34 million dollars?
> 
> Most of the money is generated from uninsured people who pay for their services.  And the bad part for those who don't like the undocumented, they pay into that amount as well.  They do so because if they pay their income taxes via an Individual Tax Identification Number and keep their bills paid up, they are the first to be considered when amnesties roll around.
> 
> Additionally, the undocumented use the hospital for their primary care.  And, as long as they pay on their bill, they can continue to use the hospital for routine services.
> 
> So, I know, for a fact, you're peddling a lie here.  Why do you REALLY not want undocumented foreigners to come here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How American Citizens Finance $18.5 Billion In Health Care For Unauthorized Immigrants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, Ray.  First you have an article that claims $2 Billion dollars.  I find another that says $4 Billion dollars.  Now we're up to $18.5  Billion dollars.  Let me quote something from your article:
> 
> *"Medicare DSH Payments*. In a similar fashion, although the formula is much more complicated, Medicare also pays hospitals a DSH payment that effectively serves as a general subsidy to offset aggregate uncompensated care losses without making any distinction between uncompensated costs generated by unauthorized immigrants and those generated by American citizens or legal immigrants."
> 
> Translated into English, the general public is too stupid to understand the partisan figures so they devise "formulas" that we're not supposed to understand.
> 
> Instead of trying to enlighten me with these idiotic articles, see if you can spend your day finding out the truth.
> 
> Where do your Rights come from?
> 
> Do some research on your article and show me the amount those undocumented foreigners contribute to offset the alleged cost.
> 
> This is really idiotic Ray.  There are a finite number of people here reading this.  You guys that want a border wall parrot the trash that was put together by white supremacists.  I'm not condemning you for that.
> 
> What I'm saying is that you cannot build your philosophy on lies to the point that you can no longer distinguish between reality and propaganda.  Today, I'd like to see something NEW from you.  You see, I'm more to the right than you because I am a constitutionalist.
> 
> When you bring debunked B.S. to the table every day, we cannot use it to persuade those who have stayed isolated from this issue and are just learning.  When they do a little research, your facts don't hold up and *if* you're honest - ever since Trump has been put in charge, public opinion has swung left.  No politician has jumped parties to be on Trump's side.  Some office holders have left the Republican Party to become Democrats.  The House of Representatives is indicative of the fact that what you're doing isn't working.
> 
> Can you answer my questions Ray?  Can you tell us where you get your Rights from?  Can you give us a legitimate reason you're so opposed to foreigners?
> 
> Don't try to pee down my neck and tell me it's raining.  If it were an issue like the Medicare / Medicaid stuff, you will find it easier to make it harder for undocumented foreigners to get the benefits and privileges of citizenship rather than transform America into a third world socialist cesspool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you several reasons I'm opposed to these foreigners, but YOU LEFTISTS put your hands against your ears and sing aloud.  You people have a tendency to do that when the truth smacks you in the head.
> 
> Now you're pissed off because I posted an article from a very reliable well known source.  Judging by your response, you barely read the thing.  And your argument is stupid that foreigners offset what they use in government funding.  It's as ridiculous as Piglosi's argument that welfare and unemployment benefits stimulate the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are a joke.  I quoted your silly article and it says, basically, you're too moronic to understand it so take their word for it.
> 
> If you think I'm a leftist, it's more proof you are not qualified to be in this kind of discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are certainly taking a leftist position.  If it walks like a duck.......quacks like a duck.
Click to expand...


In order to take a leftist position, you have to offer a leftist solution.  Pointing out the holes in your theories and asking you questions in a quest for the truth has nothing with left or right.

Your deflections point to the fact you KNOW you're pushing swill.  The fact that you rehash the same crap day after day is indicative of your desperation.  Your inability to answer simple questions reveal enough about you that other civil libertarians have impeached your posts and exposed the *FACT *that you are the bottle what calls the kettle black.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the government is the people.  We elect representatives to carry out our will.  And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me.  It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
> 
> And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am struggling to understand your argument.
> 
> We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
> 
> If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law.  In was passed in 1996.
> 
> Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
> 
> Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
> 
> 
> Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
> 
> 
> Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
> 
> 
> Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
> 
> 
> Medicaid
> 
> 
> Medicare
> 
> 
> Social Security
> 
> 
> Welfare
> Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
> 
> Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
> 
> Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
> 
> 
> Schooling
> 
> 
> Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
> In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants.  States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
> 
> No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They're not forbidden for their anchor babies and yes the government reimburses hospitals about 4 billion a year to treat illegal aliens. And what do you think it costs the country for jails, prisons, schooling, property damage in auto accidents, courts (State, local and federal). Then you have property theft, identity theft, murder, kidnapping, assault, rape and various other crimes, none are free to their victims. And the lists go on and on, 100 billion a year is a conservative estimate.
> 
> Oh I forgot border and interior law enforcement to round those suckers up, then it costs almost 12,000 each to deport them.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The first time I ever heard the allegation that the children of undocumented parents "cost" taxpayers, I went to the hospital and spoke to a woman quoted in the article used to prove the allegation.
> 
> The lady I spoke to was Paula Martin. Remember, I spoke to her in person, face to face.  When presented with the article, she told me that the taxpayers do NOT reimburse the hospital for any INDIGENT patient.  When those who hate the foreigners revised the story, they lied again.  Instead of admitting this, the next time the right commented on it, they said:
> 
> "The Gwinnett (GA.) Hospital System expects more illegal immigrants will present themselves for urgent care this year and has established a $34 million reserve to cover its outlay."
> 
> The Social Contract - Illegal Aliens - The Health Cost Dimension
> 
> The $34 million dollar set aside is for INDIGENT patients, not undocumented foreigners.  Do undocumented foreigners represent some of those?  Yes, they do.  But, there are people like the homeless and the downright lazy who avail themselves of this set aside.  I have a worthless POS relative (by marriage) that is on the hook to that hospital for $54,000 right now.
> 
> So, how do the hospitals generate this $34 million dollars?
> 
> Most of the money is generated from uninsured people who pay for their services.  And the bad part for those who don't like the undocumented, they pay into that amount as well.  They do so because if they pay their income taxes via an Individual Tax Identification Number and keep their bills paid up, they are the first to be considered when amnesties roll around.
> 
> Additionally, the undocumented use the hospital for their primary care.  And, as long as they pay on their bill, they can continue to use the hospital for routine services.
> 
> So, I know, for a fact, you're peddling a lie here.  Why do you REALLY not want undocumented foreigners to come here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Medicaid Helps Hospitals Pay For Illegal Immigrants’ Care
> 
> .
Click to expand...




"The lion’s share goes to reimburse hospitals for delivering babies for women who show up in their emergency rooms, according to interviews with hospital officials and studies."

That is a direct quote from your article.  Your point?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> the wall makes us safe from crime. i'm not saying it makes us safe economically but it ultimately does when you think about it
> 
> 
> 
> How? I just don't see it. Criminals are resourceful. I seriously doubt a fence/wall will be more than an inconvenience.
> 
> The point of the wall is to stop the flow of Mexican labor, not to thwart crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only Mexican labor that comes in illegally.  Yes, that's what it's supposed to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let's drop the pretense that this is about criminals and rapists, mkay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did that lowlife get into California to kill that police officer?
> 
> The wall is about all matters of concern: the illegals, the criminals, the illegal narcotics, the diseases, all of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One minute you're all about making this a drug issue and then changing the goal posts to argue it again.  WTH???
Click to expand...


Discussing the drug issue does not make it my only concern.  My concerns listed (and more) are what you are responding to.  Illegal immigration is bad for our country on every level--not just the drug level.  These people are taking American jobs, keeping American wages lower, forcing us into becoming a bilingual nation, and giving Democrats the path of a total government control.  The faster they make whites a minority, the faster that dominance will take place, and you have zero problem with that.


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you stop whining about the left long enough to make a sane argument? No, you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> How can I?  It's a left vs right issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's just getting old hearing each party justify shitty policies "because the other side". It's just like arguing with liberals about ACA. When they are forced to admit that ACA was a sellout to the insurance industry, they blame it on the Republicans - even though exactly no Republicans voted for it.
> 
> Likewise, when your wall horseshit is shown to be nothing more than protectionist trade policy lathered up in fear mongering, you blame it on the left, or point out all the horrible things the left has done as if to justify the horrible things you want to do.
> 
> If we don't do something to bust up the stranglehold of the two-party system, your partisan pissing match is going to flush the whole country down the toilet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you deny that this is mostly on partisan lines?  If you can tell me that people in both parties feel differently, then show me that evidence.  But thus far, I've yet to see a lefty in support of Trump or border security for that matter.  Everybody on the left doesn't want the wall.  Everybody on the right does.  After all, the wall issue is what won Trump the presidency.
Click to expand...


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law.  In was passed in 1996.
> 
> Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
> 
> Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
> 
> 
> Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
> 
> 
> Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
> 
> 
> Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
> 
> 
> Medicaid
> 
> 
> Medicare
> 
> 
> Social Security
> 
> 
> Welfare
> Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
> 
> Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
> 
> Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
> 
> 
> Schooling
> 
> 
> Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
> In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants.  States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
> 
> No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
> 
> 
> 
> They can have an anchor baby and collect those benefits for their kid, thus bypassing that problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you know there is no such thing as an anchor baby and the U.S. only gives benefits to the American born "citizen?"  BTW, you know who passed the law that made those people citizens?
> 
> Hint: It was NOT the Democrats AND they did it illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, it was the courts that bastardized the 14th.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and if ignorant people like you had stayed at home or got educated before you got in the fight, the patriot community was taking the 14th Amendment off the table.  We could have won that issue over a decade ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, take that argument to court, I'm sure you'll be as successful there as you are here. LMAO
> 
> .
Click to expand...


That is a great deflection being that your side has made a false claim about the 14th Amendment and proven wrong for over a decade and a half.

The *FACT* is, the patriots working on that issue before the wall issue got introduced WERE WINNING.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know me better than that.  If you have something to say, spit it out.  Don't expect me to do your work for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said enough to prove you're nothing but a long winded troll and only took 3 short posts.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you like to play mind games, prove nothing and make accusations that sound more like projection.  I don't speak cryptic and if you see a troll, it's the one you see in your mirror.
> 
> Do you have anything relevant to say about this subject OR are you just trying to prove that nobody can out - troll you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should have an adult explain my responses to your ridiculous rants. A constitutional amendment to give congress the power over immigration, indeed. ROFLMFAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That criticism was a blatant lie.  Do you have ANY capacity for the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Amendment changed that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You delight in spewing swill and not being able to back it up.  You should laugh at yourself for pretending you're smarter than all the other posters on this board.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> How American Citizens Finance $18.5 Billion In Health Care For Unauthorized Immigrants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, Ray.  First you have an article that claims $2 Billion dollars.  I find another that says $4 Billion dollars.  Now we're up to $18.5  Billion dollars.  Let me quote something from your article:
> 
> *"Medicare DSH Payments*. In a similar fashion, although the formula is much more complicated, Medicare also pays hospitals a DSH payment that effectively serves as a general subsidy to offset aggregate uncompensated care losses without making any distinction between uncompensated costs generated by unauthorized immigrants and those generated by American citizens or legal immigrants."
> 
> Translated into English, the general public is too stupid to understand the partisan figures so they devise "formulas" that we're not supposed to understand.
> 
> Instead of trying to enlighten me with these idiotic articles, see if you can spend your day finding out the truth.
> 
> Where do your Rights come from?
> 
> Do some research on your article and show me the amount those undocumented foreigners contribute to offset the alleged cost.
> 
> This is really idiotic Ray.  There are a finite number of people here reading this.  You guys that want a border wall parrot the trash that was put together by white supremacists.  I'm not condemning you for that.
> 
> What I'm saying is that you cannot build your philosophy on lies to the point that you can no longer distinguish between reality and propaganda.  Today, I'd like to see something NEW from you.  You see, I'm more to the right than you because I am a constitutionalist.
> 
> When you bring debunked B.S. to the table every day, we cannot use it to persuade those who have stayed isolated from this issue and are just learning.  When they do a little research, your facts don't hold up and *if* you're honest - ever since Trump has been put in charge, public opinion has swung left.  No politician has jumped parties to be on Trump's side.  Some office holders have left the Republican Party to become Democrats.  The House of Representatives is indicative of the fact that what you're doing isn't working.
> 
> Can you answer my questions Ray?  Can you tell us where you get your Rights from?  Can you give us a legitimate reason you're so opposed to foreigners?
> 
> Don't try to pee down my neck and tell me it's raining.  If it were an issue like the Medicare / Medicaid stuff, you will find it easier to make it harder for undocumented foreigners to get the benefits and privileges of citizenship rather than transform America into a third world socialist cesspool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you several reasons I'm opposed to these foreigners, but YOU LEFTISTS put your hands against your ears and sing aloud.  You people have a tendency to do that when the truth smacks you in the head.
> 
> Now you're pissed off because I posted an article from a very reliable well known source.  Judging by your response, you barely read the thing.  And your argument is stupid that foreigners offset what they use in government funding.  It's as ridiculous as Piglosi's argument that welfare and unemployment benefits stimulate the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are a joke.  I quoted your silly article and it says, basically, you're too moronic to understand it so take their word for it.
> 
> If you think I'm a leftist, it's more proof you are not qualified to be in this kind of discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are certainly taking a leftist position.  If it walks like a duck.......quacks like a duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to take a leftist position, you have to offer a leftist solution.  Pointing out the holes in your theories and asking you questions in a quest for the truth has nothing with left or right.
> 
> Your deflections point to the fact you KNOW you're pushing swill.  The fact that you rehash the same crap day after day is indicative of your desperation.  Your inability to answer simple questions reveal enough about you that other civil libertarians have impeached your posts and exposed the *FACT *that you are the bottle what calls the kettle black.
Click to expand...


I'm the only one posting crap day after day?  Ever reread your posts? 

In one breath you say I repeat my position day after day, and in the next one you say I'm moving goal posts.  You can't have it both ways.  

You did offer leftists solutions: let anybody that wants to come here do just that.


----------



## OKTexas

Butch_Coolidge said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep illegals from coming in without proper permission. We don’t need the rest. That’s better use of money. Less crime, less money spent to support non tax payers. And libs piss away more money for foreign aid, than is spent on legitimate tax paying citizens. The libs are just trying to block Don from keeping campaigning promises that will benefit our citizens and economy. They will give everything away for free, and raise taxes to pay for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts to substantiate this?
> 
> You are calling people "illegals" before they come here.  So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea.  For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first.  Now, they are admitting it.
> 
> What a difference a day makes.  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread.  So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree. We are not putting America on surveillance, just the borders. Obviously an issue of national security currently. No one is saying put cameras on your home or mine. But, go anywhere in our country and you have been recorded for posterity. This does actually solve a lot of crime throughout the country. If you think we have a lot of surveillance here, England for example is that much more. This is a done deal, and not going anywhere.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



No need for the government to place microphones and cameras in people homes, too many are doing it themselves. All these digital assistance and wireless security systems opens up every one that uses them to in home surveillance.

.


----------



## Butch_Coolidge

Porter Rockwell said:


> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep illegals from coming in without proper permission. We don’t need the rest. That’s better use of money. Less crime, less money spent to support non tax payers. And libs piss away more money for foreign aid, than is spent on legitimate tax paying citizens. The libs are just trying to block Don from keeping campaigning promises that will benefit our citizens and economy. They will give everything away for free, and raise taxes to pay for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts to substantiate this?
> 
> You are calling people "illegals" before they come here.  So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea.  For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first.  Now, they are admitting it.
> 
> What a difference a day makes.  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread.  So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree. We are not putting America on surveillance, just the borders. Obviously an issue of national security currently. No one is saying put cameras on your home or mine. But, go anywhere in our country and you have been recorded for posterity. This does actually solve a lot of crime throughout the country. If you think we have a lot of surveillance here, England for example is that much more. This is a done deal, and not going anywhere.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing against common sense in legal technicalities.  Since the border wall people argue this is a legal issue (Trump is wisely calling it a National Security issue) you don't know how the precedent will be used.
> 
> As I have pointed out repeatedly, the same court decision used to keep the feds from forcing local police into enforcing the Brady Bill is the same decision that saved Sanctuary Cities.
> 
> Giving the feds more tools to put you under surveillance is pure madness.  BTW, that damn 14th Amendment some of those who agree with you want to save will be the issue (equal protection of the laws) that will enhance government surveillance on you.
Click to expand...


It should be used for security at the border, unlike how Obama used it. I’m talking about a system that monitors the border. I’m sure you and I are tracked everywhere we go. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> How? I just don't see it. Criminals are resourceful. I seriously doubt a fence/wall will be more than an inconvenience.
> 
> The point of the wall is to stop the flow of Mexican labor, not to thwart crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only Mexican labor that comes in illegally.  Yes, that's what it's supposed to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let's drop the pretense that this is about criminals and rapists, mkay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did that lowlife get into California to kill that police officer?
> 
> The wall is about all matters of concern: the illegals, the criminals, the illegal narcotics, the diseases, all of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One minute you're all about making this a drug issue and then changing the goal posts to argue it again.  WTH???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Discussing the drug issue does not make it my only concern.  My concerns listed (and more) are what you are responding to.  Illegal immigration is bad for our country on every level--not just the drug level.  These people are taking American jobs, keeping American wages lower, forcing us into becoming a bilingual nation, and giving Democrats the path of a total government control.  The faster they make whites a minority, the faster that dominance will take place, and you have zero problem with that.
Click to expand...


You are on both sides of the drug issue depending upon whether we're talking facts that support your cause OR negate it.  You should pick a side on that and stay there.  You're doing more to discredit yourself on that than you're doing to help yourself over-all.

Nobody can take your job unless you owned it to begin with.  So YOU are making a leftist argument.

You have not proven that the current situation keeps wages lower.  In *FACT*, wages are at an all time high and there are plenty of jobs.

The path you've chosen has *guaranteed* an end to our culture, our foundational principles (which you CLEARLY do not understand) and, consequently, an end to the white race.  

There are two important questions that those who advocate for a border wall have never asked me.  It would blow their entire case apart IF they had the ability to read the response.  You're so wrapped up in parroting the border wall talking points, you will never think to ask questions.  

The fact that you won't answer my questions proves, unequivocally, you realize that you're not in a good enough position to believe in the B.S. you promote here every day.  You think they are trick questions.

Where do you get your Rights from?  Don't give me a laundry list, but tell me why you REALLY want a wall.


----------



## danielpalos

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the government is the people.  We elect representatives to carry out our will.  And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me.  It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
> 
> And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am struggling to understand your argument.
> 
> We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
> 
> If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law.  In was passed in 1996.
> 
> Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
> 
> Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
> 
> 
> Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
> 
> 
> Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
> 
> 
> Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
> 
> 
> Medicaid
> 
> 
> Medicare
> 
> 
> Social Security
> 
> 
> Welfare
> Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
> 
> Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
> 
> Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
> 
> 
> Schooling
> 
> 
> Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
> In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants.  States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
> 
> No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They're not forbidden for their anchor babies and yes the government reimburses hospitals about 4 billion a year to treat illegal aliens. And what do you think it costs the country for jails, prisons, schooling, property damage in auto accidents, courts (State, local and federal). Then you have property theft, identity theft, murder, kidnapping, assault, rape and various other crimes, none are free to their victims. And the lists go on and on, 100 billion a year is a conservative estimate.
> 
> Oh I forgot border and interior law enforcement to round those suckers up, then it costs almost 12,000 each to deport them.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The first time I ever heard the allegation that the children of undocumented parents "cost" taxpayers, I went to the hospital and spoke to a woman quoted in the article used to prove the allegation.
> 
> The lady I spoke to was Paula Martin. Remember, I spoke to her in person, face to face.  When presented with the article, she told me that the taxpayers do NOT reimburse the hospital for any INDIGENT patient.  When those who hate the foreigners revised the story, they lied again.  Instead of admitting this, the next time the right commented on it, they said:
> 
> "The Gwinnett (GA.) Hospital System expects more illegal immigrants will present themselves for urgent care this year and has established a $34 million reserve to cover its outlay."
> 
> The Social Contract - Illegal Aliens - The Health Cost Dimension
> 
> The $34 million dollar set aside is for INDIGENT patients, not undocumented foreigners.  Do undocumented foreigners represent some of those?  Yes, they do.  But, there are people like the homeless and the downright lazy who avail themselves of this set aside.  I have a worthless POS relative (by marriage) that is on the hook to that hospital for $54,000 right now.
> 
> So, how do the hospitals generate this $34 million dollars?
> 
> Most of the money is generated from uninsured people who pay for their services.  And the bad part for those who don't like the undocumented, they pay into that amount as well.  They do so because if they pay their income taxes via an Individual Tax Identification Number and keep their bills paid up, they are the first to be considered when amnesties roll around.
> 
> Additionally, the undocumented use the hospital for their primary care.  And, as long as they pay on their bill, they can continue to use the hospital for routine services.
> 
> So, I know, for a fact, you're peddling a lie here.  Why do you REALLY not want undocumented foreigners to come here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Medicaid Helps Hospitals Pay For Illegal Immigrants’ Care
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Our war on drugs destabilizes entire governments and creates refugees.


----------



## Butch_Coolidge

OKTexas said:


> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep illegals from coming in without proper permission. We don’t need the rest. That’s better use of money. Less crime, less money spent to support non tax payers. And libs piss away more money for foreign aid, than is spent on legitimate tax paying citizens. The libs are just trying to block Don from keeping campaigning promises that will benefit our citizens and economy. They will give everything away for free, and raise taxes to pay for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts to substantiate this?
> 
> You are calling people "illegals" before they come here.  So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea.  For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first.  Now, they are admitting it.
> 
> What a difference a day makes.  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread.  So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree. We are not putting America on surveillance, just the borders. Obviously an issue of national security currently. No one is saying put cameras on your home or mine. But, go anywhere in our country and you have been recorded for posterity. This does actually solve a lot of crime throughout the country. If you think we have a lot of surveillance here, England for example is that much more. This is a done deal, and not going anywhere.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No need for the government to place microphones and cameras in people homes, too many are doing it themselves. All these digital assistance and wireless security systems opens up every one that uses them to in home surveillance.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Never mentioned someone’s home, or said I agreed with that. I would never have those stupid devices in my house. Just talking about the border, and stating that they exist more than we are aware. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep illegals from coming in without proper permission. We don’t need the rest. That’s better use of money. Less crime, less money spent to support non tax payers. And libs piss away more money for foreign aid, than is spent on legitimate tax paying citizens. The libs are just trying to block Don from keeping campaigning promises that will benefit our citizens and economy. They will give everything away for free, and raise taxes to pay for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts to substantiate this?
> 
> You are calling people "illegals" before they come here.  So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea.  For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first.  Now, they are admitting it.
> 
> What a difference a day makes.  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread.  So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree. We are not putting America on surveillance, just the borders. Obviously an issue of national security currently. No one is saying put cameras on your home or mine. But, go anywhere in our country and you have been recorded for posterity. This does actually solve a lot of crime throughout the country. If you think we have a lot of surveillance here, England for example is that much more. This is a done deal, and not going anywhere.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No need for the government to place microphones and cameras in people homes, too many are doing it themselves. All these digital assistance and wireless security systems opens up every one that uses them to in home surveillance.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


They have a choice right now.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Butch_Coolidge said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts to substantiate this?
> 
> You are calling people "illegals" before they come here.  So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea.  For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first.  Now, they are admitting it.
> 
> What a difference a day makes.  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread.  So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree. We are not putting America on surveillance, just the borders. Obviously an issue of national security currently. No one is saying put cameras on your home or mine. But, go anywhere in our country and you have been recorded for posterity. This does actually solve a lot of crime throughout the country. If you think we have a lot of surveillance here, England for example is that much more. This is a done deal, and not going anywhere.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing against common sense in legal technicalities.  Since the border wall people argue this is a legal issue (Trump is wisely calling it a National Security issue) you don't know how the precedent will be used.
> 
> As I have pointed out repeatedly, the same court decision used to keep the feds from forcing local police into enforcing the Brady Bill is the same decision that saved Sanctuary Cities.
> 
> Giving the feds more tools to put you under surveillance is pure madness.  BTW, that damn 14th Amendment some of those who agree with you want to save will be the issue (equal protection of the laws) that will enhance government surveillance on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should be used for security at the border, unlike how Obama used it. I’m talking about a system that monitors the border. I’m sure you and I are tracked everywhere we go.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



Two wrongs don't make a right AND know this:

There are groups fighting against all this surveillance and teaching people how to avoid some of it.  There is no sense in making it easy for your political enemies to have intel on you.


----------



## Butch_Coolidge

Porter Rockwell said:


> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea.  For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first.  Now, they are admitting it.
> 
> What a difference a day makes.  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread.  So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree. We are not putting America on surveillance, just the borders. Obviously an issue of national security currently. No one is saying put cameras on your home or mine. But, go anywhere in our country and you have been recorded for posterity. This does actually solve a lot of crime throughout the country. If you think we have a lot of surveillance here, England for example is that much more. This is a done deal, and not going anywhere.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing against common sense in legal technicalities.  Since the border wall people argue this is a legal issue (Trump is wisely calling it a National Security issue) you don't know how the precedent will be used.
> 
> As I have pointed out repeatedly, the same court decision used to keep the feds from forcing local police into enforcing the Brady Bill is the same decision that saved Sanctuary Cities.
> 
> Giving the feds more tools to put you under surveillance is pure madness.  BTW, that damn 14th Amendment some of those who agree with you want to save will be the issue (equal protection of the laws) that will enhance government surveillance on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should be used for security at the border, unlike how Obama used it. I’m talking about a system that monitors the border. I’m sure you and I are tracked everywhere we go.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Two wrongs don't make a right AND know this:
> 
> There are groups fighting against all this surveillance and teaching people how to avoid some of it.  There is no sense in making it easy for your political enemies to have intel on you.
Click to expand...


Guess we’ll see what they choose to do. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a difference a day makes. Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who's giving up liberty?  Build a wall and I won't lose a speck of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's ridiculous to try and have a sane conversation with a madman.  So you really think suspending the Constitution in order to enforce your dumb ass wall is not a threat to your Liberty?
> 
> Who are you going to try and make believe that?  Me or you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not suspending anything.  We Americans have the right to have a secure border and to permit (or deny) foreigners of entry by wall or any means.  It's been going on for generations.
Click to expand...


OMG.  Again?  Really?  How many times are you going to have to be schooled on this?  How many times can you deny reality and expect people to take you seriously?  How many times does this have to be explained to you?  Do you realize that some posters have stooped down to a fifth grade level to explain this to you and you STILL deny it?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Butch_Coolidge said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea.  For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first.  Now, they are admitting it.
> 
> What a difference a day makes.  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread.  So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree. We are not putting America on surveillance, just the borders. Obviously an issue of national security currently. No one is saying put cameras on your home or mine. But, go anywhere in our country and you have been recorded for posterity. This does actually solve a lot of crime throughout the country. If you think we have a lot of surveillance here, England for example is that much more. This is a done deal, and not going anywhere.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing against common sense in legal technicalities.  Since the border wall people argue this is a legal issue (Trump is wisely calling it a National Security issue) you don't know how the precedent will be used.
> 
> As I have pointed out repeatedly, the same court decision used to keep the feds from forcing local police into enforcing the Brady Bill is the same decision that saved Sanctuary Cities.
> 
> Giving the feds more tools to put you under surveillance is pure madness.  BTW, that damn 14th Amendment some of those who agree with you want to save will be the issue (equal protection of the laws) that will enhance government surveillance on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should be used for security at the border, unlike how Obama used it. I’m talking about a system that monitors the border. I’m sure you and I are tracked everywhere we go.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Two wrongs don't make a right AND know this:
> 
> There are groups fighting against all this surveillance and teaching people how to avoid some of it.  There is no sense in making it easy for your political enemies to have intel on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess we’ll see what they choose to do.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Just remember this: the patriot and constitutionalists were winning this war BEFORE those selling you the cow dung being slung on this thread came along, we were winning this war.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep illegals from coming in without proper permission. We don’t need the rest. That’s better use of money. Less crime, less money spent to support non tax payers. And libs piss away more money for foreign aid, than is spent on legitimate tax paying citizens. The libs are just trying to block Don from keeping campaigning promises that will benefit our citizens and economy. They will give everything away for free, and raise taxes to pay for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts to substantiate this?
> 
> You are calling people "illegals" before they come here.  So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea.  For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first.  Now, they are admitting it.
> 
> What a difference a day makes.  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread.  So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What a crock of shit, no one is trying to deny Americans their liberty. They are trying to secure our country to prevent the loss of lives, liberty and property.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



ROTF, LMAO, ROTF. LMAO.

Your entire campaign is a direct assault on Liberty.  Most of those on your side won't even answer the question of where we got our unalienable Rights from.  If they cannot answer that, they sure as Hell don't know what Liberty is.  Are you nucking futs or what!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you stop whining about the left long enough to make a sane argument? No, you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> How can I?  It's a left vs right issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's just getting old hearing each party justify shitty policies "because the other side". It's just like arguing with liberals about ACA. When they are forced to admit that ACA was a sellout to the insurance industry, they blame it on the Republicans - even though exactly no Republicans voted for it.
> 
> Likewise, when your wall horseshit is shown to be nothing more than protectionist trade policy lathered up in fear mongering, you blame it on the left, or point out all the horrible things the left has done as if to justify the horrible things you want to do.
> 
> If we don't do something to bust up the stranglehold of the two-party system, your partisan pissing match is going to flush the whole country down the toilet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you deny that this is mostly on partisan lines?  If you can tell me that people in both parties feel differently, then show me that evidence.  But thus far, I've yet to see a lefty in support of Trump or border security for that matter.  Everybody on the left doesn't want the wall.  Everybody on the right does.  After all, the wall issue is what won Trump the presidency.
Click to expand...


dblack and I are evidence that you are wrong.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a difference a day makes. Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who's giving up liberty?  Build a wall and I won't lose a speck of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you will. You might not care. It might be a trade off you're willing to make. But walling off our nation will restrict everyone's liberty. It'll also a disgraceful monument to fear mongering.
> 
> And we'll simply tear it down when the deplorables are gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't restrict my liberty in the slightest.  In fact, it will reduce the need for checking identification in the interior, which means it will actually enhance my liberty.
> 
> You're totally full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your liberty is limited whether you want to use it or not. Again, understanding this requires an understanding of inalienable rights - something that's evaded you so far.
Click to expand...

How is my liberty limited?


----------



## bripat9643

Rigby5 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government sets quotas based on several factors. If they decide we need more, then ok. But not just because of nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no there are no quotas.  Congress sets the maximum number immigrants at about 675,000 per year plus about half dozen categories of immigration that pushes the total to about a million a year or higher.
> 
> Then the law establishes the maximum number of immigrants from any country as 7% of the total, about 70,000 excluding certain categories.  However, this figure is reduced by the number of legal residents from that country living in the US who change immigration status to permanent resident.  Immigrants being sponsored by family members further reduces the number as well as employment sponsoring and other categories of immigration.
> 
> So for most countries if you do not have family living in the US or have special skills that will attract an employer to sponsor you or you don't fit in one of the other special categories, you simple can not immigrate to the US, no matter how long you wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah?  So what?  Since when does anyone have a right to emigrate to the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When the colonists came here from Europe 500 years ago, it was they who claimed anyone had the right to immigrate here, and now we are stuck with that legal precedent.  But it is even more complex because when we negotiated treaties to buy CA, AZ, NM, NV, CO, UT, TX, FL and others, there were already over a million Mexicans living here, so we agreed to treaties that prohibited any infringement on travel by Mexicans.  Those million Mexicans were not required to become US citizens or leave.  So we can't now close the border or else be in violation of the treaties and be in default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those treaties were all defunct long ago.  Our government isn't bound by any of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does not work that way.
> Treaties have to be ratified by Congress and then become US law.
> The only way for them to become defunct is for a party to fall into default, in which case the treaty is negated, and the states return to Mexican ownership.
> That is the way law works.
> It is not transient.
Click to expand...

Really?  We made hundreds of treaties with the Native Americans.  Which ones are still in force?


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep illegals from coming in without proper permission. We don’t need the rest. That’s better use of money. Less crime, less money spent to support non tax payers. And libs piss away more money for foreign aid, than is spent on legitimate tax paying citizens. The libs are just trying to block Don from keeping campaigning promises that will benefit our citizens and economy. They will give everything away for free, and raise taxes to pay for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts to substantiate this?
> 
> You are calling people "illegals" before they come here.  So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea.  For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first.  Now, they are admitting it.
> 
> What a difference a day makes.  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread.  So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree. We are not putting America on surveillance, just the borders. Obviously an issue of national security currently. No one is saying put cameras on your home or mine. But, go anywhere in our country and you have been recorded for posterity. This does actually solve a lot of crime throughout the country. If you think we have a lot of surveillance here, England for example is that much more. This is a done deal, and not going anywhere.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing against common sense in legal technicalities.  Since the border wall people argue this is a legal issue (Trump is wisely calling it a National Security issue) you don't know how the precedent will be used.
> 
> As I have pointed out repeatedly, the same court decision used to keep the feds from forcing local police into enforcing the Brady Bill is the same decision that saved Sanctuary Cities.
> 
> Giving the feds more tools to put you under surveillance is pure madness.  BTW, that damn 14th Amendment some of those who agree with you want to save will be the issue (equal protection of the laws) that will enhance government surveillance on you.
Click to expand...



Except the courts have already ruled that providing administrative information to federal law enforcement is NOT a commandeering of local resources. 

.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you stop whining about the left long enough to make a sane argument? No, you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> How can I?  It's a left vs right issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's just getting old hearing each party justify shitty policies "because the other side". It's just like arguing with liberals about ACA. When they are forced to admit that ACA was a sellout to the insurance industry, they blame it on the Republicans - even though exactly no Republicans voted for it.
> 
> Likewise, when your wall horseshit is shown to be nothing more than protectionist trade policy lathered up in fear mongering, you blame it on the left, or point out all the horrible things the left has done as if to justify the horrible things you want to do.
> 
> If we don't do something to bust up the stranglehold of the two-party system, your partisan pissing match is going to flush the whole country down the toilet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you deny that this is mostly on partisan lines?  If you can tell me that people in both parties feel differently, then show me that evidence.  But thus far, I've yet to see a lefty in support of Trump or border security for that matter.  Everybody on the left doesn't want the wall.  Everybody on the right does.  After all, the wall issue is what won Trump the presidency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dblack and I are evidence that you are wrong.
Click to expand...


Both moderates.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they'll just
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing.  After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck.  The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.
> 
> 
> 
> Those who don't have $150 will be kept out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they'll just buy a ladder.  We have been building taller and taller border barriers for over 50 years.  Maybe we should look at something different and stop repeating the same mistakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how many ladder crossers do you suppose were successful with the walls we have today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The success of getting over a border barrier depends on how well it's monitored. Barriers don't stop migrants, they only slow them down.  The Southern California border wall had border patrol vehicles running less than 5 mins apart and were very successful.  Around El Paeso they ran about 15 to 20 mins apart and there were a lots of crossings.  What it really amounts to is the more guards you have monitoring the border, the more people you will apprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we learned of the Caravan and where they were heading, our military and border patrol erected make-shift walls to keep them out.  They hurled rocks and bottles at our agents (because that's what nannies and gardeners do) and broke down the wall; not one ladder.
> 
> If they didn't create those temporary barriers, thousands and thousands would have entered this country and little to stop them.  But because they did put those barriers up, they were able to get enough personnel there to stop and arrest those who broke through it.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting version


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a difference a day makes. Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who's giving up liberty?  Build a wall and I won't lose a speck of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's ridiculous to try and have a sane conversation with a madman.  So you really think suspending the Constitution in order to enforce your dumb ass wall is not a threat to your Liberty?
> 
> Who are you going to try and make believe that?  Me or you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not suspending anything.  We Americans have the right to have a secure border and to permit (or deny) foreigners of entry by wall or any means.  It's been going on for generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG.  Again?  Really?  How many times are you going to have to be schooled on this?  How many times can you deny reality and expect people to take you seriously?  How many times does this have to be explained to you?  Do you realize that some posters have stooped down to a fifth grade level to explain this to you and you STILL deny it?
Click to expand...


----------



## nat4900

A breach within the Trump cult membership.......(RINO name-calling anyone???....LOL) 


U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, a Texas Republican, says President *Trump's border wall proposal is "a third-century solution to a 21st-century problem."*

"Taking action for action’s sake rarely leads to positive results," he said in a news release. "Our leaders have the solemn obligation to know the proper steps to take before acting upon them."

Hurd represents the state's 23rd Congressional District, which includes parts of San Antonio and extends all the way to the state's western border. The district, one of the largest in the nation, includes hundreds of miles of the U.S. border with Mexico.

*"I agree with [U.S. Homeland Security] Secretary John Kelly’s comments during his confirmation hearing that a wall does not solve our security problems," Hurd said. "In fact, building a wall from sea to shining sea would be the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border."*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Nobody can take your job unless you owned it to begin with. So YOU are making a leftist argument.



I didn't say my job in particular, I'm talking about American jobs.  Jobs created in this country belong to the people that live in this country.  We may be a global economy, but we are not a global country.  If an employer wants to hire foreigners, let that employer move to where the foreigners are.  Many have done so already. 



Porter Rockwell said:


> You have not proven that the current situation keeps wages lower. In *FACT*, wages are at an all time high and there are plenty of jobs.



For the time being, but that's not always the case, is it?  This economy will die down at some point, and then we will be stuck with a bunch of foreigners here who will compete against Americans (who belong here) and then those Americans will end up on some social program.  So indirectly, foreigners will be putting Americans on social programs.  We simply don't need that.  We have enough working capable people on those programs as it is. 



Porter Rockwell said:


> The path you've chosen has *guaranteed* an end to our culture, our foundational principles (which you CLEARLY do not understand) and, consequently, an end to the white race.



No, we on the right are trying to preserve that.  You are trying to turn our country into a third world nation.  And if it's inevitable, then you are accelerating it tenfold. 



Porter Rockwell said:


> There are two important questions that those who advocate for a border wall have never asked me. It would blow their entire case apart IF they had the ability to read the response. You're so wrapped up in parroting the border wall talking points, you will never think to ask questions.







Porter Rockwell said:


> The fact that you won't answer my questions proves, unequivocally, you realize that you're not in a good enough position to believe in the B.S. you promote here every day. You think they are trick questions.



What questions are that?



Porter Rockwell said:


> Where do you get your Rights from? Don't give me a laundry list, but tell me why you REALLY want a wall.



Don't give you a list but I should tell you why I want a wall?


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are foreigners chasing Americans down and forcing them to take drugs OR do Americans of their own free will and volition take the drugs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't use something that isn't there.  Given the fact most of our heroin comes across the southern border, it's only common sense to focus on that border to help stop the drugs.  However a wall is not just for drugs.  A wall is not just for illegals.  A wall is there to help retard the activity of both.
> 
> Blaming the user who got hooked on drugs (because they are available) is like blaming the woman who got raped because she looked too good the way she dressed.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say foreigners are taking "our jobs." How is that? Do you own a job that is in the private sector that a foreigner *stole* from you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our highways are polluted with foreign drivers.  They are terrible at their job and can't even read the English signs on the road.  In the meantime, as long as employers can hire these people for next to nothing, it brings down wages for American drivers which means less will look into that field of work.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the jobs created in the private sector belong to the public, and if so, is that not a socialist argument? Do we not own that which we create?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jobs created in America are for the American people--not the entire world.  Just like jobs created in Italy are for Italian people, or jobs created in Indonesia are for Indonesians.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, if foreigners are sending money back across the southern border, how much of it comes back as foreigners buy goods and services from Americans? I'm sure you must have some facts to figure out a Cost / Benefits Analysis on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know where they are buying their goods from once that money makes it to the other side of the border.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for jobs, wages are rising, new jobs are opening every day and if you want to work, you need to apply for the jobs. Even in YOUR profession there is a pressing need for more people in your industry. That situation took place without a wall. Were you aware of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm very aware of that.  However supply and demand comes into play.  If there is more demand than supply, the price goes up.  If there is more supply than demand, the price goes down.  If you satisfy the demand, the price remains steady.
> 
> Wages are going up because (at least for now) we have more demand than supply.  Left up to people like you, the supply would be satisfied and Americans would not see wage increases.  Then, when it turns around and we have more supply than demand because we let all these people here, wages decrease for Americans and all others.
Click to expand...

Most heroin that comes over the southern border is hidden in vehicles comming through ports of entry. Smaller amounts are carried in on foot some walking through ports of entry and some crossing over walls and fences.  Cartels send the shipments across the border as oppose to using planes and boats because it's easy and and cheap.  If we close off the border they will bring it  in using other routes.  The profits are so huge, there is no way you can seriously reduce the flow by stopping it in route.  Just one cargo container will hold enough uncut heroin to supply US demand for a year.

And Yes, the user is responsible for his habit.  Most heroin users get hooked not because drug dealers force their product on them.  They search out dealers looking a higher high or a replacement for other drugs.


----------



## WillowTree

Si if these assholes have all the answers why isn’t the bordersecure? Do ya think?


----------



## nat4900

WillowTree said:


> Si if these assholes have all the answers why isn’t the bordersecure? Do ya think?



Our border is MORE secure than almost all other countries on the planet....except for Israel that is forced to employ fascist tactics.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Walls work. China built a wall thousands of years ago and they still have no Mexicans.


----------



## Kondor3

Walls work. Ask the Israelis.

Walls here make sense in high-traffic areas. They don't make much sense elsewhere.

We'd do better to start prosecuting employers of Illegals, and Sanctuary City mayors, and stopping money-wire-transfers to Mexico.


----------



## Thinker101

nat4900 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Si if these assholes have all the answers why isn’t the bordersecure? Do ya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our border is MORE secure than almost all other countries on the planet....except for Israel that is forced to employ fascist tactics.
Click to expand...


Yet our border leaks like a sieve...go figure.


----------



## bripat9643

nat4900 said:


> A breach within the Trump cult membership.......(RINO name-calling anyone???....LOL)
> 
> 
> U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, a Texas Republican, says President *Trump's border wall proposal is "a third-century solution to a 21st-century problem."*
> 
> "Taking action for action’s sake rarely leads to positive results," he said in a news release. "Our leaders have the solemn obligation to know the proper steps to take before acting upon them."
> 
> Hurd represents the state's 23rd Congressional District, which includes parts of San Antonio and extends all the way to the state's western border. The district, one of the largest in the nation, includes hundreds of miles of the U.S. border with Mexico.
> 
> *"I agree with [U.S. Homeland Security] Secretary John Kelly’s comments during his confirmation hearing that a wall does not solve our security problems," Hurd said. "In fact, building a wall from sea to shining sea would be the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border."*


Wheels are a 5000 year old solution to a 21st Century problem.

This argument is stupid and has been shot down 10,000 times.


----------



## bripat9643

nat4900 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Si if these assholes have all the answers why isn’t the bordersecure? Do ya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our border is MORE secure than almost all other countries on the planet....except for Israel that is forced to employ fascist tactics.
Click to expand...

What "fascist tactics?"  You mean a wall?  
Austria also has a more secure border because it has a wall/fence.


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you stop whining about the left long enough to make a sane argument? No, you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> How can I?  It's a left vs right issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's just getting old hearing each party justify shitty policies "because the other side". It's just like arguing with liberals about ACA. When they are forced to admit that ACA was a sellout to the insurance industry, they blame it on the Republicans - even though exactly no Republicans voted for it.
> 
> Likewise, when your wall horseshit is shown to be nothing more than protectionist trade policy lathered up in fear mongering, you blame it on the left, or point out all the horrible things the left has done as if to justify the horrible things you want to do.
> 
> If we don't do something to bust up the stranglehold of the two-party system, your partisan pissing match is going to flush the whole country down the toilet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you deny that this is mostly on partisan lines?  If you can tell me that people in both parties feel differently, then show me that evidence.  But thus far, I've yet to see a lefty in support of Trump or border security for that matter.  Everybody on the left doesn't want the wall.  Everybody on the right does.  After all, the wall issue is what won Trump the presidency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dblack and I are evidence that you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both moderates.
Click to expand...


Are you calling me a moderate?!?!  Them's fightin' words!


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am struggling to understand your argument.
> 
> We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
> 
> If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law.  In was passed in 1996.
> 
> Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
> 
> Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
> 
> 
> Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
> 
> 
> Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
> 
> 
> Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
> 
> 
> Medicaid
> 
> 
> Medicare
> 
> 
> Social Security
> 
> 
> Welfare
> Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
> 
> Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
> 
> Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
> 
> 
> Schooling
> 
> 
> Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
> In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants.  States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
> 
> No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They're not forbidden for their anchor babies and yes the government reimburses hospitals about 4 billion a year to treat illegal aliens. And what do you think it costs the country for jails, prisons, schooling, property damage in auto accidents, courts (State, local and federal). Then you have property theft, identity theft, murder, kidnapping, assault, rape and various other crimes, none are free to their victims. And the lists go on and on, 100 billion a year is a conservative estimate.
> 
> Oh I forgot border and interior law enforcement to round those suckers up, then it costs almost 12,000 each to deport them.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The first time I ever heard the allegation that the children of undocumented parents "cost" taxpayers, I went to the hospital and spoke to a woman quoted in the article used to prove the allegation.
> 
> The lady I spoke to was Paula Martin. Remember, I spoke to her in person, face to face.  When presented with the article, she told me that the taxpayers do NOT reimburse the hospital for any INDIGENT patient.  When those who hate the foreigners revised the story, they lied again.  Instead of admitting this, the next time the right commented on it, they said:
> 
> "The Gwinnett (GA.) Hospital System expects more illegal immigrants will present themselves for urgent care this year and has established a $34 million reserve to cover its outlay."
> 
> The Social Contract - Illegal Aliens - The Health Cost Dimension
> 
> The $34 million dollar set aside is for INDIGENT patients, not undocumented foreigners.  Do undocumented foreigners represent some of those?  Yes, they do.  But, there are people like the homeless and the downright lazy who avail themselves of this set aside.  I have a worthless POS relative (by marriage) that is on the hook to that hospital for $54,000 right now.
> 
> So, how do the hospitals generate this $34 million dollars?
> 
> Most of the money is generated from uninsured people who pay for their services.  And the bad part for those who don't like the undocumented, they pay into that amount as well.  They do so because if they pay their income taxes via an Individual Tax Identification Number and keep their bills paid up, they are the first to be considered when amnesties roll around.
> 
> Additionally, the undocumented use the hospital for their primary care.  And, as long as they pay on their bill, they can continue to use the hospital for routine services.
> 
> So, I know, for a fact, you're peddling a lie here.  Why do you REALLY not want undocumented foreigners to come here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Medicaid Helps Hospitals Pay For Illegal Immigrants’ Care
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The lion’s share goes to reimburse hospitals for delivering babies for women who show up in their emergency rooms, according to interviews with hospital officials and studies."
> 
> That is a direct quote from your article.  Your point?
Click to expand...



That's medical care for illegals.

.


----------



## theHawk

bripat9643 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A breach within the Trump cult membership.......(RINO name-calling anyone???....LOL)
> 
> 
> U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, a Texas Republican, says President *Trump's border wall proposal is "a third-century solution to a 21st-century problem."*
> 
> "Taking action for action’s sake rarely leads to positive results," he said in a news release. "Our leaders have the solemn obligation to know the proper steps to take before acting upon them."
> 
> Hurd represents the state's 23rd Congressional District, which includes parts of San Antonio and extends all the way to the state's western border. The district, one of the largest in the nation, includes hundreds of miles of the U.S. border with Mexico.
> 
> *"I agree with [U.S. Homeland Security] Secretary John Kelly’s comments during his confirmation hearing that a wall does not solve our security problems," Hurd said. "In fact, building a wall from sea to shining sea would be the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border."*
> 
> 
> 
> Wheels are a 5000 year old solution to a 21st Century problem.
> 
> This argument is stupid and has been shot down 10,000 times.
Click to expand...


Invaders aren’t a 21st century problem, it’s a 5000+ BC problem and walls have worked great.

It’s funny how President Trump has brilliantly painted Dems into this corner.  The Dems are so ass backwards on so many issues now.  They literally argue that “walls don’t work” along with “males can be women”.  It’s totally delusional and they look to normal Americans like they belong in an insane asylum.


----------



## WillowTree

nat4900 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Si if these assholes have all the answers why isn’t the bordersecure? Do ya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our border is MORE secure than almost all other countries on the planet....except for Israel that is forced to employ fascist tactics.
Click to expand...

That’s why we have 20 million living here illegally? Because our borders are sew secure?


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are foreigners chasing Americans down and forcing them to take drugs OR do Americans of their own free will and volition take the drugs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't use something that isn't there.  Given the fact most of our heroin comes across the southern border, it's only common sense to focus on that border to help stop the drugs.  However a wall is not just for drugs.  A wall is not just for illegals.  A wall is there to help retard the activity of both.
> 
> Blaming the user who got hooked on drugs (because they are available) is like blaming the woman who got raped because she looked too good the way she dressed.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say foreigners are taking "our jobs." How is that? Do you own a job that is in the private sector that a foreigner *stole* from you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our highways are polluted with foreign drivers.  They are terrible at their job and can't even read the English signs on the road.  In the meantime, as long as employers can hire these people for next to nothing, it brings down wages for American drivers which means less will look into that field of work.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the jobs created in the private sector belong to the public, and if so, is that not a socialist argument? Do we not own that which we create?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jobs created in America are for the American people--not the entire world.  Just like jobs created in Italy are for Italian people, or jobs created in Indonesia are for Indonesians.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, if foreigners are sending money back across the southern border, how much of it comes back as foreigners buy goods and services from Americans? I'm sure you must have some facts to figure out a Cost / Benefits Analysis on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know where they are buying their goods from once that money makes it to the other side of the border.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for jobs, wages are rising, new jobs are opening every day and if you want to work, you need to apply for the jobs. Even in YOUR profession there is a pressing need for more people in your industry. That situation took place without a wall. Were you aware of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm very aware of that.  However supply and demand comes into play.  If there is more demand than supply, the price goes up.  If there is more supply than demand, the price goes down.  If you satisfy the demand, the price remains steady.
> 
> Wages are going up because (at least for now) we have more demand than supply.  Left up to people like you, the supply would be satisfied and Americans would not see wage increases.  Then, when it turns around and we have more supply than demand because we let all these people here, wages decrease for Americans and all others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most heroin that comes over the southern border is hidden in vehicles comming through ports of entry. Smaller amounts are carried in on foot some walking through ports of entry and some crossing over walls and fences.  Cartels send the shipments across the border as oppose to using planes and boats because it's easy and and cheap.  If we close off the border they will bring it  in using other routes.  The profits are so huge, there is no way you can seriously reduce the flow by stopping it in route.  Just one cargo container will hold enough uncut heroin to supply US demand for a year.
> 
> And Yes, the user is responsible for his habit.  Most heroin users get hooked not because drug dealers force their product on them.  They search out dealers looking a higher high or a replacement for other drugs.
Click to expand...

You only know about the ones getting caught. You have no idea how those who are getting away with it are doing it. They don't publicize their efforts.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've said enough to prove you're nothing but a long winded troll and only took 3 short posts.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you like to play mind games, prove nothing and make accusations that sound more like projection.  I don't speak cryptic and if you see a troll, it's the one you see in your mirror.
> 
> Do you have anything relevant to say about this subject OR are you just trying to prove that nobody can out - troll you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should have an adult explain my responses to your ridiculous rants. A constitutional amendment to give congress the power over immigration, indeed. ROFLMFAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That criticism was a blatant lie.  Do you have ANY capacity for the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Amendment changed that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You delight in spewing swill and not being able to back it up.  You should laugh at yourself for pretending you're smarter than all the other posters on this board.
Click to expand...



I didn't ask that dumb ass question regarding congress right to control immigration, YOU DID.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Butch_Coolidge said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts to substantiate this?
> 
> You are calling people "illegals" before they come here.  So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea.  For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first.  Now, they are admitting it.
> 
> What a difference a day makes.  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread.  So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree. We are not putting America on surveillance, just the borders. Obviously an issue of national security currently. No one is saying put cameras on your home or mine. But, go anywhere in our country and you have been recorded for posterity. This does actually solve a lot of crime throughout the country. If you think we have a lot of surveillance here, England for example is that much more. This is a done deal, and not going anywhere.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No need for the government to place microphones and cameras in people homes, too many are doing it themselves. All these digital assistance and wireless security systems opens up every one that uses them to in home surveillance.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never mentioned someone’s home, or said I agreed with that. I would never have those stupid devices in my house. Just talking about the border, and stating that they exist more than we are aware.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



Actually you did bring up someone's home, that's why I commented on it.


Butch_Coolidge said:


> No one is saying put cameras on your home or mine.



.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts to substantiate this?
> 
> You are calling people "illegals" before they come here.  So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea.  For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first.  Now, they are admitting it.
> 
> What a difference a day makes.  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread.  So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree. We are not putting America on surveillance, just the borders. Obviously an issue of national security currently. No one is saying put cameras on your home or mine. But, go anywhere in our country and you have been recorded for posterity. This does actually solve a lot of crime throughout the country. If you think we have a lot of surveillance here, England for example is that much more. This is a done deal, and not going anywhere.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No need for the government to place microphones and cameras in people homes, too many are doing it themselves. All these digital assistance and wireless security systems opens up every one that uses them to in home surveillance.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have a choice right now.
Click to expand...



No shit, captain obvious.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you stop whining about the left long enough to make a sane argument? No, you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> How can I?  It's a left vs right issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's just getting old hearing each party justify shitty policies "because the other side". It's just like arguing with liberals about ACA. When they are forced to admit that ACA was a sellout to the insurance industry, they blame it on the Republicans - even though exactly no Republicans voted for it.
> 
> Likewise, when your wall horseshit is shown to be nothing more than protectionist trade policy lathered up in fear mongering, you blame it on the left, or point out all the horrible things the left has done as if to justify the horrible things you want to do.
> 
> If we don't do something to bust up the stranglehold of the two-party system, your partisan pissing match is going to flush the whole country down the toilet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you deny that this is mostly on partisan lines?  If you can tell me that people in both parties feel differently, then show me that evidence.  But thus far, I've yet to see a lefty in support of Trump or border security for that matter.  Everybody on the left doesn't want the wall.  Everybody on the right does.  After all, the wall issue is what won Trump the presidency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dblack and I are evidence that you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both moderates.
Click to expand...


You are once again intellectually dishonest or ignorant.


----------



## Flopper

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing.  After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck.  The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who don't have $150 will be kept out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me see if you can be the first on this thread:
> 
> How come you want people from south of the border to be kept out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they'll take jobs for substandard wages, construction, UBER, Taxi, etc and make it hard for Americans to get a living wage. And because they bear anchor babies, collect welfare and will bankrupt our government or force us to get rid of welfare so even Americans who need it don't get it.
Click to expand...

The primary reason undocumented immigrants accept substandard wages is because they are undocumented.  Document them and the problem goes away.

Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for most federal social programs, Social Security, disability, food stamps, unemployment, Medicaid, Medicare, ACA healthcare subsidies, and welfare.

They are eligible for federal education dollars, emergency Medicaid medical care, and supplemental food assistance for pregnant mothers and infants.  Emergency Medicaid is less than 1% of the Medicaid budget and supplemental food assistant for pregnant mothers and infants is less than 3% of the SNAP budget.  Federal education dollars spent on undocumented immigrant children is an unknown factor because schools don't report immigration status of children.  However, the number of undocumented immigrants in public school make up less than 3% of enrollment.


----------



## 22lcidw

nat4900 said:


> A breach within the Trump cult membership.......(RINO name-calling anyone???....LOL)
> 
> 
> U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, a Texas Republican, says President *Trump's border wall proposal is "a third-century solution to a 21st-century problem."*
> 
> "Taking action for action’s sake rarely leads to positive results," he said in a news release. "Our leaders have the solemn obligation to know the proper steps to take before acting upon them."
> 
> Hurd represents the state's 23rd Congressional District, which includes parts of San Antonio and extends all the way to the state's western border. The district, one of the largest in the nation, includes hundreds of miles of the U.S. border with Mexico.
> 
> *"I agree with [U.S. Homeland Security] Secretary John Kelly’s comments during his confirmation hearing that a wall does not solve our security problems," Hurd said. "In fact, building a wall from sea to shining sea would be the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border."*


Wars work well also. Lots of pain and suffering but a solution to a problem. I am not a keyboard warrior. The western hemisphere has had peace for to long. Mother nature tends to get involved when stupidity rules the minds of men. Most of the people in our nation would chitt their pants if their checks stop being sent and medical is reduced to rationing. Many abuse others because they are empowered are in fiefdoms of the same. Watching law enforcement not going to the BLM riots to help their brothers was incredible. I am talking the inept, incompetent, sadistic, power hungry variety. Not the good ones. Fiefdoms are all over. In different ways and we all can be in more than one. Anyway the swamp is a fiefdom. And anyone whose child has been affected by drugs as an example can tell people like you to go to hell.


----------



## whitehall

"A 21st century problem"?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody can take your job unless you owned it to begin with. So YOU are making a leftist argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say my job in particular, I'm talking about American jobs.  Jobs created in this country belong to the people that live in this country.  We may be a global economy, but we are not a global country.  If an employer wants to hire foreigners, let that employer move to where the foreigners are.  Many have done so already.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not proven that the current situation keeps wages lower. In *FACT*, wages are at an all time high and there are plenty of jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the time being, but that's not always the case, is it?  This economy will die down at some point, and then we will be stuck with a bunch of foreigners here who will compete against Americans (who belong here) and then those Americans will end up on some social program.  So indirectly, foreigners will be putting Americans on social programs.  We simply don't need that.  We have enough working capable people on those programs as it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The path you've chosen has *guaranteed* an end to our culture, our foundational principles (which you CLEARLY do not understand) and, consequently, an end to the white race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we on the right are trying to preserve that.  You are trying to turn our country into a third world nation.  And if it's inevitable, then you are accelerating it tenfold.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two important questions that those who advocate for a border wall have never asked me. It would blow their entire case apart IF they had the ability to read the response. You're so wrapped up in parroting the border wall talking points, you will never think to ask questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you won't answer my questions proves, unequivocally, you realize that you're not in a good enough position to believe in the B.S. you promote here every day. You think they are trick questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What questions are that?
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get your Rights from? Don't give me a laundry list, but tell me why you REALLY want a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't give you a list but I should tell you why I want a wall?
Click to expand...


Ray, I'm going to explain this to you one more time.  This is not opinion; not left v. right.  It's the way it is.

When you advocate that jobs belong to the Americans, you just made a left wing / SOCIALIST argument.  

Socialism - noun "a political and economic theory of social organization which *advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole*."

what is socialism definition - Bing

We're DONE with that.  YOU are the socialist because that is what you are advocating.  Period.

I agree that we have to look into the future regarding jobs and that is the greatest weakness of what you're proposing.  You are not looking five or ten years down the road.

My questions are simple:  Where do you get your unalienable Rights from and give me the REAL reason you want a wall around America.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are foreigners chasing Americans down and forcing them to take drugs OR do Americans of their own free will and volition take the drugs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't use something that isn't there.  Given the fact most of our heroin comes across the southern border, it's only common sense to focus on that border to help stop the drugs.  However a wall is not just for drugs.  A wall is not just for illegals.  A wall is there to help retard the activity of both.
> 
> Blaming the user who got hooked on drugs (because they are available) is like blaming the woman who got raped because she looked too good the way she dressed.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say foreigners are taking "our jobs." How is that? Do you own a job that is in the private sector that a foreigner *stole* from you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our highways are polluted with foreign drivers.  They are terrible at their job and can't even read the English signs on the road.  In the meantime, as long as employers can hire these people for next to nothing, it brings down wages for American drivers which means less will look into that field of work.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the jobs created in the private sector belong to the public, and if so, is that not a socialist argument? Do we not own that which we create?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jobs created in America are for the American people--not the entire world.  Just like jobs created in Italy are for Italian people, or jobs created in Indonesia are for Indonesians.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, if foreigners are sending money back across the southern border, how much of it comes back as foreigners buy goods and services from Americans? I'm sure you must have some facts to figure out a Cost / Benefits Analysis on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know where they are buying their goods from once that money makes it to the other side of the border.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for jobs, wages are rising, new jobs are opening every day and if you want to work, you need to apply for the jobs. Even in YOUR profession there is a pressing need for more people in your industry. That situation took place without a wall. Were you aware of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm very aware of that.  However supply and demand comes into play.  If there is more demand than supply, the price goes up.  If there is more supply than demand, the price goes down.  If you satisfy the demand, the price remains steady.
> 
> Wages are going up because (at least for now) we have more demand than supply.  Left up to people like you, the supply would be satisfied and Americans would not see wage increases.  Then, when it turns around and we have more supply than demand because we let all these people here, wages decrease for Americans and all others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most heroin that comes over the southern border is hidden in vehicles comming through ports of entry. Smaller amounts are carried in on foot some walking through ports of entry and some crossing over walls and fences.  Cartels send the shipments across the border as oppose to using planes and boats because it's easy and and cheap.  If we close off the border they will bring it  in using other routes.  The profits are so huge, there is no way you can seriously reduce the flow by stopping it in route.  Just one cargo container will hold enough uncut heroin to supply US demand for a year.
> 
> And Yes, the user is responsible for his habit.  Most heroin users get hooked not because drug dealers force their product on them.  They search out dealers looking a higher high or a replacement for other drugs.
Click to expand...


Don't forget - most drug users were created by their parents and the U.S. government.


----------



## Old Yeller

For $5B-$25B i will take the risk of looking old-fashioned.  Remember waste under obama?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I?  It's a left vs right issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just getting old hearing each party justify shitty policies "because the other side". It's just like arguing with liberals about ACA. When they are forced to admit that ACA was a sellout to the insurance industry, they blame it on the Republicans - even though exactly no Republicans voted for it.
> 
> Likewise, when your wall horseshit is shown to be nothing more than protectionist trade policy lathered up in fear mongering, you blame it on the left, or point out all the horrible things the left has done as if to justify the horrible things you want to do.
> 
> If we don't do something to bust up the stranglehold of the two-party system, your partisan pissing match is going to flush the whole country down the toilet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you deny that this is mostly on partisan lines?  If you can tell me that people in both parties feel differently, then show me that evidence.  But thus far, I've yet to see a lefty in support of Trump or border security for that matter.  Everybody on the left doesn't want the wall.  Everybody on the right does.  After all, the wall issue is what won Trump the presidency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dblack and I are evidence that you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both moderates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you calling me a moderate?!?!  Them's fightin' words!
Click to expand...


That's why the build the wall guys only talk that skeet on the Internet.  They don't have the balls to talk like that in public.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law.  In was passed in 1996.
> 
> Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
> 
> Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
> 
> 
> Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
> 
> 
> Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
> 
> 
> Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
> 
> 
> Medicaid
> 
> 
> Medicare
> 
> 
> Social Security
> 
> 
> Welfare
> Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
> 
> Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
> 
> Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
> 
> 
> Schooling
> 
> 
> Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
> In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants.  States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
> 
> No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not forbidden for their anchor babies and yes the government reimburses hospitals about 4 billion a year to treat illegal aliens. And what do you think it costs the country for jails, prisons, schooling, property damage in auto accidents, courts (State, local and federal). Then you have property theft, identity theft, murder, kidnapping, assault, rape and various other crimes, none are free to their victims. And the lists go on and on, 100 billion a year is a conservative estimate.
> 
> Oh I forgot border and interior law enforcement to round those suckers up, then it costs almost 12,000 each to deport them.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The first time I ever heard the allegation that the children of undocumented parents "cost" taxpayers, I went to the hospital and spoke to a woman quoted in the article used to prove the allegation.
> 
> The lady I spoke to was Paula Martin. Remember, I spoke to her in person, face to face.  When presented with the article, she told me that the taxpayers do NOT reimburse the hospital for any INDIGENT patient.  When those who hate the foreigners revised the story, they lied again.  Instead of admitting this, the next time the right commented on it, they said:
> 
> "The Gwinnett (GA.) Hospital System expects more illegal immigrants will present themselves for urgent care this year and has established a $34 million reserve to cover its outlay."
> 
> The Social Contract - Illegal Aliens - The Health Cost Dimension
> 
> The $34 million dollar set aside is for INDIGENT patients, not undocumented foreigners.  Do undocumented foreigners represent some of those?  Yes, they do.  But, there are people like the homeless and the downright lazy who avail themselves of this set aside.  I have a worthless POS relative (by marriage) that is on the hook to that hospital for $54,000 right now.
> 
> So, how do the hospitals generate this $34 million dollars?
> 
> Most of the money is generated from uninsured people who pay for their services.  And the bad part for those who don't like the undocumented, they pay into that amount as well.  They do so because if they pay their income taxes via an Individual Tax Identification Number and keep their bills paid up, they are the first to be considered when amnesties roll around.
> 
> Additionally, the undocumented use the hospital for their primary care.  And, as long as they pay on their bill, they can continue to use the hospital for routine services.
> 
> So, I know, for a fact, you're peddling a lie here.  Why do you REALLY not want undocumented foreigners to come here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Medicaid Helps Hospitals Pay For Illegal Immigrants’ Care
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The lion’s share goes to reimburse hospitals for delivering babies for women who show up in their emergency rooms, according to interviews with hospital officials and studies."
> 
> That is a direct quote from your article.  Your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's medical care for illegals.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The medical care is provided to the biological host of a baby.  So, level with me here, would you support abortion for those people instead?


----------



## Flopper

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you're willing to wage a race war on behalf of the whites, you will never keep the foreigners out.
> 
> 
> 
> Who wants to wage a race war. Limit immigration to those who'll make our country stronger. Not those who'll suck on Government benefits or work for substandard wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check out post #3056 then get back to us with a valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anchor babies collect federal benefits and give that money to their illegal immigrant parent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The money is just enough for the child born in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they live on it. Been doing it for decades. When one turns 18 they have another or their female child has one and continues the cycle. They pack a lot of people inside of a single house to do it but they do it.
Click to expand...

The only actually dollars an undocumented family would receive do to a child that is a citizen is TANF which is temporary emergency funds and is a very small amount for a child.  Food stamps for a child are barely enough for a child and certainly would not be enough to feed a family.

The claim that undocumented immigrant families are abnormal large is not so.  The average household size of an american family 2.6 persons.  The average size of an undocumented immigrant family 3.2.  Undocumented immigrant families tend to be much smaller than one would expect because a large percent are migrants and they go where the jobs are.  However, it is true that there are often several families sharing one home.


----------



## westwall

nat4900 said:


> A breach within the Trump cult membership.......(RINO name-calling anyone???....LOL)
> 
> 
> U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, a Texas Republican, says President *Trump's border wall proposal is "a third-century solution to a 21st-century problem."*
> 
> "Taking action for action’s sake rarely leads to positive results," he said in a news release. "Our leaders have the solemn obligation to know the proper steps to take before acting upon them."
> 
> Hurd represents the state's 23rd Congressional District, which includes parts of San Antonio and extends all the way to the state's western border. The district, one of the largest in the nation, includes hundreds of miles of the U.S. border with Mexico.
> 
> *"I agree with [U.S. Homeland Security] Secretary John Kelly’s comments during his confirmation hearing that a wall does not solve our security problems," Hurd said. "In fact, building a wall from sea to shining sea would be the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border."*









Seems to work for the Speaker herself though.  This is the wall around her Napa estate.  Hmmm, I didn't realize she was so immoral.  Of course the wall itself is more for decoration, but the armed guards that are the real defense are quite adept I am sure.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea.  For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first.  Now, they are admitting it.
> 
> What a difference a day makes.  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread.  So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree. We are not putting America on surveillance, just the borders. Obviously an issue of national security currently. No one is saying put cameras on your home or mine. But, go anywhere in our country and you have been recorded for posterity. This does actually solve a lot of crime throughout the country. If you think we have a lot of surveillance here, England for example is that much more. This is a done deal, and not going anywhere.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No need for the government to place microphones and cameras in people homes, too many are doing it themselves. All these digital assistance and wireless security systems opens up every one that uses them to in home surveillance.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have a choice right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No shit, captain obvious.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


And yet those you associate with would take away that right.


----------



## dblack

Porter Rockwell said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just getting old hearing each party justify shitty policies "because the other side". It's just like arguing with liberals about ACA. When they are forced to admit that ACA was a sellout to the insurance industry, they blame it on the Republicans - even though exactly no Republicans voted for it.
> 
> Likewise, when your wall horseshit is shown to be nothing more than protectionist trade policy lathered up in fear mongering, you blame it on the left, or point out all the horrible things the left has done as if to justify the horrible things you want to do.
> 
> If we don't do something to bust up the stranglehold of the two-party system, your partisan pissing match is going to flush the whole country down the toilet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that this is mostly on partisan lines?  If you can tell me that people in both parties feel differently, then show me that evidence.  But thus far, I've yet to see a lefty in support of Trump or border security for that matter.  Everybody on the left doesn't want the wall.  Everybody on the right does.  After all, the wall issue is what won Trump the presidency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dblack and I are evidence that you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both moderates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you calling me a moderate?!?!  Them's fightin' words!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why the build the wall guys only talk that skeet on the Internet.  They don't have the balls to talk like that in public.
Click to expand...


I was just kidding around. But seriously, I don't think I've ever been referred to as a moderate before.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep illegals from coming in without proper permission. We don’t need the rest. That’s better use of money. Less crime, less money spent to support non tax payers. And libs piss away more money for foreign aid, than is spent on legitimate tax paying citizens. The libs are just trying to block Don from keeping campaigning promises that will benefit our citizens and economy. They will give everything away for free, and raise taxes to pay for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts to substantiate this?
> 
> You are calling people "illegals" before they come here.  So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea.  For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first.  Now, they are admitting it.
> 
> What a difference a day makes.  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread.  So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What a crock of shit, no one is trying to deny Americans their liberty. They are trying to secure our country to prevent the loss of lives, liberty and property.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROTF, LMAO, ROTF. LMAO.
> 
> Your entire campaign is a direct assault on Liberty.  Most of those on your side won't even answer the question of where we got our unalienable Rights from.  If they cannot answer that, they sure as Hell don't know what Liberty is.  Are you nucking futs or what!
Click to expand...



Bull hockey, securing our borders doesn't effect the liberty of our citizens. Not securing it, on the other hand, is getting tens of thousands killed, the absolute denial of liberty. They've already seized enough fentanyl to kill everyone in this country. Accidental exposure to as little as 3 grains can kill a 250 pound man. Carfentanyl is even worse and they're finding more and more of it.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

dblack said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that this is mostly on partisan lines?  If you can tell me that people in both parties feel differently, then show me that evidence.  But thus far, I've yet to see a lefty in support of Trump or border security for that matter.  Everybody on the left doesn't want the wall.  Everybody on the right does.  After all, the wall issue is what won Trump the presidency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack and I are evidence that you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both moderates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you calling me a moderate?!?!  Them's fightin' words!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why the build the wall guys only talk that skeet on the Internet.  They don't have the balls to talk like that in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was just kidding around. But seriously, I don't think I've ever been referred to as a moderate before.
Click to expand...


I find it hilarious that those referring to people like you and I as moderates and leftists are primarily using socialist arguments - as Ray does to support their position.

But, rest assured, many of them KNOW what they're doing.  They support socialism and are at peace with it, but since they cannot defend their position they rely on the standard canard of socialist philosophy while calling others names.

It's sad that all they have are meaningless platitudes and the talking points of socialists; they live in FEAR of having to participate in a real discussion and know, deep down, their position has flaws they don't want to address.  So, instead of admitting the flaws, they make baseless accusations and allegations they would never say in person.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts to substantiate this?
> 
> You are calling people "illegals" before they come here.  So, you reject the notion of innocent until proven guilty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea.  For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first.  Now, they are admitting it.
> 
> What a difference a day makes.  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread.  So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What a crock of shit, no one is trying to deny Americans their liberty. They are trying to secure our country to prevent the loss of lives, liberty and property.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROTF, LMAO, ROTF. LMAO.
> 
> Your entire campaign is a direct assault on Liberty.  Most of those on your side won't even answer the question of where we got our unalienable Rights from.  If they cannot answer that, they sure as Hell don't know what Liberty is.  Are you nucking futs or what!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bull hockey, securing our borders doesn't effect the liberty of our citizens. Not securing it, on the other hand, is getting tens of thousands killed, the absolute denial of liberty. They've already seized enough fentanyl to kill everyone in this country. Accidental exposure to as little as 3 grains can kill a 250 pound man. Carfentanyl is even worse and they're finding more and more of it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Where do you get your unalienable Rights from?

And, again, one of those silly ass arguments that if you don't support a wall, you're against border security.  You'd rather die and rot in Hell rather than to have an honest discussion about this, wouldn't you?

Your religion is the wall.  Maybe, someday, the good Lord will give you four of them and keep society protected from people like you.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody can take your job unless you owned it to begin with. So YOU are making a leftist argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say my job in particular, I'm talking about American jobs.  Jobs created in this country belong to the people that live in this country.  We may be a global economy, but we are not a global country.  If an employer wants to hire foreigners, let that employer move to where the foreigners are.  Many have done so already.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not proven that the current situation keeps wages lower. In *FACT*, wages are at an all time high and there are plenty of jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the time being, but that's not always the case, is it?  This economy will die down at some point, and then we will be stuck with a bunch of foreigners here who will compete against Americans (who belong here) and then those Americans will end up on some social program.  So indirectly, foreigners will be putting Americans on social programs.  We simply don't need that.  We have enough working capable people on those programs as it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The path you've chosen has *guaranteed* an end to our culture, our foundational principles (which you CLEARLY do not understand) and, consequently, an end to the white race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we on the right are trying to preserve that.  You are trying to turn our country into a third world nation.  And if it's inevitable, then you are accelerating it tenfold.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two important questions that those who advocate for a border wall have never asked me. It would blow their entire case apart IF they had the ability to read the response. You're so wrapped up in parroting the border wall talking points, you will never think to ask questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you won't answer my questions proves, unequivocally, you realize that you're not in a good enough position to believe in the B.S. you promote here every day. You think they are trick questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What questions are that?
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get your Rights from? Don't give me a laundry list, but tell me why you REALLY want a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't give you a list but I should tell you why I want a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ray, I'm going to explain this to you one more time.  This is not opinion; not left v. right.  It's the way it is.
> 
> When you advocate that jobs belong to the Americans, you just made a left wing / SOCIALIST argument.
> 
> Socialism - noun "a political and economic theory of social organization which *advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole*."
> 
> what is socialism definition - Bing
> 
> We're DONE with that.  YOU are the socialist because that is what you are advocating.  Period.
> 
> I agree that we have to look into the future regarding jobs and that is the greatest weakness of what you're proposing.  You are not looking five or ten years down the road.
> 
> My questions are simple:  Where do you get your unalienable Rights from and give me the REAL reason you want a wall around America.
Click to expand...


We've already been through that and I gave you several reason.  You are asking me to repeat myself which I'm not going to waste time on.  

Inalienable rights are something you are born with.  Those are rights that cannot be taken away from you or given to you.  You have a right to believe in any religion you like even if you're in a country that doesn't allow you to practice it.  You have a right to decide on which food you eat unless in a situation where there are few if any choices.  You have the right to love somebody or something.  

Happy?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> dblack and I are evidence that you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both moderates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you calling me a moderate?!?!  Them's fightin' words!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why the build the wall guys only talk that skeet on the Internet.  They don't have the balls to talk like that in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was just kidding around. But seriously, I don't think I've ever been referred to as a moderate before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it hilarious that those referring to people like you and I as moderates and leftists are primarily using socialist arguments - as Ray does to support their position.
> 
> But, rest assured, many of them KNOW what they're doing.  They support socialism and are at peace with it, but since they cannot defend their position they rely on the standard canard of socialist philosophy while calling others names.
> 
> It's sad that all they have are meaningless platitudes and the talking points of socialists; they live in FEAR of having to participate in a real discussion and know, deep down, their position has flaws they don't want to address.  So, instead of admitting the flaws, they make baseless accusations and allegations they would never say in person.
Click to expand...


Obviously you don't know what Socialism is.  Keeping people out of the country is not socialism, it's protection of the citizens.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're not forbidden for their anchor babies and yes the government reimburses hospitals about 4 billion a year to treat illegal aliens. And what do you think it costs the country for jails, prisons, schooling, property damage in auto accidents, courts (State, local and federal). Then you have property theft, identity theft, murder, kidnapping, assault, rape and various other crimes, none are free to their victims. And the lists go on and on, 100 billion a year is a conservative estimate.
> 
> Oh I forgot border and interior law enforcement to round those suckers up, then it costs almost 12,000 each to deport them.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first time I ever heard the allegation that the children of undocumented parents "cost" taxpayers, I went to the hospital and spoke to a woman quoted in the article used to prove the allegation.
> 
> The lady I spoke to was Paula Martin. Remember, I spoke to her in person, face to face.  When presented with the article, she told me that the taxpayers do NOT reimburse the hospital for any INDIGENT patient.  When those who hate the foreigners revised the story, they lied again.  Instead of admitting this, the next time the right commented on it, they said:
> 
> "The Gwinnett (GA.) Hospital System expects more illegal immigrants will present themselves for urgent care this year and has established a $34 million reserve to cover its outlay."
> 
> The Social Contract - Illegal Aliens - The Health Cost Dimension
> 
> The $34 million dollar set aside is for INDIGENT patients, not undocumented foreigners.  Do undocumented foreigners represent some of those?  Yes, they do.  But, there are people like the homeless and the downright lazy who avail themselves of this set aside.  I have a worthless POS relative (by marriage) that is on the hook to that hospital for $54,000 right now.
> 
> So, how do the hospitals generate this $34 million dollars?
> 
> Most of the money is generated from uninsured people who pay for their services.  And the bad part for those who don't like the undocumented, they pay into that amount as well.  They do so because if they pay their income taxes via an Individual Tax Identification Number and keep their bills paid up, they are the first to be considered when amnesties roll around.
> 
> Additionally, the undocumented use the hospital for their primary care.  And, as long as they pay on their bill, they can continue to use the hospital for routine services.
> 
> So, I know, for a fact, you're peddling a lie here.  Why do you REALLY not want undocumented foreigners to come here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Medicaid Helps Hospitals Pay For Illegal Immigrants’ Care
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The lion’s share goes to reimburse hospitals for delivering babies for women who show up in their emergency rooms, according to interviews with hospital officials and studies."
> 
> That is a direct quote from your article.  Your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's medical care for illegals.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The medical care is provided to the biological host of a baby.  So, level with me here, would you support abortion for those people instead?
Click to expand...



No I would support shipping her ass out of the country before she drops a kid. And refusing entry to any pregnant woman.

.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea.  For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first.  Now, they are admitting it.
> 
> What a difference a day makes.  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread.  So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree. We are not putting America on surveillance, just the borders. Obviously an issue of national security currently. No one is saying put cameras on your home or mine. But, go anywhere in our country and you have been recorded for posterity. This does actually solve a lot of crime throughout the country. If you think we have a lot of surveillance here, England for example is that much more. This is a done deal, and not going anywhere.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No need for the government to place microphones and cameras in people homes, too many are doing it themselves. All these digital assistance and wireless security systems opens up every one that uses them to in home surveillance.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have a choice right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No shit, captain obvious.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet those you associate with would take away that right.
Click to expand...



Me thinks you need to elaborate on that one.

.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I?  It's a left vs right issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just getting old hearing each party justify shitty policies "because the other side". It's just like arguing with liberals about ACA. When they are forced to admit that ACA was a sellout to the insurance industry, they blame it on the Republicans - even though exactly no Republicans voted for it.
> 
> Likewise, when your wall horseshit is shown to be nothing more than protectionist trade policy lathered up in fear mongering, you blame it on the left, or point out all the horrible things the left has done as if to justify the horrible things you want to do.
> 
> If we don't do something to bust up the stranglehold of the two-party system, your partisan pissing match is going to flush the whole country down the toilet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you deny that this is mostly on partisan lines?  If you can tell me that people in both parties feel differently, then show me that evidence.  But thus far, I've yet to see a lefty in support of Trump or border security for that matter.  Everybody on the left doesn't want the wall.  Everybody on the right does.  After all, the wall issue is what won Trump the presidency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dblack and I are evidence that you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both moderates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you calling me a moderate?!?!  Them's fightin' words!
Click to expand...


If you claim to be on the right and take leftist positions, yes, you are a moderate.  It's why Michael Medved lost his show on Salem Communications this week.  He was a moderate and the company didn't like his views.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P F Tinmore said:


> Walls work. China built a wall thousands of years ago and they still have no Mexicans.



No, no Mexicans but they didn't post enough No Mongul signs and the Monguls just went around it.


----------



## nat4900

theHawk said:


> It’s funny how President Trump has brilliantly painted Dems into this corner.




GREAT analogy......lol


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> If you claim to be on the right and take leftist positions, yes, you are a moderate.


I guess I'm in the clear then.


----------



## nat4900

WillowTree said:


> That’s why we have 20 million living here illegally? Because our borders are sew secure?




Here you fucking ignorant turd

*Visa Overstays Outnumber Illegal Border Crossings...*


----------



## bripat9643

nat4900 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why we have 20 million living here illegally? Because our borders are sew secure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you fucking ignorant turd
> 
> *Visa Overstays Outnumber Illegal Border Crossings...*
Click to expand...

Center for Migration Studies - an open borders propaganda organ.


----------



## HappyJoy

westwall said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A breach within the Trump cult membership.......(RINO name-calling anyone???....LOL)
> 
> 
> U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, a Texas Republican, says President *Trump's border wall proposal is "a third-century solution to a 21st-century problem."*
> 
> "Taking action for action’s sake rarely leads to positive results," he said in a news release. "Our leaders have the solemn obligation to know the proper steps to take before acting upon them."
> 
> Hurd represents the state's 23rd Congressional District, which includes parts of San Antonio and extends all the way to the state's western border. The district, one of the largest in the nation, includes hundreds of miles of the U.S. border with Mexico.
> 
> *"I agree with [U.S. Homeland Security] Secretary John Kelly’s comments during his confirmation hearing that a wall does not solve our security problems," Hurd said. "In fact, building a wall from sea to shining sea would be the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to work for the Speaker herself though.  This is the wall around her Napa estate.  Hmmm, I didn't realize she was so immoral.  Of course the wall itself is more for decoration, but the armed guards that are the real defense are quite adept I am sure.
Click to expand...


You want a 3 ft wall?


----------



## dblack

P F Tinmore said:


> Walls work. China built a wall thousands of years ago and they still have no Mexicans.


For Trumpsters, this is referred to as "reasoning".


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walls work. China built a wall thousands of years ago and they still have no Mexicans.
> 
> 
> 
> For Trumpsters, this is referred to as "reasoning".
Click to expand...


----------



## 22lcidw

nat4900 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s funny how President Trump has brilliantly painted Dems into this corner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GREAT analogy......lol
Click to expand...

Go on a cruise. Visit the islands and or mainlands with cruise ports having an area with multiple stores selling shirts, jewelry, braiding hair and more of the same with a a bar and fence around it. You can take an excursion if you want, but the reality is what it is. We are told other things due to politics. It does not mean people are living totally devastated. But they are not living with comforts either. None of the shills on TV will report this.


----------



## Flopper

Butch_Coolidge said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subtext of the wall issue is the legal walls we've already put up to limit legal immigration. They are the problem. And, as is usually the case with bad law, such limits require a police state, complete with walled borders and spot id checks, to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing.  After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck.  The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who don't have $150 will be kept out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me see if you can be the first on this thread:
> 
> How come you want people from south of the border to be kept out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they don't have $150?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They sometimes also are put into slavery by people who drive them over the border, are beaten, raped, and made to carry drugs by swallowing them or having them surgically implanted in their bodies. Their children are also abused. But many don’t care about children, as clearly demonstrated by illegals throwing rocks at border enforcement without regard for children, and using them as human shields. Then they cross wherever they can, and don’t know where they are going to stay, work, live, eat, etc. In other words, they are homeless. Obama had tons of them in camps that were not exactly nice accommodations. In other words, jail.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The problems migrants face in crossing the border are often no worst than problems they face at home, poverty, plagued by gang violence, kidnappings of their children, forced prostitution,  extortion, and little or no protection by local police.

People don't leave their homes, subject their families to hunger, disease, and crime in order to earn money for a summer vacation.  People do it because their desperate.


----------



## nat4900

nat4900 said:


> A breach within the Trump cult membership.......(RINO name-calling anyone???....LOL)
> 
> 
> U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, a Texas Republican, says President *Trump's border wall proposal is "a third-century solution to a 21st-century problem."*
> 
> "Taking action for action’s sake rarely leads to positive results," he said in a news release. "Our leaders have the solemn obligation to know the proper steps to take before acting upon them."
> 
> Hurd represents the state's 23rd Congressional District, which includes parts of San Antonio and extends all the way to the state's western border. The district, one of the largest in the nation, includes hundreds of miles of the U.S. border with Mexico.
> 
> *"I agree with [U.S. Homeland Security] Secretary John Kelly’s comments during his confirmation hearing that a wall does not solve our security problems," Hurd said. "In fact, building a wall from sea to shining sea would be the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border."*




Notice that Trump cult members are NOT addressing that the above statement was made by a TEXAS REPUBLICAN...........One wonders why????.............LOL


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you apply to come in and follow the protocol, you are involved in a legal procedure. When you walk in a caravan, and are going in not matter what, you are illegal. There are people in the legal process of entry. Cut the line next time at the movies, a restaurant, or grocery store, and advise us of the outcome. If the legal process is followed, we don’t need to spend money on people to enforce the rules and laws on people who break them. Whatever anyone’s opinion, the president wants to protect the security of the country and keep law enforcement safe doing it. Americans tax dollars, should mean Americans first. A wall, barrier or whatever you want to call it, is just part of this. Cameras, drones, computer systems, access roads, vehicles, and personnel to make it work are the rest of the process. Want a fence between your neighbors house, you are done. This isn’t anything like that. And the money he’s asking to be approved isn’t out of line. All those against this, have supported it in the past. They want to show him up, at the cost of keeping our country safe. Hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea.  For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first.  Now, they are admitting it.
> 
> What a difference a day makes.  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread.  So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What a crock of shit, no one is trying to deny Americans their liberty. They are trying to secure our country to prevent the loss of lives, liberty and property.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROTF, LMAO, ROTF. LMAO.
> 
> Your entire campaign is a direct assault on Liberty.  Most of those on your side won't even answer the question of where we got our unalienable Rights from.  If they cannot answer that, they sure as Hell don't know what Liberty is.  Are you nucking futs or what!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bull hockey, securing our borders doesn't effect the liberty of our citizens. Not securing it, on the other hand, is getting tens of thousands killed, the absolute denial of liberty. They've already seized enough fentanyl to kill everyone in this country. Accidental exposure to as little as 3 grains can kill a 250 pound man. Carfentanyl is even worse and they're finding more and more of it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get your unalienable Rights from?
> 
> And, again, one of those silly ass arguments that if you don't support a wall, you're against border security.  You'd rather die and rot in Hell rather than to have an honest discussion about this, wouldn't you?
> 
> Your religion is the wall.  Maybe, someday, the good Lord will give you four of them and keep society protected from people like you.
Click to expand...



My rights or where they come from is irrelevant to this discussion. We are talking about border security and national security. This country has a right to self defense and the enforcement of our borders and laws. A wall is only one component of that. Personally I'd just shoot anyone crossing illegally, that would put a stop to it.

.


----------



## deltex1

nat4900 said:


> A breach within the Trump cult membership.......(RINO name-calling anyone???....LOL)
> 
> 
> U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, a Texas Republican, says President *Trump's border wall proposal is "a third-century solution to a 21st-century problem."*
> 
> "Taking action for action’s sake rarely leads to positive results," he said in a news release. "Our leaders have the solemn obligation to know the proper steps to take before acting upon them."
> 
> Hurd represents the state's 23rd Congressional District, which includes parts of San Antonio and extends all the way to the state's western border. The district, one of the largest in the nation, includes hundreds of miles of the U.S. border with Mexico.
> 
> *"I agree with [U.S. Homeland Security] Secretary John Kelly’s comments during his confirmation hearing that a wall does not solve our security problems," Hurd said. "In fact, building a wall from sea to shining sea would be the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border."*



Is a 21st century problem of home invasion avoided if you buy a "ring" system, and then leave your front door wide open?


----------



## task0778

Well, I tell ya what, built that wall/fence/whatever high enough, and it'll sure as hell make it really hard to climb over.   Maybe it doesn't totally solve the problem, but it does reduce it somewhat and that's better than nothing.


----------



## Indeependent

nat4900 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why we have 20 million living here illegally? Because our borders are sew secure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you fucking ignorant turd
> 
> *Visa Overstays Outnumber Illegal Border Crossings...*
Click to expand...

Sure, and we need MDs from India because all non-Indians are retarded.


----------



## regent

I think the wall Trump has in mind is one that goes up and down in sections. With the push of a button Trump could lower a section, and people could come in freely and then he could push the "up" button and catch a lot of immigrants flat-footed.


----------



## eagle1462010

3rd Century ...........Roman Walls............still standing today.............

Walls work.


----------



## william104

nat4900 said:


> A breach within the Trump cult membership.......(RINO name-calling anyone???....LOL)
> 
> 
> U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, a Texas Republican, says President *Trump's border wall proposal is "a third-century solution to a 21st-century problem."*
> 
> "Taking action for action’s sake rarely leads to positive results," he said in a news release. "Our leaders have the solemn obligation to know the proper steps to take before acting upon them."
> 
> Hurd represents the state's 23rd Congressional District, which includes parts of San Antonio and extends all the way to the state's western border. The district, one of the largest in the nation, includes hundreds of miles of the U.S. border with Mexico.
> 
> *"I agree with [U.S. Homeland Security] Secretary John Kelly’s comments during his confirmation hearing that a wall does not solve our security problems," Hurd said. "In fact, building a wall from sea to shining sea would be the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border."*


Our real leaders are leaders that do not rig and hack the electoral college to lawlessly get hell raising tyrants.  Our leaders keep America first and work on comprehensive and Constitutional plans to ensure border security that does not result in crimes against humanity, and disrespecting the US armed forces. Additionally our leaders do not co mingle with foreign enemies to destroy Democracy, the well being of society and taking their high treason to a different down low level.  As such, real American leaders abide by their Constitutional oath that are not like tRump and his antigovernment conspiring GOPer cronies and thugs.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing.  After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck.  The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.
> 
> 
> 
> Those who don't have $150 will be kept out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me see if you can be the first on this thread:
> 
> How come you want people from south of the border to be kept out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they don't have $150?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They sometimes also are put into slavery by people who drive them over the border, are beaten, raped, and made to carry drugs by swallowing them or having them surgically implanted in their bodies. Their children are also abused. But many don’t care about children, as clearly demonstrated by illegals throwing rocks at border enforcement without regard for children, and using them as human shields. Then they cross wherever they can, and don’t know where they are going to stay, work, live, eat, etc. In other words, they are homeless. Obama had tons of them in camps that were not exactly nice accommodations. In other words, jail.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problems migrants face in crossing the border are often no worst than problems they face at home, poverty, plagued by gang violence, kidnappings of their children, forced prostitution,  extortion, and little or no protection by local police.
> 
> People don't leave their homes, subject their families to hunger, disease, and crime in order to earn money for a summer vacation.  People do it because their desperate.
Click to expand...



There are billions of desperate people in the world, having a land bridge to our country doesn't make these people entitled.

.


----------



## fncceo

Are you suggesting a more technology-based solution?


----------



## theHawk

nat4900 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A breach within the Trump cult membership.......(RINO name-calling anyone???....LOL)
> 
> 
> U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, a Texas Republican, says President *Trump's border wall proposal is "a third-century solution to a 21st-century problem."*
> 
> "Taking action for action’s sake rarely leads to positive results," he said in a news release. "Our leaders have the solemn obligation to know the proper steps to take before acting upon them."
> 
> Hurd represents the state's 23rd Congressional District, which includes parts of San Antonio and extends all the way to the state's western border. The district, one of the largest in the nation, includes hundreds of miles of the U.S. border with Mexico.
> 
> *"I agree with [U.S. Homeland Security] Secretary John Kelly’s comments during his confirmation hearing that a wall does not solve our security problems," Hurd said. "In fact, building a wall from sea to shining sea would be the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice that Trump cult members are NOT addressing that the above statement was made by a TEXAS REPUBLICAN...........One wonders why????.............LOL
Click to expand...


Will Hurd is a never-Trumper and caters to Hispanics.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

_"I agree with [U.S. Homeland Security] Secretary John Kelly’s comments during his confirmation hearing that a wall does not solve our security problems," Hurd said. "In fact, building a wall from sea to shining sea would be the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border."_

Members of Trump’s party are telling him his ‘wall’ of fear, bigotry, and hate won’t work.


----------



## nat4900

Indeependent said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why we have 20 million living here illegally? Because our borders are sew secure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you fucking ignorant turd
> 
> *Visa Overstays Outnumber Illegal Border Crossings...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, and we need MDs from India because all non-Indians are retarded.
Click to expand...



What the fuck are you bumbling about......???..............LOL


----------



## nat4900

eagle1462010 said:


> 3rd Century ...........Roman Walls............still standing today.............
> 
> Walls work.





WOW....."brilliant".......Maybe ROME will pay for the wall???..........LOL


----------



## Indeependent

nat4900 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why we have 20 million living here illegally? Because our borders are sew secure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you fucking ignorant turd
> 
> *Visa Overstays Outnumber Illegal Border Crossings...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, and we need MDs from India because all non-Indians are retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you bumbling about......???..............LOL
Click to expand...

The fact that you believe all the bullshit the government shovels up your ass to get it to your tiny brain.


----------



## Avatar4321

Are we seriously supposed to believe that no nation has ever had people try to enter it illegally before the 21st century?

Or that walls don't work?


----------



## eagle1462010

nat4900 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3rd Century ...........Roman Walls............still standing today.............
> 
> Walls work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW....."brilliant".......Maybe ROME will pay for the wall???..........LOL
Click to expand...

A liberal like you looks at that Ancient Wall and says............Walls are evil .............tear it down.


----------



## nat4900

theHawk said:


> Will Hurd is a never-Trumper and caters to Hispanics.




Yes, Trump ass licker....you have many, many enemies out there:

Democrats
RINOs
Sane people

Best go back under your bed with your glasses of orange kool-aid......LOL


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

nat4900 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Si if these assholes have all the answers why isn’t the bordersecure? Do ya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our border is MORE secure than almost all other countries on the planet....except for Israel that is forced to employ fascist tactics.
Click to expand...


LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

nat4900 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will Hurd is a never-Trumper and caters to Hispanics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Trump ass licker....you have many, many enemies out there:
> 
> Democrats
> RINOs
> Sane people
> 
> Best go back under your bed with your glasses of orange kool-aid......LOL
Click to expand...


You’re an anti Semite. You need to punch yourself in the face Fight Club style.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

nat4900 said:


> A breach within the Trump cult membership.......(RINO name-calling anyone???....LOL)
> 
> 
> U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, a Texas Republican, says President *Trump's border wall proposal is "a third-century solution to a 21st-century problem."*
> 
> "Taking action for action’s sake rarely leads to positive results," he said in a news release. "Our leaders have the solemn obligation to know the proper steps to take before acting upon them."
> 
> Hurd represents the state's 23rd Congressional District, which includes parts of San Antonio and extends all the way to the state's western border. The district, one of the largest in the nation, includes hundreds of miles of the U.S. border with Mexico.
> 
> *"I agree with [U.S. Homeland Security] Secretary John Kelly’s comments during his confirmation hearing that a wall does not solve our security problems," Hurd said. "In fact, building a wall from sea to shining sea would be the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border."*



We could use a mine-field and intersecting fields of machine gun fire.


----------



## nat4900

eagle1462010 said:


> A liberal like you looks at that Ancient Wall and says............Walls are evil .............tear it down.




Actually, moron, I LIKE walls....they're decorative and ancient walls can still attract tourists.........Now, the fucking efficacy of Trump's wall is ZERO and it will do NOTHING but help Trump continue his bullshit spewing.......

Trump will NOT EVER get the House to fund his insanity......PERIOD !!!!..............lol


----------



## Death Angel

nat4900 said:


> Hurd represents the state's 23rd Congressional District, which includes parts of San Antonio and extends all the way to the state's western border.


This pretty much explains his true motivation


----------



## bripat9643

nat4900 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A breach within the Trump cult membership.......(RINO name-calling anyone???....LOL)
> 
> 
> U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, a Texas Republican, says President *Trump's border wall proposal is "a third-century solution to a 21st-century problem."*
> 
> "Taking action for action’s sake rarely leads to positive results," he said in a news release. "Our leaders have the solemn obligation to know the proper steps to take before acting upon them."
> 
> Hurd represents the state's 23rd Congressional District, which includes parts of San Antonio and extends all the way to the state's western border. The district, one of the largest in the nation, includes hundreds of miles of the U.S. border with Mexico.
> 
> *"I agree with [U.S. Homeland Security] Secretary John Kelly’s comments during his confirmation hearing that a wall does not solve our security problems," Hurd said. "In fact, building a wall from sea to shining sea would be the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice that Trump cult members are NOT addressing that the above statement was made by a TEXAS REPUBLICAN...........One wonders why????.............LOL
Click to expand...

He's a RINO who will soon be culled.


----------



## nat4900

Death Angel said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hurd represents the state's 23rd Congressional District, which includes parts of San Antonio and extends all the way to the state's western border.
> 
> 
> 
> This pretty much explains his true motivation
Click to expand...



NOW, the questions arises......should a republican congressman serve his CONSTITUENTS....or should he lick Trump's ass as you cult members are willing to do?


----------



## OKTexas

nat4900 said:


> A breach within the Trump cult membership.......(RINO name-calling anyone???....LOL)
> 
> 
> U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, a Texas Republican, says President *Trump's border wall proposal is "a third-century solution to a 21st-century problem."*
> 
> "Taking action for action’s sake rarely leads to positive results," he said in a news release. "Our leaders have the solemn obligation to know the proper steps to take before acting upon them."
> 
> Hurd represents the state's 23rd Congressional District, which includes parts of San Antonio and extends all the way to the state's western border. The district, one of the largest in the nation, includes hundreds of miles of the U.S. border with Mexico.
> 
> *"I agree with [U.S. Homeland Security] Secretary John Kelly’s comments during his confirmation hearing that a wall does not solve our security problems," Hurd said. "In fact, building a wall from sea to shining sea would be the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border."*




So when do you expect to have the removal of walls and doors in your home completed?

.


----------



## Death Angel

nat4900 said:


> NOW, the questions arises......should a republican congressman serve his CONSTITUENTS....or should he lick Trump's ass as you cult members are willing to do?


He can do as he pleases. I'm not required to care. The people he represents is a majority Hispanic area.


White: 72.6% (non-*Hispanic*: 26.6%)
Black: 6.9%


----------



## Death Angel

nat4900 said:


> Trump will NOT EVER get the House to fund his insanity......PERIOD !!!!..............


Probably not. I'm expecting him to bypass this do nothing congress


----------



## Old Yeller

Should they remove all existing Wall?  Nasty says it is immoral and ineffective.


----------



## OKTexas

WillowTree said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Si if these assholes have all the answers why isn’t the bordersecure? Do ya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our border is MORE secure than almost all other countries on the planet....except for Israel that is forced to employ fascist tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s why we have 20 million living here illegally? Because our borders are sew secure?
Click to expand...



The real number is probably closer to double that.

.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

nat4900 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A liberal like you looks at that Ancient Wall and says............Walls are evil .............tear it down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, moron, I LIKE walls....they're decorative and ancient walls can still attract tourists.........Now, the fucking efficacy of Trump's wall is ZERO and it will do NOTHING but help Trump continue his bullshit spewing.......
> 
> Trump will NOT EVER get the House to fund his insanity......PERIOD !!!!..............lol
Click to expand...


Like walls but you hate Jews. What a pathetic waste of space you are.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Anaïs Mitchell ft. Greg Brown - Why We Build the Wall*

**


----------



## OKTexas

nat4900 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why we have 20 million living here illegally? Because our borders are sew secure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you fucking ignorant turd
> 
> *Visa Overstays Outnumber Illegal Border Crossings...*
Click to expand...



One problem at a time, it would be easy to stop visa overstays with a couple of changes in the law, which I'm sure you commies will resist.

.


----------



## OKTexas

nat4900 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A breach within the Trump cult membership.......(RINO name-calling anyone???....LOL)
> 
> 
> U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, a Texas Republican, says President *Trump's border wall proposal is "a third-century solution to a 21st-century problem."*
> 
> "Taking action for action’s sake rarely leads to positive results," he said in a news release. "Our leaders have the solemn obligation to know the proper steps to take before acting upon them."
> 
> Hurd represents the state's 23rd Congressional District, which includes parts of San Antonio and extends all the way to the state's western border. The district, one of the largest in the nation, includes hundreds of miles of the U.S. border with Mexico.
> 
> *"I agree with [U.S. Homeland Security] Secretary John Kelly’s comments during his confirmation hearing that a wall does not solve our security problems," Hurd said. "In fact, building a wall from sea to shining sea would be the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice that Trump cult members are NOT addressing that the above statement was made by a TEXAS REPUBLICAN...........One wonders why????.............LOL
Click to expand...



The idiot can say what he wants, no one has to agree with him.

.


----------



## toobfreak

nat4900 said:


> *Border wall....a 3rd century "solution" to a 21st. century problem*



And what "21st century" solution do you think is more cost effective at stopping people from going from A to B than a wall, hun?  A wall may be 3rd century, but they work VERY WELL at stopping people.  Which is why they have been used for 18 centuries.


----------



## beautress

nat4900 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A liberal like you looks at that Ancient Wall and says............Walls are evil .............tear it down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, moron, I LIKE walls....they're decorative and ancient walls can still attract tourists.........Now, the fucking efficacy of Trump's wall is ZERO and it will do NOTHING but help Trump continue his bullshit spewing.......
> 
> Trump will NOT EVER get the House to fund his insanity......PERIOD !!!!..............lol
Click to expand...

He isn't without power, nat. If the Mexican government continues to skirt their border responsibilities, the President can declare the mules who mistreat people they bring over here to be the terrorists they are and send troops over the border to destroy their little money-extorting schemas with which they so often burden their _touristas_, and bring them back again once the insanity stops for once and for all. And he can send the terrorists who are not killed to serve life sentences at Guantanamo bay until the Mexican government pays back the costs they incurred on American taxpayers when and if they are released. Mexico better start thinking of their Pisano classes as worthy human beings and see to it they have employment opportunities in their native country of Mexico. The Mexican government is a very bad neighbor by foisting their cast offs on American taxpayers, but they may start being reasonable to their own people when they realize we're not going to take it anymore without land grants on their side of the border to help us manage the people they refuse jobs and a decent living. I hope it doesn't come to that to make Mexico grow up.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before the 2006 border fence act, migrants climbed over existing fencing.  After the 2006 fence act they either used a 12 foot ladder to go over the fence, walked around the fence or paid a trucker a 100 bucks to hide in the back of the truck.  The only difference with the Trump wall is migrant will need a 20 foot ladder and the trucker will charge $150.
> 
> 
> 
> Those who don't have $150 will be kept out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me see if you can be the first on this thread:
> 
> How come you want people from south of the border to be kept out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they don't have $150?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They sometimes also are put into slavery by people who drive them over the border, are beaten, raped, and made to carry drugs by swallowing them or having them surgically implanted in their bodies. Their children are also abused. But many don’t care about children, as clearly demonstrated by illegals throwing rocks at border enforcement without regard for children, and using them as human shields. Then they cross wherever they can, and don’t know where they are going to stay, work, live, eat, etc. In other words, they are homeless. Obama had tons of them in camps that were not exactly nice accommodations. In other words, jail.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problems migrants face in crossing the border are often no worst than problems they face at home, poverty, plagued by gang violence, kidnappings of their children, forced prostitution,  extortion, and little or no protection by local police.
> 
> People don't leave their homes, subject their families to hunger, disease, and crime in order to earn money for a summer vacation.  People do it because their desperate.
Click to expand...


If they are so desperate, why did they have children?  If I lived in an environment you described, the last thing I would consider is bringing another human being into it.  

In essence what your saying is that these people live this way, don't want to do anything about it, and then they become our problem.  Why?  Wouldn't the solution be to make your country a better place to live?  Ask yourself how many Americans confronted their opposition that led to their death?  How many other countries have citizens that are doing that today?  We still have Americans from time to time dying overseas until this day. 

I don't follow world news all that much, but I'm unaware of any revolutions taking place in South America; not even a resistance of any kind.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody can take your job unless you owned it to begin with. So YOU are making a leftist argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say my job in particular, I'm talking about American jobs.  Jobs created in this country belong to the people that live in this country.  We may be a global economy, but we are not a global country.  If an employer wants to hire foreigners, let that employer move to where the foreigners are.  Many have done so already.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not proven that the current situation keeps wages lower. In *FACT*, wages are at an all time high and there are plenty of jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the time being, but that's not always the case, is it?  This economy will die down at some point, and then we will be stuck with a bunch of foreigners here who will compete against Americans (who belong here) and then those Americans will end up on some social program.  So indirectly, foreigners will be putting Americans on social programs.  We simply don't need that.  We have enough working capable people on those programs as it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The path you've chosen has *guaranteed* an end to our culture, our foundational principles (which you CLEARLY do not understand) and, consequently, an end to the white race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we on the right are trying to preserve that.  You are trying to turn our country into a third world nation.  And if it's inevitable, then you are accelerating it tenfold.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two important questions that those who advocate for a border wall have never asked me. It would blow their entire case apart IF they had the ability to read the response. You're so wrapped up in parroting the border wall talking points, you will never think to ask questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you won't answer my questions proves, unequivocally, you realize that you're not in a good enough position to believe in the B.S. you promote here every day. You think they are trick questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What questions are that?
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get your Rights from? Don't give me a laundry list, but tell me why you REALLY want a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't give you a list but I should tell you why I want a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ray, I'm going to explain this to you one more time.  This is not opinion; not left v. right.  It's the way it is.
> 
> When you advocate that jobs belong to the Americans, you just made a left wing / SOCIALIST argument.
> 
> Socialism - noun "a political and economic theory of social organization which *advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole*."
> 
> what is socialism definition - Bing
> 
> We're DONE with that.  YOU are the socialist because that is what you are advocating.  Period.
> 
> I agree that we have to look into the future regarding jobs and that is the greatest weakness of what you're proposing.  You are not looking five or ten years down the road.
> 
> My questions are simple:  Where do you get your unalienable Rights from and give me the REAL reason you want a wall around America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've already been through that and I gave you several reason.  You are asking me to repeat myself which I'm not going to waste time on.
> 
> Inalienable rights are something you are born with.  Those are rights that cannot be taken away from you or given to you.  You have a right to believe in any religion you like even if you're in a country that doesn't allow you to practice it.  You have a right to decide on which food you eat unless in a situation where there are few if any choices.  You have the right to love somebody or something.
> 
> Happy?
Click to expand...


I have not asked you about inalienable rights.  The question is about *unalienable* Rights.  There's a legal difference.  According to the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain* unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

You've been arguing for as long as you've been in the immigration discussion that your Liberty was not at stake and you didn't even realize it was an unalienable Right.  So, THERE is your first disconnect with me.  Another of your fellow wall kind of guys argued that rights were something the government gave you by way of the Constitution.

You post day in and day out with a laundry list that is examined, found not to be accurate for the most part and then asked what your REAL reason is.  Your position changes depending upon who you are addressing and what facts are presented to you.  But, at the end of the day, you don't really know what an unalienable Right is, where it comes from, and what it consists of.

Ray, you have missed the boat on this issue.  Our constitutional Republic was founded on two very important foundational principles that you know nothing about:

*  The Right to own private property
* Unalienable Rights which include, but are not limited to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

A laundry list of excuses to justify your position doesn't cut it.  It don't cut it with me and it won't fly in the federal legislature.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both moderates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you calling me a moderate?!?!  Them's fightin' words!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why the build the wall guys only talk that skeet on the Internet.  They don't have the balls to talk like that in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was just kidding around. But seriously, I don't think I've ever been referred to as a moderate before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it hilarious that those referring to people like you and I as moderates and leftists are primarily using socialist arguments - as Ray does to support their position.
> 
> But, rest assured, many of them KNOW what they're doing.  They support socialism and are at peace with it, but since they cannot defend their position they rely on the standard canard of socialist philosophy while calling others names.
> 
> It's sad that all they have are meaningless platitudes and the talking points of socialists; they live in FEAR of having to participate in a real discussion and know, deep down, their position has flaws they don't want to address.  So, instead of admitting the flaws, they make baseless accusations and allegations they would never say in person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't know what Socialism is.  Keeping people out of the country is not socialism, it's protection of the citizens.
Click to expand...


You don't bother to read, do you?  It is YOUR position that the jobs created are for the American people.  That has nothing to do with your immigration argument.  You are afraid to separate the two.

You have *FINALLY* been half honest with me, Ray.  Your *REAL *objective is to keep people out of the United States.  If you look back, it wasn't that hard, Ray.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first time I ever heard the allegation that the children of undocumented parents "cost" taxpayers, I went to the hospital and spoke to a woman quoted in the article used to prove the allegation.
> 
> The lady I spoke to was Paula Martin. Remember, I spoke to her in person, face to face.  When presented with the article, she told me that the taxpayers do NOT reimburse the hospital for any INDIGENT patient.  When those who hate the foreigners revised the story, they lied again.  Instead of admitting this, the next time the right commented on it, they said:
> 
> "The Gwinnett (GA.) Hospital System expects more illegal immigrants will present themselves for urgent care this year and has established a $34 million reserve to cover its outlay."
> 
> The Social Contract - Illegal Aliens - The Health Cost Dimension
> 
> The $34 million dollar set aside is for INDIGENT patients, not undocumented foreigners.  Do undocumented foreigners represent some of those?  Yes, they do.  But, there are people like the homeless and the downright lazy who avail themselves of this set aside.  I have a worthless POS relative (by marriage) that is on the hook to that hospital for $54,000 right now.
> 
> So, how do the hospitals generate this $34 million dollars?
> 
> Most of the money is generated from uninsured people who pay for their services.  And the bad part for those who don't like the undocumented, they pay into that amount as well.  They do so because if they pay their income taxes via an Individual Tax Identification Number and keep their bills paid up, they are the first to be considered when amnesties roll around.
> 
> Additionally, the undocumented use the hospital for their primary care.  And, as long as they pay on their bill, they can continue to use the hospital for routine services.
> 
> So, I know, for a fact, you're peddling a lie here.  Why do you REALLY not want undocumented foreigners to come here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medicaid Helps Hospitals Pay For Illegal Immigrants’ Care
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The lion’s share goes to reimburse hospitals for delivering babies for women who show up in their emergency rooms, according to interviews with hospital officials and studies."
> 
> That is a direct quote from your article.  Your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's medical care for illegals.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The medical care is provided to the biological host of a baby.  So, level with me here, would you support abortion for those people instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No I would support shipping her ass out of the country before she drops a kid. And refusing entry to any pregnant woman.
> 
> .
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Good in theory, not always possible in practice.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree. We are not putting America on surveillance, just the borders. Obviously an issue of national security currently. No one is saying put cameras on your home or mine. But, go anywhere in our country and you have been recorded for posterity. This does actually solve a lot of crime throughout the country. If you think we have a lot of surveillance here, England for example is that much more. This is a done deal, and not going anywhere.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need for the government to place microphones and cameras in people homes, too many are doing it themselves. All these digital assistance and wireless security systems opens up every one that uses them to in home surveillance.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have a choice right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No shit, captain obvious.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet those you associate with would take away that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Me thinks you need to elaborate on that one.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


How can I elaborate on it when you don't know what Liberty is NOR where it comes from?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just getting old hearing each party justify shitty policies "because the other side". It's just like arguing with liberals about ACA. When they are forced to admit that ACA was a sellout to the insurance industry, they blame it on the Republicans - even though exactly no Republicans voted for it.
> 
> Likewise, when your wall horseshit is shown to be nothing more than protectionist trade policy lathered up in fear mongering, you blame it on the left, or point out all the horrible things the left has done as if to justify the horrible things you want to do.
> 
> If we don't do something to bust up the stranglehold of the two-party system, your partisan pissing match is going to flush the whole country down the toilet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that this is mostly on partisan lines?  If you can tell me that people in both parties feel differently, then show me that evidence.  But thus far, I've yet to see a lefty in support of Trump or border security for that matter.  Everybody on the left doesn't want the wall.  Everybody on the right does.  After all, the wall issue is what won Trump the presidency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dblack and I are evidence that you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both moderates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you calling me a moderate?!?!  Them's fightin' words!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you claim to be on the right and take leftist positions, yes, you are a moderate.  It's why Michael Medved lost his show on Salem Communications this week.  He was a moderate and the company didn't like his views.
Click to expand...


Dude, where are your reasoning skills? Asking questions is not taking a position.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I, for one, have NEVER thought that putting America under surveillance 24 / 7 / 365 is a good idea.  For FIFTEEN YEARS, those in favor of the wall have denied that the Democrats were for it first.  Now, they are admitting it.
> 
> What a difference a day makes.  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that those who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.
> 
> That is the very argument the build the wall supporters are conveying on this thread.  So, unless they can conjure up some legitimate reason to maintain their stance, they are arguing against Liberty and they are the REAL problem in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a crock of shit, no one is trying to deny Americans their liberty. They are trying to secure our country to prevent the loss of lives, liberty and property.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROTF, LMAO, ROTF. LMAO.
> 
> Your entire campaign is a direct assault on Liberty.  Most of those on your side won't even answer the question of where we got our unalienable Rights from.  If they cannot answer that, they sure as Hell don't know what Liberty is.  Are you nucking futs or what!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bull hockey, securing our borders doesn't effect the liberty of our citizens. Not securing it, on the other hand, is getting tens of thousands killed, the absolute denial of liberty. They've already seized enough fentanyl to kill everyone in this country. Accidental exposure to as little as 3 grains can kill a 250 pound man. Carfentanyl is even worse and they're finding more and more of it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get your unalienable Rights from?
> 
> And, again, one of those silly ass arguments that if you don't support a wall, you're against border security.  You'd rather die and rot in Hell rather than to have an honest discussion about this, wouldn't you?
> 
> Your religion is the wall.  Maybe, someday, the good Lord will give you four of them and keep society protected from people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My rights or where they come from is irrelevant to this discussion. We are talking about border security and national security. This country has a right to self defense and the enforcement of our borders and laws. A wall is only one component of that. Personally I'd just shoot anyone crossing illegally, that would put a stop to it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Rights *are* relevant to the discussion since the bulk of your proposed solutions advocate infringing upon the Rights of American people to get what you want.  You also want to infringe upon the Constitution as originally written and intended - clearly exposing you as a left wing liberal.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that this is mostly on partisan lines?  If you can tell me that people in both parties feel differently, then show me that evidence.  But thus far, I've yet to see a lefty in support of Trump or border security for that matter.  Everybody on the left doesn't want the wall.  Everybody on the right does.  After all, the wall issue is what won Trump the presidency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack and I are evidence that you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both moderates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you calling me a moderate?!?!  Them's fightin' words!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you claim to be on the right and take leftist positions, yes, you are a moderate.  It's why Michael Medved lost his show on Salem Communications this week.  He was a moderate and the company didn't like his views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, where are your reasoning skills? Asking questions is not taking a position.
Click to expand...


You and Black are not asking questions, you did take a position.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> dblack and I are evidence that you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both moderates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you calling me a moderate?!?!  Them's fightin' words!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you claim to be on the right and take leftist positions, yes, you are a moderate.  It's why Michael Medved lost his show on Salem Communications this week.  He was a moderate and the company didn't like his views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, where are your reasoning skills? Asking questions is not taking a position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Black are not asking questions, you did take a position.
Click to expand...


I've not taken a position, otherwise you would have quoted it.

I will repeat this again: Your ass was probably in diapers the first time I had to publicly give my opinion on this topic.  And you can bet the family farm, my response was NOT in any way, shape, fashion, or form liberal or moderate.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you calling me a moderate?!?!  Them's fightin' words!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why the build the wall guys only talk that skeet on the Internet.  They don't have the balls to talk like that in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was just kidding around. But seriously, I don't think I've ever been referred to as a moderate before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it hilarious that those referring to people like you and I as moderates and leftists are primarily using socialist arguments - as Ray does to support their position.
> 
> But, rest assured, many of them KNOW what they're doing.  They support socialism and are at peace with it, but since they cannot defend their position they rely on the standard canard of socialist philosophy while calling others names.
> 
> It's sad that all they have are meaningless platitudes and the talking points of socialists; they live in FEAR of having to participate in a real discussion and know, deep down, their position has flaws they don't want to address.  So, instead of admitting the flaws, they make baseless accusations and allegations they would never say in person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't know what Socialism is.  Keeping people out of the country is not socialism, it's protection of the citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't bother to read, do you?  It is YOUR position that the jobs created are for the American people.  That has nothing to do with your immigration argument.  You are afraid to separate the two.
> 
> You have *FINALLY* been half honest with me, Ray.  Your *REAL *objective is to keep people out of the United States.  If you look back, it wasn't that hard, Ray.
Click to expand...


I've always been honest about it, but you never cared for what I said. 

Me being against immigration is for several reason, not just one.  I've listed several of them, but there are actually more.  And if you list those negatives of immigration vs so-called positives, you will find the negative beats the positive three to one.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Si if these assholes have all the answers why isn’t the bordersecure? Do ya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our border is MORE secure than almost all other countries on the planet....except for Israel that is forced to employ fascist tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.
Click to expand...


Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?

Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both moderates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you calling me a moderate?!?!  Them's fightin' words!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you claim to be on the right and take leftist positions, yes, you are a moderate.  It's why Michael Medved lost his show on Salem Communications this week.  He was a moderate and the company didn't like his views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, where are your reasoning skills? Asking questions is not taking a position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Black are not asking questions, you did take a position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not taken a position, otherwise you would have quoted it.
> 
> I will repeat this again: Your ass was probably in diapers the first time I had to publicly give my opinion on this topic.  And you can bet the family farm, my response was NOT in any way, shape, fashion, or form liberal or moderate.
Click to expand...


Please, don't flatter yourself.  I can only wish I was as young as you perceive.  

But it's not just me that has you nailed as a near open-border person, several others have done the same. We all can't be wrong.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Medicaid Helps Hospitals Pay For Illegal Immigrants’ Care
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The lion’s share goes to reimburse hospitals for delivering babies for women who show up in their emergency rooms, according to interviews with hospital officials and studies."
> 
> That is a direct quote from your article.  Your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's medical care for illegals.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The medical care is provided to the biological host of a baby.  So, level with me here, would you support abortion for those people instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No I would support shipping her ass out of the country before she drops a kid. And refusing entry to any pregnant woman.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good in theory, not always possible in practice.
Click to expand...



Maybe we should buy some land in Mexico and set up birthing centers, if a woman gets close, just send her there until the kid is delivered. Any woman requesting a visa should have to prove shes not pregnant. This birth tourism has to be stopped too.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need for the government to place microphones and cameras in people homes, too many are doing it themselves. All these digital assistance and wireless security systems opens up every one that uses them to in home surveillance.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have a choice right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No shit, captain obvious.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet those you associate with would take away that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Me thinks you need to elaborate on that one.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I elaborate on it when you don't know what Liberty is NOR where it comes from?
Click to expand...



You were telling me what people I associate with are doing, and you're like all ignorant people are assuming facts not in evidence.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why the build the wall guys only talk that skeet on the Internet.  They don't have the balls to talk like that in public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was just kidding around. But seriously, I don't think I've ever been referred to as a moderate before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it hilarious that those referring to people like you and I as moderates and leftists are primarily using socialist arguments - as Ray does to support their position.
> 
> But, rest assured, many of them KNOW what they're doing.  They support socialism and are at peace with it, but since they cannot defend their position they rely on the standard canard of socialist philosophy while calling others names.
> 
> It's sad that all they have are meaningless platitudes and the talking points of socialists; they live in FEAR of having to participate in a real discussion and know, deep down, their position has flaws they don't want to address.  So, instead of admitting the flaws, they make baseless accusations and allegations they would never say in person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't know what Socialism is.  Keeping people out of the country is not socialism, it's protection of the citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't bother to read, do you?  It is YOUR position that the jobs created are for the American people.  That has nothing to do with your immigration argument.  You are afraid to separate the two.
> 
> You have *FINALLY* been half honest with me, Ray.  Your *REAL *objective is to keep people out of the United States.  If you look back, it wasn't that hard, Ray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always been honest about it, but you never cared for what I said.
> 
> Me being against immigration is for several reason, not just one.  I've listed several of them, but there are actually more.  And if you list those negatives of immigration vs so-called positives, you will find the negative beats the positive three to one.
Click to expand...


If you were being honest, then you were ignorant and need to do some reading in several areas: general civics, history, law and constitutional interpretation.

That, most likely, explains why you try to pass me off as a liberal or a moderate instead of answering questions as they are asked of you.

Pretexts are not reasons.  They are just that.  For example, in my neighborhood, there are PLENTY of jobs almost anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size can get.  Most pay between $20 and $40 an hour.  When they don't take them and Hispanics show up, I work them.

NOWHERE in that scenario does it give you any indication of where I stand on the issue.  But, sometimes I need things done and have to work within a budget.  If Americans don't apply for the jobs, I either get the help I need or lose what I own.  It's that simple.  Do you realize I've been at this for four decades now and *not one single time* has one of the people wanting a wall and bitching about jobs *EVER* walked away from their computer and applied for a job that I told them about?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The lion’s share goes to reimburse hospitals for delivering babies for women who show up in their emergency rooms, according to interviews with hospital officials and studies."
> 
> That is a direct quote from your article.  Your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's medical care for illegals.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The medical care is provided to the biological host of a baby.  So, level with me here, would you support abortion for those people instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No I would support shipping her ass out of the country before she drops a kid. And refusing entry to any pregnant woman.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good in theory, not always possible in practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should buy some land in Mexico and set up birthing centers, if a woman gets close, just send her there until the kid is delivered. Any woman requesting a visa should have to prove shes not pregnant. This birth tourism has to be stopped too.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The patriot and constitutionalists had this BEFORE the build the wall people got involved in something that was over their head.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have a choice right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No shit, captain obvious.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet those you associate with would take away that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Me thinks you need to elaborate on that one.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I elaborate on it when you don't know what Liberty is NOR where it comes from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were telling me what people I associate with are doing, and you're like all ignorant people are assuming facts not in evidence.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



You are on this board, joining in with misguided people and using the standard talking points associated with the nutty wall idea.


----------



## dblack

I think we should also build catapults.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just kidding around. But seriously, I don't think I've ever been referred to as a moderate before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it hilarious that those referring to people like you and I as moderates and leftists are primarily using socialist arguments - as Ray does to support their position.
> 
> But, rest assured, many of them KNOW what they're doing.  They support socialism and are at peace with it, but since they cannot defend their position they rely on the standard canard of socialist philosophy while calling others names.
> 
> It's sad that all they have are meaningless platitudes and the talking points of socialists; they live in FEAR of having to participate in a real discussion and know, deep down, their position has flaws they don't want to address.  So, instead of admitting the flaws, they make baseless accusations and allegations they would never say in person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't know what Socialism is.  Keeping people out of the country is not socialism, it's protection of the citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't bother to read, do you?  It is YOUR position that the jobs created are for the American people.  That has nothing to do with your immigration argument.  You are afraid to separate the two.
> 
> You have *FINALLY* been half honest with me, Ray.  Your *REAL *objective is to keep people out of the United States.  If you look back, it wasn't that hard, Ray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always been honest about it, but you never cared for what I said.
> 
> Me being against immigration is for several reason, not just one.  I've listed several of them, but there are actually more.  And if you list those negatives of immigration vs so-called positives, you will find the negative beats the positive three to one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were being honest, then you were ignorant and need to do some reading in several areas: general civics, history, law and constitutional interpretation.
> 
> That, most likely, explains why you try to pass me off as a liberal or a moderate instead of answering questions as they are asked of you.
> 
> Pretexts are not reasons.  They are just that.  For example, in my neighborhood, there are PLENTY of jobs almost anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size can get.  Most pay between $20 and $40 an hour.  When they don't take them and Hispanics show up, I work them.
> 
> NOWHERE in that scenario does it give you any indication of where I stand on the issue.  But, sometimes I need things done and have to work within a budget.  If Americans don't apply for the jobs, I either get the help I need or lose what I own.  It's that simple.  Do you realize I've been at this for four decades now and *not one single time* has one of the people wanting a wall and bitching about jobs *EVER* walked away from their computer and applied for a job that I told them about?
Click to expand...


Then perhaps it's the state you live in with extraordinary high cost of living.  In my state, if you offer somebody 20 bucks an hour, not only will you have Americans applying for the job, but probably a line of them.  $40.00 an hour for manual labor?  Better get chairs for the people outside waiting to get in.

There is an employment problem in this country, but it's caused by drugs and not lazy Americans.  Better paying jobs usually drug test and many can't pass the test.  These drugs come from other countries because we have limited border protection on our southern end. 

So the long term solution is to get Americans off the drugs first, and that takes harsh measures to rid our country of these narcotics.  Your solution is to keep allowing those drugs in, and then importing people to take the jobs American junkies can't get.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a crock of shit, no one is trying to deny Americans their liberty. They are trying to secure our country to prevent the loss of lives, liberty and property.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROTF, LMAO, ROTF. LMAO.
> 
> Your entire campaign is a direct assault on Liberty.  Most of those on your side won't even answer the question of where we got our unalienable Rights from.  If they cannot answer that, they sure as Hell don't know what Liberty is.  Are you nucking futs or what!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bull hockey, securing our borders doesn't effect the liberty of our citizens. Not securing it, on the other hand, is getting tens of thousands killed, the absolute denial of liberty. They've already seized enough fentanyl to kill everyone in this country. Accidental exposure to as little as 3 grains can kill a 250 pound man. Carfentanyl is even worse and they're finding more and more of it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get your unalienable Rights from?
> 
> And, again, one of those silly ass arguments that if you don't support a wall, you're against border security.  You'd rather die and rot in Hell rather than to have an honest discussion about this, wouldn't you?
> 
> Your religion is the wall.  Maybe, someday, the good Lord will give you four of them and keep society protected from people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My rights or where they come from is irrelevant to this discussion. We are talking about border security and national security. This country has a right to self defense and the enforcement of our borders and laws. A wall is only one component of that. Personally I'd just shoot anyone crossing illegally, that would put a stop to it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rights *are* relevant to the discussion since the bulk of your proposed solutions advocate infringing upon the Rights of American people to get what you want.  You also want to infringe upon the Constitution as originally written and intended - clearly exposing you as a left wing liberal.
Click to expand...



 The flg says it all.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you calling me a moderate?!?!  Them's fightin' words!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you claim to be on the right and take leftist positions, yes, you are a moderate.  It's why Michael Medved lost his show on Salem Communications this week.  He was a moderate and the company didn't like his views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, where are your reasoning skills? Asking questions is not taking a position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Black are not asking questions, you did take a position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not taken a position, otherwise you would have quoted it.
> 
> I will repeat this again: Your ass was probably in diapers the first time I had to publicly give my opinion on this topic.  And you can bet the family farm, my response was NOT in any way, shape, fashion, or form liberal or moderate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please, don't flatter yourself.  I can only wish I was as young as you perceive.
> 
> But it's not just me that has you nailed as a near open-border person, several others have done the same. We all can't be wrong.
Click to expand...


Of course you can all be wrong.  Jim Jones got over 900 people to drink cyanide laced Kool Aid based on a lie.  You are just as susceptible to being fooled - AND you just proved it with that part  "several others have done the same. We all can't be wrong.."

You just inadvertently admitted you're a Democrat - majority rule - might makes right.

Let me tell you something:

Ever since the Israelites began worshiping the golden calf while Moses was receiving the law of God, history has proven that majorities are usually wrong.  In the instant case BOTH sides are wrong - and you're wrong basically because the solutions you stand behind belonged to Democrats before they were adopted by the people writing your talking points.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you claim to be on the right and take leftist positions, yes, you are a moderate.  It's why Michael Medved lost his show on Salem Communications this week.  He was a moderate and the company didn't like his views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, where are your reasoning skills? Asking questions is not taking a position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Black are not asking questions, you did take a position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not taken a position, otherwise you would have quoted it.
> 
> I will repeat this again: Your ass was probably in diapers the first time I had to publicly give my opinion on this topic.  And you can bet the family farm, my response was NOT in any way, shape, fashion, or form liberal or moderate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please, don't flatter yourself.  I can only wish I was as young as you perceive.
> 
> But it's not just me that has you nailed as a near open-border person, several others have done the same. We all can't be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you can all be wrong.  Jim Jones got over 900 people to drink cyanide laced Kool Aid based on a lie.  You are just as susceptible to being fooled - AND you just proved it with that part  "several others have done the same. We all can't be wrong.."
> 
> You just inadvertently admitted you're a Democrat - majority rule - might makes right.
> 
> Let me tell you something:
> 
> Ever since the Israelites began worshiping the golden calf while Moses was receiving the law of God, history has proven that majorities are usually wrong.  In the instant case BOTH sides are wrong - and you're wrong basically because the solutions you stand behind belonged to Democrats before they were adopted by the people writing your talking points.
Click to expand...


My goodness you are off the charts tonight.  Every one of my concerns and points are the exact opposite of the Democrat party.  Yours are much more inline with them than mine.  Nobody is "ruling" you, just pointing out that I'm not the only one who sees you as an open borders person.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it hilarious that those referring to people like you and I as moderates and leftists are primarily using socialist arguments - as Ray does to support their position.
> 
> But, rest assured, many of them KNOW what they're doing.  They support socialism and are at peace with it, but since they cannot defend their position they rely on the standard canard of socialist philosophy while calling others names.
> 
> It's sad that all they have are meaningless platitudes and the talking points of socialists; they live in FEAR of having to participate in a real discussion and know, deep down, their position has flaws they don't want to address.  So, instead of admitting the flaws, they make baseless accusations and allegations they would never say in person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't know what Socialism is.  Keeping people out of the country is not socialism, it's protection of the citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't bother to read, do you?  It is YOUR position that the jobs created are for the American people.  That has nothing to do with your immigration argument.  You are afraid to separate the two.
> 
> You have *FINALLY* been half honest with me, Ray.  Your *REAL *objective is to keep people out of the United States.  If you look back, it wasn't that hard, Ray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always been honest about it, but you never cared for what I said.
> 
> Me being against immigration is for several reason, not just one.  I've listed several of them, but there are actually more.  And if you list those negatives of immigration vs so-called positives, you will find the negative beats the positive three to one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were being honest, then you were ignorant and need to do some reading in several areas: general civics, history, law and constitutional interpretation.
> 
> That, most likely, explains why you try to pass me off as a liberal or a moderate instead of answering questions as they are asked of you.
> 
> Pretexts are not reasons.  They are just that.  For example, in my neighborhood, there are PLENTY of jobs almost anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size can get.  Most pay between $20 and $40 an hour.  When they don't take them and Hispanics show up, I work them.
> 
> NOWHERE in that scenario does it give you any indication of where I stand on the issue.  But, sometimes I need things done and have to work within a budget.  If Americans don't apply for the jobs, I either get the help I need or lose what I own.  It's that simple.  Do you realize I've been at this for four decades now and *not one single time* has one of the people wanting a wall and bitching about jobs *EVER* walked away from their computer and applied for a job that I told them about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then perhaps it's the state you live in with extraordinary high cost of living.  In my state, if you offer somebody 20 bucks an hour, not only will you have Americans applying for the job, but probably a line of them.  $40.00 an hour for manual labor?  Better get chairs for the people outside waiting to get in.
> 
> There is an employment problem in this country, but it's caused by drugs and not lazy Americans.  Better paying jobs usually drug test and many can't pass the test.  These drugs come from other countries because we have limited border protection on our southern end.
> 
> So the long term solution is to get Americans off the drugs first, and that takes harsh measures to rid our country of these narcotics.  Your solution is to keep allowing those drugs in, and then importing people to take the jobs American junkies can't get.
Click to expand...


I have submitted TWO bills to legislators recently regarding the control of drugs.  They are not interested.  The know that the government is creating the junkies, but nobody wants to do anything about it.

I don't know if you call being a handyman "manual labor," but most illiterate Mexicans figure it out within six months of training and build decks, paint houses, do basic concrete work, and make small repairs around the house.  We got plenty of kids in my neighborhood.  Like you, they spend their time on the computer while their mommy pays the Mexican to cut the freaking grass.

And, while you're driving a truck, I work with people trying to resolve family problems.  I'm telling you, for a fact, most drug addicts are created by their mommy, an absent or abusive father and the government that thinks drugs are the cure all for every problem.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't know what Socialism is.  Keeping people out of the country is not socialism, it's protection of the citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't bother to read, do you?  It is YOUR position that the jobs created are for the American people.  That has nothing to do with your immigration argument.  You are afraid to separate the two.
> 
> You have *FINALLY* been half honest with me, Ray.  Your *REAL *objective is to keep people out of the United States.  If you look back, it wasn't that hard, Ray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always been honest about it, but you never cared for what I said.
> 
> Me being against immigration is for several reason, not just one.  I've listed several of them, but there are actually more.  And if you list those negatives of immigration vs so-called positives, you will find the negative beats the positive three to one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were being honest, then you were ignorant and need to do some reading in several areas: general civics, history, law and constitutional interpretation.
> 
> That, most likely, explains why you try to pass me off as a liberal or a moderate instead of answering questions as they are asked of you.
> 
> Pretexts are not reasons.  They are just that.  For example, in my neighborhood, there are PLENTY of jobs almost anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size can get.  Most pay between $20 and $40 an hour.  When they don't take them and Hispanics show up, I work them.
> 
> NOWHERE in that scenario does it give you any indication of where I stand on the issue.  But, sometimes I need things done and have to work within a budget.  If Americans don't apply for the jobs, I either get the help I need or lose what I own.  It's that simple.  Do you realize I've been at this for four decades now and *not one single time* has one of the people wanting a wall and bitching about jobs *EVER* walked away from their computer and applied for a job that I told them about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then perhaps it's the state you live in with extraordinary high cost of living.  In my state, if you offer somebody 20 bucks an hour, not only will you have Americans applying for the job, but probably a line of them.  $40.00 an hour for manual labor?  Better get chairs for the people outside waiting to get in.
> 
> There is an employment problem in this country, but it's caused by drugs and not lazy Americans.  Better paying jobs usually drug test and many can't pass the test.  These drugs come from other countries because we have limited border protection on our southern end.
> 
> So the long term solution is to get Americans off the drugs first, and that takes harsh measures to rid our country of these narcotics.  Your solution is to keep allowing those drugs in, and then importing people to take the jobs American junkies can't get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have submitted TWO bills to legislators recently regarding the control of drugs.  They are not interested.  The know that the government is creating the junkies, but nobody wants to do anything about it.
> 
> I don't know if you call being a handyman "manual labor," but most illiterate Mexicans figure it out within six months of training and build decks, paint houses, do basic concrete work, and make small repairs around the house.  We got plenty of kids in my neighborhood.  Like you, they spend their time on the computer while their mommy pays the Mexican to cut the freaking grass.
> 
> And, while you're driving a truck, I work with people trying to resolve family problems.  I'm telling you, for a fact, most drug addicts are created by their mommy, an absent or abusive father and the government that thinks drugs are the cure all for every problem.
Click to expand...

Is your name Clark Kent?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, where are your reasoning skills? Asking questions is not taking a position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and Black are not asking questions, you did take a position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not taken a position, otherwise you would have quoted it.
> 
> I will repeat this again: Your ass was probably in diapers the first time I had to publicly give my opinion on this topic.  And you can bet the family farm, my response was NOT in any way, shape, fashion, or form liberal or moderate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please, don't flatter yourself.  I can only wish I was as young as you perceive.
> 
> But it's not just me that has you nailed as a near open-border person, several others have done the same. We all can't be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you can all be wrong.  Jim Jones got over 900 people to drink cyanide laced Kool Aid based on a lie.  You are just as susceptible to being fooled - AND you just proved it with that part  "several others have done the same. We all can't be wrong.."
> 
> You just inadvertently admitted you're a Democrat - majority rule - might makes right.
> 
> Let me tell you something:
> 
> Ever since the Israelites began worshiping the golden calf while Moses was receiving the law of God, history has proven that majorities are usually wrong.  In the instant case BOTH sides are wrong - and you're wrong basically because the solutions you stand behind belonged to Democrats before they were adopted by the people writing your talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My goodness you are off the charts tonight.  Every one of my concerns and points are the exact opposite of the Democrat party.  Yours are much more inline with them than mine.  Nobody is "ruling" you, just pointing out that I'm not the only one who sees you as an open borders person.
Click to expand...



They can see me for what they like.  That won't make it true.  As I told you, there are two questions they've never asked me.  Their entire world is, much like yours, if you don't buy the build the wall solution as being the only solution, you're an open borders liberal.

If you can't understand, after I've defined what you told me, that YOU are a liberal Democrat, then you are less intelligent than I ever dreamed.  You should do some self introspection and then say, if I want to make a difference in the future of my nation and my culture, MAYBE I should STFU, do some studying, and figure out what this is all about.

You're so hung up on trying to peg me that you have no clue as to where I stand.  You even ignore the hints.  It's like someone is needed to bash you in the head with a rock before you understand:  There are many sides to this issue and most people have serious flaws with their proposed solutions.

Every person arguing for a wall could not convince a jury.  The recent turnover in the House of Representatives should tell you how ineffective your position is.  In order to win, you'd have to be able to make the other guy's argument for him and do a better job than he does.  You don't have a freaking clue as to where I stand and you end up making some of the most idiotic statements known to God or man.

That is why you're in the same boat the followers of Jim Jones were in.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROTF, LMAO, ROTF. LMAO.
> 
> Your entire campaign is a direct assault on Liberty.  Most of those on your side won't even answer the question of where we got our unalienable Rights from.  If they cannot answer that, they sure as Hell don't know what Liberty is.  Are you nucking futs or what!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull hockey, securing our borders doesn't effect the liberty of our citizens. Not securing it, on the other hand, is getting tens of thousands killed, the absolute denial of liberty. They've already seized enough fentanyl to kill everyone in this country. Accidental exposure to as little as 3 grains can kill a 250 pound man. Carfentanyl is even worse and they're finding more and more of it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get your unalienable Rights from?
> 
> And, again, one of those silly ass arguments that if you don't support a wall, you're against border security.  You'd rather die and rot in Hell rather than to have an honest discussion about this, wouldn't you?
> 
> Your religion is the wall.  Maybe, someday, the good Lord will give you four of them and keep society protected from people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My rights or where they come from is irrelevant to this discussion. We are talking about border security and national security. This country has a right to self defense and the enforcement of our borders and laws. A wall is only one component of that. Personally I'd just shoot anyone crossing illegally, that would put a stop to it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rights *are* relevant to the discussion since the bulk of your proposed solutions advocate infringing upon the Rights of American people to get what you want.  You also want to infringe upon the Constitution as originally written and intended - clearly exposing you as a left wing liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The flg says it all.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yes, most of what YOU post IS B.S.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> No shit, captain obvious.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet those you associate with would take away that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Me thinks you need to elaborate on that one.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I elaborate on it when you don't know what Liberty is NOR where it comes from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were telling me what people I associate with are doing, and you're like all ignorant people are assuming facts not in evidence.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are on this board, joining in with misguided people and using the standard talking points associated with the nutty wall idea.
Click to expand...



I see your philosophy is if you can't dazzle people with you brilliance you try to baffle them with your bullshit. You're doing a hell of a job on the latter.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't bother to read, do you?  It is YOUR position that the jobs created are for the American people.  That has nothing to do with your immigration argument.  You are afraid to separate the two.
> 
> You have *FINALLY* been half honest with me, Ray.  Your *REAL *objective is to keep people out of the United States.  If you look back, it wasn't that hard, Ray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've always been honest about it, but you never cared for what I said.
> 
> Me being against immigration is for several reason, not just one.  I've listed several of them, but there are actually more.  And if you list those negatives of immigration vs so-called positives, you will find the negative beats the positive three to one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were being honest, then you were ignorant and need to do some reading in several areas: general civics, history, law and constitutional interpretation.
> 
> That, most likely, explains why you try to pass me off as a liberal or a moderate instead of answering questions as they are asked of you.
> 
> Pretexts are not reasons.  They are just that.  For example, in my neighborhood, there are PLENTY of jobs almost anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size can get.  Most pay between $20 and $40 an hour.  When they don't take them and Hispanics show up, I work them.
> 
> NOWHERE in that scenario does it give you any indication of where I stand on the issue.  But, sometimes I need things done and have to work within a budget.  If Americans don't apply for the jobs, I either get the help I need or lose what I own.  It's that simple.  Do you realize I've been at this for four decades now and *not one single time* has one of the people wanting a wall and bitching about jobs *EVER* walked away from their computer and applied for a job that I told them about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then perhaps it's the state you live in with extraordinary high cost of living.  In my state, if you offer somebody 20 bucks an hour, not only will you have Americans applying for the job, but probably a line of them.  $40.00 an hour for manual labor?  Better get chairs for the people outside waiting to get in.
> 
> There is an employment problem in this country, but it's caused by drugs and not lazy Americans.  Better paying jobs usually drug test and many can't pass the test.  These drugs come from other countries because we have limited border protection on our southern end.
> 
> So the long term solution is to get Americans off the drugs first, and that takes harsh measures to rid our country of these narcotics.  Your solution is to keep allowing those drugs in, and then importing people to take the jobs American junkies can't get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have submitted TWO bills to legislators recently regarding the control of drugs.  They are not interested.  The know that the government is creating the junkies, but nobody wants to do anything about it.
> 
> I don't know if you call being a handyman "manual labor," but most illiterate Mexicans figure it out within six months of training and build decks, paint houses, do basic concrete work, and make small repairs around the house.  We got plenty of kids in my neighborhood.  Like you, they spend their time on the computer while their mommy pays the Mexican to cut the freaking grass.
> 
> And, while you're driving a truck, I work with people trying to resolve family problems.  I'm telling you, for a fact, most drug addicts are created by their mommy, an absent or abusive father and the government that thinks drugs are the cure all for every problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is your name Clark Kent?
Click to expand...


Did Clark Kent have a career in helping the downtrodden and those locked out of society get a second chance in life?


----------



## OKTexas

dblack said:


> I think we should also build catapults.




Only if we can load them with flaming tar.

.


----------



## Indeependent

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet those you associate with would take away that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me thinks you need to elaborate on that one.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I elaborate on it when you don't know what Liberty is NOR where it comes from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were telling me what people I associate with are doing, and you're like all ignorant people are assuming facts not in evidence.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are on this board, joining in with misguided people and using the standard talking points associated with the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see your philosophy is if you can't dazzle people with you brilliance you try to baffle them with your bullshit. You're doing a hell of a job on the latter.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Typical Liberal bullshit; If you need an explanation, you’re not smart enough to understand it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet those you associate with would take away that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me thinks you need to elaborate on that one.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I elaborate on it when you don't know what Liberty is NOR where it comes from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were telling me what people I associate with are doing, and you're like all ignorant people are assuming facts not in evidence.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are on this board, joining in with misguided people and using the standard talking points associated with the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see your philosophy is if you can't dazzle people with you brilliance you try to baffle them with your bullshit. You're doing a hell of a job on the latter.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You see questions as being B.S.  I understand.  The questions reveal that you don't have a monopoly on human virtue and little to NO understanding of what the Hell you're posting about.


----------



## dblack

OKTexas said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we should also build catapults.
> 
> 
> 
> Only if we can load them with flaming tar.
Click to expand...

But of course! We can launch cows at the evil Spaniards just like in Monty Python and the Holy Grail!


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always been honest about it, but you never cared for what I said.
> 
> Me being against immigration is for several reason, not just one.  I've listed several of them, but there are actually more.  And if you list those negatives of immigration vs so-called positives, you will find the negative beats the positive three to one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were being honest, then you were ignorant and need to do some reading in several areas: general civics, history, law and constitutional interpretation.
> 
> That, most likely, explains why you try to pass me off as a liberal or a moderate instead of answering questions as they are asked of you.
> 
> Pretexts are not reasons.  They are just that.  For example, in my neighborhood, there are PLENTY of jobs almost anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size can get.  Most pay between $20 and $40 an hour.  When they don't take them and Hispanics show up, I work them.
> 
> NOWHERE in that scenario does it give you any indication of where I stand on the issue.  But, sometimes I need things done and have to work within a budget.  If Americans don't apply for the jobs, I either get the help I need or lose what I own.  It's that simple.  Do you realize I've been at this for four decades now and *not one single time* has one of the people wanting a wall and bitching about jobs *EVER* walked away from their computer and applied for a job that I told them about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then perhaps it's the state you live in with extraordinary high cost of living.  In my state, if you offer somebody 20 bucks an hour, not only will you have Americans applying for the job, but probably a line of them.  $40.00 an hour for manual labor?  Better get chairs for the people outside waiting to get in.
> 
> There is an employment problem in this country, but it's caused by drugs and not lazy Americans.  Better paying jobs usually drug test and many can't pass the test.  These drugs come from other countries because we have limited border protection on our southern end.
> 
> So the long term solution is to get Americans off the drugs first, and that takes harsh measures to rid our country of these narcotics.  Your solution is to keep allowing those drugs in, and then importing people to take the jobs American junkies can't get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have submitted TWO bills to legislators recently regarding the control of drugs.  They are not interested.  The know that the government is creating the junkies, but nobody wants to do anything about it.
> 
> I don't know if you call being a handyman "manual labor," but most illiterate Mexicans figure it out within six months of training and build decks, paint houses, do basic concrete work, and make small repairs around the house.  We got plenty of kids in my neighborhood.  Like you, they spend their time on the computer while their mommy pays the Mexican to cut the freaking grass.
> 
> And, while you're driving a truck, I work with people trying to resolve family problems.  I'm telling you, for a fact, most drug addicts are created by their mommy, an absent or abusive father and the government that thinks drugs are the cure all for every problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is your name Clark Kent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Clark Kent have a career in helping the downtrodden and those locked out of society get a second chance in life?
Click to expand...

You’re boring me to death with your bleeding heart, save the world bullshit.
I know plenty of druggies with great parents.
Many druggies may have genetic issues so stop blaming everybody else.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me thinks you need to elaborate on that one.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can I elaborate on it when you don't know what Liberty is NOR where it comes from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were telling me what people I associate with are doing, and you're like all ignorant people are assuming facts not in evidence.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are on this board, joining in with misguided people and using the standard talking points associated with the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see your philosophy is if you can't dazzle people with you brilliance you try to baffle them with your bullshit. You're doing a hell of a job on the latter.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical Liberal bullshit; If you need an explanation, you’re not smart enough to understand it.
Click to expand...


I understand fear and your need to join a pack of wolves while not discussing any portion of the subject doth testify as to the fear you have.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I elaborate on it when you don't know what Liberty is NOR where it comes from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were telling me what people I associate with are doing, and you're like all ignorant people are assuming facts not in evidence.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are on this board, joining in with misguided people and using the standard talking points associated with the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see your philosophy is if you can't dazzle people with you brilliance you try to baffle them with your bullshit. You're doing a hell of a job on the latter.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical Liberal bullshit; If you need an explanation, you’re not smart enough to understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand fear and your need to join a pack of wolves while not discussing any portion of the subject doth testify as to the fear you have.
Click to expand...

And I understand your Liberal teachers trained you to need a select predetermined group of people to take the blame.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were being honest, then you were ignorant and need to do some reading in several areas: general civics, history, law and constitutional interpretation.
> 
> That, most likely, explains why you try to pass me off as a liberal or a moderate instead of answering questions as they are asked of you.
> 
> Pretexts are not reasons.  They are just that.  For example, in my neighborhood, there are PLENTY of jobs almost anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size can get.  Most pay between $20 and $40 an hour.  When they don't take them and Hispanics show up, I work them.
> 
> NOWHERE in that scenario does it give you any indication of where I stand on the issue.  But, sometimes I need things done and have to work within a budget.  If Americans don't apply for the jobs, I either get the help I need or lose what I own.  It's that simple.  Do you realize I've been at this for four decades now and *not one single time* has one of the people wanting a wall and bitching about jobs *EVER* walked away from their computer and applied for a job that I told them about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then perhaps it's the state you live in with extraordinary high cost of living.  In my state, if you offer somebody 20 bucks an hour, not only will you have Americans applying for the job, but probably a line of them.  $40.00 an hour for manual labor?  Better get chairs for the people outside waiting to get in.
> 
> There is an employment problem in this country, but it's caused by drugs and not lazy Americans.  Better paying jobs usually drug test and many can't pass the test.  These drugs come from other countries because we have limited border protection on our southern end.
> 
> So the long term solution is to get Americans off the drugs first, and that takes harsh measures to rid our country of these narcotics.  Your solution is to keep allowing those drugs in, and then importing people to take the jobs American junkies can't get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have submitted TWO bills to legislators recently regarding the control of drugs.  They are not interested.  The know that the government is creating the junkies, but nobody wants to do anything about it.
> 
> I don't know if you call being a handyman "manual labor," but most illiterate Mexicans figure it out within six months of training and build decks, paint houses, do basic concrete work, and make small repairs around the house.  We got plenty of kids in my neighborhood.  Like you, they spend their time on the computer while their mommy pays the Mexican to cut the freaking grass.
> 
> And, while you're driving a truck, I work with people trying to resolve family problems.  I'm telling you, for a fact, most drug addicts are created by their mommy, an absent or abusive father and the government that thinks drugs are the cure all for every problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is your name Clark Kent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Clark Kent have a career in helping the downtrodden and those locked out of society get a second chance in life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re boring me to death with your bleeding heart, save the world bullshit.
> I know plenty of druggies with great parents.
> Many druggies may have genetic issues so stop blaming everybody else.
Click to expand...


You have an ignore button.  Since you don't seem to be smart enough to figure out how to use it, PM me.  I'll give you directions.

If you READ the thread, I've pointed out several culprits for the drug culture.  Parents are only ONE of them.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were telling me what people I associate with are doing, and you're like all ignorant people are assuming facts not in evidence.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are on this board, joining in with misguided people and using the standard talking points associated with the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see your philosophy is if you can't dazzle people with you brilliance you try to baffle them with your bullshit. You're doing a hell of a job on the latter.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical Liberal bullshit; If you need an explanation, you’re not smart enough to understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand fear and your need to join a pack of wolves while not discussing any portion of the subject doth testify as to the fear you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I understand your Liberal teachers trained you to need a select predetermined group of people to take the blame.
Click to expand...


You understand nothing except to fear and use projection when you have nothing of substance to add to a conversation.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then perhaps it's the state you live in with extraordinary high cost of living.  In my state, if you offer somebody 20 bucks an hour, not only will you have Americans applying for the job, but probably a line of them.  $40.00 an hour for manual labor?  Better get chairs for the people outside waiting to get in.
> 
> There is an employment problem in this country, but it's caused by drugs and not lazy Americans.  Better paying jobs usually drug test and many can't pass the test.  These drugs come from other countries because we have limited border protection on our southern end.
> 
> So the long term solution is to get Americans off the drugs first, and that takes harsh measures to rid our country of these narcotics.  Your solution is to keep allowing those drugs in, and then importing people to take the jobs American junkies can't get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have submitted TWO bills to legislators recently regarding the control of drugs.  They are not interested.  The know that the government is creating the junkies, but nobody wants to do anything about it.
> 
> I don't know if you call being a handyman "manual labor," but most illiterate Mexicans figure it out within six months of training and build decks, paint houses, do basic concrete work, and make small repairs around the house.  We got plenty of kids in my neighborhood.  Like you, they spend their time on the computer while their mommy pays the Mexican to cut the freaking grass.
> 
> And, while you're driving a truck, I work with people trying to resolve family problems.  I'm telling you, for a fact, most drug addicts are created by their mommy, an absent or abusive father and the government that thinks drugs are the cure all for every problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is your name Clark Kent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Clark Kent have a career in helping the downtrodden and those locked out of society get a second chance in life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re boring me to death with your bleeding heart, save the world bullshit.
> I know plenty of druggies with great parents.
> Many druggies may have genetic issues so stop blaming everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have an ignore button.  Since you don't seem to be smart enough to figure out how to use it, PM me.  I'll give you directions.
> 
> If you READ the thread, I've pointed out several culprits for the drug culture.  Parents are only ONE of them.
Click to expand...

We need to bomb Drug Cities South of the Border one at a time until they learn their lesson.


----------



## dblack

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have submitted TWO bills to legislators recently regarding the control of drugs.  They are not interested.  The know that the government is creating the junkies, but nobody wants to do anything about it.
> 
> I don't know if you call being a handyman "manual labor," but most illiterate Mexicans figure it out within six months of training and build decks, paint houses, do basic concrete work, and make small repairs around the house.  We got plenty of kids in my neighborhood.  Like you, they spend their time on the computer while their mommy pays the Mexican to cut the freaking grass.
> 
> And, while you're driving a truck, I work with people trying to resolve family problems.  I'm telling you, for a fact, most drug addicts are created by their mommy, an absent or abusive father and the government that thinks drugs are the cure all for every problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Is your name Clark Kent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Clark Kent have a career in helping the downtrodden and those locked out of society get a second chance in life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re boring me to death with your bleeding heart, save the world bullshit.
> I know plenty of druggies with great parents.
> Many druggies may have genetic issues so stop blaming everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have an ignore button.  Since you don't seem to be smart enough to figure out how to use it, PM me.  I'll give you directions.
> 
> If you READ the thread, I've pointed out several culprits for the drug culture.  Parents are only ONE of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to bomb Drug Cities South of the Border one at a time until they learn their lesson.
Click to expand...


Nuke them from space!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have submitted TWO bills to legislators recently regarding the control of drugs.  They are not interested.  The know that the government is creating the junkies, but nobody wants to do anything about it.
> 
> I don't know if you call being a handyman "manual labor," but most illiterate Mexicans figure it out within six months of training and build decks, paint houses, do basic concrete work, and make small repairs around the house.  We got plenty of kids in my neighborhood.  Like you, they spend their time on the computer while their mommy pays the Mexican to cut the freaking grass.
> 
> And, while you're driving a truck, I work with people trying to resolve family problems.  I'm telling you, for a fact, most drug addicts are created by their mommy, an absent or abusive father and the government that thinks drugs are the cure all for every problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Is your name Clark Kent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Clark Kent have a career in helping the downtrodden and those locked out of society get a second chance in life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re boring me to death with your bleeding heart, save the world bullshit.
> I know plenty of druggies with great parents.
> Many druggies may have genetic issues so stop blaming everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have an ignore button.  Since you don't seem to be smart enough to figure out how to use it, PM me.  I'll give you directions.
> 
> If you READ the thread, I've pointed out several culprits for the drug culture.  Parents are only ONE of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to bomb Drug Cities South of the Border one at a time until they learn their lesson.
Click to expand...


What we need is to lock mental incompetents like you behind four walls so you'd be happy and America would be safe from the stupidity.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are on this board, joining in with misguided people and using the standard talking points associated with the nutty wall idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see your philosophy is if you can't dazzle people with you brilliance you try to baffle them with your bullshit. You're doing a hell of a job on the latter.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical Liberal bullshit; If you need an explanation, you’re not smart enough to understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand fear and your need to join a pack of wolves while not discussing any portion of the subject doth testify as to the fear you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I understand your Liberal teachers trained you to need a select predetermined group of people to take the blame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You understand nothing except to fear and use projection when you have nothing of substance to add to a conversation.
Click to expand...

Uh huh.
I feel for drug addicts but many of them drink and fuck when they should be concerned with their education.
And people need to understand that, yes, they can earn 300K/year, but not if it forces you to snort cocaine from the pressure of earning that much.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is your name Clark Kent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Clark Kent have a career in helping the downtrodden and those locked out of society get a second chance in life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re boring me to death with your bleeding heart, save the world bullshit.
> I know plenty of druggies with great parents.
> Many druggies may have genetic issues so stop blaming everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have an ignore button.  Since you don't seem to be smart enough to figure out how to use it, PM me.  I'll give you directions.
> 
> If you READ the thread, I've pointed out several culprits for the drug culture.  Parents are only ONE of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to bomb Drug Cities South of the Border one at a time until they learn their lesson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we need is to lock mental incompetents behind four walls so you'd be happy and America would be safe from the stupidity.
Click to expand...

I like dumb people and I enjoy explaining things to them to make them understand what’s going on.


----------



## Indeependent

dblack said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is your name Clark Kent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Clark Kent have a career in helping the downtrodden and those locked out of society get a second chance in life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re boring me to death with your bleeding heart, save the world bullshit.
> I know plenty of druggies with great parents.
> Many druggies may have genetic issues so stop blaming everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have an ignore button.  Since you don't seem to be smart enough to figure out how to use it, PM me.  I'll give you directions.
> 
> If you READ the thread, I've pointed out several culprits for the drug culture.  Parents are only ONE of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to bomb Drug Cities South of the Border one at a time until they learn their lesson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nuke them from space!
Click to expand...

Nah!  Up close and personal.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see your philosophy is if you can't dazzle people with you brilliance you try to baffle them with your bullshit. You're doing a hell of a job on the latter.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Liberal bullshit; If you need an explanation, you’re not smart enough to understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand fear and your need to join a pack of wolves while not discussing any portion of the subject doth testify as to the fear you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I understand your Liberal teachers trained you to need a select predetermined group of people to take the blame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You understand nothing except to fear and use projection when you have nothing of substance to add to a conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh.
> I feel for drug addicts but many of them drink and fuck when they should be concerned with their education.
> And people need to understand that, yes, they can earn 300K/year, but not if it forces you to snort cocaine from the pressure of earning that much.
Click to expand...


I tell some of these people the same thing.  If they're willing to work and sacrifice, I will help them.  They cannot B.S. me or use me.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Liberal bullshit; If you need an explanation, you’re not smart enough to understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand fear and your need to join a pack of wolves while not discussing any portion of the subject doth testify as to the fear you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I understand your Liberal teachers trained you to need a select predetermined group of people to take the blame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You understand nothing except to fear and use projection when you have nothing of substance to add to a conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh.
> I feel for drug addicts but many of them drink and fuck when they should be concerned with their education.
> And people need to understand that, yes, they can earn 300K/year, but not if it forces you to snort cocaine from the pressure of earning that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I tell some of these people the same thing.  If they're willing to work and sacrifice, I will help them.  They cannot B.S. me or use me.
Click to expand...

Which people?
Druggies?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Clark Kent have a career in helping the downtrodden and those locked out of society get a second chance in life?
> 
> 
> 
> You’re boring me to death with your bleeding heart, save the world bullshit.
> I know plenty of druggies with great parents.
> Many druggies may have genetic issues so stop blaming everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have an ignore button.  Since you don't seem to be smart enough to figure out how to use it, PM me.  I'll give you directions.
> 
> If you READ the thread, I've pointed out several culprits for the drug culture.  Parents are only ONE of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to bomb Drug Cities South of the Border one at a time until they learn their lesson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we need is to lock mental incompetents behind four walls so you'd be happy and America would be safe from the stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like dumb people and I enjoy explaining things to them to make them understand what’s going on.
Click to expand...


So you spend your days standing in front of a mirror talking to yourself


----------



## nat4900

toobfreak said:


> Which is why they have been used for 18 centuries.



Sure, for 18 centuries our forefathers just couldn't come up with drones......Also, ask the Israelis how many tunnels have been dug under THEIR wall......lol


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re boring me to death with your bleeding heart, save the world bullshit.
> I know plenty of druggies with great parents.
> Many druggies may have genetic issues so stop blaming everybody else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have an ignore button.  Since you don't seem to be smart enough to figure out how to use it, PM me.  I'll give you directions.
> 
> If you READ the thread, I've pointed out several culprits for the drug culture.  Parents are only ONE of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to bomb Drug Cities South of the Border one at a time until they learn their lesson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we need is to lock mental incompetents behind four walls so you'd be happy and America would be safe from the stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like dumb people and I enjoy explaining things to them to make them understand what’s going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you spend your days standing in front of a mirror talking to yourself
Click to expand...

Yes...You never watched Ally McBeal?
You have to practice what you’re going to preach so no one thinks you’re an asshole.


----------



## Indeependent

nat4900 said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why they have been used for 18 centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, for 18 centuries our forefathers just couldn't come up with drones......Also, ask the Israelis how many tunnels have been dug under THEIR wall......lol
Click to expand...

Move to Mexico.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand fear and your need to join a pack of wolves while not discussing any portion of the subject doth testify as to the fear you have.
> 
> 
> 
> And I understand your Liberal teachers trained you to need a select predetermined group of people to take the blame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You understand nothing except to fear and use projection when you have nothing of substance to add to a conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh.
> I feel for drug addicts but many of them drink and fuck when they should be concerned with their education.
> And people need to understand that, yes, they can earn 300K/year, but not if it forces you to snort cocaine from the pressure of earning that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I tell some of these people the same thing.  If they're willing to work and sacrifice, I will help them.  They cannot B.S. me or use me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which people?
> Druggies?
Click to expand...


Lazy ass pieces of scatalogical waste, druggies, those who got locked out of society over a 20 year old irrelevant misdemeanor.  I run into the good and the bad, but we need to get Americans back into the work force.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't know what Socialism is.  Keeping people out of the country is not socialism, it's protection of the citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't bother to read, do you?  It is YOUR position that the jobs created are for the American people.  That has nothing to do with your immigration argument.  You are afraid to separate the two.
> 
> You have *FINALLY* been half honest with me, Ray.  Your *REAL *objective is to keep people out of the United States.  If you look back, it wasn't that hard, Ray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always been honest about it, but you never cared for what I said.
> 
> Me being against immigration is for several reason, not just one.  I've listed several of them, but there are actually more.  And if you list those negatives of immigration vs so-called positives, you will find the negative beats the positive three to one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were being honest, then you were ignorant and need to do some reading in several areas: general civics, history, law and constitutional interpretation.
> 
> That, most likely, explains why you try to pass me off as a liberal or a moderate instead of answering questions as they are asked of you.
> 
> Pretexts are not reasons.  They are just that.  For example, in my neighborhood, there are PLENTY of jobs almost anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size can get.  Most pay between $20 and $40 an hour.  When they don't take them and Hispanics show up, I work them.
> 
> NOWHERE in that scenario does it give you any indication of where I stand on the issue.  But, sometimes I need things done and have to work within a budget.  If Americans don't apply for the jobs, I either get the help I need or lose what I own.  It's that simple.  Do you realize I've been at this for four decades now and *not one single time* has one of the people wanting a wall and bitching about jobs *EVER* walked away from their computer and applied for a job that I told them about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then perhaps it's the state you live in with extraordinary high cost of living.  In my state, if you offer somebody 20 bucks an hour, not only will you have Americans applying for the job, but probably a line of them.  $40.00 an hour for manual labor?  Better get chairs for the people outside waiting to get in.
> 
> There is an employment problem in this country, but it's caused by drugs and not lazy Americans.  Better paying jobs usually drug test and many can't pass the test.  These drugs come from other countries because we have limited border protection on our southern end.
> 
> So the long term solution is to get Americans off the drugs first, and that takes harsh measures to rid our country of these narcotics.  Your solution is to keep allowing those drugs in, and then importing people to take the jobs American junkies can't get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have submitted TWO bills to legislators recently regarding the control of drugs.  They are not interested.  The know that the government is creating the junkies, but nobody wants to do anything about it.
> 
> I don't know if you call being a handyman "manual labor," but most illiterate Mexicans figure it out within six months of training and build decks, paint houses, do basic concrete work, and make small repairs around the house.  We got plenty of kids in my neighborhood.  Like you, they spend their time on the computer while their mommy pays the Mexican to cut the freaking grass.
> 
> And, while you're driving a truck, I work with people trying to resolve family problems.  I'm telling you, for a fact, most drug addicts are created by their mommy, an absent or abusive father and the government that thinks drugs are the cure all for every problem.
Click to expand...



I've always said there are two wars the US will never win, the war on poverty and the war on drugs, the government imports adequate supplies of both daily.

.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I understand your Liberal teachers trained you to need a select predetermined group of people to take the blame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You understand nothing except to fear and use projection when you have nothing of substance to add to a conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh.
> I feel for drug addicts but many of them drink and fuck when they should be concerned with their education.
> And people need to understand that, yes, they can earn 300K/year, but not if it forces you to snort cocaine from the pressure of earning that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I tell some of these people the same thing.  If they're willing to work and sacrifice, I will help them.  They cannot B.S. me or use me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which people?
> Druggies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lazy ass pieces of scatalogical waste, druggies, those who got locked out of society over a 20 year old irrelevant misdemeanor.  I run into the good and the bad, but we need to get Americans back into the work force.
Click to expand...

Let’s hear your plan minus open borders.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have an ignore button.  Since you don't seem to be smart enough to figure out how to use it, PM me.  I'll give you directions.
> 
> If you READ the thread, I've pointed out several culprits for the drug culture.  Parents are only ONE of them.
> 
> 
> 
> We need to bomb Drug Cities South of the Border one at a time until they learn their lesson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we need is to lock mental incompetents behind four walls so you'd be happy and America would be safe from the stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like dumb people and I enjoy explaining things to them to make them understand what’s going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you spend your days standing in front of a mirror talking to yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...You never watched Ally McBeal?
> You have to practice what you’re going to preach so no one thinks you’re an asshole.
Click to expand...


I remember the series about a white chick that wanted to boink everything with a penis.  It scared me that people actually watched it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't bother to read, do you?  It is YOUR position that the jobs created are for the American people.  That has nothing to do with your immigration argument.  You are afraid to separate the two.
> 
> You have *FINALLY* been half honest with me, Ray.  Your *REAL *objective is to keep people out of the United States.  If you look back, it wasn't that hard, Ray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've always been honest about it, but you never cared for what I said.
> 
> Me being against immigration is for several reason, not just one.  I've listed several of them, but there are actually more.  And if you list those negatives of immigration vs so-called positives, you will find the negative beats the positive three to one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were being honest, then you were ignorant and need to do some reading in several areas: general civics, history, law and constitutional interpretation.
> 
> That, most likely, explains why you try to pass me off as a liberal or a moderate instead of answering questions as they are asked of you.
> 
> Pretexts are not reasons.  They are just that.  For example, in my neighborhood, there are PLENTY of jobs almost anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size can get.  Most pay between $20 and $40 an hour.  When they don't take them and Hispanics show up, I work them.
> 
> NOWHERE in that scenario does it give you any indication of where I stand on the issue.  But, sometimes I need things done and have to work within a budget.  If Americans don't apply for the jobs, I either get the help I need or lose what I own.  It's that simple.  Do you realize I've been at this for four decades now and *not one single time* has one of the people wanting a wall and bitching about jobs *EVER* walked away from their computer and applied for a job that I told them about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then perhaps it's the state you live in with extraordinary high cost of living.  In my state, if you offer somebody 20 bucks an hour, not only will you have Americans applying for the job, but probably a line of them.  $40.00 an hour for manual labor?  Better get chairs for the people outside waiting to get in.
> 
> There is an employment problem in this country, but it's caused by drugs and not lazy Americans.  Better paying jobs usually drug test and many can't pass the test.  These drugs come from other countries because we have limited border protection on our southern end.
> 
> So the long term solution is to get Americans off the drugs first, and that takes harsh measures to rid our country of these narcotics.  Your solution is to keep allowing those drugs in, and then importing people to take the jobs American junkies can't get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have submitted TWO bills to legislators recently regarding the control of drugs.  They are not interested.  The know that the government is creating the junkies, but nobody wants to do anything about it.
> 
> I don't know if you call being a handyman "manual labor," but most illiterate Mexicans figure it out within six months of training and build decks, paint houses, do basic concrete work, and make small repairs around the house.  We got plenty of kids in my neighborhood.  Like you, they spend their time on the computer while their mommy pays the Mexican to cut the freaking grass.
> 
> And, while you're driving a truck, I work with people trying to resolve family problems.  I'm telling you, for a fact, most drug addicts are created by their mommy, an absent or abusive father and the government that thinks drugs are the cure all for every problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've always said there are two wars the US will never win, the war on poverty and the war on drugs, the government imports adequate supplies of both daily.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


If you quit creating the drug users, the importers have no market.


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> I have not asked you about inalienable rights.  The question is about *unalienable* Rights.  There's a legal difference.  Our constitutional Republic was founded on two very important foundational principles that you know nothing about:
> *  The Right to own private property
> * Unalienable Rights which include, but are not limited to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.



Porter, let me set you straight.

An UNalienable right (as in the DOI) is an ABSOLUTE RIGHT.  God given.  Part of your being.  Cannot be taken away.  Your birthright given to you when you were born.  It can be trod upon by force, but not taken away so long as you are alive.

An INalienable right is a right which cannot be taken away.  It cannot be lawfully removed.  While not actually part of you, it is in your possession for all time.

What is the difference?  A distinction with subtle legal ramifications but really looking at the same thing from two slightly different angles.  As to the right to own property?  Better think again.  That is one of the most debatable human rights, subject to different interpretations all around the world, ESPECIALLY in the USA.  Try telling the judge when they seize your property that they are depriving you of a human right.  You're still free to live at the Y.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to bomb Drug Cities South of the Border one at a time until they learn their lesson.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What we need is to lock mental incompetents behind four walls so you'd be happy and America would be safe from the stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like dumb people and I enjoy explaining things to them to make them understand what’s going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you spend your days standing in front of a mirror talking to yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...You never watched Ally McBeal?
> You have to practice what you’re going to preach so no one thinks you’re an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember the series about a white chick that wanted to boink everything with a penis.  It scared me that people actually watched it.
Click to expand...

It was radical and brutally honest the first few seasons and probably helped a sexual revolution amongst high earners.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You understand nothing except to fear and use projection when you have nothing of substance to add to a conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh.
> I feel for drug addicts but many of them drink and fuck when they should be concerned with their education.
> And people need to understand that, yes, they can earn 300K/year, but not if it forces you to snort cocaine from the pressure of earning that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I tell some of these people the same thing.  If they're willing to work and sacrifice, I will help them.  They cannot B.S. me or use me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which people?
> Druggies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lazy ass pieces of scatalogical waste, druggies, those who got locked out of society over a 20 year old irrelevant misdemeanor.  I run into the good and the bad, but we need to get Americans back into the work force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let’s hear your plan minus open borders.
Click to expand...


My plan?  Academic studies that I have access to don't play well on discussion boards.  TLDR.

The real solutions, however, would be obvious if the build the wall guys simply admitted that some of their initial thoughts were in error.


----------



## nat4900

Indeependent said:


> Move to Mexico.




...and leave this great country in the hands of fuckheads like you (and Trump) ???....
NEVER......lol


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh.
> I feel for drug addicts but many of them drink and fuck when they should be concerned with their education.
> And people need to understand that, yes, they can earn 300K/year, but not if it forces you to snort cocaine from the pressure of earning that much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tell some of these people the same thing.  If they're willing to work and sacrifice, I will help them.  They cannot B.S. me or use me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which people?
> Druggies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lazy ass pieces of scatalogical waste, druggies, those who got locked out of society over a 20 year old irrelevant misdemeanor.  I run into the good and the bad, but we need to get Americans back into the work force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let’s hear your plan minus open borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My plan?  Academic studies that I have access to don't play well on discussion boards.  TLDR.
> 
> The real solutions, however, would be obvious if the build the wall guys simply admitted that some of their initial thoughts were in error.
Click to expand...

Sorry, bud, my community is fraught with 100s of MDs and PhDs and they disagree with your assessment.


----------



## Indeependent

nat4900 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Move to Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and leave this great country in the hands of fuckheads like you (and Trump) ???....
> NEVER......lol
Click to expand...

Mexico?
Oh, excuse me, we’re only becoming Mexico, but not fast enough for you.


----------



## nat4900

Trump will NEVER get money to build his ineffective "solution" to his re-election problems.

What will happen....eventually.....is that republicans in the senate will smarten up to save their own sorry asses and over-ride Trump's vetoes....


----------



## Porter Rockwell

toobfreak said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not asked you about inalienable rights.  The question is about *unalienable* Rights.  There's a legal difference.  Our constitutional Republic was founded on two very important foundational principles that you know nothing about:
> *  The Right to own private property
> * Unalienable Rights which include, but are not limited to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter, let me set you straight.
> 
> An UNalienable right (as in the DOI) is an ABSOLUTE RIGHT.  God given.  Part of your being.  Cannot be taken away.  Your birthright given to you when you were born.  It can be trod upon by force, but not taken away so long as you are alive.
> 
> An INalienable right is a right which cannot be taken away.  It cannot be lawfully removed.  While not actually part of you, it is in your possession for all time.
> 
> What is the difference?  A distinction with subtle legal ramifications but really looking at the same thing from two slightly different angles.  As to the right to own property?  Better think again.  That is one of the most debatable human rights, subject to different interpretations all around the world, ESPECIALLY in the USA.  Try telling the judge when they seize your property that they are depriving you of a human right.  You're still free to live at the Y.
Click to expand...


Let me set YOU straight:

An unalienable Right is one given by your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.)  It is natural, inherent, God given, absolute and irrevocable.)  It is not given by man and, according to most ORIGINAL legal precedents, it is above the law.

An inalienable can be forfeited.  That it is the basic difference.

You should read this thread.  We deal with your issue in post # 2806


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me thinks you need to elaborate on that one.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can I elaborate on it when you don't know what Liberty is NOR where it comes from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were telling me what people I associate with are doing, and you're like all ignorant people are assuming facts not in evidence.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are on this board, joining in with misguided people and using the standard talking points associated with the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see your philosophy is if you can't dazzle people with you brilliance you try to baffle them with your bullshit. You're doing a hell of a job on the latter.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see questions as being B.S.  I understand.  The questions reveal that you don't have a monopoly on human virtue and little to NO understanding of what the Hell you're posting about.
Click to expand...



Questions? More like preaching and you have yet to prove a point.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tell some of these people the same thing.  If they're willing to work and sacrifice, I will help them.  They cannot B.S. me or use me.
> 
> 
> 
> Which people?
> Druggies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lazy ass pieces of scatalogical waste, druggies, those who got locked out of society over a 20 year old irrelevant misdemeanor.  I run into the good and the bad, but we need to get Americans back into the work force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let’s hear your plan minus open borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My plan?  Academic studies that I have access to don't play well on discussion boards.  TLDR.
> 
> The real solutions, however, would be obvious if the build the wall guys simply admitted that some of their initial thoughts were in error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, bud, my community is fraught with 100s of MDs and PhDs and they disagree with your assessment.
Click to expand...


And what kind of country do we have today?  Have you ever witnessed a marriage that survived a psychologist?  Most of the people you referenced ARE part of the problem.


----------



## OKTexas

dblack said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we should also build catapults.
> 
> 
> 
> Only if we can load them with flaming tar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But of course! We can launch cows at the evil Spaniards just like in Monty Python and the Holy Grail!
Click to expand...



Have you ever tried to get a cow to hold still in a catapult, it ain't easy.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I elaborate on it when you don't know what Liberty is NOR where it comes from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were telling me what people I associate with are doing, and you're like all ignorant people are assuming facts not in evidence.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are on this board, joining in with misguided people and using the standard talking points associated with the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see your philosophy is if you can't dazzle people with you brilliance you try to baffle them with your bullshit. You're doing a hell of a job on the latter.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see questions as being B.S.  I understand.  The questions reveal that you don't have a monopoly on human virtue and little to NO understanding of what the Hell you're posting about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Questions? More like preaching and you have yet to prove a point.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You missed the exchange between Ray and I.  It took over a hundred posts, but we got to the truth.  THAT was the point.  And if your next post don't make a point, I'm going to bed and let you think on it.


----------



## toobfreak

nat4900 said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why they have been used for 18 centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, for 18 centuries our forefathers just couldn't come up with drones......Also, ask the Israelis how many tunnels have been dug under THEIR wall......lol
Click to expand...



I can dig a tunnel under a drone even easier.  Or just walk past it.  Or shoot the drone down.  Have any idea what a good drone costs?  Who's going to fly it?  Refuel it?  Monitor its camera?  Or camouflage myself so the drone doesn't see me.  With a wall, people are stopped, The few that try to get over or under are picked up by cameras or drones, or vibration sensors or patrols, but someone still has to monitor all that.  And they still have to get to the action.  By the time your drone sees me and you get there, I'm LONG GONE buddy!  At least with the wall, I was greatly slowed down giving you time to respond.  

Gee, you act like they will be putting the wall in your backyard!  Last I checked, most people along the border WANT the wall.  And it can be easily paid for by simply collecting the fines every illegal is due us.  According to my math, that comes to 53 billion dollars.


----------



## nat4900

toobfreak said:


> nd it can be easily paid for by simply collecting the fines every illegal is due us.



This moron is STILL "thinking": that Mexico (or an "illegal alien" with just the clothes on his back) will pay for the wall, as his orange hero promised.......LMAO


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> Let me set YOU straight:



How can you set me straight when all you said was repeating my own comments!  Damn I wish some of you people could fucking LEARN TO READ.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which people?
> Druggies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lazy ass pieces of scatalogical waste, druggies, those who got locked out of society over a 20 year old irrelevant misdemeanor.  I run into the good and the bad, but we need to get Americans back into the work force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let’s hear your plan minus open borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My plan?  Academic studies that I have access to don't play well on discussion boards.  TLDR.
> 
> The real solutions, however, would be obvious if the build the wall guys simply admitted that some of their initial thoughts were in error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, bud, my community is fraught with 100s of MDs and PhDs and they disagree with your assessment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what kind of country do we have today?  Have you ever witnessed a marriage that survived a psychologist?  Most of the people you referenced ARE part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Huh?
There are over 1,000 families in my community and about 70 divorces in the last 28 years.
Not too shabby.


----------



## Flopper

task0778 said:


> Well, I tell ya what, built that wall/fence/whatever high enough, and it'll sure as hell make it really hard to climb over.   Maybe it doesn't totally solve the problem, but it does reduce it somewhat and that's better than nothing.


That's was what they thought when they put up 8 foot security fences 25 years ago and then 12 foot fences, then 18 foot reinforced fences.  And now 18 or 20 foot barriers is going to do it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not asked you about inalienable rights.  The question is about *unalienable* Rights.  There's a legal difference.  Our constitutional Republic was founded on two very important foundational principles that you know nothing about:
> *  The Right to own private property
> * Unalienable Rights which include, but are not limited to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter, let me set you straight.
> 
> An UNalienable right (as in the DOI) is an ABSOLUTE RIGHT.  God given.  Part of your being.  Cannot be taken away.  Your birthright given to you when you were born.  It can be trod upon by force, but not taken away so long as you are alive.
> 
> An INalienable right is a right which cannot be taken away.  It cannot be lawfully removed.  While not actually part of you, it is in your possession for all time.
> 
> What is the difference?  A distinction with subtle legal ramifications but really looking at the same thing from two slightly different angles.  As to the right to own property?  Better think again.  That is one of the most debatable human rights, subject to different interpretations all around the world, ESPECIALLY in the USA.  Try telling the judge when they seize your property that they are depriving you of a human right.  You're still free to live at the Y.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me set YOU straight:
> 
> An unalienable Right is one given by your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.)  It is natural, inherent, God given, absolute and irrevocable.)  It is not given by man and, according to most ORIGINAL legal precedents, it is above the law.
> 
> An inalienable can be forfeited.  That it is the basic difference.
> 
> You should read this thread.  We deal with your issue in post # 2806
Click to expand...


What most of us don't understand from your rant is WTF does an inalienable right have to do with this topic?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

nat4900 said:


> Trump will NEVER get money to build his ineffective "solution" to his re-election problems.
> 
> What will happen....eventually.....is that republicans in the senate will smarten up to save their own sorry asses and over-ride Trump's vetoes....



Sure they will.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

toobfreak said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why they have been used for 18 centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, for 18 centuries our forefathers just couldn't come up with drones......Also, ask the Israelis how many tunnels have been dug under THEIR wall......lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can dig a tunnel under a drone even easier.  Or just walk past it.  Or shoot the drone down.  Have any idea what a good drone costs?  Who's going to fly it?  Refuel it?  Monitor its camera?  Or camouflage myself so the drone doesn't see me.  With a wall, people are stopped, The few that try to get over or under are picked up by cameras or drones, or vibration sensors or patrols, but someone still has to monitor all that.  And they still have to get to the action.  By the time your drone sees me and you get there, I'm LONG GONE buddy!  At least with the wall, I was greatly slowed down giving you time to respond.
> 
> Gee, you act like they will be putting the wall in your backyard!  Last I checked, most people along the border WANT the wall.  And it can be easily paid for by simply collecting the fines every illegal is due us.  According to my math, that comes to 53 billion dollars.
Click to expand...


Poll: Majority opposes border wall with Mexico

So, is America a Republic or a Democracy?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lazy ass pieces of scatalogical waste, druggies, those who got locked out of society over a 20 year old irrelevant misdemeanor.  I run into the good and the bad, but we need to get Americans back into the work force.
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s hear your plan minus open borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My plan?  Academic studies that I have access to don't play well on discussion boards.  TLDR.
> 
> The real solutions, however, would be obvious if the build the wall guys simply admitted that some of their initial thoughts were in error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, bud, my community is fraught with 100s of MDs and PhDs and they disagree with your assessment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what kind of country do we have today?  Have you ever witnessed a marriage that survived a psychologist?  Most of the people you referenced ARE part of the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh?
> There are over 1,000 families in my community and about 70 divorces in the last 28 years.
> Not too shabby.
Click to expand...


In your dreams


----------



## Flopper

Flopper said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I tell ya what, built that wall/fence/whatever high enough, and it'll sure as hell make it really hard to climb over.   Maybe it doesn't totally solve the problem, but it does reduce it somewhat and that's better than nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> That's was what they thought when they put up 8 foot security fences 25 years ago and then 12 foot fences, then 18 foot reinforced fences.  And now 18 or 20 foot barriers is going to do it.
Click to expand...


Build a higher fence, and they will get a longer ladder, cut hole with a torch, or dig a tunnel


----------



## toobfreak

nat4900 said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> nd it can be easily paid for by simply collecting the fines every illegal is due us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This moron is STILL "thinking": that Mexico (or an "illegal alien" with just the clothes on his back) will pay for the wall, as his orange hero promised.......LMAO
Click to expand...



Gotta love leftards.  You can always know when they've run out of arguments when they start attacking the person over the topic, which is 99% of the time.  This government CAN collect the money owed, it has a responsibility to do so.  Now its just a matter of filling the obligation.  Either way, I don't give a shit who pays upfront, as 5 billion dollars is NOTHING compared to our total budget.  We have eternity to get that money back.  And it'll get paid for in a year or two just on what the wall SAVES US.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not asked you about inalienable rights.  The question is about *unalienable* Rights.  There's a legal difference.  Our constitutional Republic was founded on two very important foundational principles that you know nothing about:
> *  The Right to own private property
> * Unalienable Rights which include, but are not limited to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter, let me set you straight.
> 
> An UNalienable right (as in the DOI) is an ABSOLUTE RIGHT.  God given.  Part of your being.  Cannot be taken away.  Your birthright given to you when you were born.  It can be trod upon by force, but not taken away so long as you are alive.
> 
> An INalienable right is a right which cannot be taken away.  It cannot be lawfully removed.  While not actually part of you, it is in your possession for all time.
> 
> What is the difference?  A distinction with subtle legal ramifications but really looking at the same thing from two slightly different angles.  As to the right to own property?  Better think again.  That is one of the most debatable human rights, subject to different interpretations all around the world, ESPECIALLY in the USA.  Try telling the judge when they seize your property that they are depriving you of a human right.  You're still free to live at the Y.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me set YOU straight:
> 
> An unalienable Right is one given by your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.)  It is natural, inherent, God given, absolute and irrevocable.)  It is not given by man and, according to most ORIGINAL legal precedents, it is above the law.
> 
> An inalienable can be forfeited.  That it is the basic difference.
> 
> You should read this thread.  We deal with your issue in post # 2806
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What most of us don't understand from your rant is WTF does an inalienable right have to do with this topic?
Click to expand...


It doesn't have a damn thing to do with this topic since I don't argue inalienable rights.  It's only important that you understand an unalienable Right.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

nat4900 said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why they have been used for 18 centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, for 18 centuries our forefathers just couldn't come up with drones......Also, ask the Israelis how many tunnels have been dug under THEIR wall......lol
Click to expand...


Better question: ask them how many they have found and how effective their wall is?


----------



## toobfreak

Flopper said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I tell ya what, built that wall/fence/whatever high enough, and it'll sure as hell make it really hard to climb over.   Maybe it doesn't totally solve the problem, but it does reduce it somewhat and that's better than nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> That's was what they thought when they put up 8 foot security fences 25 years ago and then 12 foot fences, then 18 foot reinforced fences.  And now 18 or 20 foot barriers is going to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Build a higher fence, and they will get a longer ladder, cut hole with a torch, or dig a tunnel
Click to expand...



Nope, sorry, they can't use ladders anymore, they were invented 10,000 years ago!  Only 21st century solutions will do!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not asked you about inalienable rights.  The question is about *unalienable* Rights.  There's a legal difference.  Our constitutional Republic was founded on two very important foundational principles that you know nothing about:
> *  The Right to own private property
> * Unalienable Rights which include, but are not limited to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter, let me set you straight.
> 
> An UNalienable right (as in the DOI) is an ABSOLUTE RIGHT.  God given.  Part of your being.  Cannot be taken away.  Your birthright given to you when you were born.  It can be trod upon by force, but not taken away so long as you are alive.
> 
> An INalienable right is a right which cannot be taken away.  It cannot be lawfully removed.  While not actually part of you, it is in your possession for all time.
> 
> What is the difference?  A distinction with subtle legal ramifications but really looking at the same thing from two slightly different angles.  As to the right to own property?  Better think again.  That is one of the most debatable human rights, subject to different interpretations all around the world, ESPECIALLY in the USA.  Try telling the judge when they seize your property that they are depriving you of a human right.  You're still free to live at the Y.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me set YOU straight:
> 
> An unalienable Right is one given by your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.)  It is natural, inherent, God given, absolute and irrevocable.)  It is not given by man and, according to most ORIGINAL legal precedents, it is above the law.
> 
> An inalienable can be forfeited.  That it is the basic difference.
> 
> You should read this thread.  We deal with your issue in post # 2806
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What most of us don't understand from your rant is WTF does an inalienable right have to do with this topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't have a damn thing to do with this topic since I don't argue inalienable rights.  It's only important that you understand an unalienable Right.
Click to expand...


And that's exactly what I thought.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I elaborate on it when you don't know what Liberty is NOR where it comes from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were telling me what people I associate with are doing, and you're like all ignorant people are assuming facts not in evidence.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are on this board, joining in with misguided people and using the standard talking points associated with the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see your philosophy is if you can't dazzle people with you brilliance you try to baffle them with your bullshit. You're doing a hell of a job on the latter.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical Liberal bullshit; If you need an explanation, you’re not smart enough to understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand fear and your need to join a pack of wolves while not discussing any portion of the subject doth testify as to the fear you have.
Click to expand...



You seem to be mistaking common sense for fear, of course that's a standard regressive talking point.

.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s hear your plan minus open borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My plan?  Academic studies that I have access to don't play well on discussion boards.  TLDR.
> 
> The real solutions, however, would be obvious if the build the wall guys simply admitted that some of their initial thoughts were in error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, bud, my community is fraught with 100s of MDs and PhDs and they disagree with your assessment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what kind of country do we have today?  Have you ever witnessed a marriage that survived a psychologist?  Most of the people you referenced ARE part of the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh?
> There are over 1,000 families in my community and about 70 divorces in the last 28 years.
> Not too shabby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your dreams
Click to expand...

We have God.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is your name Clark Kent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Clark Kent have a career in helping the downtrodden and those locked out of society get a second chance in life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re boring me to death with your bleeding heart, save the world bullshit.
> I know plenty of druggies with great parents.
> Many druggies may have genetic issues so stop blaming everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have an ignore button.  Since you don't seem to be smart enough to figure out how to use it, PM me.  I'll give you directions.
> 
> If you READ the thread, I've pointed out several culprits for the drug culture.  Parents are only ONE of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to bomb Drug Cities South of the Border one at a time until they learn their lesson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we need is to lock mental incompetents like you behind four walls so you'd be happy and America would be safe from the stupidity.
Click to expand...



Didn't you say walls don't work????? LMAO

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not asked you about inalienable rights.  The question is about *unalienable* Rights.  There's a legal difference.  Our constitutional Republic was founded on two very important foundational principles that you know nothing about:
> *  The Right to own private property
> * Unalienable Rights which include, but are not limited to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter, let me set you straight.
> 
> An UNalienable right (as in the DOI) is an ABSOLUTE RIGHT.  God given.  Part of your being.  Cannot be taken away.  Your birthright given to you when you were born.  It can be trod upon by force, but not taken away so long as you are alive.
> 
> An INalienable right is a right which cannot be taken away.  It cannot be lawfully removed.  While not actually part of you, it is in your possession for all time.
> 
> What is the difference?  A distinction with subtle legal ramifications but really looking at the same thing from two slightly different angles.  As to the right to own property?  Better think again.  That is one of the most debatable human rights, subject to different interpretations all around the world, ESPECIALLY in the USA.  Try telling the judge when they seize your property that they are depriving you of a human right.  You're still free to live at the Y.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me set YOU straight:
> 
> An unalienable Right is one given by your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.)  It is natural, inherent, God given, absolute and irrevocable.)  It is not given by man and, according to most ORIGINAL legal precedents, it is above the law.
> 
> An inalienable can be forfeited.  That it is the basic difference.
> 
> You should read this thread.  We deal with your issue in post # 2806
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What most of us don't understand from your rant is WTF does an inalienable right have to do with this topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't have a damn thing to do with this topic since I don't argue inalienable rights.  It's only important that you understand an unalienable Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's exactly what I thought.
Click to expand...


I really doubt that.  You've shown NO ability to think thus far.

If you don't know what an unalienable Right is, how would you know whether or not you infringed on mine?  You admitted that you didn't know.  Reread your responses.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s hear your plan minus open borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My plan?  Academic studies that I have access to don't play well on discussion boards.  TLDR.
> 
> The real solutions, however, would be obvious if the build the wall guys simply admitted that some of their initial thoughts were in error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, bud, my community is fraught with 100s of MDs and PhDs and they disagree with your assessment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what kind of country do we have today?  Have you ever witnessed a marriage that survived a psychologist?  Most of the people you referenced ARE part of the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh?
> There are over 1,000 families in my community and about 70 divorces in the last 28 years.
> Not too shabby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your dreams
Click to expand...

Are you an atheist?


----------



## task0778

Flopper said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I tell ya what, built that wall/fence/whatever high enough, and it'll sure as hell make it really hard to climb over.   Maybe it doesn't totally solve the problem, but it does reduce it somewhat and that's better than nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> That's was what they thought when they put up 8 foot security fences 25 years ago and then 12 foot fences, then 18 foot reinforced fences.  And now 18 or 20 foot barriers is going to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Build a higher fence, and they will get a longer ladder, cut hole with a torch, or dig a tunnel
Click to expand...


None of which is easy.   You gonna carry a 20-some foot ladder all the way from Guatemala?  Or a torch?  Most of these people ain't local Mexicans, right?  And digging a tunnel ain't easy, ya know?   You think a drone will pick up evidence of a tunnel fairly soon after it's dug?    Look, a wall or fence isn't foolproof, but it makes it harder to get into the USA and that's the point.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Clark Kent have a career in helping the downtrodden and those locked out of society get a second chance in life?
> 
> 
> 
> You’re boring me to death with your bleeding heart, save the world bullshit.
> I know plenty of druggies with great parents.
> Many druggies may have genetic issues so stop blaming everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have an ignore button.  Since you don't seem to be smart enough to figure out how to use it, PM me.  I'll give you directions.
> 
> If you READ the thread, I've pointed out several culprits for the drug culture.  Parents are only ONE of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to bomb Drug Cities South of the Border one at a time until they learn their lesson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we need is to lock mental incompetents like you behind four walls so you'd be happy and America would be safe from the stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you say walls don't work????? LMAO
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I didn't say it would work.  I only said it would make YOU happy.  In reality one only need to look at how many people were hoodwinked by ... well I won't name them, but we can't build enough walls to contain the idiots who find you amusing.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> My plan?  Academic studies that I have access to don't play well on discussion boards.  TLDR.
> 
> The real solutions, however, would be obvious if the build the wall guys simply admitted that some of their initial thoughts were in error.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, bud, my community is fraught with 100s of MDs and PhDs and they disagree with your assessment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what kind of country do we have today?  Have you ever witnessed a marriage that survived a psychologist?  Most of the people you referenced ARE part of the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh?
> There are over 1,000 families in my community and about 70 divorces in the last 28 years.
> Not too shabby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your dreams
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you an atheist?
Click to expand...


Christian Pastor


----------



## Flopper

toobfreak said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Border wall....a 3rd century "solution" to a 21st. century problem*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what "21st century" solution do you think is more cost effective at stopping people from going from A to B than a wall, hun?  A wall may be 3rd century, but they work VERY WELL at stopping people.  Which is why they have been used for 18 centuries.
Click to expand...

Well, we could take away the reason they're coming here which is not to have babies, rape and pillage, or vote for Hillary Clinton.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were telling me what people I associate with are doing, and you're like all ignorant people are assuming facts not in evidence.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are on this board, joining in with misguided people and using the standard talking points associated with the nutty wall idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see your philosophy is if you can't dazzle people with you brilliance you try to baffle them with your bullshit. You're doing a hell of a job on the latter.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical Liberal bullshit; If you need an explanation, you’re not smart enough to understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand fear and your need to join a pack of wolves while not discussing any portion of the subject doth testify as to the fear you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be mistaking common sense for fear, of course that's a standard regressive talking point.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You know you're blowing smoke.  You haven't shown any common sense - only an intense desire to troll me.  How many IQ points does that take?  You waste your time with that and what do you accomplish?


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, bud, my community is fraught with 100s of MDs and PhDs and they disagree with your assessment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what kind of country do we have today?  Have you ever witnessed a marriage that survived a psychologist?  Most of the people you referenced ARE part of the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh?
> There are over 1,000 families in my community and about 70 divorces in the last 28 years.
> Not too shabby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your dreams
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you an atheist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christian Pastor
Click to expand...

Maybe you suck at what you do.
It could explain the condescending attitude of your postings.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always been honest about it, but you never cared for what I said.
> 
> Me being against immigration is for several reason, not just one.  I've listed several of them, but there are actually more.  And if you list those negatives of immigration vs so-called positives, you will find the negative beats the positive three to one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were being honest, then you were ignorant and need to do some reading in several areas: general civics, history, law and constitutional interpretation.
> 
> That, most likely, explains why you try to pass me off as a liberal or a moderate instead of answering questions as they are asked of you.
> 
> Pretexts are not reasons.  They are just that.  For example, in my neighborhood, there are PLENTY of jobs almost anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size can get.  Most pay between $20 and $40 an hour.  When they don't take them and Hispanics show up, I work them.
> 
> NOWHERE in that scenario does it give you any indication of where I stand on the issue.  But, sometimes I need things done and have to work within a budget.  If Americans don't apply for the jobs, I either get the help I need or lose what I own.  It's that simple.  Do you realize I've been at this for four decades now and *not one single time* has one of the people wanting a wall and bitching about jobs *EVER* walked away from their computer and applied for a job that I told them about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then perhaps it's the state you live in with extraordinary high cost of living.  In my state, if you offer somebody 20 bucks an hour, not only will you have Americans applying for the job, but probably a line of them.  $40.00 an hour for manual labor?  Better get chairs for the people outside waiting to get in.
> 
> There is an employment problem in this country, but it's caused by drugs and not lazy Americans.  Better paying jobs usually drug test and many can't pass the test.  These drugs come from other countries because we have limited border protection on our southern end.
> 
> So the long term solution is to get Americans off the drugs first, and that takes harsh measures to rid our country of these narcotics.  Your solution is to keep allowing those drugs in, and then importing people to take the jobs American junkies can't get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have submitted TWO bills to legislators recently regarding the control of drugs.  They are not interested.  The know that the government is creating the junkies, but nobody wants to do anything about it.
> 
> I don't know if you call being a handyman "manual labor," but most illiterate Mexicans figure it out within six months of training and build decks, paint houses, do basic concrete work, and make small repairs around the house.  We got plenty of kids in my neighborhood.  Like you, they spend their time on the computer while their mommy pays the Mexican to cut the freaking grass.
> 
> And, while you're driving a truck, I work with people trying to resolve family problems.  I'm telling you, for a fact, most drug addicts are created by their mommy, an absent or abusive father and the government that thinks drugs are the cure all for every problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've always said there are two wars the US will never win, the war on poverty and the war on drugs, the government imports adequate supplies of both daily.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you quit creating the drug users, the importers have no market.
Click to expand...



I don't create drug users, but I would have no problem putting them 6 feet under. The US just doesn't have the balls to really deal with the problem.

.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re boring me to death with your bleeding heart, save the world bullshit.
> I know plenty of druggies with great parents.
> Many druggies may have genetic issues so stop blaming everybody else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have an ignore button.  Since you don't seem to be smart enough to figure out how to use it, PM me.  I'll give you directions.
> 
> If you READ the thread, I've pointed out several culprits for the drug culture.  Parents are only ONE of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to bomb Drug Cities South of the Border one at a time until they learn their lesson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we need is to lock mental incompetents like you behind four walls so you'd be happy and America would be safe from the stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you say walls don't work????? LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say it would work.  I only said it would make YOU happy.  In reality one only need to look at how many people were hoodwinked by ... well I won't name them, but we can't build enough walls to contain the idiots who find you amusing.
Click to expand...

Having police no longer works because we have lawyers who can provide an IDC10 for every criminal activity.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what kind of country do we have today?  Have you ever witnessed a marriage that survived a psychologist?  Most of the people you referenced ARE part of the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> There are over 1,000 families in my community and about 70 divorces in the last 28 years.
> Not too shabby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your dreams
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you an atheist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christian Pastor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you suck at what you do.
> It could explain the condescending attitude of your postings.
Click to expand...


Dude, I wasn't condescending until we covered the same ground half a dozen times.  You can only cover it so many times until it is a waste of time for both sides.  It took over 500 posts to get Ray to admit what he really wanted.  In all the times he tried to call me names he would not do publicly, I never responded in like kind.

Now, you're here to play a popularity game and troll me.  Not interested, so don't expect too much from me.  I'm here for the OP, not like your efforts to be the board's top Drama Queen.

If you have something relative to the OP, I'd like to hear it.


----------



## task0778

Flopper said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Border wall....a 3rd century "solution" to a 21st. century problem*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what "21st century" solution do you think is more cost effective at stopping people from going from A to B than a wall, hun?  A wall may be 3rd century, but they work VERY WELL at stopping people.  Which is why they have been used for 18 centuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, we could take away the reason they're coming here which is not to have babies, rape and pillage, or vote for Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...


And just how in the hell do you propose we could take away their reason for coming here?   Not one of your better posts.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and Black are not asking questions, you did take a position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've not taken a position, otherwise you would have quoted it.
> 
> I will repeat this again: Your ass was probably in diapers the first time I had to publicly give my opinion on this topic.  And you can bet the family farm, my response was NOT in any way, shape, fashion, or form liberal or moderate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please, don't flatter yourself.  I can only wish I was as young as you perceive.
> 
> But it's not just me that has you nailed as a near open-border person, several others have done the same. We all can't be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you can all be wrong.  Jim Jones got over 900 people to drink cyanide laced Kool Aid based on a lie.  You are just as susceptible to being fooled - AND you just proved it with that part  "several others have done the same. We all can't be wrong.."
> 
> You just inadvertently admitted you're a Democrat - majority rule - might makes right.
> 
> Let me tell you something:
> 
> Ever since the Israelites began worshiping the golden calf while Moses was receiving the law of God, history has proven that majorities are usually wrong.  In the instant case BOTH sides are wrong - and you're wrong basically because the solutions you stand behind belonged to Democrats before they were adopted by the people writing your talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My goodness you are off the charts tonight.  Every one of my concerns and points are the exact opposite of the Democrat party.  Yours are much more inline with them than mine.  Nobody is "ruling" you, just pointing out that I'm not the only one who sees you as an open borders person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They can see me for what they like.  That won't make it true.  As I told you, there are two questions they've never asked me.  Their entire world is, much like yours, if you don't buy the build the wall solution as being the only solution, you're an open borders liberal.
> 
> If you can't understand, after I've defined what you told me, that YOU are a liberal Democrat, then you are less intelligent than I ever dreamed.  You should do some self introspection and then say, if I want to make a difference in the future of my nation and my culture, MAYBE I should STFU, do some studying, and figure out what this is all about.
> 
> You're so hung up on trying to peg me that you have no clue as to where I stand.  You even ignore the hints.  It's like someone is needed to bash you in the head with a rock before you understand:  There are many sides to this issue and most people have serious flaws with their proposed solutions.
> 
> Every person arguing for a wall could not convince a jury.  The recent turnover in the House of Representatives should tell you how ineffective your position is.  In order to win, you'd have to be able to make the other guy's argument for him and do a better job than he does.  You don't have a freaking clue as to where I stand and you end up making some of the most idiotic statements known to God or man.
> 
> That is why you're in the same boat the followers of Jim Jones were in.
Click to expand...


Yes, you gained seats in the House, but lost them in the Senate.  And if you bother to look at the results, you'd see that both parties had an outstanding and historical turnout.  It's just that the hatred of the Democrats won over.  But Trump supporters are still behind him as they were during the presidential election.

Nobody ever said the wall is the sole solution.  You are making up that BS in your head.  The wall (as border patrol stated) is a very helpful part of the solution.  The solution is multi-level.  The sole solution would be to get the Congress to pass a law making being here illegally a first degree felony with a minimum five year prison sentence.  Then there would be no need for a wall, no need for e-veryfiy, no need for additional border agents, no need to track down illegals here.  Most of them would pack up and leave the country.

I know quite well what this is all about--you don't.  You remain ignorant of the long term goals by the Democrat party yet support their initiatives and furthermore claim yourself as a conservative.


----------



## dudmuck

task0778 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I tell ya what, built that wall/fence/whatever high enough, and it'll sure as hell make it really hard to climb over.   Maybe it doesn't totally solve the problem, but it does reduce it somewhat and that's better than nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> That's was what they thought when they put up 8 foot security fences 25 years ago and then 12 foot fences, then 18 foot reinforced fences.  And now 18 or 20 foot barriers is going to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Build a higher fence, and they will get a longer ladder, cut hole with a torch, or dig a tunnel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which is easy.   You gonna carry a 20-some foot ladder all the way from Guatemala?  Or a torch?  Most of these people ain't local Mexicans, right?  And digging a tunnel ain't easy, ya know?   You think a drone will pick up evidence of a tunnel fairly soon after it's dug?    Look, a wall or fence isn't foolproof, but it makes it harder to get into the USA and that's the point.
Click to expand...

This whole discussion is really hilarious, because the only reason "the wall" became a thing is because they wanted to Trump to stay on message for attacking immigrants.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have an ignore button.  Since you don't seem to be smart enough to figure out how to use it, PM me.  I'll give you directions.
> 
> If you READ the thread, I've pointed out several culprits for the drug culture.  Parents are only ONE of them.
> 
> 
> 
> We need to bomb Drug Cities South of the Border one at a time until they learn their lesson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we need is to lock mental incompetents like you behind four walls so you'd be happy and America would be safe from the stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you say walls don't work????? LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say it would work.  I only said it would make YOU happy.  In reality one only need to look at how many people were hoodwinked by ... well I won't name them, but we can't build enough walls to contain the idiots who find you amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Having police no longer works because we have lawyers who can provide an IDC10 for every criminal activity.
Click to expand...


Cute, but irrelevant.


----------



## Flopper

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The lion’s share goes to reimburse hospitals for delivering babies for women who show up in their emergency rooms, according to interviews with hospital officials and studies."
> 
> That is a direct quote from your article.  Your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's medical care for illegals.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The medical care is provided to the biological host of a baby.  So, level with me here, would you support abortion for those people instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No I would support shipping her ass out of the country before she drops a kid. And refusing entry to any pregnant woman.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good in theory, not always possible in practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should buy some land in Mexico and set up birthing centers, if a woman gets close, just send her there until the kid is delivered. Any woman requesting a visa should have to prove shes not pregnant. This birth tourism has to be stopped too.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Mexican women are going to stop having  babies.  They've discovered contraceptives.  Birth rate is 2.18 and falling.  By the time Trump get's his wall built, there won't be anyone to keep out.


----------



## Flopper

nat4900 said:


> Trump will NEVER get money to build his ineffective "solution" to his re-election problems.
> 
> What will happen....eventually.....is that republicans in the senate will smarten up to save their own sorry asses and over-ride Trump's vetoes....


Which might well happen when Trump declares congress a national disaster for not giving him money to build his wall.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've not taken a position, otherwise you would have quoted it.
> 
> I will repeat this again: Your ass was probably in diapers the first time I had to publicly give my opinion on this topic.  And you can bet the family farm, my response was NOT in any way, shape, fashion, or form liberal or moderate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, don't flatter yourself.  I can only wish I was as young as you perceive.
> 
> But it's not just me that has you nailed as a near open-border person, several others have done the same. We all can't be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you can all be wrong.  Jim Jones got over 900 people to drink cyanide laced Kool Aid based on a lie.  You are just as susceptible to being fooled - AND you just proved it with that part  "several others have done the same. We all can't be wrong.."
> 
> You just inadvertently admitted you're a Democrat - majority rule - might makes right.
> 
> Let me tell you something:
> 
> Ever since the Israelites began worshiping the golden calf while Moses was receiving the law of God, history has proven that majorities are usually wrong.  In the instant case BOTH sides are wrong - and you're wrong basically because the solutions you stand behind belonged to Democrats before they were adopted by the people writing your talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My goodness you are off the charts tonight.  Every one of my concerns and points are the exact opposite of the Democrat party.  Yours are much more inline with them than mine.  Nobody is "ruling" you, just pointing out that I'm not the only one who sees you as an open borders person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They can see me for what they like.  That won't make it true.  As I told you, there are two questions they've never asked me.  Their entire world is, much like yours, if you don't buy the build the wall solution as being the only solution, you're an open borders liberal.
> 
> If you can't understand, after I've defined what you told me, that YOU are a liberal Democrat, then you are less intelligent than I ever dreamed.  You should do some self introspection and then say, if I want to make a difference in the future of my nation and my culture, MAYBE I should STFU, do some studying, and figure out what this is all about.
> 
> You're so hung up on trying to peg me that you have no clue as to where I stand.  You even ignore the hints.  It's like someone is needed to bash you in the head with a rock before you understand:  There are many sides to this issue and most people have serious flaws with their proposed solutions.
> 
> Every person arguing for a wall could not convince a jury.  The recent turnover in the House of Representatives should tell you how ineffective your position is.  In order to win, you'd have to be able to make the other guy's argument for him and do a better job than he does.  You don't have a freaking clue as to where I stand and you end up making some of the most idiotic statements known to God or man.
> 
> That is why you're in the same boat the followers of Jim Jones were in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you gained seats in the House, but lost them in the Senate.  And if you bother to look at the results, you'd see that both parties had an outstanding and historical turnout.  It's just that the hatred of the Democrats won over.  But Trump supporters are still behind him as they were during the presidential election.
> 
> Nobody ever said the wall is the sole solution.  You are making up that BS in your head.  The wall (as border patrol stated) is a very helpful part of the solution.  The solution is multi-level.  The sole solution would be to get the Congress to pass a law making being here illegally a first degree felony with a minimum five year prison sentence.  Then there would be no need for a wall, no need for e-veryfiy, no need for additional border agents, no need to track down illegals here.  Most of them would pack up and leave the country.
> 
> I know quite well what this is all about--you don't.  You remain ignorant of the long term goals by the Democrat party yet support their initiatives and furthermore claim yourself as a conservative.
Click to expand...


I have endured your dumbassery long enough.  I didn't win a damn thing Ray as I voted Republican.  I don't support Democracy - not in name, not by party, not by ideology.  YOU DO and I'm sick and tired of your dishonesty so I'll treat you like you treat me.

You have one standard.  If someone does not back the silly wall, they are a liberal, etc.  THAT is what separates you from others with an IQ higher than their shoe size.

If you had *ANY* IQ, you would know why Congress can pass no such law as you suggest.  My *only point* to you is that we are restricted by the parameters of the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings in what kind of legislation we an pass.  

You have proven to be a fake, a phony, a fraud, and a poseur.  YOU adopted Bill Clinton's philosophy and have your head stuck so far up the liberals ass that if they fart, you will choke to death or get your first breath of air.

Now, you've called me a liberal for the last time.  Put up, shut up or get ready for a nasty back and forth.  Enough of this B.S.  You didn't know what an unalienable Right is so you don't have a clue when you advocate withholding one or denying one to someone.  You would have to kill me Ray in order to do some of the things you propose.  My Rights are unalienable.  You cannot take them; you cannot impose on them.  To even suggest it shows that YOU ARE NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN.

You should start at post #2806.  Read it and then cull through those 500 posts so you can see the number of times you LIED, called me names and tried to deflect when asked direct questions.  It's not my fault that the left misled you and made a socialist out of you.  Now, you want a discussion or a pissing match?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

I'm going to bed and will revisit Ray in a few hours.


----------



## dblack

Porter Rockwell said:


> I'm going to bed and will revisit Ray in a few hours.


Why?


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why they have been used for 18 centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, for 18 centuries our forefathers just couldn't come up with drones......Also, ask the Israelis how many tunnels have been dug under THEIR wall......lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can dig a tunnel under a drone even easier.  Or just walk past it.  Or shoot the drone down.  Have any idea what a good drone costs?  Who's going to fly it?  Refuel it?  Monitor its camera?  Or camouflage myself so the drone doesn't see me.  With a wall, people are stopped, The few that try to get over or under are picked up by cameras or drones, or vibration sensors or patrols, but someone still has to monitor all that.  And they still have to get to the action.  By the time your drone sees me and you get there, I'm LONG GONE buddy!  At least with the wall, I was greatly slowed down giving you time to respond.
> 
> Gee, you act like they will be putting the wall in your backyard!  Last I checked, most people along the border WANT the wall.  And it can be easily paid for by simply collecting the fines every illegal is due us.  According to my math, that comes to 53 billion dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poll: Majority opposes border wall with Mexico
> 
> So, is America a Republic or a Democracy?
Click to expand...



Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.

.


----------



## nat4900

task0778 said:


> And just how in the hell do you propose we could take away their reason for coming here?




Well, morons like you can start here........

*Donald Trump companies ignoring E-Verify, hiring illegal immigrants ...*

Dec 6, 2018 - Trump business empire shuns E-Verify, hires illegal immigrants ... Republicans relinquish Congress with whimper: 'More missed opportunities than anything' ... empire are signed up to use E-Verify, the government's best tool to weed illegal immigrants out of the workforce, .... A lot of noise before the storm.
*The Top 6 Anti-Immigration Activists Caught Using Illegal Labor *


----------



## Flopper

toobfreak said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why they have been used for 18 centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, for 18 centuries our forefathers just couldn't come up with drones......Also, ask the Israelis how many tunnels have been dug under THEIR wall......lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can dig a tunnel under a drone even easier.  Or just walk past it.  Or shoot the drone down.  Have any idea what a good drone costs?  Who's going to fly it?  Refuel it?  Monitor its camera?  Or camouflage myself so the drone doesn't see me.  With a wall, people are stopped, The few that try to get over or under are picked up by cameras or drones, or vibration sensors or patrols, but someone still has to monitor all that.  And they still have to get to the action.  By the time your drone sees me and you get there, I'm LONG GONE buddy!  At least with the wall, I was greatly slowed down giving you time to respond.
> 
> Gee, you act like they will be putting the wall in your backyard!  Last I checked, most people along the border WANT the wall.  And it can be easily paid for by simply collecting the fines every illegal is due us.  According to my math, that comes to 53 billion dollars.
Click to expand...

Security comes from those that guard a border. Border barriers simply slow an intruder down.  So if you have a taller barrier, border guards don't have to patrol as often.

So you're proposing we collect a fine from people we don't catch that don't have any money.  I think you should go back to having the Mexican government pay for it.  At least it sounds better.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I tell ya what, built that wall/fence/whatever high enough, and it'll sure as hell make it really hard to climb over.   Maybe it doesn't totally solve the problem, but it does reduce it somewhat and that's better than nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> That's was what they thought when they put up 8 foot security fences 25 years ago and then 12 foot fences, then 18 foot reinforced fences.  And now 18 or 20 foot barriers is going to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Build a higher fence, and they will get a longer ladder, cut hole with a torch, or dig a tunnel
Click to expand...



Well they won't be just strolling across will they? I don't think you understand the purpose of an obstacle. They are there to delay or force people to use tougher and more expensive means to accomplish their goals.

.


----------



## nat4900

Flopper said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump will NEVER get money to build his ineffective "solution" to his re-election problems.
> 
> What will happen....eventually.....is that republicans in the senate will smarten up to save their own sorry asses and over-ride Trump's vetoes....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which might well happen when Trump declares congress a national disaster for not giving him money to build his wall.
Click to expand...


Looking at this objectively, the answer has got to be among Senate GOPers....


Trump desperately needs a wall for any remote chance for re-election....

Democrats in the House know the above very well, and they will NOT yield to his moronic, selfish wishes.

So, it will be among Senate GOP'ers to CHOOSE....loyalty to Trump....OR looking out for their own hides at the next election.


----------



## nat4900

OKTexas said:


> *Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office *along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.




Moron,....was that when Trump "promised" that Mexico would pay for the wall??? LMAO


----------



## nat4900

Do any Trump ass kissers ever wonder why Trump didn't campaign and tell his cult the more honest slogan:

*"We will build a wall...and YOU are going to pay for it"..*.

LOL


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re boring me to death with your bleeding heart, save the world bullshit.
> I know plenty of druggies with great parents.
> Many druggies may have genetic issues so stop blaming everybody else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have an ignore button.  Since you don't seem to be smart enough to figure out how to use it, PM me.  I'll give you directions.
> 
> If you READ the thread, I've pointed out several culprits for the drug culture.  Parents are only ONE of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to bomb Drug Cities South of the Border one at a time until they learn their lesson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we need is to lock mental incompetents like you behind four walls so you'd be happy and America would be safe from the stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you say walls don't work????? LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say it would work.  I only said it would make YOU happy.  In reality one only need to look at how many people were hoodwinked by ... well I won't name them, but we can't build enough walls to contain the idiots who find you amusing.
Click to expand...



Yeah, you said walls don't work, yet you want to put the other poster behind 4 of them, a bit hypocritical ain't it and very inconsistent?

.


----------



## Flopper

task0778 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I tell ya what, built that wall/fence/whatever high enough, and it'll sure as hell make it really hard to climb over.   Maybe it doesn't totally solve the problem, but it does reduce it somewhat and that's better than nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> That's was what they thought when they put up 8 foot security fences 25 years ago and then 12 foot fences, then 18 foot reinforced fences.  And now 18 or 20 foot barriers is going to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Build a higher fence, and they will get a longer ladder, cut hole with a torch, or dig a tunnel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which is easy.   You gonna carry a 20-some foot ladder all the way from Guatemala?  Or a torch?  Most of these people ain't local Mexicans, right?  And digging a tunnel ain't easy, ya know?   You think a drone will pick up evidence of a tunnel fairly soon after it's dug?    Look, a wall or fence isn't foolproof, but it makes it harder to get into the USA and that's the point.
Click to expand...

Border towns in Mexico sell everything you need to cross the border and i'm not kidding, maps to survival kits, climbing gear, ropes, ladders, shovels, you name it. There's also guides, better known as coyotes that have whatever equipment is needed.

The current Trump plan is to replace the 4 mile reinforced fence in El Paso with a wall.  It is started and should complete sometime this year.  If Trump gets his money then he will start construction to replace 112 miles of border wall in Southern California with a new wall adding another 100 miles.

Initially, no one is going over 20 foot walls.  They will just pick another spot on the 1800 miles of border that easier to cross.   Over the years as there becomes more walls people will start using ladders and other equipment to breach them.  All this of course assumes democrats will never get control of government again and revise our immigration laws and the Mexican shortage of low cost labor doesn't force wages up and the cartels don't start blowing up walls.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are on this board, joining in with misguided people and using the standard talking points associated with the nutty wall idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see your philosophy is if you can't dazzle people with you brilliance you try to baffle them with your bullshit. You're doing a hell of a job on the latter.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical Liberal bullshit; If you need an explanation, you’re not smart enough to understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand fear and your need to join a pack of wolves while not discussing any portion of the subject doth testify as to the fear you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be mistaking common sense for fear, of course that's a standard regressive talking point.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know you're blowing smoke.  You haven't shown any common sense - only an intense desire to troll me.  How many IQ points does that take?  You waste your time with that and what do you accomplish?
Click to expand...



Yeah, I've been known for blowing smoke on occasion, but pointing out your irrelevance and use of regressive talking point ain't that. It's not trolling either. But laying waste to your misguided spew is entertaining.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's medical care for illegals.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The medical care is provided to the biological host of a baby.  So, level with me here, would you support abortion for those people instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No I would support shipping her ass out of the country before she drops a kid. And refusing entry to any pregnant woman.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good in theory, not always possible in practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should buy some land in Mexico and set up birthing centers, if a woman gets close, just send her there until the kid is delivered. Any woman requesting a visa should have to prove shes not pregnant. This birth tourism has to be stopped too.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mexican women are going to stop having  babies.  They've discovered contraceptives.  Birth rate is 2.18 and falling.  By the time Trump get's his wall built, there won't be anyone to keep out.
Click to expand...



What makes you think I was just talking about Mexicans, the Chinese are the major ones using birth tourism and I don't care where a foreigner has a kid as long as it not on US soil. How many of those Chinese kids will be coming back as spies, with US passports?

.


----------



## OKTexas

nat4900 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office *along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moron,....was that when Trump "promised" that Mexico would pay for the wall??? LMAO
Click to expand...



LMAO, no one expected Mexico to write a check so you can can your regressive talking points. All it does is get laughs.

.


----------



## OKTexas

nat4900 said:


> Do any Trump ass kissers ever wonder why Trump didn't campaign and tell his cult the more honest slogan:
> 
> *"We will build a wall...and YOU are going to pay for it"..*.
> 
> LOL




It wouldn't have made any difference.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I tell ya what, built that wall/fence/whatever high enough, and it'll sure as hell make it really hard to climb over.   Maybe it doesn't totally solve the problem, but it does reduce it somewhat and that's better than nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> That's was what they thought when they put up 8 foot security fences 25 years ago and then 12 foot fences, then 18 foot reinforced fences.  And now 18 or 20 foot barriers is going to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Build a higher fence, and they will get a longer ladder, cut hole with a torch, or dig a tunnel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which is easy.   You gonna carry a 20-some foot ladder all the way from Guatemala?  Or a torch?  Most of these people ain't local Mexicans, right?  And digging a tunnel ain't easy, ya know?   You think a drone will pick up evidence of a tunnel fairly soon after it's dug?    Look, a wall or fence isn't foolproof, but it makes it harder to get into the USA and that's the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Border towns in Mexico sell everything you need to cross the border and i'm not kidding, maps to survival kits, climbing gear, ropes, ladders, shovels, you name it. There's also guides, better known as coyotes that have whatever equipment is needed.
> 
> The current Trump plan is to replace the 4 mile reinforced fence in El Paso with a wall.  It is started and should complete sometime this year.  If Trump gets his money then he will start construction to replace 112 miles of border wall in Southern California with a new wall adding another 100 miles.
> 
> Initially, no one is going over 20 foot walls.  They will just pick another spot on the 1800 miles of border that easier to cross.   Over the years as there becomes more walls people will start using ladders and other equipment to breach them.  All this of course assumes democrats will never get control of government again and revise our immigration laws and the Mexican shortage of low cost labor doesn't force wages up and the cartels don't start blowing up walls.
Click to expand...



So once again your admitting walls work and force people to use alternative methods. BTW the border is 1954 miles long.

.


----------



## eagle1462010

nat4900 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3rd Century ...........Roman Walls............still standing today.............
> 
> Walls work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW....."brilliant".......Maybe ROME will pay for the wall???..........LOL
Click to expand...

Do you have a way of bringing them back from the dead..........hmmm.........from the 3rd Century...........LOL

They knew how to build a wall............and I bet there were some back then that said........Walls don't work like you........


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just kidding around. But seriously, I don't think I've ever been referred to as a moderate before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it hilarious that those referring to people like you and I as moderates and leftists are primarily using socialist arguments - as Ray does to support their position.
> 
> But, rest assured, many of them KNOW what they're doing.  They support socialism and are at peace with it, but since they cannot defend their position they rely on the standard canard of socialist philosophy while calling others names.
> 
> It's sad that all they have are meaningless platitudes and the talking points of socialists; they live in FEAR of having to participate in a real discussion and know, deep down, their position has flaws they don't want to address.  So, instead of admitting the flaws, they make baseless accusations and allegations they would never say in person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't know what Socialism is.  Keeping people out of the country is not socialism, it's protection of the citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't bother to read, do you?  It is YOUR position that the jobs created are for the American people.  That has nothing to do with your immigration argument.  You are afraid to separate the two.
> 
> You have *FINALLY* been half honest with me, Ray.  Your *REAL *objective is to keep people out of the United States.  If you look back, it wasn't that hard, Ray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always been honest about it, but you never cared for what I said.
> 
> Me being against immigration is for several reason, not just one.  I've listed several of them, but there are actually more.  And if you list those negatives of immigration vs so-called positives, you will find the negative beats the positive three to one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were being honest, then you were ignorant and need to do some reading in several areas: general civics, history, law and constitutional interpretation.
> 
> That, most likely, explains why you try to pass me off as a liberal or a moderate instead of answering questions as they are asked of you.
> 
> Pretexts are not reasons.  They are just that.  For example, in my neighborhood, there are PLENTY of jobs almost anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size can get.  Most pay between $20 and $40 an hour.  When they don't take them and Hispanics show up, I work them.
> 
> NOWHERE in that scenario does it give you any indication of where I stand on the issue.  But, sometimes I need things done and have to work within a budget.  If Americans don't apply for the jobs, I either get the help I need or lose what I own.  It's that simple.  Do you realize I've been at this for four decades now and *not one single time* has one of the people wanting a wall and bitching about jobs *EVER* walked away from their computer and applied for a job that I told them about?
Click to expand...

Penalties

*CIVIL VIOLATIONS*

Knowingly hired, or to have knowingly recruited or referred for a fee, an unauthorized alien for employment in the United States or to have knowingly continued to employ an unauthorized alien in the United States
Failing to comply with Form I-9 employment verification requirements
Committing or participating in document fraud for satisfying a requirement or benefit of the employment verification process or the INA
Committing document abuse
Unlawful discrimination against an employment-authorized individual in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee
Failing to notify DHS of a Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) of an employee’s employment eligibility
Requiring an individual to post a bond or security or to pay an amount or otherwise to provide financial guarantee or indemnity against any potential liability arising under the employment verification requirements
*CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS*

Engaging in a pattern or practice of hiring, recruiting or referring for a fee unauthorized aliens
What Is the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)?

*What does IRCA mean to employers?*
Obviously, employers cannot hire immigrants who are not authorized to work in the U.S. All workers must fit into one of the four following categories:


U.S. citizen
noncitizen national
lawful permanent resident
alien authorized to work
To check work authorization, the federal government requires a Form I-9 be filled out for every employee upon hire. This applies to U.S. citizens, too. The employee will fill out the first section and indicate their work authorization classification.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell is violating the law by hiring known illegals............That law was done under Reagan..........but these unlawful employers hire them anyway...........and then deny they are doing so if caught............This is going on all over the country, and the illegals just get fraudulent id's..........and then the employer goes............documents look good to me................even though they are lying............

E-Verify would end this..............along with amending the 1986 law to place employers in jail for hiring them.........Porter Rockwell would then get to argue from Prison for violating the laws of this country............

Do that........and he'd have to pay wages that would.........hmmmm..........get Americans to do........or he could sponsor workers through LEGAL MEANS.........after reading his posts he admitted to hiring illegals.........GUILTY AS CHARGED.

A little history of the law.........
Three  Decades of Failed Reform: Immigration Politics and the Collapse of Worksite Enforcement


----------



## eagle1462010

And the following video........showing Phil Collins as an illegal giving money for the fake id's........when ICE catches them........They YELL ASYLUM......forcing a court date......because of a 2 year back log.......then they are released........don't show up for court........and get new fake id's........imagine that.


----------



## longknife

Flopper said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the government is the people.  We elect representatives to carry out our will.  And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me.  It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am struggling to understand your argument.
> 
> We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
> 
> If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law.  In was passed in 1996.
> 
> Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
> 
> Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
> 
> 
> Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
> 
> 
> Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
> 
> 
> Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
> 
> 
> Medicaid
> 
> 
> Medicare
> 
> 
> Social Security
> 
> 
> Welfare
> Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
> 
> Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
> 
> Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
> 
> 
> Schooling
> 
> 
> Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
> In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants.  States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
> 
> No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
Click to expand...


*I appreciate the time you took in creating this post.*
*BUT,*
*You miss a very important item. *
*Illegals can easily get IDs that make them seem to be legals. Using those documents allows them to apply for and receive many of the benefits outlined in your post.*

*I personally know this to be a fact!*


----------



## longknife

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how many ladder crossers do you suppose were successful with the walls we have today?
> 
> 
> 
> The success of getting over a border barrier depends on how well it's monitored. Barriers don't stop migrants, they only slow them down.  The Southern California border wall had border patrol vehicles running less than 5 mins apart and were very successful.  Around El Paeso they ran about 15 to 20 mins apart and there were a lots of crossings.  What it really amounts to is the more guards you have monitoring the border, the more people you will apprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we learned of the Caravan and where they were heading, our military and border patrol erected make-shift walls to keep them out.  They hurled rocks and bottles at our agents (because that's what nannies and gardeners do) and broke down the wall; not one ladder.
> 
> If they didn't create those temporary barriers, thousands and thousands would have entered this country and little to stop them.  But because they did put those barriers up, they were able to get enough personnel there to stop and arrest those who broke through it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come you suppose those caravans showed up AFTER Obama left office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are not all that knowledgable of our politics.  They do know "however" the role our MSM plays in politics, and expected that to be their free ticket.  Look at how Trump had to cave when the MSM made phony reports how Trump was responsible for the separation of children from the adults (some claim were parents).
> 
> When the Caravan was half-way to the US, it was reported others were forming; into the millions.  After Trump stopped the caravan, those others seemed to have disappeared.  A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it dawn on you at any point that the caravans were financed by rich guys like Trump, Soros, and Murdoch?  Are you really that naive that you don't know when they are playing you?
Click to expand...


*Can you, in any way, shape, or form, PROVE that President Trump had anything to do with financing this or any other similar movement?*

*Just one.*


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you really believe that, I have a bridge for sale if interested.
> 
> The disagreement is Democrats don't want any barrier that works the best and can't be removed.
> 
> 
> 
> If democrats welcomed illegal immigration or didn't want a barrier against, why would democrats support the 2006 Border Fence Act which authorized 700 hundred miles of reinforced fences and why would democrats in congress support a bill that doubled the size of the border patrol and why would Bill Clinton sign a law that denies federal funds to undocumented immigrants and why would Obama, remove 2.5 million illegal immigrants.  I think your claims are based on supposition, not facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah?
> 
> Then where is that 700 miles of border fence?
> 
> Why are they fighting so hard to keep their sanctuary cities and now states?
> 
> Why did they stop Kate's Law in the Senate when Democrats had leadership?
> 
> Why do they provide illegals with drivers licenses in their states and allow their kids to attend school?
> 
> LA Times
> 
> Court Deportations Drop 43 Percent in Past Five Years
> 
> Report: 42 percent of new Medicaid signups are immigrants, their children
> 
> The Democrats can't say they are for illegals, so they put on this dog and pony show for the sheep that can't see beyond their BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People sling numbers around like they were picked from air.  Here is an article that disputes the numbers.  But, might I remind you that radio commentators are claiming that $5 BILLION DOLLARS is a drop in the bucket of federal spending.
> 
> How Undocumented Immigrants Sometimes Receive Medicaid Treatment
> 
> Herein is the irony.  Ray and those like him vehemently defend the 14th Amendment, yet the Courts have ruled that if you're born here you are a citizen - as per the 14th Amendment.  The money he is bitching about is used to the benefit of what will be "legal" American citizens.
> 
> Ray, had your kind stayed out of the fight, patriots were busy getting rid of the 14th Amendment.  Without it, this issue would have been taken off the table.  So, what are you REALLY whining about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quick reply here.
> 
> The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. When you say "courts" then specify the case, ruling and then we can discuss it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant counselor.
> 
> Children of Undocumented Immigrants in the U.S.: Rights and Opportunities - Lawyers.com
> 
> Also:
> 
> "there are many people within the United States who believe that children of illegal immigrants should not be given U.S. citizenship status. They argue that allowing such children citizenship was not the original intent of the drafters of the 14th Amendment (who didn't even address the topic of immigration, *because no limits then existed on who could enter the United States in the first place*..."
> 
> Can the Child of an Undocumented Immigrant Become a U.S. Citizen?
> 
> Then there is this:
> 
> "In recent years, some have argued the 14th amendment does not apply to children whose parents are undocumented.
> 
> "It's not the mainstream understanding," Sanders said. "But some have argued that the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' excludes children whose parents are not legal residents."
> 
> The argument is that because the child's parents remain in the U.S. illegally, they are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and neither are their children.
> 
> "As I said, that's not the mainstream understanding of the 14th amendment," Sanders said.
> 
> Excluding children of undocumented immigrants from birthright citizenship would require either a new amendment to the constitution or for the Supreme Court to decide the current constitution excludes such children."
> 
> Birthright citizenship applies to children of undocumented immigrants
Click to expand...


The laws that *specifically* address citizenship are very clear. 


_Definition of Child_

*IN GENERAL*,  *a* *child* *for* *citizenship* *and* *naturalization* provisions is an unmarried person who is:

The genetic, legitimated, or adopted son or daughter of a U.S. citizen; or 
The son or daughter of a non-genetic gestational U.S. citizen mother who is recognized by the relevant jurisdiction as the child’s legal parent.

Children residing outside of the United States may obtain citizenship under Section 322 of the INA. A child who regularly resides outside of the United States is eligible for naturalization if all of the following conditions have been met:

The child has at least one parent, including an adoptive parent, who is a U.S. citizen by birth or through naturalization; 
The child’s U.S. citizen parent or U.S. citizen grandparent meets certain physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession; 
The child is under 18 years of age;
The child is residing outside of the United States in the legal and physical custody of the U.S. citizen parent, or of a person who does not object to the application if the U.S. citizen parent is deceased; and
The child is lawfully admitted, physically present, and maintaining a lawful status in the United States at the time the application is approved and the time of naturalization. 
SOURCE: Are you the foreign-born child of a parent who becomes a U.S. citizen?

Why it’s so important to actually do the research on the laws surrounding citizenship, knowledge of the original intent when interpreting the 14th Amendment when it was written, as well as  our nation’s history surrounding immigration enforcement and dictation from Supreme Court cases surrounding immigration enforcement.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

danielpalos said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> My reply (if you were following) was in reference to the Federal law of citizenship VS those who sneak across our southern border illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. And I'm pointing out those issues have nothing to do with each other. Opposition to the wall isn't about granting anyone citizenship. It's about the freedom of people to travel here, work here and live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have no such freedom.  They can come here if we give them permission.  That's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your permission or mine?  Please cite me that part of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9*
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
Click to expand...


To establish the authority and role of Congress envolvement surrounding the flow of immigrants within the states.  The key words being “*migration* *OR* importation..... as *ANY* of the states”


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> My reply (if you were following) was in reference to the Federal law of citizenship VS those who sneak across our southern border illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. And I'm pointing out those issues have nothing to do with each other. Opposition to the wall isn't about granting anyone citizenship. It's about the freedom of people to travel here, work here and live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have no such freedom.  They can come here if we give them permission.  That's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your permission or mine?  Please cite me that part of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9*
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG.  Are you kidding?  That was tried once today.  The rest of the article deals with a ten dollar tax per person after 1808.  One only need to look at the year in which they Chy Lung decision was laid down to see that.
Click to expand...


The US Constitution gives a general “OUTLINE” .. if you prefer “ bullet statements” ... regarding each branch of government.  In this case, it surrounds the role of the legislative branch, and the authority of Congress.  If you NOW want to change the subject to interpretation and original intent, we can talk about the 14th Amendment.

I’m willing to bet you wont be able to establish much surrounding your point of view, without actually taking the time to do the actual research on this subject, as I have.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

OKTexas said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office *along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moron,....was that when Trump "promised" that Mexico would pay for the wall??? LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO, no one expected Mexico to write a check so you can can your regressive talking points. All it does is get laughs.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It's the new leftist talking point because it's the only one they got.  Their ploy is to try and convince everybody that Trump failed us somehow because we don't have that check in our possession.  Given the fact leftists are block heads, our repeated response that we could care less who pays for it falls on deaf ears.  After all, we must have said it about what........a hundred or so times?  Yet the persist on bringing it up as if they are going to change our minds.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Si if these assholes have all the answers why isn’t the bordersecure? Do ya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our border is MORE secure than almost all other countries on the planet....except for Israel that is forced to employ fascist tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?
> 
> Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."
Click to expand...


Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I tell ya what, built that wall/fence/whatever high enough, and it'll sure as hell make it really hard to climb over.   Maybe it doesn't totally solve the problem, but it does reduce it somewhat and that's better than nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> That's was what they thought when they put up 8 foot security fences 25 years ago and then 12 foot fences, then 18 foot reinforced fences.  And now 18 or 20 foot barriers is going to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Build a higher fence, and they will get a longer ladder, cut hole with a torch, or dig a tunnel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which is easy.   You gonna carry a 20-some foot ladder all the way from Guatemala?  Or a torch?  Most of these people ain't local Mexicans, right?  And digging a tunnel ain't easy, ya know?   You think a drone will pick up evidence of a tunnel fairly soon after it's dug?    Look, a wall or fence isn't foolproof, but it makes it harder to get into the USA and that's the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Border towns in Mexico sell everything you need to cross the border and i'm not kidding, maps to survival kits, climbing gear, ropes, ladders, shovels, you name it. There's also guides, better known as coyotes that have whatever equipment is needed.
> 
> The current Trump plan is to replace the 4 mile reinforced fence in El Paso with a wall.  It is started and should complete sometime this year.  If Trump gets his money then he will start construction to replace 112 miles of border wall in Southern California with a new wall adding another 100 miles.
> 
> Initially, no one is going over 20 foot walls.  They will just pick another spot on the 1800 miles of border that easier to cross.   Over the years as there becomes more walls people will start using ladders and other equipment to breach them.  All this of course assumes democrats will never get control of government again and revise our immigration laws and the Mexican shortage of low cost labor doesn't force wages up and the cartels don't start blowing up walls.
Click to expand...


So tell us which is quicker: crossing over the border by simply walking over it, or getting a two stage ladder, carrying or driving it up to the border, climbing up the ladder, getting back down to US soil, and then running away leaving a $400.00 ladder behind?  

A border patrol agent (that appeared with the President when he addressed the public on this issue) was on Laura Ingraham's show Friday said it best:  We understand a wall is not the only solution to our problem.  However, a wall greatly slows down border jumpers to make our job easier and allow us to apprehend more border crossers while at the same time, having less of them to worry about because a barrier is also a deterrent to most of them.  

The Border Patrol never endorsed a presidential candidate before Trump.  But because Trump is going to help them do their job, they gave him their endorsement.  So let's look at this argument realistically: 

Conservatives: we want to build a border wall. 

Liberals: What makes you think that will work? 

Conservatives: Because a wall works everywhere it's tried.  It works in Israel, it works in Hungary, it even works in the US where walls exist.  It's endorsed by the Border agencies who do the job of capturing border crossers.  

Liberals: But it won't work. 

Conservatives: what evidence do you have to substantiate your claim? 

Liberals: Democrat politicians, CNN, MSNBC, and ladders.  

Can you honestly state that there is any kind of reasonable argument from the left?  Really.......


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

nat4900 said:


> Do any Trump ass kissers ever wonder why Trump didn't campaign and tell his cult the more honest slogan:
> 
> *"We will build a wall...and YOU are going to pay for it"..*.
> 
> LOL



He also told us our healthcare insurance would drop by $2,500  a year, and we could keep our doctor, keep our insurance, keep our.............never mind.  That was somebody else.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

nat4900 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office *along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moron,....was that when Trump "promised" that Mexico would pay for the wall??? LMAO
Click to expand...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

nat4900 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump will NEVER get money to build his ineffective "solution" to his re-election problems.
> 
> What will happen....eventually.....is that republicans in the senate will smarten up to save their own sorry asses and over-ride Trump's vetoes....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which might well happen when Trump declares congress a national disaster for not giving him money to build his wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looking at this objectively, the answer has got to be among Senate GOPers....
> 
> 
> Trump desperately needs a wall for any remote chance for re-election....
> 
> Democrats in the House know the above very well, and they will NOT yield to his moronic, selfish wishes.
> 
> So, it will be among Senate GOP'ers to CHOOSE....loyalty to Trump....OR looking out for their own hides at the next election.
Click to expand...


No, because any Republican Senator that doesn't stand by Trump will lose their election.


----------



## danielpalos

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK. And I'm pointing out those issues have nothing to do with each other. Opposition to the wall isn't about granting anyone citizenship. It's about the freedom of people to travel here, work here and live here.
> 
> 
> 
> They have no such freedom.  They can come here if we give them permission.  That's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your permission or mine?  Please cite me that part of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9*
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To establish the authority and role of Congress envolvement surrounding the flow of immigrants within the states.  The key words being “*migration* *OR* importation..... as *ANY* of the states”
Click to expand...

the States can no longer import slaves.


----------



## danielpalos

Capitalism is Worthless if we need a Wall.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, don't flatter yourself.  I can only wish I was as young as you perceive.
> 
> But it's not just me that has you nailed as a near open-border person, several others have done the same. We all can't be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can all be wrong.  Jim Jones got over 900 people to drink cyanide laced Kool Aid based on a lie.  You are just as susceptible to being fooled - AND you just proved it with that part  "several others have done the same. We all can't be wrong.."
> 
> You just inadvertently admitted you're a Democrat - majority rule - might makes right.
> 
> Let me tell you something:
> 
> Ever since the Israelites began worshiping the golden calf while Moses was receiving the law of God, history has proven that majorities are usually wrong.  In the instant case BOTH sides are wrong - and you're wrong basically because the solutions you stand behind belonged to Democrats before they were adopted by the people writing your talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My goodness you are off the charts tonight.  Every one of my concerns and points are the exact opposite of the Democrat party.  Yours are much more inline with them than mine.  Nobody is "ruling" you, just pointing out that I'm not the only one who sees you as an open borders person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They can see me for what they like.  That won't make it true.  As I told you, there are two questions they've never asked me.  Their entire world is, much like yours, if you don't buy the build the wall solution as being the only solution, you're an open borders liberal.
> 
> If you can't understand, after I've defined what you told me, that YOU are a liberal Democrat, then you are less intelligent than I ever dreamed.  You should do some self introspection and then say, if I want to make a difference in the future of my nation and my culture, MAYBE I should STFU, do some studying, and figure out what this is all about.
> 
> You're so hung up on trying to peg me that you have no clue as to where I stand.  You even ignore the hints.  It's like someone is needed to bash you in the head with a rock before you understand:  There are many sides to this issue and most people have serious flaws with their proposed solutions.
> 
> Every person arguing for a wall could not convince a jury.  The recent turnover in the House of Representatives should tell you how ineffective your position is.  In order to win, you'd have to be able to make the other guy's argument for him and do a better job than he does.  You don't have a freaking clue as to where I stand and you end up making some of the most idiotic statements known to God or man.
> 
> That is why you're in the same boat the followers of Jim Jones were in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you gained seats in the House, but lost them in the Senate.  And if you bother to look at the results, you'd see that both parties had an outstanding and historical turnout.  It's just that the hatred of the Democrats won over.  But Trump supporters are still behind him as they were during the presidential election.
> 
> Nobody ever said the wall is the sole solution.  You are making up that BS in your head.  The wall (as border patrol stated) is a very helpful part of the solution.  The solution is multi-level.  The sole solution would be to get the Congress to pass a law making being here illegally a first degree felony with a minimum five year prison sentence.  Then there would be no need for a wall, no need for e-veryfiy, no need for additional border agents, no need to track down illegals here.  Most of them would pack up and leave the country.
> 
> I know quite well what this is all about--you don't.  You remain ignorant of the long term goals by the Democrat party yet support their initiatives and furthermore claim yourself as a conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have endured your dumbassery long enough.  I didn't win a damn thing Ray as I voted Republican.  I don't support Democracy - not in name, not by party, not by ideology.  YOU DO and I'm sick and tired of your dishonesty so I'll treat you like you treat me.
> 
> You have one standard.  If someone does not back the silly wall, they are a liberal, etc.  THAT is what separates you from others with an IQ higher than their shoe size.
> 
> If you had *ANY* IQ, you would know why Congress can pass no such law as you suggest.  My *only point* to you is that we are restricted by the parameters of the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings in what kind of legislation we an pass.
> 
> You have proven to be a fake, a phony, a fraud, and a poseur.  YOU adopted Bill Clinton's philosophy and have your head stuck so far up the liberals ass that if they fart, you will choke to death or get your first breath of air.
> 
> Now, you've called me a liberal for the last time.  Put up, shut up or get ready for a nasty back and forth.  Enough of this B.S.  You didn't know what an unalienable Right is so you don't have a clue when you advocate withholding one or denying one to someone.  You would have to kill me Ray in order to do some of the things you propose.  My Rights are unalienable.  You cannot take them; you cannot impose on them.  To even suggest it shows that YOU ARE NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN.
> 
> You should start at post #2806.  Read it and then cull through those 500 posts so you can see the number of times you LIED, called me names and tried to deflect when asked direct questions.  It's not my fault that the left misled you and made a socialist out of you.  Now, you want a discussion or a pissing match?
Click to expand...


Put up a wall and no rights of yours will be taken away.  If that happens, you let me know what right you lost, and I'll join your side.  This "losing rights' nonsense is some sort of black helicopter scare tactic that will never work.  You want to prove yourself as a conservative?  Then join the conservatives on this issue.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

dblack said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to bed and will revisit Ray in a few hours.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...


For the benefit of other readers.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why they have been used for 18 centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, for 18 centuries our forefathers just couldn't come up with drones......Also, ask the Israelis how many tunnels have been dug under THEIR wall......lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can dig a tunnel under a drone even easier.  Or just walk past it.  Or shoot the drone down.  Have any idea what a good drone costs?  Who's going to fly it?  Refuel it?  Monitor its camera?  Or camouflage myself so the drone doesn't see me.  With a wall, people are stopped, The few that try to get over or under are picked up by cameras or drones, or vibration sensors or patrols, but someone still has to monitor all that.  And they still have to get to the action.  By the time your drone sees me and you get there, I'm LONG GONE buddy!  At least with the wall, I was greatly slowed down giving you time to respond.
> 
> Gee, you act like they will be putting the wall in your backyard!  Last I checked, most people along the border WANT the wall.  And it can be easily paid for by simply collecting the fines every illegal is due us.  According to my math, that comes to 53 billion dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poll: Majority opposes border wall with Mexico
> 
> So, is America a Republic or a Democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


That was three years ago.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have an ignore button.  Since you don't seem to be smart enough to figure out how to use it, PM me.  I'll give you directions.
> 
> If you READ the thread, I've pointed out several culprits for the drug culture.  Parents are only ONE of them.
> 
> 
> 
> We need to bomb Drug Cities South of the Border one at a time until they learn their lesson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we need is to lock mental incompetents like you behind four walls so you'd be happy and America would be safe from the stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you say walls don't work????? LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say it would work.  I only said it would make YOU happy.  In reality one only need to look at how many people were hoodwinked by ... well I won't name them, but we can't build enough walls to contain the idiots who find you amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you said walls don't work, yet you want to put the other poster behind 4 of them, a bit hypocritical ain't it and very inconsistent?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Not hypocritical at all.  I said it would be for HIS enjoyment.  It won't impact me.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see your philosophy is if you can't dazzle people with you brilliance you try to baffle them with your bullshit. You're doing a hell of a job on the latter.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Liberal bullshit; If you need an explanation, you’re not smart enough to understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand fear and your need to join a pack of wolves while not discussing any portion of the subject doth testify as to the fear you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be mistaking common sense for fear, of course that's a standard regressive talking point.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know you're blowing smoke.  You haven't shown any common sense - only an intense desire to troll me.  How many IQ points does that take?  You waste your time with that and what do you accomplish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I've been known for blowing smoke on occasion, but pointing out your irrelevance and use of regressive talking point ain't that. It's not trolling either. But laying waste to your misguided spew is entertaining.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Dude, you're a legend in your own mind.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it hilarious that those referring to people like you and I as moderates and leftists are primarily using socialist arguments - as Ray does to support their position.
> 
> But, rest assured, many of them KNOW what they're doing.  They support socialism and are at peace with it, but since they cannot defend their position they rely on the standard canard of socialist philosophy while calling others names.
> 
> It's sad that all they have are meaningless platitudes and the talking points of socialists; they live in FEAR of having to participate in a real discussion and know, deep down, their position has flaws they don't want to address.  So, instead of admitting the flaws, they make baseless accusations and allegations they would never say in person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't know what Socialism is.  Keeping people out of the country is not socialism, it's protection of the citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't bother to read, do you?  It is YOUR position that the jobs created are for the American people.  That has nothing to do with your immigration argument.  You are afraid to separate the two.
> 
> You have *FINALLY* been half honest with me, Ray.  Your *REAL *objective is to keep people out of the United States.  If you look back, it wasn't that hard, Ray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always been honest about it, but you never cared for what I said.
> 
> Me being against immigration is for several reason, not just one.  I've listed several of them, but there are actually more.  And if you list those negatives of immigration vs so-called positives, you will find the negative beats the positive three to one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were being honest, then you were ignorant and need to do some reading in several areas: general civics, history, law and constitutional interpretation.
> 
> That, most likely, explains why you try to pass me off as a liberal or a moderate instead of answering questions as they are asked of you.
> 
> Pretexts are not reasons.  They are just that.  For example, in my neighborhood, there are PLENTY of jobs almost anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size can get.  Most pay between $20 and $40 an hour.  When they don't take them and Hispanics show up, I work them.
> 
> NOWHERE in that scenario does it give you any indication of where I stand on the issue.  But, sometimes I need things done and have to work within a budget.  If Americans don't apply for the jobs, I either get the help I need or lose what I own.  It's that simple.  Do you realize I've been at this for four decades now and *not one single time* has one of the people wanting a wall and bitching about jobs *EVER* walked away from their computer and applied for a job that I told them about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Penalties
> 
> *CIVIL VIOLATIONS*
> 
> Knowingly hired, or to have knowingly recruited or referred for a fee, an unauthorized alien for employment in the United States or to have knowingly continued to employ an unauthorized alien in the United States
> Failing to comply with Form I-9 employment verification requirements
> Committing or participating in document fraud for satisfying a requirement or benefit of the employment verification process or the INA
> Committing document abuse
> Unlawful discrimination against an employment-authorized individual in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee
> Failing to notify DHS of a Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) of an employee’s employment eligibility
> Requiring an individual to post a bond or security or to pay an amount or otherwise to provide financial guarantee or indemnity against any potential liability arising under the employment verification requirements
> *CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS*
> 
> Engaging in a pattern or practice of hiring, recruiting or referring for a fee unauthorized aliens
> What Is the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)?
> 
> *What does IRCA mean to employers?*
> Obviously, employers cannot hire immigrants who are not authorized to work in the U.S. All workers must fit into one of the four following categories:
> 
> 
> U.S. citizen
> noncitizen national
> lawful permanent resident
> alien authorized to work
> To check work authorization, the federal government requires a Form I-9 be filled out for every employee upon hire. This applies to U.S. citizens, too. The employee will fill out the first section and indicate their work authorization classification.
Click to expand...


You should READ this thread.  Let's start you out with post # 2806.  I'll come back later and start the discussion all over since you are not going to read the freaking thing.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If democrats welcomed illegal immigration or didn't want a barrier against, why would democrats support the 2006 Border Fence Act which authorized 700 hundred miles of reinforced fences and why would democrats in congress support a bill that doubled the size of the border patrol and why would Bill Clinton sign a law that denies federal funds to undocumented immigrants and why would Obama, remove 2.5 million illegal immigrants.  I think your claims are based on supposition, not facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah?
> 
> Then where is that 700 miles of border fence?
> 
> Why are they fighting so hard to keep their sanctuary cities and now states?
> 
> Why did they stop Kate's Law in the Senate when Democrats had leadership?
> 
> Why do they provide illegals with drivers licenses in their states and allow their kids to attend school?
> 
> LA Times
> 
> Court Deportations Drop 43 Percent in Past Five Years
> 
> Report: 42 percent of new Medicaid signups are immigrants, their children
> 
> The Democrats can't say they are for illegals, so they put on this dog and pony show for the sheep that can't see beyond their BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People sling numbers around like they were picked from air.  Here is an article that disputes the numbers.  But, might I remind you that radio commentators are claiming that $5 BILLION DOLLARS is a drop in the bucket of federal spending.
> 
> How Undocumented Immigrants Sometimes Receive Medicaid Treatment
> 
> Herein is the irony.  Ray and those like him vehemently defend the 14th Amendment, yet the Courts have ruled that if you're born here you are a citizen - as per the 14th Amendment.  The money he is bitching about is used to the benefit of what will be "legal" American citizens.
> 
> Ray, had your kind stayed out of the fight, patriots were busy getting rid of the 14th Amendment.  Without it, this issue would have been taken off the table.  So, what are you REALLY whining about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quick reply here.
> 
> The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. When you say "courts" then specify the case, ruling and then we can discuss it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant counselor.
> 
> Children of Undocumented Immigrants in the U.S.: Rights and Opportunities - Lawyers.com
> 
> Also:
> 
> "there are many people within the United States who believe that children of illegal immigrants should not be given U.S. citizenship status. They argue that allowing such children citizenship was not the original intent of the drafters of the 14th Amendment (who didn't even address the topic of immigration, *because no limits then existed on who could enter the United States in the first place*..."
> 
> Can the Child of an Undocumented Immigrant Become a U.S. Citizen?
> 
> Then there is this:
> 
> "In recent years, some have argued the 14th amendment does not apply to children whose parents are undocumented.
> 
> "It's not the mainstream understanding," Sanders said. "But some have argued that the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' excludes children whose parents are not legal residents."
> 
> The argument is that because the child's parents remain in the U.S. illegally, they are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and neither are their children.
> 
> "As I said, that's not the mainstream understanding of the 14th amendment," Sanders said.
> 
> Excluding children of undocumented immigrants from birthright citizenship would require either a new amendment to the constitution or for the Supreme Court to decide the current constitution excludes such children."
> 
> Birthright citizenship applies to children of undocumented immigrants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The laws that *specifically* address citizenship are very clear.
> 
> 
> _Definition of Child_
> 
> *IN GENERAL*,  *a* *child* *for* *citizenship* *and* *naturalization* provisions is an unmarried person who is:
> 
> The genetic, legitimated, or adopted son or daughter of a U.S. citizen; or
> The son or daughter of a non-genetic gestational U.S. citizen mother who is recognized by the relevant jurisdiction as the child’s legal parent.
> 
> Children residing outside of the United States may obtain citizenship under Section 322 of the INA. A child who regularly resides outside of the United States is eligible for naturalization if all of the following conditions have been met:
> 
> The child has at least one parent, including an adoptive parent, who is a U.S. citizen by birth or through naturalization;
> The child’s U.S. citizen parent or U.S. citizen grandparent meets certain physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession;
> The child is under 18 years of age;
> The child is residing outside of the United States in the legal and physical custody of the U.S. citizen parent, or of a person who does not object to the application if the U.S. citizen parent is deceased; and
> The child is lawfully admitted, physically present, and maintaining a lawful status in the United States at the time the application is approved and the time of naturalization.
> SOURCE: Are you the foreign-born child of a parent who becomes a U.S. citizen?
> 
> Why it’s so important to actually do the research on the laws surrounding citizenship, knowledge of the original intent when interpreting the 14th Amendment when it was written, as well as  our nation’s history surrounding immigration enforcement and dictation from Supreme Court cases surrounding immigration enforcement.
Click to expand...



I don't give a rip about the 14th Amendment and the laws surrounding it; it was illegally ratified.  HOW it is being applied today is all that is relevant since, like the Second Amendment, we ain't going back to original intent.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK. And I'm pointing out those issues have nothing to do with each other. Opposition to the wall isn't about granting anyone citizenship. It's about the freedom of people to travel here, work here and live here.
> 
> 
> 
> They have no such freedom.  They can come here if we give them permission.  That's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your permission or mine?  Please cite me that part of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9*
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG.  Are you kidding?  That was tried once today.  The rest of the article deals with a ten dollar tax per person after 1808.  One only need to look at the year in which they Chy Lung decision was laid down to see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Constitution gives a general “OUTLINE” .. if you prefer “ bullet statements” ... regarding each branch of government.  In this case, it surrounds the role of the legislative branch, and the authority of Congress.  If you NOW want to change the subject to interpretation and original intent, we can talk about the 14th Amendment.
> 
> I’m willing to bet you wont be able to establish much surrounding your point of view, without actually taking the time to do the actual research on this subject, as I have.
Click to expand...


You're probably right.  I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic.  I'm sure you have much more extensive experience.  Virtually all you build the wall guys do.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Si if these assholes have all the answers why isn’t the bordersecure? Do ya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our border is MORE secure than almost all other countries on the planet....except for Israel that is forced to employ fascist tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?
> 
> Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
Click to expand...


I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can all be wrong.  Jim Jones got over 900 people to drink cyanide laced Kool Aid based on a lie.  You are just as susceptible to being fooled - AND you just proved it with that part  "several others have done the same. We all can't be wrong.."
> 
> You just inadvertently admitted you're a Democrat - majority rule - might makes right.
> 
> Let me tell you something:
> 
> Ever since the Israelites began worshiping the golden calf while Moses was receiving the law of God, history has proven that majorities are usually wrong.  In the instant case BOTH sides are wrong - and you're wrong basically because the solutions you stand behind belonged to Democrats before they were adopted by the people writing your talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My goodness you are off the charts tonight.  Every one of my concerns and points are the exact opposite of the Democrat party.  Yours are much more inline with them than mine.  Nobody is "ruling" you, just pointing out that I'm not the only one who sees you as an open borders person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They can see me for what they like.  That won't make it true.  As I told you, there are two questions they've never asked me.  Their entire world is, much like yours, if you don't buy the build the wall solution as being the only solution, you're an open borders liberal.
> 
> If you can't understand, after I've defined what you told me, that YOU are a liberal Democrat, then you are less intelligent than I ever dreamed.  You should do some self introspection and then say, if I want to make a difference in the future of my nation and my culture, MAYBE I should STFU, do some studying, and figure out what this is all about.
> 
> You're so hung up on trying to peg me that you have no clue as to where I stand.  You even ignore the hints.  It's like someone is needed to bash you in the head with a rock before you understand:  There are many sides to this issue and most people have serious flaws with their proposed solutions.
> 
> Every person arguing for a wall could not convince a jury.  The recent turnover in the House of Representatives should tell you how ineffective your position is.  In order to win, you'd have to be able to make the other guy's argument for him and do a better job than he does.  You don't have a freaking clue as to where I stand and you end up making some of the most idiotic statements known to God or man.
> 
> That is why you're in the same boat the followers of Jim Jones were in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you gained seats in the House, but lost them in the Senate.  And if you bother to look at the results, you'd see that both parties had an outstanding and historical turnout.  It's just that the hatred of the Democrats won over.  But Trump supporters are still behind him as they were during the presidential election.
> 
> Nobody ever said the wall is the sole solution.  You are making up that BS in your head.  The wall (as border patrol stated) is a very helpful part of the solution.  The solution is multi-level.  The sole solution would be to get the Congress to pass a law making being here illegally a first degree felony with a minimum five year prison sentence.  Then there would be no need for a wall, no need for e-veryfiy, no need for additional border agents, no need to track down illegals here.  Most of them would pack up and leave the country.
> 
> I know quite well what this is all about--you don't.  You remain ignorant of the long term goals by the Democrat party yet support their initiatives and furthermore claim yourself as a conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have endured your dumbassery long enough.  I didn't win a damn thing Ray as I voted Republican.  I don't support Democracy - not in name, not by party, not by ideology.  YOU DO and I'm sick and tired of your dishonesty so I'll treat you like you treat me.
> 
> You have one standard.  If someone does not back the silly wall, they are a liberal, etc.  THAT is what separates you from others with an IQ higher than their shoe size.
> 
> If you had *ANY* IQ, you would know why Congress can pass no such law as you suggest.  My *only point* to you is that we are restricted by the parameters of the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings in what kind of legislation we an pass.
> 
> You have proven to be a fake, a phony, a fraud, and a poseur.  YOU adopted Bill Clinton's philosophy and have your head stuck so far up the liberals ass that if they fart, you will choke to death or get your first breath of air.
> 
> Now, you've called me a liberal for the last time.  Put up, shut up or get ready for a nasty back and forth.  Enough of this B.S.  You didn't know what an unalienable Right is so you don't have a clue when you advocate withholding one or denying one to someone.  You would have to kill me Ray in order to do some of the things you propose.  My Rights are unalienable.  You cannot take them; you cannot impose on them.  To even suggest it shows that YOU ARE NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN.
> 
> You should start at post #2806.  Read it and then cull through those 500 posts so you can see the number of times you LIED, called me names and tried to deflect when asked direct questions.  It's not my fault that the left misled you and made a socialist out of you.  Now, you want a discussion or a pissing match?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put up a wall and no rights of yours will be taken away.  If that happens, you let me know what right you lost, and I'll join your side.  This "losing rights' nonsense is some sort of black helicopter scare tactic that will never work.  You want to prove yourself as a conservative?  Then join the conservatives on this issue.
Click to expand...


Your issue* is not* a conservative one.  It was the view of the Democrats *BEFORE* they sold you a pig in a poke.  I'm going out to breakfast right now.  After church I will have a message just for you.

In the mean time, you should pray.  The Bible says by what measure you've judged me, you will be judged.  You have still failed to ask two important questions.  So I'm not going to answer them; just allow you to keep digging that pit deeper and deeper so you can't climb out.  Later.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Si if these assholes have all the answers why isn’t the bordersecure? Do ya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our border is MORE secure than almost all other countries on the planet....except for Israel that is forced to employ fascist tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?
> 
> Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
Click to expand...


After reading your first sentence I realize that you are a mindless fool. You don’t respect those who risk their lives on the frontlines. You can go and jump in a frozen lake.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> My goodness you are off the charts tonight.  Every one of my concerns and points are the exact opposite of the Democrat party.  Yours are much more inline with them than mine.  Nobody is "ruling" you, just pointing out that I'm not the only one who sees you as an open borders person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can see me for what they like.  That won't make it true.  As I told you, there are two questions they've never asked me.  Their entire world is, much like yours, if you don't buy the build the wall solution as being the only solution, you're an open borders liberal.
> 
> If you can't understand, after I've defined what you told me, that YOU are a liberal Democrat, then you are less intelligent than I ever dreamed.  You should do some self introspection and then say, if I want to make a difference in the future of my nation and my culture, MAYBE I should STFU, do some studying, and figure out what this is all about.
> 
> You're so hung up on trying to peg me that you have no clue as to where I stand.  You even ignore the hints.  It's like someone is needed to bash you in the head with a rock before you understand:  There are many sides to this issue and most people have serious flaws with their proposed solutions.
> 
> Every person arguing for a wall could not convince a jury.  The recent turnover in the House of Representatives should tell you how ineffective your position is.  In order to win, you'd have to be able to make the other guy's argument for him and do a better job than he does.  You don't have a freaking clue as to where I stand and you end up making some of the most idiotic statements known to God or man.
> 
> That is why you're in the same boat the followers of Jim Jones were in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you gained seats in the House, but lost them in the Senate.  And if you bother to look at the results, you'd see that both parties had an outstanding and historical turnout.  It's just that the hatred of the Democrats won over.  But Trump supporters are still behind him as they were during the presidential election.
> 
> Nobody ever said the wall is the sole solution.  You are making up that BS in your head.  The wall (as border patrol stated) is a very helpful part of the solution.  The solution is multi-level.  The sole solution would be to get the Congress to pass a law making being here illegally a first degree felony with a minimum five year prison sentence.  Then there would be no need for a wall, no need for e-veryfiy, no need for additional border agents, no need to track down illegals here.  Most of them would pack up and leave the country.
> 
> I know quite well what this is all about--you don't.  You remain ignorant of the long term goals by the Democrat party yet support their initiatives and furthermore claim yourself as a conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have endured your dumbassery long enough.  I didn't win a damn thing Ray as I voted Republican.  I don't support Democracy - not in name, not by party, not by ideology.  YOU DO and I'm sick and tired of your dishonesty so I'll treat you like you treat me.
> 
> You have one standard.  If someone does not back the silly wall, they are a liberal, etc.  THAT is what separates you from others with an IQ higher than their shoe size.
> 
> If you had *ANY* IQ, you would know why Congress can pass no such law as you suggest.  My *only point* to you is that we are restricted by the parameters of the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings in what kind of legislation we an pass.
> 
> You have proven to be a fake, a phony, a fraud, and a poseur.  YOU adopted Bill Clinton's philosophy and have your head stuck so far up the liberals ass that if they fart, you will choke to death or get your first breath of air.
> 
> Now, you've called me a liberal for the last time.  Put up, shut up or get ready for a nasty back and forth.  Enough of this B.S.  You didn't know what an unalienable Right is so you don't have a clue when you advocate withholding one or denying one to someone.  You would have to kill me Ray in order to do some of the things you propose.  My Rights are unalienable.  You cannot take them; you cannot impose on them.  To even suggest it shows that YOU ARE NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN.
> 
> You should start at post #2806.  Read it and then cull through those 500 posts so you can see the number of times you LIED, called me names and tried to deflect when asked direct questions.  It's not my fault that the left misled you and made a socialist out of you.  Now, you want a discussion or a pissing match?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put up a wall and no rights of yours will be taken away.  If that happens, you let me know what right you lost, and I'll join your side.  This "losing rights' nonsense is some sort of black helicopter scare tactic that will never work.  You want to prove yourself as a conservative?  Then join the conservatives on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your issue* is not* a conservative one.  It was the view of the Democrats *BEFORE* they sold you a pig in a poke.  I'm going out to breakfast right now.  After church I will have a message just for you.
> 
> In the mean time, you should pray.  The Bible says by what measure you've judged me, you will be judged.  You have still failed to ask two important questions.  So I'm not going to answer them; just allow you to keep digging that pit deeper and deeper so you can't climb out.  Later.
Click to expand...


Whatever fatty


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't know what Socialism is.  Keeping people out of the country is not socialism, it's protection of the citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't bother to read, do you?  It is YOUR position that the jobs created are for the American people.  That has nothing to do with your immigration argument.  You are afraid to separate the two.
> 
> You have *FINALLY* been half honest with me, Ray.  Your *REAL *objective is to keep people out of the United States.  If you look back, it wasn't that hard, Ray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always been honest about it, but you never cared for what I said.
> 
> Me being against immigration is for several reason, not just one.  I've listed several of them, but there are actually more.  And if you list those negatives of immigration vs so-called positives, you will find the negative beats the positive three to one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were being honest, then you were ignorant and need to do some reading in several areas: general civics, history, law and constitutional interpretation.
> 
> That, most likely, explains why you try to pass me off as a liberal or a moderate instead of answering questions as they are asked of you.
> 
> Pretexts are not reasons.  They are just that.  For example, in my neighborhood, there are PLENTY of jobs almost anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size can get.  Most pay between $20 and $40 an hour.  When they don't take them and Hispanics show up, I work them.
> 
> NOWHERE in that scenario does it give you any indication of where I stand on the issue.  But, sometimes I need things done and have to work within a budget.  If Americans don't apply for the jobs, I either get the help I need or lose what I own.  It's that simple.  Do you realize I've been at this for four decades now and *not one single time* has one of the people wanting a wall and bitching about jobs *EVER* walked away from their computer and applied for a job that I told them about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Penalties
> 
> *CIVIL VIOLATIONS*
> 
> Knowingly hired, or to have knowingly recruited or referred for a fee, an unauthorized alien for employment in the United States or to have knowingly continued to employ an unauthorized alien in the United States
> Failing to comply with Form I-9 employment verification requirements
> Committing or participating in document fraud for satisfying a requirement or benefit of the employment verification process or the INA
> Committing document abuse
> Unlawful discrimination against an employment-authorized individual in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee
> Failing to notify DHS of a Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) of an employee’s employment eligibility
> Requiring an individual to post a bond or security or to pay an amount or otherwise to provide financial guarantee or indemnity against any potential liability arising under the employment verification requirements
> *CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS*
> 
> Engaging in a pattern or practice of hiring, recruiting or referring for a fee unauthorized aliens
> What Is the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)?
> 
> *What does IRCA mean to employers?*
> Obviously, employers cannot hire immigrants who are not authorized to work in the U.S. All workers must fit into one of the four following categories:
> 
> 
> U.S. citizen
> noncitizen national
> lawful permanent resident
> alien authorized to work
> To check work authorization, the federal government requires a Form I-9 be filled out for every employee upon hire. This applies to U.S. citizens, too. The employee will fill out the first section and indicate their work authorization classification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should READ this thread.  Let's start you out with post # 2806.  I'll come back later and start the discussion all over since you are not going to read the freaking thing.
Click to expand...

I responded to your talking points regarding your hiring illegals.............and made valid points to those comments......You are breaking the law by hiring them.  Only problem being as I discussed.

Fix that law.........and you wouldn't get a pass for hiring them.  You know you are hiring illegals........You know you are breaking the law...........but have a legal loop hole out............saying I didn't know later.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See there.  We only had to wait minutes on it.  On this issue, we have to, unfortunately give danielpalos a half right.
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to  ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
> 
> There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits states - or the people for that matter from inviting foreigners into the United States.  Congress has a very limited power here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you're referring to the "state rights" when just few years back left rejected any state's jurisdiction over the immigration.
> 
> The federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.
> 
> When Arizona signed SB 1070 into law in 2010, the DOJ stated in a brief that Arizona lawmakers "crossed a constitutional line" with the new law. A federal judge blocked four of the most controversial elements, including the requirement that police check the immigration status of anyone they stop or suspect is in the state illegally.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think that individual states should have control over what's happening within their borders, except over citizenship and naturalization (that is federal jurisdiction), but you lefties cannot have it both way depending on who's in power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will overlook your ignorance.  I'm not a lefty.  In the more than thirty years of voting - never missing a single election, I have voted for exactly ONE Democrat (and that was for the PSC.)  I've also been an officer in my local Republican Party.
> 
> In my lifetime, I've been consistent.  I didn't change; the people on the right did.  My introduction into politics began as a young man who lost his job (as did a lot of guys) due to affirmative action and racial quotas.  My position then, as now, is that employers have the right to determine WHO they want to hire.  Now, let us get our facts straight.
> 
> During the lives of *ALL* the founders of this country, the states had control over immigration while the federal government had control over naturalization.  Each and every one of the founders would be buried before the SCOTUS would do something downright dirty.
> 
> In 1875 the SCOTUS, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman granted plenary powers over immigration to Congress after the defendants in California failed to mount a defense.  While the SCOTUS scolded the defendants for not presenting a defense, they went above and beyond their authority.
> 
> The SCOTUS is authorized only to interpret the laws; they have NO authority to grant any power to any other branch of government.  If you can show me that authority I will change my views.  It's hypocritical for us to whine and complain when the SCOTUS - or government in general tries to subvert the Second Amendment, but then try and defend the government when they use an illegal / unconstitutional tactic if we think we benefit off it.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with your violating the law points.........Nothing.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Si if these assholes have all the answers why isn’t the bordersecure? Do ya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our border is MORE secure than almost all other countries on the planet....except for Israel that is forced to employ fascist tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?
> 
> Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
Click to expand...

They do the job............I agree with it..........Your one opinion doesn't outweigh our opinion..............We have forever wanted better border security............and your bragging about hiring illegals put you on the other side against us.

I would add the E-verify to the 1986 law.............and criminal penalties for business.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> They do the job............I agree with it..........Your one opinion doesn't outweigh our opinion...



It might. Because it's not just one person who thinks you're a bunch of insecure cowards. A lot of people in the US want our country to be a beacon for freedom. And we'll fight your efforts to turn it into a gulag.


----------



## danielpalos

why allege to be for capitalism, right wingers.  socialism on a national and international basis is all you know.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do the job............I agree with it..........Your one opinion doesn't outweigh our opinion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might. Because it's not just one person who thinks you're a bunch of insecure cowards. A lot of people in the US want our country to be a beacon for freedom. And we'll fight your efforts to turn it into a gulag.
Click to expand...

And we'll say to you that you have no right to pick and choose which laws you will obey.................Not a gulag.......a do not enter sign..................

Obey the law.........come here via LEGAL MEANS...........or get caught and deported...........It is not our responsibility to take in everyone because it sucks where they came from.............

We are against you in this fight.........pretty simple huh..................


----------



## 22lcidw

danielpalos said:


> Capitalism is Worthless if we need a Wall.


Who says we are a capitalist nation?


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do the job............I agree with it..........Your one opinion doesn't outweigh our opinion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might. Because it's not just one person who thinks you're a bunch of insecure cowards. A lot of people in the US want our country to be a beacon for freedom. And we'll fight your efforts to turn it into a gulag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we'll say to you that you have no right to pick and choose which laws you will obey.................Not a gulag.......a do not enter sign..................
> 
> Obey the law.........come here via LEGAL MEANS...........or get caught and deported...........It is not our responsibility to take in everyone because it sucks where they came from.............
> 
> We are against you in this fight.........pretty simple huh..................
Click to expand...

It is. We'll not roll over and let you turn our nation a fascist police state.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do the job............I agree with it..........Your one opinion doesn't outweigh our opinion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might. Because it's not just one person who thinks you're a bunch of insecure cowards. A lot of people in the US want our country to be a beacon for freedom. And we'll fight your efforts to turn it into a gulag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we'll say to you that you have no right to pick and choose which laws you will obey.................Not a gulag.......a do not enter sign..................
> 
> Obey the law.........come here via LEGAL MEANS...........or get caught and deported...........It is not our responsibility to take in everyone because it sucks where they came from.............
> 
> We are against you in this fight.........pretty simple huh..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is. We'll not roll over and let you turn our nation a fascist police state.
Click to expand...

And we will not roll over and allow you to turn it into Venezuela...........LOL

Notice you don't give a shit about the laws on this issue........because they are against you.  LOL


----------



## danielpalos

22lcidw said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is Worthless if we need a Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Who says we are a capitalist nation?
Click to expand...

the right wing.  it is all about the profit not the People for the right wing.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do the job............I agree with it..........Your one opinion doesn't outweigh our opinion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might. Because it's not just one person who thinks you're a bunch of insecure cowards. A lot of people in the US want our country to be a beacon for freedom. And we'll fight your efforts to turn it into a gulag.
Click to expand...


If anybody is trying to turn our country into a gulag it's you people.  Bring in cheap labor, let them work for next to nothing because it's better than what they have at home.  The only way to survive is stuffing 15 people in a three bedroom apartment or home.  People crawling on each other like animals.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do the job............I agree with it..........Your one opinion doesn't outweigh our opinion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might. Because it's not just one person who thinks you're a bunch of insecure cowards. A lot of people in the US want our country to be a beacon for freedom. And we'll fight your efforts to turn it into a gulag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we'll say to you that you have no right to pick and choose which laws you will obey.................Not a gulag.......a do not enter sign..................
> 
> Obey the law.........come here via LEGAL MEANS...........or get caught and deported...........It is not our responsibility to take in everyone because it sucks where they came from.............
> 
> We are against you in this fight.........pretty simple huh..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is. We'll not roll over and let you turn our nation a fascist police state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we will not roll over and allow you to turn it into Venezuela...........LOL
> 
> Notice you don't give a shit about the laws on this issue........because they are against you.  LOL
Click to expand...


I don't give a shit about idiotic laws. Laws that deny reality deserve to be ignored.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

nat4900 said:


> Do any Trump ass kissers ever wonder why Trump didn't campaign and tell his cult the more honest slogan:
> 
> *"We will build a wall...and YOU are going to pay for it"..*.
> 
> LOL



You DO realize the United States gave Mexico $289 million for the year 2017 alone, right?  Why are we funding nations who’s citizens are crossing into our country illegally?  Solution: cut Mexico dry if they won’t enforce THEIR own side of the border.  We have too much National Debt to waste it on a nation who’s citizens are crossing here illegally.

Need proof?  Here is the source from the Federal Government.
SOURCE:  U.S. Foreign Aid by Country

As I’ve said on this thread, I’ve done the research.  Care to rephrase your statement now?


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do the job............I agree with it..........Your one opinion doesn't outweigh our opinion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might. Because it's not just one person who thinks you're a bunch of insecure cowards. A lot of people in the US want our country to be a beacon for freedom. And we'll fight your efforts to turn it into a gulag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we'll say to you that you have no right to pick and choose which laws you will obey.................Not a gulag.......a do not enter sign..................
> 
> Obey the law.........come here via LEGAL MEANS...........or get caught and deported...........It is not our responsibility to take in everyone because it sucks where they came from.............
> 
> We are against you in this fight.........pretty simple huh..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is. We'll not roll over and let you turn our nation a fascist police state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we will not roll over and allow you to turn it into Venezuela...........LOL
> 
> Notice you don't give a shit about the laws on this issue........because they are against you.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a shit about idiotic laws. Laws that deny reality deserve to be ignored.
Click to expand...

So you'll be Okay when you pass idiotic liberal laws and we tell you to fuck off.........LOL

Okie Dokey.

But you just pointed out the Liberal Agenda to a Tee...............Nailed it right on the head..........You only will obey laws you agree with............but of course you'll demand we obey those you do agree with..........

Spot on......thanks for making my point.


----------



## boedicca

Building the wall is wrong only if your definition of right is to destroy the U.S.A. as a sovereign nation and to enable Globalist Elites to plunder the remains.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It might. Because it's not just one person who thinks you're a bunch of insecure cowards. A lot of people in the US want our country to be a beacon for freedom. And we'll fight your efforts to turn it into a gulag.
> 
> 
> 
> And we'll say to you that you have no right to pick and choose which laws you will obey.................Not a gulag.......a do not enter sign..................
> 
> Obey the law.........come here via LEGAL MEANS...........or get caught and deported...........It is not our responsibility to take in everyone because it sucks where they came from.............
> 
> We are against you in this fight.........pretty simple huh..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is. We'll not roll over and let you turn our nation a fascist police state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we will not roll over and allow you to turn it into Venezuela...........LOL
> 
> Notice you don't give a shit about the laws on this issue........because they are against you.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a shit about idiotic laws. Laws that deny reality deserve to be ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you'll be Okay when you pass idiotic liberal laws and we tell you to fuck off.........LOL
Click to expand...


What idiotic law have I passed?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah?
> 
> Then where is that 700 miles of border fence?
> 
> Why are they fighting so hard to keep their sanctuary cities and now states?
> 
> Why did they stop Kate's Law in the Senate when Democrats had leadership?
> 
> Why do they provide illegals with drivers licenses in their states and allow their kids to attend school?
> 
> LA Times
> 
> Court Deportations Drop 43 Percent in Past Five Years
> 
> Report: 42 percent of new Medicaid signups are immigrants, their children
> 
> The Democrats can't say they are for illegals, so they put on this dog and pony show for the sheep that can't see beyond their BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People sling numbers around like they were picked from air.  Here is an article that disputes the numbers.  But, might I remind you that radio commentators are claiming that $5 BILLION DOLLARS is a drop in the bucket of federal spending.
> 
> How Undocumented Immigrants Sometimes Receive Medicaid Treatment
> 
> Herein is the irony.  Ray and those like him vehemently defend the 14th Amendment, yet the Courts have ruled that if you're born here you are a citizen - as per the 14th Amendment.  The money he is bitching about is used to the benefit of what will be "legal" American citizens.
> 
> Ray, had your kind stayed out of the fight, patriots were busy getting rid of the 14th Amendment.  Without it, this issue would have been taken off the table.  So, what are you REALLY whining about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quick reply here.
> 
> The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. When you say "courts" then specify the case, ruling and then we can discuss it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant counselor.
> 
> Children of Undocumented Immigrants in the U.S.: Rights and Opportunities - Lawyers.com
> 
> Also:
> 
> "there are many people within the United States who believe that children of illegal immigrants should not be given U.S. citizenship status. They argue that allowing such children citizenship was not the original intent of the drafters of the 14th Amendment (who didn't even address the topic of immigration, *because no limits then existed on who could enter the United States in the first place*..."
> 
> Can the Child of an Undocumented Immigrant Become a U.S. Citizen?
> 
> Then there is this:
> 
> "In recent years, some have argued the 14th amendment does not apply to children whose parents are undocumented.
> 
> "It's not the mainstream understanding," Sanders said. "But some have argued that the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' excludes children whose parents are not legal residents."
> 
> The argument is that because the child's parents remain in the U.S. illegally, they are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and neither are their children.
> 
> "As I said, that's not the mainstream understanding of the 14th amendment," Sanders said.
> 
> Excluding children of undocumented immigrants from birthright citizenship would require either a new amendment to the constitution or for the Supreme Court to decide the current constitution excludes such children."
> 
> Birthright citizenship applies to children of undocumented immigrants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The laws that *specifically* address citizenship are very clear.
> 
> 
> _Definition of Child_
> 
> *IN GENERAL*,  *a* *child* *for* *citizenship* *and* *naturalization* provisions is an unmarried person who is:
> 
> The genetic, legitimated, or adopted son or daughter of a U.S. citizen; or
> The son or daughter of a non-genetic gestational U.S. citizen mother who is recognized by the relevant jurisdiction as the child’s legal parent.
> 
> Children residing outside of the United States may obtain citizenship under Section 322 of the INA. A child who regularly resides outside of the United States is eligible for naturalization if all of the following conditions have been met:
> 
> The child has at least one parent, including an adoptive parent, who is a U.S. citizen by birth or through naturalization;
> The child’s U.S. citizen parent or U.S. citizen grandparent meets certain physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession;
> The child is under 18 years of age;
> The child is residing outside of the United States in the legal and physical custody of the U.S. citizen parent, or of a person who does not object to the application if the U.S. citizen parent is deceased; and
> The child is lawfully admitted, physically present, and maintaining a lawful status in the United States at the time the application is approved and the time of naturalization.
> SOURCE: Are you the foreign-born child of a parent who becomes a U.S. citizen?
> 
> Why it’s so important to actually do the research on the laws surrounding citizenship, knowledge of the original intent when interpreting the 14th Amendment when it was written, as well as  our nation’s history surrounding immigration enforcement and dictation from Supreme Court cases surrounding immigration enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip about the 14th Amendment and the laws surrounding it; it was illegally ratified.  HOW it is being applied today is all that is relevant since, like the Second Amendment, we ain't going back to original intent.
Click to expand...


Usually when I make a statement, I have the ability to actually back that statement up. Provide proof that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, let’s see just how much research you’ve put into this.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we'll say to you that you have no right to pick and choose which laws you will obey.................Not a gulag.......a do not enter sign..................
> 
> Obey the law.........come here via LEGAL MEANS...........or get caught and deported...........It is not our responsibility to take in everyone because it sucks where they came from.............
> 
> We are against you in this fight.........pretty simple huh..................
> 
> 
> 
> It is. We'll not roll over and let you turn our nation a fascist police state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we will not roll over and allow you to turn it into Venezuela...........LOL
> 
> Notice you don't give a shit about the laws on this issue........because they are against you.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a shit about idiotic laws. Laws that deny reality deserve to be ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you'll be Okay when you pass idiotic liberal laws and we tell you to fuck off.........LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What idiotic law have I passed?
Click to expand...

You passed gas.........LOL..............Ok ..........what the left passes in California for example..........

Either way.......you refuse to obey the law and openly admit it.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you'll be Okay when you pass idiotic liberal laws and we tell you to fuck off.........LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What idiotic law have I passed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You passed gas.........LOL..............Ok ..........what the left passes in California for example..........
Click to expand...


I'm not on the left. I don't live in California. That all you got?


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you'll be Okay when you pass idiotic liberal laws and we tell you to fuck off.........LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What idiotic law have I passed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You passed gas.........LOL..............Ok ..........what the left passes in California for example..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not on the left. I don't live in California. That all you got?
Click to expand...

Well then.........yes..........whatever.......I'll now disobey any law I choose not to agree with.........just like you.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you'll be Okay when you pass idiotic liberal laws and we tell you to fuck off.........LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What idiotic law have I passed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You passed gas.........LOL..............Ok ..........what the left passes in California for example..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not on the left. I don't live in California. That all you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then.........yes..........whatever.......I'll now disobey any law I choose not to agree with.........just like you.
Click to expand...


Well I guess you showed me!


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have no such freedom.  They can come here if we give them permission.  That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your permission or mine?  Please cite me that part of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9*
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG.  Are you kidding?  That was tried once today.  The rest of the article deals with a ten dollar tax per person after 1808.  One only need to look at the year in which they Chy Lung decision was laid down to see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Constitution gives a general “OUTLINE” .. if you prefer “ bullet statements” ... regarding each branch of government.  In this case, it surrounds the role of the legislative branch, and the authority of Congress.  If you NOW want to change the subject to interpretation and original intent, we can talk about the 14th Amendment.
> 
> I’m willing to bet you wont be able to establish much surrounding your point of view, without actually taking the time to do the actual research on this subject, as I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right.  I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic.  I'm sure you have much more extensive experience.  Virtually all you build the wall guys do.
Click to expand...


Yet you can’t provide the evidence of that actual “research”.  Why is it I’m the only one who can back it up and include that in a response? Words of 250 court briefs are supposed to be efficient enough, as opposed to providing links in somehow impressing me?  Seriously?  Resumes without provided evidence are only for those trying to impress and scratch their ego rather than thrpugh  hard work and efforts of providing actual FACTS


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why they have been used for 18 centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, for 18 centuries our forefathers just couldn't come up with drones......Also, ask the Israelis how many tunnels have been dug under THEIR wall......lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can dig a tunnel under a drone even easier.  Or just walk past it.  Or shoot the drone down.  Have any idea what a good drone costs?  Who's going to fly it?  Refuel it?  Monitor its camera?  Or camouflage myself so the drone doesn't see me.  With a wall, people are stopped, The few that try to get over or under are picked up by cameras or drones, or vibration sensors or patrols, but someone still has to monitor all that.  And they still have to get to the action.  By the time your drone sees me and you get there, I'm LONG GONE buddy!  At least with the wall, I was greatly slowed down giving you time to respond.
> 
> Gee, you act like they will be putting the wall in your backyard!  Last I checked, most people along the border WANT the wall.  And it can be easily paid for by simply collecting the fines every illegal is due us.  According to my math, that comes to 53 billion dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poll: Majority opposes border wall with Mexico
> 
> So, is America a Republic or a Democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was three years ago.
Click to expand...



Well you're only 10 months off, I guess you can't read a calendar either.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to bomb Drug Cities South of the Border one at a time until they learn their lesson.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What we need is to lock mental incompetents like you behind four walls so you'd be happy and America would be safe from the stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you say walls don't work????? LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say it would work.  I only said it would make YOU happy.  In reality one only need to look at how many people were hoodwinked by ... well I won't name them, but we can't build enough walls to contain the idiots who find you amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you said walls don't work, yet you want to put the other poster behind 4 of them, a bit hypocritical ain't it and very inconsistent?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not hypocritical at all.  I said it would be for HIS enjoyment.  It won't impact me.
Click to expand...



Neither will walls in certain areas on the southern border.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Liberal bullshit; If you need an explanation, you’re not smart enough to understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand fear and your need to join a pack of wolves while not discussing any portion of the subject doth testify as to the fear you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be mistaking common sense for fear, of course that's a standard regressive talking point.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know you're blowing smoke.  You haven't shown any common sense - only an intense desire to troll me.  How many IQ points does that take?  You waste your time with that and what do you accomplish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I've been known for blowing smoke on occasion, but pointing out your irrelevance and use of regressive talking point ain't that. It's not trolling either. But laying waste to your misguided spew is entertaining.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you're a legend in your own mind.
Click to expand...



And don't you forget it. LOL

.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do the job............I agree with it..........Your one opinion doesn't outweigh our opinion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might. Because it's not just one person who thinks you're a bunch of insecure cowards. A lot of people in the US want our country to be a beacon for freedom. And we'll fight your efforts to turn it into a gulag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we'll say to you that you have no right to pick and choose which laws you will obey.................Not a gulag.......a do not enter sign..................
> 
> Obey the law.........come here via LEGAL MEANS...........or get caught and deported...........It is not our responsibility to take in everyone because it sucks where they came from.............
> 
> We are against you in this fight.........pretty simple huh..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is. We'll not roll over and let you turn our nation a fascist police state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we will not roll over and allow you to turn it into Venezuela...........LOL
> 
> Notice you don't give a shit about the laws on this issue........because they are against you.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a shit about idiotic laws. Laws that deny reality deserve to be ignored.
Click to expand...

Laws that enforce our border and sovereignty are "idiotic?"  You just convinced us that there's no reason to discuss the issue with you.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have no such freedom.  They can come here if we give them permission.  That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your permission or mine?  Please cite me that part of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9*
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG.  Are you kidding?  That was tried once today.  The rest of the article deals with a ten dollar tax per person after 1808.  One only need to look at the year in which they Chy Lung decision was laid down to see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Constitution gives a general “OUTLINE” .. if you prefer “ bullet statements” ... regarding each branch of government.  In this case, it surrounds the role of the legislative branch, and the authority of Congress.  If you NOW want to change the subject to interpretation and original intent, we can talk about the 14th Amendment.
> 
> I’m willing to bet you wont be able to establish much surrounding your point of view, without actually taking the time to do the actual research on this subject, as I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right.  I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic.  I'm sure you have much more extensive experience.  Virtually all you build the wall guys do.
Click to expand...



All that and you still haven't gotten the supremes to strike it down, they must not have been very effective briefs.

.


----------



## 22lcidw

danielpalos said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is Worthless if we need a Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Who says we are a capitalist nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing.  it is all about the profit not the People for the right wing.
Click to expand...

I believe its a marriage of social programs and capitalism. Our nation is that today. But there are people who feel they are not represented and people who feel they are being scammed. Its just the percentages that we belittle ourselves over. And unfortunately or fortunately the politicians have upped the percentages towards socialism. But now we have communists and the real religious zealots becoming empowered.


----------



## Indeependent

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our border is MORE secure than almost all other countries on the planet....except for Israel that is forced to employ fascist tactics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?
> 
> Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After reading your first sentence I realize that you are a mindless fool. You don’t respect those who risk their lives on the frontlines. You can go and jump in a frozen lake.
Click to expand...

Bu...bu...but he’s a pastor.
I’m shocked his congregation hasn’t already committed mass suicide.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Si if these assholes have all the answers why isn’t the bordersecure? Do ya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our border is MORE secure than almost all other countries on the planet....except for Israel that is forced to employ fascist tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?
> 
> Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
Click to expand...



Yep, they work for us, and we're obligated to give them the tools required to do the job we ask them to do in an effective and safe manner. We already have walls and barriers on roughly 1/3rd of the border. Now you cry babies claim adding an additional 10% will somehow restrict our liberties and would be IMMORAL. REALLY?? That seems to fly in the face of logic.

.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have no such freedom.  They can come here if we give them permission.  That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your permission or mine?  Please cite me that part of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9*
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG.  Are you kidding?  That was tried once today.  The rest of the article deals with a ten dollar tax per person after 1808.  One only need to look at the year in which they Chy Lung decision was laid down to see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Constitution gives a general “OUTLINE” .. if you prefer “ bullet statements” ... regarding each branch of government.  In this case, it surrounds the role of the legislative branch, and the authority of Congress.  If you NOW want to change the subject to interpretation and original intent, we can talk about the 14th Amendment.
> 
> I’m willing to bet you wont be able to establish much surrounding your point of view, without actually taking the time to do the actual research on this subject, as I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right.  I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic.  I'm sure you have much more extensive experience.  Virtually all you build the wall guys do.
Click to expand...

Realizing, of course, that 99% of legislation is agenda driven by committees and sub-committees and sub-sub-committees.


----------



## Indeependent

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do the job............I agree with it..........Your one opinion doesn't outweigh our opinion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might. Because it's not just one person who thinks you're a bunch of insecure cowards. A lot of people in the US want our country to be a beacon for freedom. And we'll fight your efforts to turn it into a gulag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anybody is trying to turn our country into a gulag it's you people.  Bring in cheap labor, let them work for next to nothing because it's better than what they have at home.  The only way to survive is stuffing 15 people in a three bedroom apartment or home.  People crawling on each other like animals.
Click to expand...

Dblack is a Libertarian aka cheap, selfish piece of shit.
I know more than a few of them and they are the most unhappy people you will ever encounter.


----------



## task0778

Flopper said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I tell ya what, built that wall/fence/whatever high enough, and it'll sure as hell make it really hard to climb over.   Maybe it doesn't totally solve the problem, but it does reduce it somewhat and that's better than nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> That's was what they thought when they put up 8 foot security fences 25 years ago and then 12 foot fences, then 18 foot reinforced fences.  And now 18 or 20 foot barriers is going to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Build a higher fence, and they will get a longer ladder, cut hole with a torch, or dig a tunnel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which is easy.   You gonna carry a 20-some foot ladder all the way from Guatemala?  Or a torch?  Most of these people ain't local Mexicans, right?  And digging a tunnel ain't easy, ya know?   You think a drone will pick up evidence of a tunnel fairly soon after it's dug?    Look, a wall or fence isn't foolproof, but it makes it harder to get into the USA and that's the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border towns in Mexico sell everything you need to cross the border and i'm not kidding, maps to survival kits, climbing gear, ropes, ladders, shovels, you name it. There's also guides, better known as coyotes that have whatever equipment is needed.
> 
> The current Trump plan is to replace the 4 mile reinforced fence in El Paso with a wall.  It is started and should complete sometime this year.  If Trump gets his money then he will start construction to replace 112 miles of border wall in Southern California with a new wall adding another 100 miles.
> 
> Initially, no one is going over 20 foot walls.  They will just pick another spot on the 1800 miles of border that easier to cross.   Over the years as there becomes more walls people will start using ladders and other equipment to breach them.  All this of course assumes democrats will never get control of government again and revise our immigration laws and the Mexican shortage of low cost labor doesn't force wages up and the cartels don't start blowing up walls.
Click to expand...


First of all, I think most of the people coming up from Latin America don't have the money to buy the stuff you mentioned or pay a coyote.   Number one, we need to find out who and where these people are getting that stuff and pay the Mexican gov't enough money to go after them.   Tell 'em up front, you do it or we do it.

We know the entire border is about 1950 miles, but some of it is natural barriers like mountains and deserts and shit where you really don't need an artificial barrier.   So, you build the barrier (let's call it that) in the places where you need one to reduce or eliminate as much as possible the traffic flow in or out of the US.   Over time, people will leave evidence of their passing, patrolling drones are going to identify tunnels or other illegal entry points, and we can take steps to shut those places down.   So, you close the loopholes and make it harder and harder to get in, that's the whole point.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your permission or mine?  Please cite me that part of the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9*
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG.  Are you kidding?  That was tried once today.  The rest of the article deals with a ten dollar tax per person after 1808.  One only need to look at the year in which they Chy Lung decision was laid down to see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Constitution gives a general “OUTLINE” .. if you prefer “ bullet statements” ... regarding each branch of government.  In this case, it surrounds the role of the legislative branch, and the authority of Congress.  If you NOW want to change the subject to interpretation and original intent, we can talk about the 14th Amendment.
> 
> I’m willing to bet you wont be able to establish much surrounding your point of view, without actually taking the time to do the actual research on this subject, as I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right.  I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic.  I'm sure you have much more extensive experience.  Virtually all you build the wall guys do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you still haven't gotten the supremes to strike it down, they must not have been very effective briefs.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


In trying to summarize my last post ..  It’s not what you HAVE, it’s what you can PROVE.  Resumes are only good hainging on someone’s wall


----------



## OKTexas

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9*
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.  Are you kidding?  That was tried once today.  The rest of the article deals with a ten dollar tax per person after 1808.  One only need to look at the year in which they Chy Lung decision was laid down to see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Constitution gives a general “OUTLINE” .. if you prefer “ bullet statements” ... regarding each branch of government.  In this case, it surrounds the role of the legislative branch, and the authority of Congress.  If you NOW want to change the subject to interpretation and original intent, we can talk about the 14th Amendment.
> 
> I’m willing to bet you wont be able to establish much surrounding your point of view, without actually taking the time to do the actual research on this subject, as I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right.  I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic.  I'm sure you have much more extensive experience.  Virtually all you build the wall guys do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you still haven't gotten the supremes to strike it down, they must not have been very effective briefs.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In trying to summarize my last post ..  It’s not what you HAVE, it’s what you can PROVE.  Resumes are only good hainging on someone’s wall
Click to expand...



Yeah, this dude has gone form some kind of social worker to now a constitutional lawyer. He hasn't even said why he thinks the 14th was implemented illegally.

.


----------



## toobfreak

Flopper said:


> Security comes from those that guard a border. .



So you want a guard stationed every 50 feet, with another ready to relieve him to go to the bathroom?   That would take 211,000 active guards with about 50,000 more on standby on 8 hours shifts X 3 for 24 hour coverage.  Assuming a pay of $34,000 a year, you are talking about 26.64 billion dollars A YEAR, not including guns, ammunition, vehicles and everything else.  Or a one time fee of 20 billion for a wall that is proven to stop 95% of the traffic.



> Border barriers simply slow an intruder down.  .



You mean like how they slow an inmate down from escaping from a penitentiary?  Even if that were all there was to it, slowing down is enough.  It gives you time to get there.  And it gives you time for DETECTION.  The fear of detection, arrest and prosecution is enough to discourage most intruders.  Considering that our revenue for 2019 from taxes is 3.4 trillion, the wall is less than 0.6% of our budget.  Even less if we alter our trade deal with Mexico.



> So you're proposing we collect a fine from people we don't catch that don't have any money.



Do you merely ACT obtuse or are you really stupid, Flopper?  I'm proposing we immediately arrest, detain and return illegals AT THE BORDER caught as they try to come in.  And we inject them with a transponder which identifies them as a prior offender.  If you are caught again sneaking in and have the chip, that is a capital offense subject to a firing squad without appeal.  Bang!  You're gone.  Wanna guess how many people keep trying to sneak in then?

Try sneaking into N. Korea, Russia or a lot of other countries illegally and see if they hand you a basket of flowers and a welcome card!

ONCE THEY KNOW we are truly SERIOUS about national sovereignty, there will be a YUGE falloff in illegal traffic.  And a concomitant falloff in costs , upkeep and expenditure.

Meantime, you collect the $5,000 from the illegals already here, who LIVE here, work, have jobs, and money.  Or you arrest them and make them work to pay it back until they've paid us $5,000 more than they cost.  Bingo.  Mexico just paid for the wall.  This is easy stuff.  Only a matter of national will and governmental action.

No matter how you jerks try to flop it, there is NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT for not defending our border, especially when you have 700,000 indigent people crossing in a year.  NO NATION CAN SURVIVE THAT FOR LONG.  Better own up to it soon.


----------



## danielpalos

boedicca said:


> Building the wall is wrong only if your definition of right is to destroy the U.S.A. as a sovereign nation and to enable Globalist Elites to plunder the remains.


capitalism is worthless if we need walls.


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Building the wall is wrong only if your definition of right is to destroy the U.S.A. as a sovereign nation and to enable Globalist Elites to plunder the remains.
> 
> 
> 
> capitalism is worthless if we need walls.
Click to expand...

We should charge a fee for anyone seeking Asylum that covers court costs, up front.


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why they have been used for 18 centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, for 18 centuries our forefathers just couldn't come up with drones......Also, ask the Israelis how many tunnels have been dug under THEIR wall......lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can dig a tunnel under a drone even easier.  Or just walk past it.  Or shoot the drone down.  Have any idea what a good drone costs?  Who's going to fly it?  Refuel it?  Monitor its camera?  Or camouflage myself so the drone doesn't see me.  With a wall, people are stopped, The few that try to get over or under are picked up by cameras or drones, or vibration sensors or patrols, but someone still has to monitor all that.  And they still have to get to the action.  By the time your drone sees me and you get there, I'm LONG GONE buddy!  At least with the wall, I was greatly slowed down giving you time to respond.
> 
> Gee, you act like they will be putting the wall in your backyard!  Last I checked, most people along the border WANT the wall.  And it can be easily paid for by simply collecting the fines every illegal is due us.  According to my math, that comes to 53 billion dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poll: Majority opposes border wall with Mexico
> 
> So, is America a Republic or a Democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was three years ago.
Click to expand...



It was TWO years ago, and about two months,.  Just a little off in your math.  Now Trump votes of just TWO years ago no longer matter, but don't EVER expect the Left to stop trying to shove a video of Trump bragging and trying to impress some guy about what a babe magnet he was from FOURTEEN years ago!  At least we KNOW the votes REALLY HAPPENED.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Building the wall is wrong only if your definition of right is to destroy the U.S.A. as a sovereign nation and to enable Globalist Elites to plunder the remains.
> 
> 
> 
> capitalism is worthless if we need walls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should charge a fee for anyone seeking Asylum that covers court costs, up front.
Click to expand...

raise the minimum wage and upgrade Ellis Island.


----------



## nat4900

Ray From Cleveland said:


> *No, because any Republican Senator that doesn't stand by Trump will lose their election*.




Well, I guess among your ilk's cult culture, losing an election is better than being shot in back of the Capitol for having disobeyed the ORANGE EMPEROR...........LOL


----------



## Flopper

task0778 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Border wall....a 3rd century "solution" to a 21st. century problem*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what "21st century" solution do you think is more cost effective at stopping people from going from A to B than a wall, hun?  A wall may be 3rd century, but they work VERY WELL at stopping people.  Which is why they have been used for 18 centuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, we could take away the reason they're coming here which is not to have babies, rape and pillage, or vote for Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And just how in the hell do you propose we could take away their reason for coming here?   Not one of your better posts.
Click to expand...


Take away the jobs.
Stop supporting dictators that make their lives a living hell.
Have them apply for asylum at US embassies eliminating the caravans.
Establish reasonable country limits and increase the number work permits.


----------



## Flopper

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why they have been used for 18 centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, for 18 centuries our forefathers just couldn't come up with drones......Also, ask the Israelis how many tunnels have been dug under THEIR wall......lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can dig a tunnel under a drone even easier.  Or just walk past it.  Or shoot the drone down.  Have any idea what a good drone costs?  Who's going to fly it?  Refuel it?  Monitor its camera?  Or camouflage myself so the drone doesn't see me.  With a wall, people are stopped, The few that try to get over or under are picked up by cameras or drones, or vibration sensors or patrols, but someone still has to monitor all that.  And they still have to get to the action.  By the time your drone sees me and you get there, I'm LONG GONE buddy!  At least with the wall, I was greatly slowed down giving you time to respond.
> 
> Gee, you act like they will be putting the wall in your backyard!  Last I checked, most people along the border WANT the wall.  And it can be easily paid for by simply collecting the fines every illegal is due us.  According to my math, that comes to 53 billion dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poll: Majority opposes border wall with Mexico
> 
> So, is America a Republic or a Democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

They voted for Trump, not a majority but enough.  The wall was only one of a dozen reasons for the Trump victory.  This is why 51% to 69% of Americans say they either oppose building a wall or say it's not a priority.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

OKTexas said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.  Are you kidding?  That was tried once today.  The rest of the article deals with a ten dollar tax per person after 1808.  One only need to look at the year in which they Chy Lung decision was laid down to see that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution gives a general “OUTLINE” .. if you prefer “ bullet statements” ... regarding each branch of government.  In this case, it surrounds the role of the legislative branch, and the authority of Congress.  If you NOW want to change the subject to interpretation and original intent, we can talk about the 14th Amendment.
> 
> I’m willing to bet you wont be able to establish much surrounding your point of view, without actually taking the time to do the actual research on this subject, as I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right.  I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic.  I'm sure you have much more extensive experience.  Virtually all you build the wall guys do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you still haven't gotten the supremes to strike it down, they must not have been very effective briefs.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In trying to summarize my last post ..  It’s not what you HAVE, it’s what you can PROVE.  Resumes are only good hainging on someone’s wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, this dude has gone form some kind of social worker to now a constitutional lawyer. He hasn't even said why he thinks the 14th was implemented illegally.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I didn’t think it would be that easy to challenge a Constitutional lawyer with referenced facts. What’s his third job?


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why they have been used for 18 centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, for 18 centuries our forefathers just couldn't come up with drones......Also, ask the Israelis how many tunnels have been dug under THEIR wall......lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can dig a tunnel under a drone even easier.  Or just walk past it.  Or shoot the drone down.  Have any idea what a good drone costs?  Who's going to fly it?  Refuel it?  Monitor its camera?  Or camouflage myself so the drone doesn't see me.  With a wall, people are stopped, The few that try to get over or under are picked up by cameras or drones, or vibration sensors or patrols, but someone still has to monitor all that.  And they still have to get to the action.  By the time your drone sees me and you get there, I'm LONG GONE buddy!  At least with the wall, I was greatly slowed down giving you time to respond.
> 
> Gee, you act like they will be putting the wall in your backyard!  Last I checked, most people along the border WANT the wall.  And it can be easily paid for by simply collecting the fines every illegal is due us.  According to my math, that comes to 53 billion dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poll: Majority opposes border wall with Mexico
> 
> So, is America a Republic or a Democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They voted for Trump, not a majority but enough.  The wall was only one of a dozen reasons for the Trump victory.  This is why 51% to 69% of Americans say they either oppose building a wall or say it's not a priority.
Click to expand...



Tell the mayor of El Paso that the 3500 illegals being dumped in his lap a week because the courts say we can't hold them, that a wall isn't a priority. And that's just ONE city.

.


----------



## OKTexas

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution gives a general “OUTLINE” .. if you prefer “ bullet statements” ... regarding each branch of government.  In this case, it surrounds the role of the legislative branch, and the authority of Congress.  If you NOW want to change the subject to interpretation and original intent, we can talk about the 14th Amendment.
> 
> I’m willing to bet you wont be able to establish much surrounding your point of view, without actually taking the time to do the actual research on this subject, as I have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're probably right.  I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic.  I'm sure you have much more extensive experience.  Virtually all you build the wall guys do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you still haven't gotten the supremes to strike it down, they must not have been very effective briefs.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In trying to summarize my last post ..  It’s not what you HAVE, it’s what you can PROVE.  Resumes are only good hainging on someone’s wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, this dude has gone form some kind of social worker to now a constitutional lawyer. He hasn't even said why he thinks the 14th was implemented illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn’t think it would be that easy to challenge a Constitutional lawyer with referenced facts. What’s his third job?
Click to expand...



Who knows.

.


----------



## task0778

Flopper said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Border wall....a 3rd century "solution" to a 21st. century problem*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what "21st century" solution do you think is more cost effective at stopping people from going from A to B than a wall, hun?  A wall may be 3rd century, but they work VERY WELL at stopping people.  Which is why they have been used for 18 centuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, we could take away the reason they're coming here which is not to have babies, rape and pillage, or vote for Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And just how in the hell do you propose we could take away their reason for coming here?   Not one of your better posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take away the jobs.
> Stop supporting dictators that make their lives a living hell.
> Have them apply for asylum at US embassies eliminating the caravans.
> Establish reasonable country limits and increase the number work permits.
Click to expand...



_Take away the jobs. _ -  they'll still come here
_Stop supporting dictators that make their lives a living hell.  _-   you really think this will make a difference?
_Have them apply for asylum at US embassies eliminating the caravans_.  -  and what if they don't?    What if they get turned down?
_Establish reasonable country limits and increase the number work permits._ uh huh, sure.   what about all the people that don't get a permit?
These are all good ideas, but they ain't going to eliminate the main reasons why so many want to come here.   Extreme poverty and lawlessness, none of this is going to fix the problems they have in several countries below our border and all the way into South America.   But, like the wall, these things are worth doing and will reduce the illegal immigration problem.   A multi-pronged approach, I like it   BUT  we still need the wall/fence/barrier.   The message has to be loud and clear:  come here legally or don't come at all.   

And BTW we need to get rid of this sanctuary cities/states bullshit.   We need a law that says if you get caught here doing anything illegal then you're going to get sent home.  Jurisdictions that won't comply don't get federal dollars for ANYTHING.   And if you warn them that ICE is coming like that fucking bitch mayor did then your sorry ass gets prosecuted and she does jail time in a federal lockup.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why they have been used for 18 centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, for 18 centuries our forefathers just couldn't come up with drones......Also, ask the Israelis how many tunnels have been dug under THEIR wall......lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can dig a tunnel under a drone even easier.  Or just walk past it.  Or shoot the drone down.  Have any idea what a good drone costs?  Who's going to fly it?  Refuel it?  Monitor its camera?  Or camouflage myself so the drone doesn't see me.  With a wall, people are stopped, The few that try to get over or under are picked up by cameras or drones, or vibration sensors or patrols, but someone still has to monitor all that.  And they still have to get to the action.  By the time your drone sees me and you get there, I'm LONG GONE buddy!  At least with the wall, I was greatly slowed down giving you time to respond.
> 
> Gee, you act like they will be putting the wall in your backyard!  Last I checked, most people along the border WANT the wall.  And it can be easily paid for by simply collecting the fines every illegal is due us.  According to my math, that comes to 53 billion dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poll: Majority opposes border wall with Mexico
> 
> So, is America a Republic or a Democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They voted for Trump, not a majority but enough.  The wall was only one of a dozen reasons for the Trump victory.  This is why 51% to 69% of Americans say they either oppose building a wall or say it's not a priority.
Click to expand...


Oh come on, you don't believe that, do you? 

Every other politician in the primaries addressed the immigration problem the same way.  They yapped about immigration reform which nobody on our side said anything about.  They talked about rewarding illegals with some kind of citizenship, something most Republican voters were against.  Others talked about giving more work to illegals, again, no interest of ours. 

Only one man heard our voice; one man who repeated what we were telling the Republican party, and that one man was Donald Trump.  

One by one, this man eliminated candidate after candidate.  When he was done, he stunned Vegas by beating an opponent that was predicted to win the election almost effortlessly.  Today he is our President.  

He couldn't have done this without his one message--build that wall.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

nat4900 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No, because any Republican Senator that doesn't stand by Trump will lose their election*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I guess among your ilk's cult culture, losing an election is better than being shot in back of the Capitol for having disobeyed the ORANGE EMPEROR...........LOL
Click to expand...


Pay attention, will you?  We were talking about Trump--not the Clinton's.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can all be wrong.  Jim Jones got over 900 people to drink cyanide laced Kool Aid based on a lie.  You are just as susceptible to being fooled - AND you just proved it with that part  "several others have done the same. We all can't be wrong.."
> 
> You just inadvertently admitted you're a Democrat - majority rule - might makes right.
> 
> Let me tell you something:
> 
> Ever since the Israelites began worshiping the golden calf while Moses was receiving the law of God, history has proven that majorities are usually wrong.  In the instant case BOTH sides are wrong - and you're wrong basically because the solutions you stand behind belonged to Democrats before they were adopted by the people writing your talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My goodness you are off the charts tonight.  Every one of my concerns and points are the exact opposite of the Democrat party.  Yours are much more inline with them than mine.  Nobody is "ruling" you, just pointing out that I'm not the only one who sees you as an open borders person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They can see me for what they like.  That won't make it true.  As I told you, there are two questions they've never asked me.  Their entire world is, much like yours, if you don't buy the build the wall solution as being the only solution, you're an open borders liberal.
> 
> If you can't understand, after I've defined what you told me, that YOU are a liberal Democrat, then you are less intelligent than I ever dreamed.  You should do some self introspection and then say, if I want to make a difference in the future of my nation and my culture, MAYBE I should STFU, do some studying, and figure out what this is all about.
> 
> You're so hung up on trying to peg me that you have no clue as to where I stand.  You even ignore the hints.  It's like someone is needed to bash you in the head with a rock before you understand:  There are many sides to this issue and most people have serious flaws with their proposed solutions.
> 
> Every person arguing for a wall could not convince a jury.  The recent turnover in the House of Representatives should tell you how ineffective your position is.  In order to win, you'd have to be able to make the other guy's argument for him and do a better job than he does.  You don't have a freaking clue as to where I stand and you end up making some of the most idiotic statements known to God or man.
> 
> That is why you're in the same boat the followers of Jim Jones were in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you gained seats in the House, but lost them in the Senate.  And if you bother to look at the results, you'd see that both parties had an outstanding and historical turnout.  It's just that the hatred of the Democrats won over.  But Trump supporters are still behind him as they were during the presidential election.
> 
> Nobody ever said the wall is the sole solution.  You are making up that BS in your head.  The wall (as border patrol stated) is a very helpful part of the solution.  The solution is multi-level.  The sole solution would be to get the Congress to pass a law making being here illegally a first degree felony with a minimum five year prison sentence.  Then there would be no need for a wall, no need for e-veryfiy, no need for additional border agents, no need to track down illegals here.  Most of them would pack up and leave the country.
> 
> I know quite well what this is all about--you don't.  You remain ignorant of the long term goals by the Democrat party yet support their initiatives and furthermore claim yourself as a conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have endured your dumbassery long enough.  I didn't win a damn thing Ray as I voted Republican.  I don't support Democracy - not in name, not by party, not by ideology.  YOU DO and I'm sick and tired of your dishonesty so I'll treat you like you treat me.
> 
> You have one standard.  If someone does not back the silly wall, they are a liberal, etc.  THAT is what separates you from others with an IQ higher than their shoe size.
> 
> If you had *ANY* IQ, you would know why Congress can pass no such law as you suggest.  My *only point* to you is that we are restricted by the parameters of the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings in what kind of legislation we an pass.
> 
> You have proven to be a fake, a phony, a fraud, and a poseur.  YOU adopted Bill Clinton's philosophy and have your head stuck so far up the liberals ass that if they fart, you will choke to death or get your first breath of air.
> 
> Now, you've called me a liberal for the last time.  Put up, shut up or get ready for a nasty back and forth.  Enough of this B.S.  You didn't know what an unalienable Right is so you don't have a clue when you advocate withholding one or denying one to someone.  You would have to kill me Ray in order to do some of the things you propose.  My Rights are unalienable.  You cannot take them; you cannot impose on them.  To even suggest it shows that YOU ARE NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN.
> 
> You should start at post #2806.  Read it and then cull through those 500 posts so you can see the number of times you LIED, called me names and tried to deflect when asked direct questions.  It's not my fault that the left misled you and made a socialist out of you.  Now, you want a discussion or a pissing match?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put up a wall and no rights of yours will be taken away.  If that happens, you let me know what right you lost, and I'll join your side.  This "losing rights' nonsense is some sort of black helicopter scare tactic that will never work.  You want to prove yourself as a conservative?  Then join the conservatives on this issue.
Click to expand...



I promised you a response.  It takes two parts.  Here is the first part, the second one to follow:

Ray, challenging me on a subject you have shown an absolute ignorant and /or disdain of can be very costly.  To begin with, the build the wall guys say if you are not for a wall, you are a liberal, lefty, etc.  That is absolutely idiotic as we shall see.

The way I view the topic is best described in an analogy.  In this analogy a man is stuck in a burning apartment on the third floor of a building (this part of the analogy describes our situation in America.)  If this man stays in his current position, he dies.   If the man goes out the door, there is a 100 percent chance that he will be killed (that part of the analogy refers to the nutty wall idea.)  If he jumps out the window, the fall might kill him, but then again, he might live.  That part of the analogy refers to a solution *OTHER THAN* the nutty wall idea.

I am neither pro-open borders *NOR* am I anti – closed borders.  So, let’s get that understood and make an attempt to be honest.  It’s just that a militarized border with a wall around it will not work in the United States.

The REAL cost of the wall is Liberty.  So far, no build the wall guy has addressed the issue of Liberty.  In the Declaration of Independence, we find these words:

*“WE *hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”

Of this document, the Declaration of Independence, the SCOTUS ruled:

The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."   _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)

The Bible is clear about this subject as well:

“Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land Unto *All the Inhabitants thereof*”  Leviticus 25: 10  and this Bible verse can be found on the Liberty Bell at Independence Hall.  This Old Testament verse refers to the "Jubilee", or the instructions to the Israelites to return property and free slaves.every 50 years.

In II Timothy 3: 16 we read that “*All* scripture _is_ given by inspiration of God, and _is_ profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”

Finally, in II Corinthians 3 : 17 we read that:

“Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord _is_, there _is_ Liberty.”

But what is Liberty?  Well in a *biblical *sense, liberty means freedom (see # 1865 in the Greek Dictionary of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.  In *law*, Liberty means Freedom; exemption *from* extraneous control.  …freedom regulated by law. (Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition)

My take on it is very simple:

In New Jersey, they passed a law requiring people to turn in high capacity magazines… this included even off duty police.  Nobody complied?  Why?  People think the law is unconstitutional.  The Right to Life and Liberty are unalienable Rights.  The Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right.  It is an extension of both a Right to Life AND a Right to Liberty.  So, no matter how many laws are passed, the majority of gun owners will not forfeit that Right.  On that issue, they understand the concept. 

Those same people would, however, deny to *me* my Rights and punish me for hiring undocumented foreigners.  The sad truth is, just as the feds are usurping the Second Amendment, they are waging a war against your Liberty.  Those wanting a wall cannot find *any* biblical precedent for *CONTROLLING* people (which was one the first reasons cited to me in favor of a wall) and that was followed up by Ray – falsely believing we can keep people out.  What a crock!   (Continued in part II)


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can all be wrong.  Jim Jones got over 900 people to drink cyanide laced Kool Aid based on a lie.  You are just as susceptible to being fooled - AND you just proved it with that part  "several others have done the same. We all can't be wrong.."
> 
> You just inadvertently admitted you're a Democrat - majority rule - might makes right.
> 
> Let me tell you something:
> 
> Ever since the Israelites began worshiping the golden calf while Moses was receiving the law of God, history has proven that majorities are usually wrong.  In the instant case BOTH sides are wrong - and you're wrong basically because the solutions you stand behind belonged to Democrats before they were adopted by the people writing your talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My goodness you are off the charts tonight.  Every one of my concerns and points are the exact opposite of the Democrat party.  Yours are much more inline with them than mine.  Nobody is "ruling" you, just pointing out that I'm not the only one who sees you as an open borders person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They can see me for what they like.  That won't make it true.  As I told you, there are two questions they've never asked me.  Their entire world is, much like yours, if you don't buy the build the wall solution as being the only solution, you're an open borders liberal.
> 
> If you can't understand, after I've defined what you told me, that YOU are a liberal Democrat, then you are less intelligent than I ever dreamed.  You should do some self introspection and then say, if I want to make a difference in the future of my nation and my culture, MAYBE I should STFU, do some studying, and figure out what this is all about.
> 
> You're so hung up on trying to peg me that you have no clue as to where I stand.  You even ignore the hints.  It's like someone is needed to bash you in the head with a rock before you understand:  There are many sides to this issue and most people have serious flaws with their proposed solutions.
> 
> Every person arguing for a wall could not convince a jury.  The recent turnover in the House of Representatives should tell you how ineffective your position is.  In order to win, you'd have to be able to make the other guy's argument for him and do a better job than he does.  You don't have a freaking clue as to where I stand and you end up making some of the most idiotic statements known to God or man.
> 
> That is why you're in the same boat the followers of Jim Jones were in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you gained seats in the House, but lost them in the Senate.  And if you bother to look at the results, you'd see that both parties had an outstanding and historical turnout.  It's just that the hatred of the Democrats won over.  But Trump supporters are still behind him as they were during the presidential election.
> 
> Nobody ever said the wall is the sole solution.  You are making up that BS in your head.  The wall (as border patrol stated) is a very helpful part of the solution.  The solution is multi-level.  The sole solution would be to get the Congress to pass a law making being here illegally a first degree felony with a minimum five year prison sentence.  Then there would be no need for a wall, no need for e-veryfiy, no need for additional border agents, no need to track down illegals here.  Most of them would pack up and leave the country.
> 
> I know quite well what this is all about--you don't.  You remain ignorant of the long term goals by the Democrat party yet support their initiatives and furthermore claim yourself as a conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have endured your dumbassery long enough.  I didn't win a damn thing Ray as I voted Republican.  I don't support Democracy - not in name, not by party, not by ideology.  YOU DO and I'm sick and tired of your dishonesty so I'll treat you like you treat me.
> 
> You have one standard.  If someone does not back the silly wall, they are a liberal, etc.  THAT is what separates you from others with an IQ higher than their shoe size.
> 
> If you had *ANY* IQ, you would know why Congress can pass no such law as you suggest.  My *only point* to you is that we are restricted by the parameters of the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings in what kind of legislation we an pass.
> 
> You have proven to be a fake, a phony, a fraud, and a poseur.  YOU adopted Bill Clinton's philosophy and have your head stuck so far up the liberals ass that if they fart, you will choke to death or get your first breath of air.
> 
> Now, you've called me a liberal for the last time.  Put up, shut up or get ready for a nasty back and forth.  Enough of this B.S.  You didn't know what an unalienable Right is so you don't have a clue when you advocate withholding one or denying one to someone.  You would have to kill me Ray in order to do some of the things you propose.  My Rights are unalienable.  You cannot take them; you cannot impose on them.  To even suggest it shows that YOU ARE NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN.
> 
> You should start at post #2806.  Read it and then cull through those 500 posts so you can see the number of times you LIED, called me names and tried to deflect when asked direct questions.  It's not my fault that the left misled you and made a socialist out of you.  Now, you want a discussion or a pissing match?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put up a wall and no rights of yours will be taken away.  If that happens, you let me know what right you lost, and I'll join your side.  This "losing rights' nonsense is some sort of black helicopter scare tactic that will never work.  You want to prove yourself as a conservative?  Then join the conservatives on this issue.
Click to expand...


Part II of my response to you:

In Jesus Time, there were *THREE* walls that surrounded Jerusalem, 90 towers stood in the first wall, 14 in the second, and 60 in the third. The third wall was built by Herod Agrippa I.  These walls dated back to the time the first one was built in 130 B.C.   Yet, very clearly these walls did not work.  They did not keep the moneychangers out of the Temple (It didn’t even keep them outside the outer walls)   Furthermore, the walls *did not *keep out the poseurs who claimed to be Israelites, but were in fact,  half breed Canaanites that Jesus referred to as the Children of Hell.

America, being a cut above the third world is not Mexico, Canada, etc. *NOR *are we at war (which is the primary purpose of a wall …* OTHER THAN* preserving a culture.)

Those who want a wall cite they mythical stories that these foreigners steal jobs – impossible unless you live in a socialist country… and Ray wants to debate the meaning of socialism.  Since he previously rejected the dictionary definition*, I went directly to the socialists themselves*. These are THEIR words, not mine:

“we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. *We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them*”

What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

These are Ray’s EXACT sentiments.  Ray advocates for that very kind of control as do those who have bothered to answer my questions.

I think it’s time for the build the wall guys, the right, the left, etc. to cut the crap and get real.  From where do your Rights come from?  If the government give you your rights via your citizenship, then government is your Creator and your God.  It’s time to read the Declaration of Independence and the Court cases related thereto.

Under that scenario, you have NO Right to keep and bear Arms, NO Right to Freedom of the Press or Freedom of Speech, No Right to Freedom of Religion, etc.  This is NOT multiple choice; it’s either / or. 

IF you believe in the foundational principles upon which America was founded, then you accept the fact that unalienable Rights pre-existed before the Constitution was written.  Man cannot take them from you.  And so, rather than spew this idiotic charge that I’m “pro-open borders,” you have to ask yourself the REAL question:

Is your Liberty a gift from your Creator OR is it bestowed upon you by government?  IF you believe in God, you have to find the biblical justification for denying to people their Liberty.  Securing the border, protecting America from an invasion, regulating the flow of people are all legal, moral and constitutional.  Using the laws to control or keep people out is a violation of their unalienable Rights – unless you think that only Americans have a Right to be in the United States.  We don’t have to hire those people; nobody has to do business with them; we don’t have to interact with them and it is OUR politicians that allow them to partake of the privileges of citizenship without becoming citizens.  Your real beef is with the politicians.


Either you believe in Liberty or you do not.  The build the wall guys understand this so they’ve created this talking point: you’re either for the wall or you are whatever insult they can conjure up.  I’m not going to bother calling them names.  I pointed out what socialists say and what the word of God says.  IF Liberty only applies to Americans, somebody refer me to that section of the Constitution, the Bible, the Declaration of Independence or  something (other that post 14th Amendment swill) that will give credence to the talking point.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our border is MORE secure than almost all other countries on the planet....except for Israel that is forced to employ fascist tactics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?
> 
> Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After reading your first sentence I realize that you are a mindless fool. You don’t respect those who risk their lives on the frontlines. You can go and jump in a frozen lake.
Click to expand...


Don't lecture me, poseur.  I've spent more time on the front lines than you've spent fretting over this issue.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can see me for what they like.  That won't make it true.  As I told you, there are two questions they've never asked me.  Their entire world is, much like yours, if you don't buy the build the wall solution as being the only solution, you're an open borders liberal.
> 
> If you can't understand, after I've defined what you told me, that YOU are a liberal Democrat, then you are less intelligent than I ever dreamed.  You should do some self introspection and then say, if I want to make a difference in the future of my nation and my culture, MAYBE I should STFU, do some studying, and figure out what this is all about.
> 
> You're so hung up on trying to peg me that you have no clue as to where I stand.  You even ignore the hints.  It's like someone is needed to bash you in the head with a rock before you understand:  There are many sides to this issue and most people have serious flaws with their proposed solutions.
> 
> Every person arguing for a wall could not convince a jury.  The recent turnover in the House of Representatives should tell you how ineffective your position is.  In order to win, you'd have to be able to make the other guy's argument for him and do a better job than he does.  You don't have a freaking clue as to where I stand and you end up making some of the most idiotic statements known to God or man.
> 
> That is why you're in the same boat the followers of Jim Jones were in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you gained seats in the House, but lost them in the Senate.  And if you bother to look at the results, you'd see that both parties had an outstanding and historical turnout.  It's just that the hatred of the Democrats won over.  But Trump supporters are still behind him as they were during the presidential election.
> 
> Nobody ever said the wall is the sole solution.  You are making up that BS in your head.  The wall (as border patrol stated) is a very helpful part of the solution.  The solution is multi-level.  The sole solution would be to get the Congress to pass a law making being here illegally a first degree felony with a minimum five year prison sentence.  Then there would be no need for a wall, no need for e-veryfiy, no need for additional border agents, no need to track down illegals here.  Most of them would pack up and leave the country.
> 
> I know quite well what this is all about--you don't.  You remain ignorant of the long term goals by the Democrat party yet support their initiatives and furthermore claim yourself as a conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have endured your dumbassery long enough.  I didn't win a damn thing Ray as I voted Republican.  I don't support Democracy - not in name, not by party, not by ideology.  YOU DO and I'm sick and tired of your dishonesty so I'll treat you like you treat me.
> 
> You have one standard.  If someone does not back the silly wall, they are a liberal, etc.  THAT is what separates you from others with an IQ higher than their shoe size.
> 
> If you had *ANY* IQ, you would know why Congress can pass no such law as you suggest.  My *only point* to you is that we are restricted by the parameters of the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings in what kind of legislation we an pass.
> 
> You have proven to be a fake, a phony, a fraud, and a poseur.  YOU adopted Bill Clinton's philosophy and have your head stuck so far up the liberals ass that if they fart, you will choke to death or get your first breath of air.
> 
> Now, you've called me a liberal for the last time.  Put up, shut up or get ready for a nasty back and forth.  Enough of this B.S.  You didn't know what an unalienable Right is so you don't have a clue when you advocate withholding one or denying one to someone.  You would have to kill me Ray in order to do some of the things you propose.  My Rights are unalienable.  You cannot take them; you cannot impose on them.  To even suggest it shows that YOU ARE NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN.
> 
> You should start at post #2806.  Read it and then cull through those 500 posts so you can see the number of times you LIED, called me names and tried to deflect when asked direct questions.  It's not my fault that the left misled you and made a socialist out of you.  Now, you want a discussion or a pissing match?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put up a wall and no rights of yours will be taken away.  If that happens, you let me know what right you lost, and I'll join your side.  This "losing rights' nonsense is some sort of black helicopter scare tactic that will never work.  You want to prove yourself as a conservative?  Then join the conservatives on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your issue* is not* a conservative one.  It was the view of the Democrats *BEFORE* they sold you a pig in a poke.  I'm going out to breakfast right now.  After church I will have a message just for you.
> 
> In the mean time, you should pray.  The Bible says by what measure you've judged me, you will be judged.  You have still failed to ask two important questions.  So I'm not going to answer them; just allow you to keep digging that pit deeper and deeper so you can't climb out.  Later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever fatty
Click to expand...


Fatty?  I'd bet I'm in better shape than you.


----------



## bripat9643

Indeependent said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do the job............I agree with it..........Your one opinion doesn't outweigh our opinion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might. Because it's not just one person who thinks you're a bunch of insecure cowards. A lot of people in the US want our country to be a beacon for freedom. And we'll fight your efforts to turn it into a gulag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anybody is trying to turn our country into a gulag it's you people.  Bring in cheap labor, let them work for next to nothing because it's better than what they have at home.  The only way to survive is stuffing 15 people in a three bedroom apartment or home.  People crawling on each other like animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dblack is a Libertarian aka cheap, selfish piece of shit.
> I know more than a few of them and they are the most unhappy people you will ever encounter.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm a libertarian.  I don't think they are the most unhappy people you will ever encounter.  There is a strain among libertarians that believe in unlimited immigration.  That might be fine in a libertarian country where all property is privately owned, but that isn't where we live.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't bother to read, do you?  It is YOUR position that the jobs created are for the American people.  That has nothing to do with your immigration argument.  You are afraid to separate the two.
> 
> You have *FINALLY* been half honest with me, Ray.  Your *REAL *objective is to keep people out of the United States.  If you look back, it wasn't that hard, Ray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've always been honest about it, but you never cared for what I said.
> 
> Me being against immigration is for several reason, not just one.  I've listed several of them, but there are actually more.  And if you list those negatives of immigration vs so-called positives, you will find the negative beats the positive three to one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were being honest, then you were ignorant and need to do some reading in several areas: general civics, history, law and constitutional interpretation.
> 
> That, most likely, explains why you try to pass me off as a liberal or a moderate instead of answering questions as they are asked of you.
> 
> Pretexts are not reasons.  They are just that.  For example, in my neighborhood, there are PLENTY of jobs almost anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size can get.  Most pay between $20 and $40 an hour.  When they don't take them and Hispanics show up, I work them.
> 
> NOWHERE in that scenario does it give you any indication of where I stand on the issue.  But, sometimes I need things done and have to work within a budget.  If Americans don't apply for the jobs, I either get the help I need or lose what I own.  It's that simple.  Do you realize I've been at this for four decades now and *not one single time* has one of the people wanting a wall and bitching about jobs *EVER* walked away from their computer and applied for a job that I told them about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Penalties
> 
> *CIVIL VIOLATIONS*
> 
> Knowingly hired, or to have knowingly recruited or referred for a fee, an unauthorized alien for employment in the United States or to have knowingly continued to employ an unauthorized alien in the United States
> Failing to comply with Form I-9 employment verification requirements
> Committing or participating in document fraud for satisfying a requirement or benefit of the employment verification process or the INA
> Committing document abuse
> Unlawful discrimination against an employment-authorized individual in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee
> Failing to notify DHS of a Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) of an employee’s employment eligibility
> Requiring an individual to post a bond or security or to pay an amount or otherwise to provide financial guarantee or indemnity against any potential liability arising under the employment verification requirements
> *CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS*
> 
> Engaging in a pattern or practice of hiring, recruiting or referring for a fee unauthorized aliens
> What Is the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)?
> 
> *What does IRCA mean to employers?*
> Obviously, employers cannot hire immigrants who are not authorized to work in the U.S. All workers must fit into one of the four following categories:
> 
> 
> U.S. citizen
> noncitizen national
> lawful permanent resident
> alien authorized to work
> To check work authorization, the federal government requires a Form I-9 be filled out for every employee upon hire. This applies to U.S. citizens, too. The employee will fill out the first section and indicate their work authorization classification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should READ this thread.  Let's start you out with post # 2806.  I'll come back later and start the discussion all over since you are not going to read the freaking thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I responded to your talking points regarding your hiring illegals.............and made valid points to those comments......You are breaking the law by hiring them.  Only problem being as I discussed.
> 
> Fix that law.........and you wouldn't get a pass for hiring them.  You know you are hiring illegals........You know you are breaking the law...........but have a legal loop hole out............saying I didn't know later.
Click to expand...


See my response to Ray about Liberty.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?
> 
> Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After reading your first sentence I realize that you are a mindless fool. You don’t respect those who risk their lives on the frontlines. You can go and jump in a frozen lake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't lecture me, poseur.  I've spent more time on the front lines than you've spent fretting over this issue.
Click to expand...


The "front lines" of what, destroying our country?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?
> 
> Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After reading your first sentence I realize that you are a mindless fool. You don’t respect those who risk their lives on the frontlines. You can go and jump in a frozen lake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't lecture me, poseur.  I've spent more time on the front lines than you've spent fretting over this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "front lines" of what, destroying our country?
Click to expand...


Saving it from people like you


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See there.  We only had to wait minutes on it.  On this issue, we have to, unfortunately give danielpalos a half right.
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to  ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
> 
> There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits states - or the people for that matter from inviting foreigners into the United States.  Congress has a very limited power here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you're referring to the "state rights" when just few years back left rejected any state's jurisdiction over the immigration.
> 
> The federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.
> 
> When Arizona signed SB 1070 into law in 2010, the DOJ stated in a brief that Arizona lawmakers "crossed a constitutional line" with the new law. A federal judge blocked four of the most controversial elements, including the requirement that police check the immigration status of anyone they stop or suspect is in the state illegally.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think that individual states should have control over what's happening within their borders, except over citizenship and naturalization (that is federal jurisdiction), but you lefties cannot have it both way depending on who's in power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will overlook your ignorance.  I'm not a lefty.  In the more than thirty years of voting - never missing a single election, I have voted for exactly ONE Democrat (and that was for the PSC.)  I've also been an officer in my local Republican Party.
> 
> In my lifetime, I've been consistent.  I didn't change; the people on the right did.  My introduction into politics began as a young man who lost his job (as did a lot of guys) due to affirmative action and racial quotas.  My position then, as now, is that employers have the right to determine WHO they want to hire.  Now, let us get our facts straight.
> 
> During the lives of *ALL* the founders of this country, the states had control over immigration while the federal government had control over naturalization.  Each and every one of the founders would be buried before the SCOTUS would do something downright dirty.
> 
> In 1875 the SCOTUS, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman granted plenary powers over immigration to Congress after the defendants in California failed to mount a defense.  While the SCOTUS scolded the defendants for not presenting a defense, they went above and beyond their authority.
> 
> The SCOTUS is authorized only to interpret the laws; they have NO authority to grant any power to any other branch of government.  If you can show me that authority I will change my views.  It's hypocritical for us to whine and complain when the SCOTUS - or government in general tries to subvert the Second Amendment, but then try and defend the government when they use an illegal / unconstitutional tactic if we think we benefit off it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing to do with your violating the law points.........Nothing.
Click to expand...


Yawn - I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your permission or mine?  Please cite me that part of the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9*
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG.  Are you kidding?  That was tried once today.  The rest of the article deals with a ten dollar tax per person after 1808.  One only need to look at the year in which they Chy Lung decision was laid down to see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Constitution gives a general “OUTLINE” .. if you prefer “ bullet statements” ... regarding each branch of government.  In this case, it surrounds the role of the legislative branch, and the authority of Congress.  If you NOW want to change the subject to interpretation and original intent, we can talk about the 14th Amendment.
> 
> I’m willing to bet you wont be able to establish much surrounding your point of view, without actually taking the time to do the actual research on this subject, as I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right.  I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic.  I'm sure you have much more extensive experience.  Virtually all you build the wall guys do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you can’t provide the evidence of that actual “research”.  Why is it I’m the only one who can back it up and include that in a response? Words of 250 court briefs are supposed to be efficient enough, as opposed to providing links in somehow impressing me?  Seriously?  Resumes without provided evidence are only for those trying to impress and scratch their ego rather than thrpugh  hard work and efforts of providing actual FACTS
Click to expand...


You're being an idiot.  Will you read some of those briefs if I post them on this thread?  No.  You haven't provided evidence of anything except your commitment to tyranny.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why they have been used for 18 centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, for 18 centuries our forefathers just couldn't come up with drones......Also, ask the Israelis how many tunnels have been dug under THEIR wall......lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can dig a tunnel under a drone even easier.  Or just walk past it.  Or shoot the drone down.  Have any idea what a good drone costs?  Who's going to fly it?  Refuel it?  Monitor its camera?  Or camouflage myself so the drone doesn't see me.  With a wall, people are stopped, The few that try to get over or under are picked up by cameras or drones, or vibration sensors or patrols, but someone still has to monitor all that.  And they still have to get to the action.  By the time your drone sees me and you get there, I'm LONG GONE buddy!  At least with the wall, I was greatly slowed down giving you time to respond.
> 
> Gee, you act like they will be putting the wall in your backyard!  Last I checked, most people along the border WANT the wall.  And it can be easily paid for by simply collecting the fines every illegal is due us.  According to my math, that comes to 53 billion dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poll: Majority opposes border wall with Mexico
> 
> So, is America a Republic or a Democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was three years ago.
Click to expand...



You quote the year 2016 and it's now 2019.  Some more of your meth induced math calling that a three year difference?


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> My goodness you are off the charts tonight.  Every one of my concerns and points are the exact opposite of the Democrat party.  Yours are much more inline with them than mine.  Nobody is "ruling" you, just pointing out that I'm not the only one who sees you as an open borders person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can see me for what they like.  That won't make it true.  As I told you, there are two questions they've never asked me.  Their entire world is, much like yours, if you don't buy the build the wall solution as being the only solution, you're an open borders liberal.
> 
> If you can't understand, after I've defined what you told me, that YOU are a liberal Democrat, then you are less intelligent than I ever dreamed.  You should do some self introspection and then say, if I want to make a difference in the future of my nation and my culture, MAYBE I should STFU, do some studying, and figure out what this is all about.
> 
> You're so hung up on trying to peg me that you have no clue as to where I stand.  You even ignore the hints.  It's like someone is needed to bash you in the head with a rock before you understand:  There are many sides to this issue and most people have serious flaws with their proposed solutions.
> 
> Every person arguing for a wall could not convince a jury.  The recent turnover in the House of Representatives should tell you how ineffective your position is.  In order to win, you'd have to be able to make the other guy's argument for him and do a better job than he does.  You don't have a freaking clue as to where I stand and you end up making some of the most idiotic statements known to God or man.
> 
> That is why you're in the same boat the followers of Jim Jones were in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you gained seats in the House, but lost them in the Senate.  And if you bother to look at the results, you'd see that both parties had an outstanding and historical turnout.  It's just that the hatred of the Democrats won over.  But Trump supporters are still behind him as they were during the presidential election.
> 
> Nobody ever said the wall is the sole solution.  You are making up that BS in your head.  The wall (as border patrol stated) is a very helpful part of the solution.  The solution is multi-level.  The sole solution would be to get the Congress to pass a law making being here illegally a first degree felony with a minimum five year prison sentence.  Then there would be no need for a wall, no need for e-veryfiy, no need for additional border agents, no need to track down illegals here.  Most of them would pack up and leave the country.
> 
> I know quite well what this is all about--you don't.  You remain ignorant of the long term goals by the Democrat party yet support their initiatives and furthermore claim yourself as a conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have endured your dumbassery long enough.  I didn't win a damn thing Ray as I voted Republican.  I don't support Democracy - not in name, not by party, not by ideology.  YOU DO and I'm sick and tired of your dishonesty so I'll treat you like you treat me.
> 
> You have one standard.  If someone does not back the silly wall, they are a liberal, etc.  THAT is what separates you from others with an IQ higher than their shoe size.
> 
> If you had *ANY* IQ, you would know why Congress can pass no such law as you suggest.  My *only point* to you is that we are restricted by the parameters of the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings in what kind of legislation we an pass.
> 
> You have proven to be a fake, a phony, a fraud, and a poseur.  YOU adopted Bill Clinton's philosophy and have your head stuck so far up the liberals ass that if they fart, you will choke to death or get your first breath of air.
> 
> Now, you've called me a liberal for the last time.  Put up, shut up or get ready for a nasty back and forth.  Enough of this B.S.  You didn't know what an unalienable Right is so you don't have a clue when you advocate withholding one or denying one to someone.  You would have to kill me Ray in order to do some of the things you propose.  My Rights are unalienable.  You cannot take them; you cannot impose on them.  To even suggest it shows that YOU ARE NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN.
> 
> You should start at post #2806.  Read it and then cull through those 500 posts so you can see the number of times you LIED, called me names and tried to deflect when asked direct questions.  It's not my fault that the left misled you and made a socialist out of you.  Now, you want a discussion or a pissing match?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put up a wall and no rights of yours will be taken away.  If that happens, you let me know what right you lost, and I'll join your side.  This "losing rights' nonsense is some sort of black helicopter scare tactic that will never work.  You want to prove yourself as a conservative?  Then join the conservatives on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I promised you a response.  It takes two parts.  Here is the first part, the second one to follow:
> 
> Ray, challenging me on a subject you have shown an absolute ignorant and /or disdain of can be very costly.  To begin with, the build the wall guys say if you are not for a wall, you are a liberal, lefty, etc.  That is absolutely idiotic as we shall see.
> 
> The way I view the topic is best described in an analogy.  In this analogy a man is stuck in a burning apartment on the third floor of a building (this part of the analogy describes our situation in America.)  If this man stays in his current position, he dies.   If the man goes out the door, there is a 100 percent chance that he will be killed (that part of the analogy refers to the nutty wall idea.)  If he jumps out the window, the fall might kill him, but then again, he might live.  That part of the analogy refers to a solution *OTHER THAN* the nutty wall idea.
> 
> I am neither pro-open borders *NOR* am I anti – closed borders.  So, let’s get that understood and make an attempt to be honest.  It’s just that a militarized border with a wall around it will not work in the United States.
> 
> The REAL cost of the wall is Liberty.  So far, no build the wall guy has addressed the issue of Liberty.  In the Declaration of Independence, we find these words:
> 
> *“WE *hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”
> 
> Of this document, the Declaration of Independence, the SCOTUS ruled:
> 
> The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."   _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> The Bible is clear about this subject as well:
> 
> “Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land Unto *All the Inhabitants thereof*”  Leviticus 25: 10  and this Bible verse can be found on the Liberty Bell at Independence Hall.  This Old Testament verse refers to the "Jubilee", or the instructions to the Israelites to return property and free slaves.every 50 years.
> 
> In II Timothy 3: 16 we read that “*All* scripture _is_ given by inspiration of God, and _is_ profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
> 
> Finally, in II Corinthians 3 : 17 we read that:
> 
> “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord _is_, there _is_ Liberty.”
> 
> But what is Liberty?  Well in a *biblical *sense, liberty means freedom (see # 1865 in the Greek Dictionary of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.  In *law*, Liberty means Freedom; exemption *from* extraneous control.  …freedom regulated by law. (Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition)
> 
> My take on it is very simple:
> 
> In New Jersey, they passed a law requiring people to turn in high capacity magazines… this included even off duty police.  Nobody complied?  Why?  People think the law is unconstitutional.  The Right to Life and Liberty are unalienable Rights.  The Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right.  It is an extension of both a Right to Life AND a Right to Liberty.  So, no matter how many laws are passed, the majority of gun owners will not forfeit that Right.  On that issue, they understand the concept.
> 
> Those same people would, however, deny to *me* my Rights and punish me for hiring undocumented foreigners.  The sad truth is, just as the feds are usurping the Second Amendment, they are waging a war against your Liberty.  Those wanting a wall cannot find *any* biblical precedent for *CONTROLLING* people (which was one the first reasons cited to me in favor of a wall) and that was followed up by Ray – falsely believing we can keep people out.  What a crock!   (Continued in part II)
Click to expand...



Now you're forcing me to repeat myself.


OKTexas said:


> That has to be the damned funniest thing I've read on this board. Everyone in our country has rights, but they are also subject to our laws if they abuse those rights. The same damned thing applies to illegal aliens, that's how our LAW refers to them. So take your semantics game and shove it.


Our Constitution doesn't apply to the whole freaking world, the entry of aliens (meaning not of this country) are regulated by our laws. Not by your fantasies.

.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always been honest about it, but you never cared for what I said.
> 
> Me being against immigration is for several reason, not just one.  I've listed several of them, but there are actually more.  And if you list those negatives of immigration vs so-called positives, you will find the negative beats the positive three to one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were being honest, then you were ignorant and need to do some reading in several areas: general civics, history, law and constitutional interpretation.
> 
> That, most likely, explains why you try to pass me off as a liberal or a moderate instead of answering questions as they are asked of you.
> 
> Pretexts are not reasons.  They are just that.  For example, in my neighborhood, there are PLENTY of jobs almost anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size can get.  Most pay between $20 and $40 an hour.  When they don't take them and Hispanics show up, I work them.
> 
> NOWHERE in that scenario does it give you any indication of where I stand on the issue.  But, sometimes I need things done and have to work within a budget.  If Americans don't apply for the jobs, I either get the help I need or lose what I own.  It's that simple.  Do you realize I've been at this for four decades now and *not one single time* has one of the people wanting a wall and bitching about jobs *EVER* walked away from their computer and applied for a job that I told them about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Penalties
> 
> *CIVIL VIOLATIONS*
> 
> Knowingly hired, or to have knowingly recruited or referred for a fee, an unauthorized alien for employment in the United States or to have knowingly continued to employ an unauthorized alien in the United States
> Failing to comply with Form I-9 employment verification requirements
> Committing or participating in document fraud for satisfying a requirement or benefit of the employment verification process or the INA
> Committing document abuse
> Unlawful discrimination against an employment-authorized individual in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee
> Failing to notify DHS of a Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) of an employee’s employment eligibility
> Requiring an individual to post a bond or security or to pay an amount or otherwise to provide financial guarantee or indemnity against any potential liability arising under the employment verification requirements
> *CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS*
> 
> Engaging in a pattern or practice of hiring, recruiting or referring for a fee unauthorized aliens
> What Is the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)?
> 
> *What does IRCA mean to employers?*
> Obviously, employers cannot hire immigrants who are not authorized to work in the U.S. All workers must fit into one of the four following categories:
> 
> 
> U.S. citizen
> noncitizen national
> lawful permanent resident
> alien authorized to work
> To check work authorization, the federal government requires a Form I-9 be filled out for every employee upon hire. This applies to U.S. citizens, too. The employee will fill out the first section and indicate their work authorization classification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should READ this thread.  Let's start you out with post # 2806.  I'll come back later and start the discussion all over since you are not going to read the freaking thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I responded to your talking points regarding your hiring illegals.............and made valid points to those comments......You are breaking the law by hiring them.  Only problem being as I discussed.
> 
> Fix that law.........and you wouldn't get a pass for hiring them.  You know you are hiring illegals........You know you are breaking the law...........but have a legal loop hole out............saying I didn't know later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my response to Ray about Liberty.
Click to expand...

I just did and they are laughable..............You can't go into visit another country legally without a passport.  Can't work there legally without a work visa or their version of the same.  Nations have borders.  Nations have laws...........and their are legal ways to enter this country. 

According the the CBP Walls do work.........Make it easier to stop them from coming.....with the added in other security measures in their reports and requests.  Everywhere they have improved infrastructure on the border, the apprehensions have went down......Because it's harder to get into the country.  The first respect of a nation if you want to live here is to respect our laws........if you don't then we don't need you.

We have Social Safety nets everywhere which they use.......costs us a lot of money....and we are in debt up to our asses.....Time to limit how many come and to force them to come only via legal means.  All nations on earth do this........and there is nothing wrong with our doing the same.


----------



## Flopper

longknife said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people and the government are not the same thing. Once again, you're making the same pitch as progressive statists. Does the irony ever occur to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the government is the people.  We elect representatives to carry out our will.  And don't try that "progressive" guilt trip on me.  It is YOU that are on the side of progressives--not me.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's like saying that I, and my neighbors, have the right to share our homes with whomever we please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we conservatives have the same right not to share our property with anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am struggling to understand your argument.
> 
> We elect representatives to carry out our will.  When California opts to have Sanctuary Cities, I feel the people of California have spoken, don't you?
> 
> If the state of California cannot afford the people they bring in, then it becomes our business if the state of California is relying on federal funds to wine and dine their foreign guests.  Then I'd have a dog in the fight.  BTW, some of the things you presume may be the law where you live, but certainly not in every jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the most effective ploys by those attempting to vilify undocumented immigrants is to assert that those immigrants are stealing benefits from Americans. Donald Trump has deployed this falsehood over and over and has even promised a law to stop. The fact is there's already is law.  In was passed in 1996.
> 
> Federal dollars for the following social services are expressed forbidden by federal law:
> 
> Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP)
> 
> 
> Disability, aka Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
> 
> 
> Food stamps, aka The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
> 
> 
> Health insurance, aka insurance via the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
> 
> 
> Medicaid
> 
> 
> Medicare
> 
> 
> Social Security
> 
> 
> Welfare
> Not only are undocumented immigrants barred from these benefits, legal immigrants are also barred for 7 years.
> 
> Depending on the state federal dollars can be used for the following under certain circumstances:
> 
> Emergency medical care, including ER visits and Emergency Medicaid
> 
> 
> Schooling
> 
> 
> Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
> In spite of the facts, there are a constant stream of claims of billion and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on illegal immigrants.  States can of course fund programs that benefit undocumented immigrants but they can't use federal dollars.
> 
> No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I appreciate the time you took in creating this post.*
> *BUT,*
> *You miss a very important item. *
> *Illegals can easily get IDs that make them seem to be legals. Using those documents allows them to apply for and receive many of the benefits outlined in your post.*
> 
> *I personally know this to be a fact!*
Click to expand...

There is only anecdotal evidence.  I'm not saying it never happens but I think it's rare for several reasons.  Consider the application for SNAP.


Most states are now requiring certified documents that prove citizenship in addition to documents that prove state residency.  When such documents are not available then a number of secondary documents are required.
Personal information of all household members are required including employment history, social security numbers, birth dates, etc.
The federal government requires that all applications be audited in regard to both citizenship and income.  After the first year, income data is audited.
Being in the country without documentation is not a crime, however falsifying applications for federal assistance programs is a felony with penalties up to 10 years in jail.
There is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that shows undocumented immigrant's fear that government agencies will passed on information to immigration officials keeps them from using government services.  Police have less reports of illegal activities in neighborhoods known to be mostly undocumented compared to other low income neighborhoods.  Public schools in neighborhoods with many undocumented immigrants say they get very few applications for free and reduce lunches from families know to have undocumented family members.  This is in spite of the fact they inform parents that they do not collect immigration data on students or share it with other agencies.

Generally dealing with any government agency is a red flag for undocumented immigrants.  Just as a wanted felony is not likely to walk into  police headquarters to file a complaint, undocumented immigrants tend to avoid goverment agencies.  They are not considered a safe place.  

Thanks for the compliment but the fact is most of what I write comes from other sources.  I ain't that good a writer.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your permission or mine?  Please cite me that part of the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9*
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG.  Are you kidding?  That was tried once today.  The rest of the article deals with a ten dollar tax per person after 1808.  One only need to look at the year in which they Chy Lung decision was laid down to see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Constitution gives a general “OUTLINE” .. if you prefer “ bullet statements” ... regarding each branch of government.  In this case, it surrounds the role of the legislative branch, and the authority of Congress.  If you NOW want to change the subject to interpretation and original intent, we can talk about the 14th Amendment.
> 
> I’m willing to bet you wont be able to establish much surrounding your point of view, without actually taking the time to do the actual research on this subject, as I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right.  I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic.  I'm sure you have much more extensive experience.  Virtually all you build the wall guys do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you still haven't gotten the supremes to strike it down, they must not have been very effective briefs.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You have almost gotten me to stoop to your level.

As a matter of *FACT*, our side was winning the war until half wits (and that's being liberal in presuming you're even a half wit) screwed the pooch with this big government or no government cow dung.


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we need is to lock mental incompetents like you behind four walls so you'd be happy and America would be safe from the stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you say walls don't work????? LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say it would work.  I only said it would make YOU happy.  In reality one only need to look at how many people were hoodwinked by ... well I won't name them, but we can't build enough walls to contain the idiots who find you amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you said walls don't work, yet you want to put the other poster behind 4 of them, a bit hypocritical ain't it and very inconsistent?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not hypocritical at all.  I said it would be for HIS enjoyment.  It won't impact me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Neither will walls in certain areas on the southern border.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Talking out your ass doesn't give any credibility to your swill.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were being honest, then you were ignorant and need to do some reading in several areas: general civics, history, law and constitutional interpretation.
> 
> That, most likely, explains why you try to pass me off as a liberal or a moderate instead of answering questions as they are asked of you.
> 
> Pretexts are not reasons.  They are just that.  For example, in my neighborhood, there are PLENTY of jobs almost anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size can get.  Most pay between $20 and $40 an hour.  When they don't take them and Hispanics show up, I work them.
> 
> NOWHERE in that scenario does it give you any indication of where I stand on the issue.  But, sometimes I need things done and have to work within a budget.  If Americans don't apply for the jobs, I either get the help I need or lose what I own.  It's that simple.  Do you realize I've been at this for four decades now and *not one single time* has one of the people wanting a wall and bitching about jobs *EVER* walked away from their computer and applied for a job that I told them about?
> 
> 
> 
> Penalties
> 
> *CIVIL VIOLATIONS*
> 
> Knowingly hired, or to have knowingly recruited or referred for a fee, an unauthorized alien for employment in the United States or to have knowingly continued to employ an unauthorized alien in the United States
> Failing to comply with Form I-9 employment verification requirements
> Committing or participating in document fraud for satisfying a requirement or benefit of the employment verification process or the INA
> Committing document abuse
> Unlawful discrimination against an employment-authorized individual in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee
> Failing to notify DHS of a Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) of an employee’s employment eligibility
> Requiring an individual to post a bond or security or to pay an amount or otherwise to provide financial guarantee or indemnity against any potential liability arising under the employment verification requirements
> *CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS*
> 
> Engaging in a pattern or practice of hiring, recruiting or referring for a fee unauthorized aliens
> What Is the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)?
> 
> *What does IRCA mean to employers?*
> Obviously, employers cannot hire immigrants who are not authorized to work in the U.S. All workers must fit into one of the four following categories:
> 
> 
> U.S. citizen
> noncitizen national
> lawful permanent resident
> alien authorized to work
> To check work authorization, the federal government requires a Form I-9 be filled out for every employee upon hire. This applies to U.S. citizens, too. The employee will fill out the first section and indicate their work authorization classification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should READ this thread.  Let's start you out with post # 2806.  I'll come back later and start the discussion all over since you are not going to read the freaking thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I responded to your talking points regarding your hiring illegals.............and made valid points to those comments......You are breaking the law by hiring them.  Only problem being as I discussed.
> 
> Fix that law.........and you wouldn't get a pass for hiring them.  You know you are hiring illegals........You know you are breaking the law...........but have a legal loop hole out............saying I didn't know later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my response to Ray about Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just did and they are laughable..............You can't go into visit another country legally without a passport.  Can't work there legally without a work visa or their version of the same.  Nations have borders.  Nations have laws...........and their are legal ways to enter this country.
> 
> According the the CBP Walls do work.........Make it easier to stop them from coming.....with the added in other security measures in their reports and requests.  Everywhere they have improved infrastructure on the border, the apprehensions have went down......Because it's harder to get into the country.  The first respect of a nation if you want to live here is to respect our laws........if you don't then we don't need you.
> 
> We have Social Safety nets everywhere which they use.......costs us a lot of money....and we are in debt up to our asses.....Time to limit how many come and to force them to come only via legal means.  All nations on earth do this........and there is nothing wrong with our doing the same.
Click to expand...


There are plenty of reasons.  I'd suggest you read my responses to Ray.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?
> 
> Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After reading your first sentence I realize that you are a mindless fool. You don’t respect those who risk their lives on the frontlines. You can go and jump in a frozen lake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bu...bu...but he’s a pastor.
> I’m shocked his congregation hasn’t already committed mass suicide.
Click to expand...


Absolute stupidity.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandatory.
> Nationwide.
> Federal Law.
> Now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See there.  We only had to wait minutes on it.  On this issue, we have to, unfortunately give danielpalos a half right.
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to  ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
> 
> There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits states - or the people for that matter from inviting foreigners into the United States.  Congress has a very limited power here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you're referring to the "state rights" when just few years back left rejected any state's jurisdiction over the immigration.
> 
> The federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.
> 
> When Arizona signed SB 1070 into law in 2010, the DOJ stated in a brief that Arizona lawmakers "crossed a constitutional line" with the new law. A federal judge blocked four of the most controversial elements, including the requirement that police check the immigration status of anyone they stop or suspect is in the state illegally.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think that individual states should have control over what's happening within their borders, except over citizenship and naturalization (that is federal jurisdiction), but you lefties cannot have it both way depending on who's in power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will overlook your ignorance.  I'm not a lefty.  In the more than thirty years of voting - never missing a single election, I have voted for exactly ONE Democrat (and that was for the PSC.)  I've also been an officer in my local Republican Party.
> 
> In my lifetime, I've been consistent.  I didn't change; the people on the right did.  My introduction into politics began as a young man who lost his job (as did a lot of guys) due to affirmative action and racial quotas.  My position then, as now, is that employers have the right to determine WHO they want to hire.  Now, let us get our facts straight.
> 
> During the lives of *ALL* the founders of this country, the states had control over immigration while the federal government had control over naturalization.  Each and every one of the founders would be buried before the SCOTUS would do something downright dirty.
> 
> In 1875 the SCOTUS, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman granted plenary powers over immigration to Congress after the defendants in California failed to mount a defense.  While the SCOTUS scolded the defendants for not presenting a defense, they went above and beyond their authority.
> 
> The SCOTUS is authorized only to interpret the laws; they have NO authority to grant any power to any other branch of government.  If you can show me that authority I will change my views.  It's hypocritical for us to whine and complain when the SCOTUS - or government in general tries to subvert the Second Amendment, but then try and defend the government when they use an illegal / unconstitutional tactic if we think we benefit off it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing to do with your violating the law points.........Nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn - I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
Click to expand...

No need.............I believe we need better security and believe the burning house scenario presented by you is a joke.

There are over 200 million living in poverty South of our Border...........it's a numbers game........and that number needs to be controlled.....Or more will come.  Lowers our pay, and puts us deeper in debt.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our border is MORE secure than almost all other countries on the planet....except for Israel that is forced to employ fascist tactics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?
> 
> Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they work for us, and we're obligated to give them the tools required to do the job we ask them to do in an effective and safe manner. We already have walls and barriers on roughly 1/3rd of the border. Now you cry babies claim adding an additional 10% will somehow restrict our liberties and would be IMMORAL. REALLY?? That seems to fly in the face of logic.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You could sue your brains for non support.  This immigration war has wreaked havoc on the Constitution for years now.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9*
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.  Are you kidding?  That was tried once today.  The rest of the article deals with a ten dollar tax per person after 1808.  One only need to look at the year in which they Chy Lung decision was laid down to see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Constitution gives a general “OUTLINE” .. if you prefer “ bullet statements” ... regarding each branch of government.  In this case, it surrounds the role of the legislative branch, and the authority of Congress.  If you NOW want to change the subject to interpretation and original intent, we can talk about the 14th Amendment.
> 
> I’m willing to bet you wont be able to establish much surrounding your point of view, without actually taking the time to do the actual research on this subject, as I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right.  I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic.  I'm sure you have much more extensive experience.  Virtually all you build the wall guys do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you still haven't gotten the supremes to strike it down, they must not have been very effective briefs.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In trying to summarize my last post ..  It’s not what you HAVE, it’s what you can PROVE.  Resumes are only good hainging on someone’s wall
Click to expand...


You haven't proven anything to me except a lack of reading ability.  Like I said, you're a legend in your own mind.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your permission or mine?  Please cite me that part of the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9*
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG.  Are you kidding?  That was tried once today.  The rest of the article deals with a ten dollar tax per person after 1808.  One only need to look at the year in which they Chy Lung decision was laid down to see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Constitution gives a general “OUTLINE” .. if you prefer “ bullet statements” ... regarding each branch of government.  In this case, it surrounds the role of the legislative branch, and the authority of Congress.  If you NOW want to change the subject to interpretation and original intent, we can talk about the 14th Amendment.
> 
> I’m willing to bet you wont be able to establish much surrounding your point of view, without actually taking the time to do the actual research on this subject, as I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right.  I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic.  I'm sure you have much more extensive experience.  Virtually all you build the wall guys do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Realizing, of course, that 99% of legislation is agenda driven by committees and sub-committees and sub-sub-committees.
Click to expand...


Most law is not made in the legislatures.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?
> 
> Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they work for us, and we're obligated to give them the tools required to do the job we ask them to do in an effective and safe manner. We already have walls and barriers on roughly 1/3rd of the border. Now you cry babies claim adding an additional 10% will somehow restrict our liberties and would be IMMORAL. REALLY?? That seems to fly in the face of logic.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could sue your brains for non support.  This immigration war has wreaked havoc on the Constitution for years now.
Click to expand...

Add to the 1986 law those businesses hiring illegals are guilty of a crime ............with jail time.........along with E-verify...and ENFORCE IT.............and this issue will be over.............And the lawlessness will end..........

The Wall is as much about stopping drugs as it is the illegals...............The Flores Act needs to be changed.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.  Are you kidding?  That was tried once today.  The rest of the article deals with a ten dollar tax per person after 1808.  One only need to look at the year in which they Chy Lung decision was laid down to see that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution gives a general “OUTLINE” .. if you prefer “ bullet statements” ... regarding each branch of government.  In this case, it surrounds the role of the legislative branch, and the authority of Congress.  If you NOW want to change the subject to interpretation and original intent, we can talk about the 14th Amendment.
> 
> I’m willing to bet you wont be able to establish much surrounding your point of view, without actually taking the time to do the actual research on this subject, as I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right.  I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic.  I'm sure you have much more extensive experience.  Virtually all you build the wall guys do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you still haven't gotten the supremes to strike it down, they must not have been very effective briefs.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In trying to summarize my last post ..  It’s not what you HAVE, it’s what you can PROVE.  Resumes are only good hainging on someone’s wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, this dude has gone form some kind of social worker to now a constitutional lawyer. He hasn't even said why he thinks the 14th was implemented illegally.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



It's not relevant to the OP and I'd have to explain that while trying to reply to fifty four people attacking me on this thread.  If they would STFU and quit repeating the same points, I might be able to give you a hint as to why the 14th was illegally ratified... as if posters are too stupid to Google it.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?
> 
> Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After reading your first sentence I realize that you are a mindless fool. You don’t respect those who risk their lives on the frontlines. You can go and jump in a frozen lake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bu...bu...but he’s a pastor.
> I’m shocked his congregation hasn’t already committed mass suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute stupidity.
Click to expand...

I *thought* that was your modus operendi!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

toobfreak said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, for 18 centuries our forefathers just couldn't come up with drones......Also, ask the Israelis how many tunnels have been dug under THEIR wall......lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can dig a tunnel under a drone even easier.  Or just walk past it.  Or shoot the drone down.  Have any idea what a good drone costs?  Who's going to fly it?  Refuel it?  Monitor its camera?  Or camouflage myself so the drone doesn't see me.  With a wall, people are stopped, The few that try to get over or under are picked up by cameras or drones, or vibration sensors or patrols, but someone still has to monitor all that.  And they still have to get to the action.  By the time your drone sees me and you get there, I'm LONG GONE buddy!  At least with the wall, I was greatly slowed down giving you time to respond.
> 
> Gee, you act like they will be putting the wall in your backyard!  Last I checked, most people along the border WANT the wall.  And it can be easily paid for by simply collecting the fines every illegal is due us.  According to my math, that comes to 53 billion dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poll: Majority opposes border wall with Mexico
> 
> So, is America a Republic or a Democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was three years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was TWO years ago, and about two months,.  Just a little off in your math.  Now Trump votes of just TWO years ago no longer matter, but don't EVER expect the Left to stop trying to shove a video of Trump bragging and trying to impress some guy about what a babe magnet he was from FOURTEEN years ago!  At least we KNOW the votes REALLY HAPPENED.
Click to expand...


Irrelevant.  Public opinion went against the wall after Trump was elected.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9*
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.  Are you kidding?  That was tried once today.  The rest of the article deals with a ten dollar tax per person after 1808.  One only need to look at the year in which they Chy Lung decision was laid down to see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Constitution gives a general “OUTLINE” .. if you prefer “ bullet statements” ... regarding each branch of government.  In this case, it surrounds the role of the legislative branch, and the authority of Congress.  If you NOW want to change the subject to interpretation and original intent, we can talk about the 14th Amendment.
> 
> I’m willing to bet you wont be able to establish much surrounding your point of view, without actually taking the time to do the actual research on this subject, as I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right.  I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic.  I'm sure you have much more extensive experience.  Virtually all you build the wall guys do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Realizing, of course, that 99% of legislation is agenda driven by committees and sub-committees and sub-sub-committees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most law is not made in the legislatures.
Click to expand...

I laughed but you are correct..............Judicial Activism..........and executive branches reinterpreting the law for new regulations..............and EO's changing it.........

DACA and the Dreamers were done via EO"s..........not through Congress as in the Constitution..........then Obama and company created Slush funds to defend them...........via fees from legal immigration..........imagine that.............Complete abuse of power.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9*
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.  Are you kidding?  That was tried once today.  The rest of the article deals with a ten dollar tax per person after 1808.  One only need to look at the year in which they Chy Lung decision was laid down to see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Constitution gives a general “OUTLINE” .. if you prefer “ bullet statements” ... regarding each branch of government.  In this case, it surrounds the role of the legislative branch, and the authority of Congress.  If you NOW want to change the subject to interpretation and original intent, we can talk about the 14th Amendment.
> 
> I’m willing to bet you wont be able to establish much surrounding your point of view, without actually taking the time to do the actual research on this subject, as I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right.  I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic.  I'm sure you have much more extensive experience.  Virtually all you build the wall guys do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Realizing, of course, that 99% of legislation is agenda driven by committees and sub-committees and sub-sub-committees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most law is not made in the legislatures.
Click to expand...

The legislatures take anything you hand them and manipulate it to death.
A friend of mine helped to write the legislation to mandate expiration dates on beverages.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can dig a tunnel under a drone even easier.  Or just walk past it.  Or shoot the drone down.  Have any idea what a good drone costs?  Who's going to fly it?  Refuel it?  Monitor its camera?  Or camouflage myself so the drone doesn't see me.  With a wall, people are stopped, The few that try to get over or under are picked up by cameras or drones, or vibration sensors or patrols, but someone still has to monitor all that.  And they still have to get to the action.  By the time your drone sees me and you get there, I'm LONG GONE buddy!  At least with the wall, I was greatly slowed down giving you time to respond.
> 
> Gee, you act like they will be putting the wall in your backyard!  Last I checked, most people along the border WANT the wall.  And it can be easily paid for by simply collecting the fines every illegal is due us.  According to my math, that comes to 53 billion dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poll: Majority opposes border wall with Mexico
> 
> So, is America a Republic or a Democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was three years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was TWO years ago, and about two months,.  Just a little off in your math.  Now Trump votes of just TWO years ago no longer matter, but don't EVER expect the Left to stop trying to shove a video of Trump bragging and trying to impress some guy about what a babe magnet he was from FOURTEEN years ago!  At least we KNOW the votes REALLY HAPPENED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Public opinion went against the wall after Trump was elected.
Click to expand...

You, of course, mean the media that was against Trump breathing from the moment he tossed his hat in the ring.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, for 18 centuries our forefathers just couldn't come up with drones......Also, ask the Israelis how many tunnels have been dug under THEIR wall......lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can dig a tunnel under a drone even easier.  Or just walk past it.  Or shoot the drone down.  Have any idea what a good drone costs?  Who's going to fly it?  Refuel it?  Monitor its camera?  Or camouflage myself so the drone doesn't see me.  With a wall, people are stopped, The few that try to get over or under are picked up by cameras or drones, or vibration sensors or patrols, but someone still has to monitor all that.  And they still have to get to the action.  By the time your drone sees me and you get there, I'm LONG GONE buddy!  At least with the wall, I was greatly slowed down giving you time to respond.
> 
> Gee, you act like they will be putting the wall in your backyard!  Last I checked, most people along the border WANT the wall.  And it can be easily paid for by simply collecting the fines every illegal is due us.  According to my math, that comes to 53 billion dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poll: Majority opposes border wall with Mexico
> 
> So, is America a Republic or a Democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They voted for Trump, not a majority but enough.  The wall was only one of a dozen reasons for the Trump victory.  This is why 51% to 69% of Americans say they either oppose building a wall or say it's not a priority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell the mayor of El Paso that the 3500 illegals being dumped in his lap a week because the courts say we can't hold them, that a wall isn't a priority. And that's just ONE city.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Why would you want to hold them?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can see me for what they like.  That won't make it true.  As I told you, there are two questions they've never asked me.  Their entire world is, much like yours, if you don't buy the build the wall solution as being the only solution, you're an open borders liberal.
> 
> If you can't understand, after I've defined what you told me, that YOU are a liberal Democrat, then you are less intelligent than I ever dreamed.  You should do some self introspection and then say, if I want to make a difference in the future of my nation and my culture, MAYBE I should STFU, do some studying, and figure out what this is all about.
> 
> You're so hung up on trying to peg me that you have no clue as to where I stand.  You even ignore the hints.  It's like someone is needed to bash you in the head with a rock before you understand:  There are many sides to this issue and most people have serious flaws with their proposed solutions.
> 
> Every person arguing for a wall could not convince a jury.  The recent turnover in the House of Representatives should tell you how ineffective your position is.  In order to win, you'd have to be able to make the other guy's argument for him and do a better job than he does.  You don't have a freaking clue as to where I stand and you end up making some of the most idiotic statements known to God or man.
> 
> That is why you're in the same boat the followers of Jim Jones were in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you gained seats in the House, but lost them in the Senate.  And if you bother to look at the results, you'd see that both parties had an outstanding and historical turnout.  It's just that the hatred of the Democrats won over.  But Trump supporters are still behind him as they were during the presidential election.
> 
> Nobody ever said the wall is the sole solution.  You are making up that BS in your head.  The wall (as border patrol stated) is a very helpful part of the solution.  The solution is multi-level.  The sole solution would be to get the Congress to pass a law making being here illegally a first degree felony with a minimum five year prison sentence.  Then there would be no need for a wall, no need for e-veryfiy, no need for additional border agents, no need to track down illegals here.  Most of them would pack up and leave the country.
> 
> I know quite well what this is all about--you don't.  You remain ignorant of the long term goals by the Democrat party yet support their initiatives and furthermore claim yourself as a conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have endured your dumbassery long enough.  I didn't win a damn thing Ray as I voted Republican.  I don't support Democracy - not in name, not by party, not by ideology.  YOU DO and I'm sick and tired of your dishonesty so I'll treat you like you treat me.
> 
> You have one standard.  If someone does not back the silly wall, they are a liberal, etc.  THAT is what separates you from others with an IQ higher than their shoe size.
> 
> If you had *ANY* IQ, you would know why Congress can pass no such law as you suggest.  My *only point* to you is that we are restricted by the parameters of the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings in what kind of legislation we an pass.
> 
> You have proven to be a fake, a phony, a fraud, and a poseur.  YOU adopted Bill Clinton's philosophy and have your head stuck so far up the liberals ass that if they fart, you will choke to death or get your first breath of air.
> 
> Now, you've called me a liberal for the last time.  Put up, shut up or get ready for a nasty back and forth.  Enough of this B.S.  You didn't know what an unalienable Right is so you don't have a clue when you advocate withholding one or denying one to someone.  You would have to kill me Ray in order to do some of the things you propose.  My Rights are unalienable.  You cannot take them; you cannot impose on them.  To even suggest it shows that YOU ARE NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN.
> 
> You should start at post #2806.  Read it and then cull through those 500 posts so you can see the number of times you LIED, called me names and tried to deflect when asked direct questions.  It's not my fault that the left misled you and made a socialist out of you.  Now, you want a discussion or a pissing match?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put up a wall and no rights of yours will be taken away.  If that happens, you let me know what right you lost, and I'll join your side.  This "losing rights' nonsense is some sort of black helicopter scare tactic that will never work.  You want to prove yourself as a conservative?  Then join the conservatives on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I promised you a response.  It takes two parts.  Here is the first part, the second one to follow:
> 
> Ray, challenging me on a subject you have shown an absolute ignorant and /or disdain of can be very costly.  To begin with, the build the wall guys say if you are not for a wall, you are a liberal, lefty, etc.  That is absolutely idiotic as we shall see.
> 
> The way I view the topic is best described in an analogy.  In this analogy a man is stuck in a burning apartment on the third floor of a building (this part of the analogy describes our situation in America.)  If this man stays in his current position, he dies.   If the man goes out the door, there is a 100 percent chance that he will be killed (that part of the analogy refers to the nutty wall idea.)  If he jumps out the window, the fall might kill him, but then again, he might live.  That part of the analogy refers to a solution *OTHER THAN* the nutty wall idea.
> 
> I am neither pro-open borders *NOR* am I anti – closed borders.  So, let’s get that understood and make an attempt to be honest.  It’s just that a militarized border with a wall around it will not work in the United States.
> 
> The REAL cost of the wall is Liberty.  So far, no build the wall guy has addressed the issue of Liberty.  In the Declaration of Independence, we find these words:
> 
> *“WE *hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”
> 
> Of this document, the Declaration of Independence, the SCOTUS ruled:
> 
> The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."   _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> The Bible is clear about this subject as well:
> 
> “Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land Unto *All the Inhabitants thereof*”  Leviticus 25: 10  and this Bible verse can be found on the Liberty Bell at Independence Hall.  This Old Testament verse refers to the "Jubilee", or the instructions to the Israelites to return property and free slaves.every 50 years.
> 
> In II Timothy 3: 16 we read that “*All* scripture _is_ given by inspiration of God, and _is_ profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
> 
> Finally, in II Corinthians 3 : 17 we read that:
> 
> “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord _is_, there _is_ Liberty.”
> 
> But what is Liberty?  Well in a *biblical *sense, liberty means freedom (see # 1865 in the Greek Dictionary of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.  In *law*, Liberty means Freedom; exemption *from* extraneous control.  …freedom regulated by law. (Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition)
> 
> My take on it is very simple:
> 
> In New Jersey, they passed a law requiring people to turn in high capacity magazines… this included even off duty police.  Nobody complied?  Why?  People think the law is unconstitutional.  The Right to Life and Liberty are unalienable Rights.  The Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right.  It is an extension of both a Right to Life AND a Right to Liberty.  So, no matter how many laws are passed, the majority of gun owners will not forfeit that Right.  On that issue, they understand the concept.
> 
> Those same people would, however, deny to *me* my Rights and punish me for hiring undocumented foreigners.  The sad truth is, just as the feds are usurping the Second Amendment, they are waging a war against your Liberty.  Those wanting a wall cannot find *any* biblical precedent for *CONTROLLING* people (which was one the first reasons cited to me in favor of a wall) and that was followed up by Ray – falsely believing we can keep people out.  What a crock!   (Continued in part II)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're forcing me to repeat myself.
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be the damned funniest thing I've read on this board. Everyone in our country has rights, but they are also subject to our laws if they abuse those rights. The same damned thing applies to illegal aliens, that's how our LAW refers to them. So take your semantics game and shove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution doesn't apply to the whole freaking world, the entry of aliens (meaning not of this country) are regulated by our laws. Not by your fantasies.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I've repeated myself EIGHT times to Ray.  You bitch because you cannot understand one simple thing:

While the Constitution governs us, there are laws above the Constitution


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> My goodness you are off the charts tonight.  Every one of my concerns and points are the exact opposite of the Democrat party.  Yours are much more inline with them than mine.  Nobody is "ruling" you, just pointing out that I'm not the only one who sees you as an open borders person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can see me for what they like.  That won't make it true.  As I told you, there are two questions they've never asked me.  Their entire world is, much like yours, if you don't buy the build the wall solution as being the only solution, you're an open borders liberal.
> 
> If you can't understand, after I've defined what you told me, that YOU are a liberal Democrat, then you are less intelligent than I ever dreamed.  You should do some self introspection and then say, if I want to make a difference in the future of my nation and my culture, MAYBE I should STFU, do some studying, and figure out what this is all about.
> 
> You're so hung up on trying to peg me that you have no clue as to where I stand.  You even ignore the hints.  It's like someone is needed to bash you in the head with a rock before you understand:  There are many sides to this issue and most people have serious flaws with their proposed solutions.
> 
> Every person arguing for a wall could not convince a jury.  The recent turnover in the House of Representatives should tell you how ineffective your position is.  In order to win, you'd have to be able to make the other guy's argument for him and do a better job than he does.  You don't have a freaking clue as to where I stand and you end up making some of the most idiotic statements known to God or man.
> 
> That is why you're in the same boat the followers of Jim Jones were in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you gained seats in the House, but lost them in the Senate.  And if you bother to look at the results, you'd see that both parties had an outstanding and historical turnout.  It's just that the hatred of the Democrats won over.  But Trump supporters are still behind him as they were during the presidential election.
> 
> Nobody ever said the wall is the sole solution.  You are making up that BS in your head.  The wall (as border patrol stated) is a very helpful part of the solution.  The solution is multi-level.  The sole solution would be to get the Congress to pass a law making being here illegally a first degree felony with a minimum five year prison sentence.  Then there would be no need for a wall, no need for e-veryfiy, no need for additional border agents, no need to track down illegals here.  Most of them would pack up and leave the country.
> 
> I know quite well what this is all about--you don't.  You remain ignorant of the long term goals by the Democrat party yet support their initiatives and furthermore claim yourself as a conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have endured your dumbassery long enough.  I didn't win a damn thing Ray as I voted Republican.  I don't support Democracy - not in name, not by party, not by ideology.  YOU DO and I'm sick and tired of your dishonesty so I'll treat you like you treat me.
> 
> You have one standard.  If someone does not back the silly wall, they are a liberal, etc.  THAT is what separates you from others with an IQ higher than their shoe size.
> 
> If you had *ANY* IQ, you would know why Congress can pass no such law as you suggest.  My *only point* to you is that we are restricted by the parameters of the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings in what kind of legislation we an pass.
> 
> You have proven to be a fake, a phony, a fraud, and a poseur.  YOU adopted Bill Clinton's philosophy and have your head stuck so far up the liberals ass that if they fart, you will choke to death or get your first breath of air.
> 
> Now, you've called me a liberal for the last time.  Put up, shut up or get ready for a nasty back and forth.  Enough of this B.S.  You didn't know what an unalienable Right is so you don't have a clue when you advocate withholding one or denying one to someone.  You would have to kill me Ray in order to do some of the things you propose.  My Rights are unalienable.  You cannot take them; you cannot impose on them.  To even suggest it shows that YOU ARE NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN.
> 
> You should start at post #2806.  Read it and then cull through those 500 posts so you can see the number of times you LIED, called me names and tried to deflect when asked direct questions.  It's not my fault that the left misled you and made a socialist out of you.  Now, you want a discussion or a pissing match?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put up a wall and no rights of yours will be taken away.  If that happens, you let me know what right you lost, and I'll join your side.  This "losing rights' nonsense is some sort of black helicopter scare tactic that will never work.  You want to prove yourself as a conservative?  Then join the conservatives on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Part II of my response to you:
> 
> In Jesus Time, there were *THREE* walls that surrounded Jerusalem, 90 towers stood in the first wall, 14 in the second, and 60 in the third. The third wall was built by Herod Agrippa I.  These walls dated back to the time the first one was built in 130 B.C.   Yet, very clearly these walls did not work.  They did not keep the moneychangers out of the Temple (It didn’t even keep them outside the outer walls)   Furthermore, the walls *did not *keep out the poseurs who claimed to be Israelites, but were in fact,  half breed Canaanites that Jesus referred to as the Children of Hell.
> 
> America, being a cut above the third world is not Mexico, Canada, etc. *NOR *are we at war (which is the primary purpose of a wall …* OTHER THAN* preserving a culture.)
> 
> Those who want a wall cite they mythical stories that these foreigners steal jobs – impossible unless you live in a socialist country… and Ray wants to debate the meaning of socialism.  Since he previously rejected the dictionary definition*, I went directly to the socialists themselves*. These are THEIR words, not mine:
> 
> “we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.
> 
> Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. *We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them*”
> 
> What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)
> 
> These are Ray’s EXACT sentiments.  Ray advocates for that very kind of control as do those who have bothered to answer my questions.
> 
> I think it’s time for the build the wall guys, the right, the left, etc. to cut the crap and get real.  From where do your Rights come from?  If the government give you your rights via your citizenship, then government is your Creator and your God.  It’s time to read the Declaration of Independence and the Court cases related thereto.
> 
> Under that scenario, you have NO Right to keep and bear Arms, NO Right to Freedom of the Press or Freedom of Speech, No Right to Freedom of Religion, etc.  This is NOT multiple choice; it’s either / or.
> 
> IF you believe in the foundational principles upon which America was founded, then you accept the fact that unalienable Rights pre-existed before the Constitution was written.  Man cannot take them from you.  And so, rather than spew this idiotic charge that I’m “pro-open borders,” you have to ask yourself the REAL question:
> 
> Is your Liberty a gift from your Creator OR is it bestowed upon you by government?  IF you believe in God, you have to find the biblical justification for denying to people their Liberty.  Securing the border, protecting America from an invasion, regulating the flow of people are all legal, moral and constitutional.  Using the laws to control or keep people out is a violation of their unalienable Rights – unless you think that only Americans have a Right to be in the United States.  We don’t have to hire those people; nobody has to do business with them; we don’t have to interact with them and it is OUR politicians that allow them to partake of the privileges of citizenship without becoming citizens.  Your real beef is with the politicians.
> 
> 
> Either you believe in Liberty or you do not.  The build the wall guys understand this so they’ve created this talking point: you’re either for the wall or you are whatever insult they can conjure up.  I’m not going to bother calling them names.  I pointed out what socialists say and what the word of God says.  IF Liberty only applies to Americans, somebody refer me to that section of the Constitution, the Bible, the Declaration of Independence or  something (other that post 14th Amendment swill) that will give credence to the talking point.
Click to expand...


I'm running in and out of the house so I'll respond as I (if I have time) to read it since brevity  is not your skill set.

First of all our country does not belong to the world, it belongs to Americans as founded.  Our founding documents were written for this country, not the world.  Secondly, our country is not operated by any religion.  In fact it's one of the big no-no's in our Constitution.  Our founders expected us to believe in various religions, but not have our government run by them.

Biblical teachings were fine in the day.  But this is a new day and some are just no longer valid.  Be fruitful and multiply is a great theory when you have a thousand people on the planet, not such a great idea when you have 7.5 billion. 

Inalienable rights are those you are born with whether you believe in God or not.  They come as part of occupying this planet.  NOBODY as the inalienable right to enter this country without our permission.  Freedom comes after you get here, but you have no freedom until we allow you to enter.  Afterwards certain rights apply, and if finally granted citizenship, all rights apply.  But nobody from Guatemala has United States rights.


----------



## Flopper

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Si if these assholes have all the answers why isn’t the bordersecure? Do ya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our border is MORE secure than almost all other countries on the planet....except for Israel that is forced to employ fascist tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?
> 
> Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
Click to expand...

Border patrol agents owe there jobs to illegal immigrants.  Over the years we have doubled and tripled the number of agents.  Without migrants climbing those walls and fences, they would have no job.  If they thought a wall would seriously reduce or eliminate illegal crossing they would not be supporting it.  It's just like crime reduction programs and the city police.  They know it's not going to make a huge difference.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After reading your first sentence I realize that you are a mindless fool. You don’t respect those who risk their lives on the frontlines. You can go and jump in a frozen lake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bu...bu...but he’s a pastor.
> I’m shocked his congregation hasn’t already committed mass suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I *thought* that was your modus operendi!
Click to expand...


I could *never* take your title from you.  You really are stupid or just a troll.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading your first sentence I realize that you are a mindless fool. You don’t respect those who risk their lives on the frontlines. You can go and jump in a frozen lake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bu...bu...but he’s a pastor.
> I’m shocked his congregation hasn’t already committed mass suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I *thought* that was your modus operendi!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could *never* take your title from you.  You really are stupid or just a troll.
Click to expand...


Nope Independent is destroying you in this debate


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poll: Majority opposes border wall with Mexico
> 
> So, is America a Republic or a Democracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was three years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was TWO years ago, and about two months,.  Just a little off in your math.  Now Trump votes of just TWO years ago no longer matter, but don't EVER expect the Left to stop trying to shove a video of Trump bragging and trying to impress some guy about what a babe magnet he was from FOURTEEN years ago!  At least we KNOW the votes REALLY HAPPENED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Public opinion went against the wall after Trump was elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You, of course, mean the media that was against Trump breathing from the moment he tossed his hat in the ring.
Click to expand...


Relevancy?


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After reading your first sentence I realize that you are a mindless fool. You don’t respect those who risk their lives on the frontlines. You can go and jump in a frozen lake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't lecture me, poseur.  I've spent more time on the front lines than you've spent fretting over this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "front lines" of what, destroying our country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saving it from people like you
Click to expand...

How are you saving it, by flooding it with ignorant peasants from Mexico?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can see me for what they like.  That won't make it true.  As I told you, there are two questions they've never asked me.  Their entire world is, much like yours, if you don't buy the build the wall solution as being the only solution, you're an open borders liberal.
> 
> If you can't understand, after I've defined what you told me, that YOU are a liberal Democrat, then you are less intelligent than I ever dreamed.  You should do some self introspection and then say, if I want to make a difference in the future of my nation and my culture, MAYBE I should STFU, do some studying, and figure out what this is all about.
> 
> You're so hung up on trying to peg me that you have no clue as to where I stand.  You even ignore the hints.  It's like someone is needed to bash you in the head with a rock before you understand:  There are many sides to this issue and most people have serious flaws with their proposed solutions.
> 
> Every person arguing for a wall could not convince a jury.  The recent turnover in the House of Representatives should tell you how ineffective your position is.  In order to win, you'd have to be able to make the other guy's argument for him and do a better job than he does.  You don't have a freaking clue as to where I stand and you end up making some of the most idiotic statements known to God or man.
> 
> That is why you're in the same boat the followers of Jim Jones were in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you gained seats in the House, but lost them in the Senate.  And if you bother to look at the results, you'd see that both parties had an outstanding and historical turnout.  It's just that the hatred of the Democrats won over.  But Trump supporters are still behind him as they were during the presidential election.
> 
> Nobody ever said the wall is the sole solution.  You are making up that BS in your head.  The wall (as border patrol stated) is a very helpful part of the solution.  The solution is multi-level.  The sole solution would be to get the Congress to pass a law making being here illegally a first degree felony with a minimum five year prison sentence.  Then there would be no need for a wall, no need for e-veryfiy, no need for additional border agents, no need to track down illegals here.  Most of them would pack up and leave the country.
> 
> I know quite well what this is all about--you don't.  You remain ignorant of the long term goals by the Democrat party yet support their initiatives and furthermore claim yourself as a conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have endured your dumbassery long enough.  I didn't win a damn thing Ray as I voted Republican.  I don't support Democracy - not in name, not by party, not by ideology.  YOU DO and I'm sick and tired of your dishonesty so I'll treat you like you treat me.
> 
> You have one standard.  If someone does not back the silly wall, they are a liberal, etc.  THAT is what separates you from others with an IQ higher than their shoe size.
> 
> If you had *ANY* IQ, you would know why Congress can pass no such law as you suggest.  My *only point* to you is that we are restricted by the parameters of the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings in what kind of legislation we an pass.
> 
> You have proven to be a fake, a phony, a fraud, and a poseur.  YOU adopted Bill Clinton's philosophy and have your head stuck so far up the liberals ass that if they fart, you will choke to death or get your first breath of air.
> 
> Now, you've called me a liberal for the last time.  Put up, shut up or get ready for a nasty back and forth.  Enough of this B.S.  You didn't know what an unalienable Right is so you don't have a clue when you advocate withholding one or denying one to someone.  You would have to kill me Ray in order to do some of the things you propose.  My Rights are unalienable.  You cannot take them; you cannot impose on them.  To even suggest it shows that YOU ARE NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN.
> 
> You should start at post #2806.  Read it and then cull through those 500 posts so you can see the number of times you LIED, called me names and tried to deflect when asked direct questions.  It's not my fault that the left misled you and made a socialist out of you.  Now, you want a discussion or a pissing match?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put up a wall and no rights of yours will be taken away.  If that happens, you let me know what right you lost, and I'll join your side.  This "losing rights' nonsense is some sort of black helicopter scare tactic that will never work.  You want to prove yourself as a conservative?  Then join the conservatives on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Part II of my response to you:
> 
> In Jesus Time, there were *THREE* walls that surrounded Jerusalem, 90 towers stood in the first wall, 14 in the second, and 60 in the third. The third wall was built by Herod Agrippa I.  These walls dated back to the time the first one was built in 130 B.C.   Yet, very clearly these walls did not work.  They did not keep the moneychangers out of the Temple (It didn’t even keep them outside the outer walls)   Furthermore, the walls *did not *keep out the poseurs who claimed to be Israelites, but were in fact,  half breed Canaanites that Jesus referred to as the Children of Hell.
> 
> America, being a cut above the third world is not Mexico, Canada, etc. *NOR *are we at war (which is the primary purpose of a wall …* OTHER THAN* preserving a culture.)
> 
> Those who want a wall cite they mythical stories that these foreigners steal jobs – impossible unless you live in a socialist country… and Ray wants to debate the meaning of socialism.  Since he previously rejected the dictionary definition*, I went directly to the socialists themselves*. These are THEIR words, not mine:
> 
> “we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.
> 
> Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. *We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them*”
> 
> What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)
> 
> These are Ray’s EXACT sentiments.  Ray advocates for that very kind of control as do those who have bothered to answer my questions.
> 
> I think it’s time for the build the wall guys, the right, the left, etc. to cut the crap and get real.  From where do your Rights come from?  If the government give you your rights via your citizenship, then government is your Creator and your God.  It’s time to read the Declaration of Independence and the Court cases related thereto.
> 
> Under that scenario, you have NO Right to keep and bear Arms, NO Right to Freedom of the Press or Freedom of Speech, No Right to Freedom of Religion, etc.  This is NOT multiple choice; it’s either / or.
> 
> IF you believe in the foundational principles upon which America was founded, then you accept the fact that unalienable Rights pre-existed before the Constitution was written.  Man cannot take them from you.  And so, rather than spew this idiotic charge that I’m “pro-open borders,” you have to ask yourself the REAL question:
> 
> Is your Liberty a gift from your Creator OR is it bestowed upon you by government?  IF you believe in God, you have to find the biblical justification for denying to people their Liberty.  Securing the border, protecting America from an invasion, regulating the flow of people are all legal, moral and constitutional.  Using the laws to control or keep people out is a violation of their unalienable Rights – unless you think that only Americans have a Right to be in the United States.  We don’t have to hire those people; nobody has to do business with them; we don’t have to interact with them and it is OUR politicians that allow them to partake of the privileges of citizenship without becoming citizens.  Your real beef is with the politicians.
> 
> 
> Either you believe in Liberty or you do not.  The build the wall guys understand this so they’ve created this talking point: you’re either for the wall or you are whatever insult they can conjure up.  I’m not going to bother calling them names.  I pointed out what socialists say and what the word of God says.  IF Liberty only applies to Americans, somebody refer me to that section of the Constitution, the Bible, the Declaration of Independence or  something (other that post 14th Amendment swill) that will give credence to the talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm running in and out of the house so I'll respond as I (if I have time) to read it since brevity  is not your skill set.
> 
> First of all our country does not belong to the world, it belongs to Americans as founded.  Our founding documents were written for this country, not the world.  Secondly, our country is not operated by any religion.  In fact it's one of the big no-no's in our Constitution.  Our founders expected us to believe in various religions, but not have our government run by them.
> 
> Biblical teachings were fine in the day.  But this is a new day and some are just no longer valid.  Be fruitful and multiply is a great theory when you have a thousand people on the planet, not such a great idea when you have 7.5 billion.
> 
> Inalienable rights are those you are born with whether you believe in God or not.  They come as part of occupying this planet.  NOBODY as the inalienable right to enter this country without our permission.  Freedom comes after you get here, but you have no freedom until we allow you to enter.  Afterwards certain rights apply, and if finally granted citizenship, all rights apply.  But nobody from Guatemala has United States rights.
Click to expand...


There you are with that dumbassery again - and dishonesty.  I have *not one time* argued inalienable rights.  Stick your inalienable rights where the sun don't shine.  I'm only concerned with unalienable Rights.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> After reading your first sentence I realize that you are a mindless fool. You don’t respect those who risk their lives on the frontlines. You can go and jump in a frozen lake.
> 
> 
> 
> Bu...bu...but he’s a pastor.
> I’m shocked his congregation hasn’t already committed mass suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I *thought* that was your modus operendi!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could *never* take your title from you.  You really are stupid or just a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope Independent is destroying you in this debate
Click to expand...


That shows how little you know.  There is NO debate going on.  This is a discussion forum.  Pit me against a dozen people so I cannot "debate" someone and then claim a win???  You now know why you are destined to lose.


----------



## depotoo

It isn’t just Republicans employing in them.  There are probably more households that employ them as housekeepers, lawn service, nannies, etc., than companies.





Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading your first sentence I realize that you are a mindless fool. You don’t respect those who risk their lives on the frontlines. You can go and jump in a frozen lake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't lecture me, poseur.  I've spent more time on the front lines than you've spent fretting over this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "front lines" of what, destroying our country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saving it from people like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are you saving it, by flooding it with ignorant peasants from Mexico?
Click to expand...


I've answered this for you three times:

1)  I'm working to stop the drug addicts created by parents, government, doctors / mental health officials and Big Pharma

2) We're taking people off the street, helping them get a GED, clean up their record if possible and get them back into the work-force

3)  I am constantly lobbying legislators to pass legislation to get them to rehabilitate those in prison by giving prisoners an opportunity to earn shorter sentences via accomplishments while incarcerated:  Get their GED, learn a job skill, etc.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bu...bu...but he’s a pastor.
> I’m shocked his congregation hasn’t already committed mass suicide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I *thought* that was your modus operendi!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could *never* take your title from you.  You really are stupid or just a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope Independent is destroying you in this debate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That shows how little you know.  There is NO debate going on.  This is a discussion forum.  Pit me against a dozen people so I cannot "debate" someone and then claim a win???  You now know why you are destined to lose.
Click to expand...


In my opinion you were debating and you lost badly.


----------



## WillowTree

Flopper said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our border is MORE secure than almost all other countries on the planet....except for Israel that is forced to employ fascist tactics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?
> 
> Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Border patrol agents owe there jobs to illegal immigrants.  Over the years we have doubled and tripled the number of agents.  Without migrants climbing those walls and fences, they would have no job.  If they thought a wall would seriously reduce or eliminate illegal crossing they would not be supporting it.  It's just like crime reduction programs and the city police.  They know it's not going to make a huge difference.
Click to expand...

Their, not there. That’s exactly what the border patrol says. They say they need that wall. Stop lying!


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> After reading your first sentence I realize that you are a mindless fool. You don’t respect those who risk their lives on the frontlines. You can go and jump in a frozen lake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't lecture me, poseur.  I've spent more time on the front lines than you've spent fretting over this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "front lines" of what, destroying our country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saving it from people like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are you saving it, by flooding it with ignorant peasants from Mexico?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered this for you three times:
> 
> 1)  I'm working to stop the drug addicts created by parents, government, doctors / mental health officials and Big Pharma
> 
> 2) We're taking people off the street, helping them get a GED, clean up their record if possible and get them back into the work-force
> 
> 3)  I am constantly lobbying legislators to pass legislation to get them to rehabilitate those in prison by giving prisoners an opportunity to earn shorter sentences via accomplishments while incarcerated:  Get their GED, learn a job skill, etc.
Click to expand...


Why can you not do this and support more border security?


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9*
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.  Are you kidding?  That was tried once today.  The rest of the article deals with a ten dollar tax per person after 1808.  One only need to look at the year in which they Chy Lung decision was laid down to see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Constitution gives a general “OUTLINE” .. if you prefer “ bullet statements” ... regarding each branch of government.  In this case, it surrounds the role of the legislative branch, and the authority of Congress.  If you NOW want to change the subject to interpretation and original intent, we can talk about the 14th Amendment.
> 
> I’m willing to bet you wont be able to establish much surrounding your point of view, without actually taking the time to do the actual research on this subject, as I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right.  I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic.  I'm sure you have much more extensive experience.  Virtually all you build the wall guys do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you still haven't gotten the supremes to strike it down, they must not have been very effective briefs.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have almost gotten me to stoop to your level.
> 
> As a matter of *FACT*, our side was winning the war until half wits (and that's being liberal in presuming you're even a half wit) screwed the pooch with this big government or no government cow dung.
Click to expand...



Maybe you should post documentation of the "wins". So far you're like a guy sitting in a bar watching other people play pool and trying to tell them how it's done, but can never put his words into action on the table.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> I *thought* that was your modus operendi!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could *never* take your title from you.  You really are stupid or just a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope Independent is destroying you in this debate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That shows how little you know.  There is NO debate going on.  This is a discussion forum.  Pit me against a dozen people so I cannot "debate" someone and then claim a win???  You now know why you are destined to lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my opinion you were debating and you lost badly.
Click to expand...



Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one.  But if you throw a competitor into a ring and then put him against a dozen other guys, it's pretty damn desperate to claim he lost to any particular one of them.

That is why you guys are so dishonest.  I've spent over a thousand posts here, only to watch people like you and Independent change the goal posts, gang up on me and lie to the other posters while deflecting.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't lecture me, poseur.  I've spent more time on the front lines than you've spent fretting over this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "front lines" of what, destroying our country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saving it from people like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are you saving it, by flooding it with ignorant peasants from Mexico?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered this for you three times:
> 
> 1)  I'm working to stop the drug addicts created by parents, government, doctors / mental health officials and Big Pharma
> 
> 2) We're taking people off the street, helping them get a GED, clean up their record if possible and get them back into the work-force
> 
> 3)  I am constantly lobbying legislators to pass legislation to get them to rehabilitate those in prison by giving prisoners an opportunity to earn shorter sentences via accomplishments while incarcerated:  Get their GED, learn a job skill, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can you not do this and support more border security?
Click to expand...


I do support border security.  I simply do not support the wall.  It jeopardizes our Liberty.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.  Are you kidding?  That was tried once today.  The rest of the article deals with a ten dollar tax per person after 1808.  One only need to look at the year in which they Chy Lung decision was laid down to see that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution gives a general “OUTLINE” .. if you prefer “ bullet statements” ... regarding each branch of government.  In this case, it surrounds the role of the legislative branch, and the authority of Congress.  If you NOW want to change the subject to interpretation and original intent, we can talk about the 14th Amendment.
> 
> I’m willing to bet you wont be able to establish much surrounding your point of view, without actually taking the time to do the actual research on this subject, as I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right.  I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic.  I'm sure you have much more extensive experience.  Virtually all you build the wall guys do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you still haven't gotten the supremes to strike it down, they must not have been very effective briefs.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have almost gotten me to stoop to your level.
> 
> As a matter of *FACT*, our side was winning the war until half wits (and that's being liberal in presuming you're even a half wit) screwed the pooch with this big government or no government cow dung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should post documentation of the "wins". So far you're like a guy sitting in a bar watching other people play pool and trying to tell them how it's done, but can never put his words into action on the table.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You live in a fantasy world, but we are recruiting here every day.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was three years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was TWO years ago, and about two months,.  Just a little off in your math.  Now Trump votes of just TWO years ago no longer matter, but don't EVER expect the Left to stop trying to shove a video of Trump bragging and trying to impress some guy about what a babe magnet he was from FOURTEEN years ago!  At least we KNOW the votes REALLY HAPPENED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Public opinion went against the wall after Trump was elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You, of course, mean the media that was against Trump breathing from the moment he tossed his hat in the ring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Relevancy?
Click to expand...

You know dip shit about what happens to whatever you submit to become law.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I *thought* that was your modus operendi!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could *never* take your title from you.  You really are stupid or just a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope Independent is destroying you in this debate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That shows how little you know.  There is NO debate going on.  This is a discussion forum.  Pit me against a dozen people so I cannot "debate" someone and then claim a win???  You now know why you are destined to lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my opinion you were debating and you lost badly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one.  But if you throw a competitor into a ring and then put him against a dozen other guys, it's pretty damn desperate to claim he lost to any particular one of them.
> 
> That is why you guys are so dishonest.  I've spent over a thousand posts here, only to watch people like you and Independent change the goal posts, gang up on me and lie to the other posters while deflecting.
Click to expand...


Well you did say you didn’t care what our border agents wanted. Pretty heartless imo.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "front lines" of what, destroying our country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saving it from people like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are you saving it, by flooding it with ignorant peasants from Mexico?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered this for you three times:
> 
> 1)  I'm working to stop the drug addicts created by parents, government, doctors / mental health officials and Big Pharma
> 
> 2) We're taking people off the street, helping them get a GED, clean up their record if possible and get them back into the work-force
> 
> 3)  I am constantly lobbying legislators to pass legislation to get them to rehabilitate those in prison by giving prisoners an opportunity to earn shorter sentences via accomplishments while incarcerated:  Get their GED, learn a job skill, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can you not do this and support more border security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do support border security.  I simply do not support the wall.  It jeopardizes our Liberty.
Click to expand...


But the border agents do. Why does their opinion not count for more than most?


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> After reading your first sentence I realize that you are a mindless fool. You don’t respect those who risk their lives on the frontlines. You can go and jump in a frozen lake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't lecture me, poseur.  I've spent more time on the front lines than you've spent fretting over this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "front lines" of what, destroying our country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saving it from people like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are you saving it, by flooding it with ignorant peasants from Mexico?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered this for you three times:
> 
> 1)  I'm working to stop the drug addicts created by parents, government, doctors / mental health officials and Big Pharma
> 
> 2) We're taking people off the street, helping them get a GED, clean up their record if possible and get them back into the work-force
> 
> 3)  I am constantly lobbying legislators to pass legislation to get them to rehabilitate those in prison by giving prisoners an opportunity to earn shorter sentences via accomplishments while incarcerated:  Get their GED, learn a job skill, etc.
Click to expand...

You sound like about 50,000 other people living in Nassau County...and that’s a good thing.
Being obnoxious is not a good thing.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was three years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was TWO years ago, and about two months,.  Just a little off in your math.  Now Trump votes of just TWO years ago no longer matter, but don't EVER expect the Left to stop trying to shove a video of Trump bragging and trying to impress some guy about what a babe magnet he was from FOURTEEN years ago!  At least we KNOW the votes REALLY HAPPENED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Public opinion went against the wall after Trump was elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You, of course, mean the media that was against Trump breathing from the moment he tossed his hat in the ring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Relevancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know dip shit about what happens to whatever you submit to become law.
Click to expand...


Well, I did got out and get a co-sponsor for HB 2 in the Georgia legislature on Friday.  His name is Chuck Efstration.  Why not call his secretary, ask if someone came by on Friday and how it ended?


----------



## Flopper

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our border is MORE secure than almost all other countries on the planet....except for Israel that is forced to employ fascist tactics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?
> 
> Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they work for us, and we're obligated to give them the tools required to do the job we ask them to do in an effective and safe manner. We already have walls and barriers on roughly 1/3rd of the border. Now you cry babies claim adding an additional 10% will somehow restrict our liberties and would be IMMORAL. REALLY?? That seems to fly in the face of logic.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know if adding a couple hundred miles of wall will seriously limit anyone's liberties but it's highly unlike to seriously reduce the number of illegal immigrants.  Most of the border will still be unfenced and we are doing nothing to stop the flow coming through ports of entry nor dealing with the fact that most illegal immigrants enter legally.  The wall is basically a waste of money and worse yet it deflects the nation's attention away other major problems.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't lecture me, poseur.  I've spent more time on the front lines than you've spent fretting over this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "front lines" of what, destroying our country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saving it from people like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are you saving it, by flooding it with ignorant peasants from Mexico?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered this for you three times:
> 
> 1)  I'm working to stop the drug addicts created by parents, government, doctors / mental health officials and Big Pharma
> 
> 2) We're taking people off the street, helping them get a GED, clean up their record if possible and get them back into the work-force
> 
> 3)  I am constantly lobbying legislators to pass legislation to get them to rehabilitate those in prison by giving prisoners an opportunity to earn shorter sentences via accomplishments while incarcerated:  Get their GED, learn a job skill, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like about 50,000 other people living in Nassau County...and that’s a good thing.
> Being obnoxious is not a good thing.
Click to expand...


If you weren't being obnoxious and we had a real debate, you'd get your ass beat.  That means one on one.  You don't pack the gear nor have the brains.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was TWO years ago, and about two months,.  Just a little off in your math.  Now Trump votes of just TWO years ago no longer matter, but don't EVER expect the Left to stop trying to shove a video of Trump bragging and trying to impress some guy about what a babe magnet he was from FOURTEEN years ago!  At least we KNOW the votes REALLY HAPPENED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Public opinion went against the wall after Trump was elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You, of course, mean the media that was against Trump breathing from the moment he tossed his hat in the ring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Relevancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know dip shit about what happens to whatever you submit to become law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I did got out and get a co-sponsor for HB 2 in the Georgia legislature on Friday.  His name is Chuck Efstration.  Why not call his secretary, ask if someone came by on Friday and how it ended?
Click to expand...

I believe in human rights, not gay rights.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could *never* take your title from you.  You really are stupid or just a troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope Independent is destroying you in this debate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That shows how little you know.  There is NO debate going on.  This is a discussion forum.  Pit me against a dozen people so I cannot "debate" someone and then claim a win???  You now know why you are destined to lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my opinion you were debating and you lost badly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one.  But if you throw a competitor into a ring and then put him against a dozen other guys, it's pretty damn desperate to claim he lost to any particular one of them.
> 
> That is why you guys are so dishonest.  I've spent over a thousand posts here, only to watch people like you and Independent change the goal posts, gang up on me and lie to the other posters while deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you did say you didn’t care what our border agents wanted. Pretty heartless imo.
Click to expand...


They get paid to do a job and if I have to give up my Liberties for what they want, they can pound sand.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?
> 
> Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they work for us, and we're obligated to give them the tools required to do the job we ask them to do in an effective and safe manner. We already have walls and barriers on roughly 1/3rd of the border. Now you cry babies claim adding an additional 10% will somehow restrict our liberties and would be IMMORAL. REALLY?? That seems to fly in the face of logic.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I don't know if adding a couple hundred miles of wall will seriously limit anyone's liberties but it's highly unlike to seriously reduce the number of illegal immigrants.  Most of the border will still be unfenced and we are doing nothing to stop the flow coming through ports of entry nor dealing with the fact that most illegal immigrants enter legally.  The wall is basically a waste of money and worse yet it deflects the nation attentions away other major problems.
Click to expand...


 But the border agents who do this daily feel differently. Why ignore their pleas?


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "front lines" of what, destroying our country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saving it from people like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are you saving it, by flooding it with ignorant peasants from Mexico?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered this for you three times:
> 
> 1)  I'm working to stop the drug addicts created by parents, government, doctors / mental health officials and Big Pharma
> 
> 2) We're taking people off the street, helping them get a GED, clean up their record if possible and get them back into the work-force
> 
> 3)  I am constantly lobbying legislators to pass legislation to get them to rehabilitate those in prison by giving prisoners an opportunity to earn shorter sentences via accomplishments while incarcerated:  Get their GED, learn a job skill, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like about 50,000 other people living in Nassau County...and that’s a good thing.
> Being obnoxious is not a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you weren't being obnoxious and we had a real debate, you'd get your ass beat.  That means one on one.  You don't pack the gear nor have the brains.
Click to expand...

I’m afraid you are delusional.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope Independent is destroying you in this debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That shows how little you know.  There is NO debate going on.  This is a discussion forum.  Pit me against a dozen people so I cannot "debate" someone and then claim a win???  You now know why you are destined to lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my opinion you were debating and you lost badly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one.  But if you throw a competitor into a ring and then put him against a dozen other guys, it's pretty damn desperate to claim he lost to any particular one of them.
> 
> That is why you guys are so dishonest.  I've spent over a thousand posts here, only to watch people like you and Independent change the goal posts, gang up on me and lie to the other posters while deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you did say you didn’t care what our border agents wanted. Pretty heartless imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They get paid to do a job and if I have to give up my Liberties for what they want, they can pound sand.
Click to expand...


How does their ask for a wall infringe on your liberties?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Public opinion went against the wall after Trump was elected.
> 
> 
> 
> You, of course, mean the media that was against Trump breathing from the moment he tossed his hat in the ring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Relevancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know dip shit about what happens to whatever you submit to become law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I did got out and get a co-sponsor for HB 2 in the Georgia legislature on Friday.  His name is Chuck Efstration.  Why not call his secretary, ask if someone came by on Friday and how it ended?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in human rights, not gay rights.
Click to expand...


If you're insinuating I am a faggot, it's proof that you are a troll.  I have a PM here if you want to get personal.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you say walls don't work????? LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it would work.  I only said it would make YOU happy.  In reality one only need to look at how many people were hoodwinked by ... well I won't name them, but we can't build enough walls to contain the idiots who find you amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you said walls don't work, yet you want to put the other poster behind 4 of them, a bit hypocritical ain't it and very inconsistent?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not hypocritical at all.  I said it would be for HIS enjoyment.  It won't impact me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Neither will walls in certain areas on the southern border.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talking out your ass doesn't give any credibility to your swill.
Click to expand...



Are you talking to yourself in the mirror?

.


----------



## Indeependent

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That shows how little you know.  There is NO debate going on.  This is a discussion forum.  Pit me against a dozen people so I cannot "debate" someone and then claim a win???  You now know why you are destined to lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion you were debating and you lost badly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one.  But if you throw a competitor into a ring and then put him against a dozen other guys, it's pretty damn desperate to claim he lost to any particular one of them.
> 
> That is why you guys are so dishonest.  I've spent over a thousand posts here, only to watch people like you and Independent change the goal posts, gang up on me and lie to the other posters while deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you did say you didn’t care what our border agents wanted. Pretty heartless imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They get paid to do a job and if I have to give up my Liberties for what they want, they can pound sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does their ask for a wall infringe on your liberties?
Click to expand...

Because the pastor loves everyone, even if everyone winds up homeless.
At least they’re all homeless together.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That shows how little you know.  There is NO debate going on.  This is a discussion forum.  Pit me against a dozen people so I cannot "debate" someone and then claim a win???  You now know why you are destined to lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion you were debating and you lost badly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one.  But if you throw a competitor into a ring and then put him against a dozen other guys, it's pretty damn desperate to claim he lost to any particular one of them.
> 
> That is why you guys are so dishonest.  I've spent over a thousand posts here, only to watch people like you and Independent change the goal posts, gang up on me and lie to the other posters while deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you did say you didn’t care what our border agents wanted. Pretty heartless imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They get paid to do a job and if I have to give up my Liberties for what they want, they can pound sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does their ask for a wall infringe on your liberties?
Click to expand...


If people will give me a freaking break, I'll give you the post number, but it's been asked and answered in depth.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, of course, mean the media that was against Trump breathing from the moment he tossed his hat in the ring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Relevancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know dip shit about what happens to whatever you submit to become law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I did got out and get a co-sponsor for HB 2 in the Georgia legislature on Friday.  His name is Chuck Efstration.  Why not call his secretary, ask if someone came by on Friday and how it ended?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in human rights, not gay rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're insinuating I am a faggot, it's proof that you are a troll.  I have a PM here if you want to get personal.
Click to expand...

Not at all.
Non-Heterosexuals should not have one more drop of ink protecting them than heterosexuals.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion you were debating and you lost badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one.  But if you throw a competitor into a ring and then put him against a dozen other guys, it's pretty damn desperate to claim he lost to any particular one of them.
> 
> That is why you guys are so dishonest.  I've spent over a thousand posts here, only to watch people like you and Independent change the goal posts, gang up on me and lie to the other posters while deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you did say you didn’t care what our border agents wanted. Pretty heartless imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They get paid to do a job and if I have to give up my Liberties for what they want, they can pound sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does their ask for a wall infringe on your liberties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the pastor loves everyone, even if everyone winds up homeless.
> At least they’re all homeless together.
Click to expand...


How many people have YOU helped get a house or an apartment?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion you were debating and you lost badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one.  But if you throw a competitor into a ring and then put him against a dozen other guys, it's pretty damn desperate to claim he lost to any particular one of them.
> 
> That is why you guys are so dishonest.  I've spent over a thousand posts here, only to watch people like you and Independent change the goal posts, gang up on me and lie to the other posters while deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you did say you didn’t care what our border agents wanted. Pretty heartless imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They get paid to do a job and if I have to give up my Liberties for what they want, they can pound sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does their ask for a wall infringe on your liberties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If people will give me a freaking break, I'll give you the post number, but it's been asked and answered in depth.
Click to expand...


If police officers ask for guns should we not give them guns because in someone’s opinion it infringes on their liberties? I find that odd.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saving it from people like you
> 
> 
> 
> How are you saving it, by flooding it with ignorant peasants from Mexico?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered this for you three times:
> 
> 1)  I'm working to stop the drug addicts created by parents, government, doctors / mental health officials and Big Pharma
> 
> 2) We're taking people off the street, helping them get a GED, clean up their record if possible and get them back into the work-force
> 
> 3)  I am constantly lobbying legislators to pass legislation to get them to rehabilitate those in prison by giving prisoners an opportunity to earn shorter sentences via accomplishments while incarcerated:  Get their GED, learn a job skill, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like about 50,000 other people living in Nassau County...and that’s a good thing.
> Being obnoxious is not a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you weren't being obnoxious and we had a real debate, you'd get your ass beat.  That means one on one.  You don't pack the gear nor have the brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m afraid you are delusional.
Click to expand...


Stand away from the mirror.  You'll be okay.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution gives a general “OUTLINE” .. if you prefer “ bullet statements” ... regarding each branch of government.  In this case, it surrounds the role of the legislative branch, and the authority of Congress.  If you NOW want to change the subject to interpretation and original intent, we can talk about the 14th Amendment.
> 
> I’m willing to bet you wont be able to establish much surrounding your point of view, without actually taking the time to do the actual research on this subject, as I have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're probably right.  I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic.  I'm sure you have much more extensive experience.  Virtually all you build the wall guys do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you still haven't gotten the supremes to strike it down, they must not have been very effective briefs.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In trying to summarize my last post ..  It’s not what you HAVE, it’s what you can PROVE.  Resumes are only good hainging on someone’s wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, this dude has gone form some kind of social worker to now a constitutional lawyer. He hasn't even said why he thinks the 14th was implemented illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not relevant to the OP and I'd have to explain that while trying to reply to fifty four people attacking me on this thread.  If they would STFU and quit repeating the same points, I might be able to give you a hint as to why the 14th was illegally ratified... as if posters are too stupid to Google it.
Click to expand...



If it's irrelevant, stop spewing about it.

.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one.  But if you throw a competitor into a ring and then put him against a dozen other guys, it's pretty damn desperate to claim he lost to any particular one of them.
> 
> That is why you guys are so dishonest.  I've spent over a thousand posts here, only to watch people like you and Independent change the goal posts, gang up on me and lie to the other posters while deflecting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you did say you didn’t care what our border agents wanted. Pretty heartless imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They get paid to do a job and if I have to give up my Liberties for what they want, they can pound sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does their ask for a wall infringe on your liberties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the pastor loves everyone, even if everyone winds up homeless.
> At least they’re all homeless together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many people have YOU helped get a house or an apartment?
Click to expand...


My parents have sponsored 10+ families with money, their home and resources. I found that annoying while still living there but I understood why. They wanted to give back because they were helped too.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one.  But if you throw a competitor into a ring and then put him against a dozen other guys, it's pretty damn desperate to claim he lost to any particular one of them.
> 
> That is why you guys are so dishonest.  I've spent over a thousand posts here, only to watch people like you and Independent change the goal posts, gang up on me and lie to the other posters while deflecting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you did say you didn’t care what our border agents wanted. Pretty heartless imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They get paid to do a job and if I have to give up my Liberties for what they want, they can pound sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does their ask for a wall infringe on your liberties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If people will give me a freaking break, I'll give you the post number, but it's been asked and answered in depth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If police officers ask for guns should we not give them guns because in someone’s opinion it infringes on their liberties? I find that odd.
Click to expand...


Are you drunk?  What in the HELL did that mean?

I would never advocate giving up your gun.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you did say you didn’t care what our border agents wanted. Pretty heartless imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They get paid to do a job and if I have to give up my Liberties for what they want, they can pound sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does their ask for a wall infringe on your liberties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If people will give me a freaking break, I'll give you the post number, but it's been asked and answered in depth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If police officers ask for guns should we not give them guns because in someone’s opinion it infringes on their liberties? I find that odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you drunk?  What in the HELL did that mean?
> 
> I would never advocate giving up your gun.
Click to expand...


But you’re OK denying border agents another form of protection they feel they need?


----------



## boedicca

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are you saving it, by flooding it with ignorant peasants from Mexico?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered this for you three times:
> 
> 1)  I'm working to stop the drug addicts created by parents, government, doctors / mental health officials and Big Pharma
> 
> 2) We're taking people off the street, helping them get a GED, clean up their record if possible and get them back into the work-force
> 
> 3)  I am constantly lobbying legislators to pass legislation to get them to rehabilitate those in prison by giving prisoners an opportunity to earn shorter sentences via accomplishments while incarcerated:  Get their GED, learn a job skill, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like about 50,000 other people living in Nassau County...and that’s a good thing.
> Being obnoxious is not a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you weren't being obnoxious and we had a real debate, you'd get your ass beat.  That means one on one.  You don't pack the gear nor have the brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m afraid you are delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stand away from the mirror.  You'll be okay.
Click to expand...



^^^ Diagnosis:  Terminal Projection ^^^


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're probably right.  I've only been involved in court cases surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and have written maybe 250 court briefs on the topic.  I'm sure you have much more extensive experience.  Virtually all you build the wall guys do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you still haven't gotten the supremes to strike it down, they must not have been very effective briefs.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In trying to summarize my last post ..  It’s not what you HAVE, it’s what you can PROVE.  Resumes are only good hainging on someone’s wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, this dude has gone form some kind of social worker to now a constitutional lawyer. He hasn't even said why he thinks the 14th was implemented illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not relevant to the OP and I'd have to explain that while trying to reply to fifty four people attacking me on this thread.  If they would STFU and quit repeating the same points, I might be able to give you a hint as to why the 14th was illegally ratified... as if posters are too stupid to Google it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it's irrelevant, stop spewing about it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You keep bringing up irrelevant and off topic material.  What are you REALLY afraid of?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "front lines" of what, destroying our country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saving it from people like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are you saving it, by flooding it with ignorant peasants from Mexico?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered this for you three times:
> 
> 1)  I'm working to stop the drug addicts created by parents, government, doctors / mental health officials and Big Pharma
> 
> 2) We're taking people off the street, helping them get a GED, clean up their record if possible and get them back into the work-force
> 
> 3)  I am constantly lobbying legislators to pass legislation to get them to rehabilitate those in prison by giving prisoners an opportunity to earn shorter sentences via accomplishments while incarcerated:  Get their GED, learn a job skill, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like about 50,000 other people living in Nassau County...and that’s a good thing.
> Being obnoxious is not a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you weren't being obnoxious and we had a real debate, you'd get your ass beat.  That means one on one.  You don't pack the gear nor have the brains.
Click to expand...


You can’t even back up your posts with references. You are not fooling anybody. Anytime you THINK you have some actual facts to present, swing that proof my way, or keep pretending you are a Constitutional lawyer


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> They get paid to do a job and if I have to give up my Liberties for what they want, they can pound sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does their ask for a wall infringe on your liberties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If people will give me a freaking break, I'll give you the post number, but it's been asked and answered in depth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If police officers ask for guns should we not give them guns because in someone’s opinion it infringes on their liberties? I find that odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you drunk?  What in the HELL did that mean?
> 
> I would never advocate giving up your gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you’re OK denying border agents another form of protection they feel they need?
Click to expand...


The public Liberty comes first.  What did Franklin say about trading Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.?


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one.  But if you throw a competitor into a ring and then put him against a dozen other guys, it's pretty damn desperate to claim he lost to any particular one of them.
> 
> That is why you guys are so dishonest.  I've spent over a thousand posts here, only to watch people like you and Independent change the goal posts, gang up on me and lie to the other posters while deflecting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you did say you didn’t care what our border agents wanted. Pretty heartless imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They get paid to do a job and if I have to give up my Liberties for what they want, they can pound sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does their ask for a wall infringe on your liberties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the pastor loves everyone, even if everyone winds up homeless.
> At least they’re all homeless together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many people have YOU helped get a house or an apartment?
Click to expand...

Are you referring to professionals and/or blue collar workers who lost their careers due to illegals and Business Visas?


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can dig a tunnel under a drone even easier.  Or just walk past it.  Or shoot the drone down.  Have any idea what a good drone costs?  Who's going to fly it?  Refuel it?  Monitor its camera?  Or camouflage myself so the drone doesn't see me.  With a wall, people are stopped, The few that try to get over or under are picked up by cameras or drones, or vibration sensors or patrols, but someone still has to monitor all that.  And they still have to get to the action.  By the time your drone sees me and you get there, I'm LONG GONE buddy!  At least with the wall, I was greatly slowed down giving you time to respond.
> 
> Gee, you act like they will be putting the wall in your backyard!  Last I checked, most people along the border WANT the wall.  And it can be easily paid for by simply collecting the fines every illegal is due us.  According to my math, that comes to 53 billion dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poll: Majority opposes border wall with Mexico
> 
> So, is America a Republic or a Democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was three years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was TWO years ago, and about two months,.  Just a little off in your math.  Now Trump votes of just TWO years ago no longer matter, but don't EVER expect the Left to stop trying to shove a video of Trump bragging and trying to impress some guy about what a babe magnet he was from FOURTEEN years ago!  At least we KNOW the votes REALLY HAPPENED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Public opinion went against the wall after Trump was elected.
Click to expand...



Yet 80% want the border secured, how do you propose to do that? Not one GD commie politician will say because they have no intention of securing anything.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

boedicca said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered this for you three times:
> 
> 1)  I'm working to stop the drug addicts created by parents, government, doctors / mental health officials and Big Pharma
> 
> 2) We're taking people off the street, helping them get a GED, clean up their record if possible and get them back into the work-force
> 
> 3)  I am constantly lobbying legislators to pass legislation to get them to rehabilitate those in prison by giving prisoners an opportunity to earn shorter sentences via accomplishments while incarcerated:  Get their GED, learn a job skill, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like about 50,000 other people living in Nassau County...and that’s a good thing.
> Being obnoxious is not a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you weren't being obnoxious and we had a real debate, you'd get your ass beat.  That means one on one.  You don't pack the gear nor have the brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m afraid you are delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stand away from the mirror.  You'll be okay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ Diagnosis:  Terminal Projection ^^^
Click to expand...


I don't project shit.  I bet you can't debate twelve posters at a time.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like about 50,000 other people living in Nassau County...and that’s a good thing.
> Being obnoxious is not a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you weren't being obnoxious and we had a real debate, you'd get your ass beat.  That means one on one.  You don't pack the gear nor have the brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m afraid you are delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stand away from the mirror.  You'll be okay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ Diagnosis:  Terminal Projection ^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't project shit.  I bet you can't debate twelve posters at a time.
Click to expand...

We’re all saying the same thing so you’re not debating multiple ideas.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does their ask for a wall infringe on your liberties?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If people will give me a freaking break, I'll give you the post number, but it's been asked and answered in depth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If police officers ask for guns should we not give them guns because in someone’s opinion it infringes on their liberties? I find that odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you drunk?  What in the HELL did that mean?
> 
> I would never advocate giving up your gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you’re OK denying border agents another form of protection they feel they need?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The public Liberty comes first.  What did Franklin say about trading Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.?
Click to expand...


But I can argue that guns the police officers carry may infringe on public Liberty. You seem to be OK with weapons that can kill but not OK with a simple wall that will actually cause the agents to use their guns on fewer occasions? I dont follow this logic. Please explain your train of thought.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you did say you didn’t care what our border agents wanted. Pretty heartless imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They get paid to do a job and if I have to give up my Liberties for what they want, they can pound sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does their ask for a wall infringe on your liberties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the pastor loves everyone, even if everyone winds up homeless.
> At least they’re all homeless together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many people have YOU helped get a house or an apartment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you referring to professionals and/or blue collar workers who lost their careers due to illegals and Business Visas?
Click to expand...


Most are homeless and cannot get a second chance due to B.S. people like you created.

I'm taking a break so flame me while I'm not here.  It will show how little class you REALLY have.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> They get paid to do a job and if I have to give up my Liberties for what they want, they can pound sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does their ask for a wall infringe on your liberties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the pastor loves everyone, even if everyone winds up homeless.
> At least they’re all homeless together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many people have YOU helped get a house or an apartment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you referring to professionals and/or blue collar workers who lost their careers due to illegals and Business Visas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most are homeless and cannot get a second chance due to B.S. people like you created.
> 
> I'm taking a break so flame me while I'm not here.  It will show how little class you REALLY have.
Click to expand...


Very belligerent. Unfortunate.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> They get paid to do a job and if I have to give up my Liberties for what they want, they can pound sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does their ask for a wall infringe on your liberties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the pastor loves everyone, even if everyone winds up homeless.
> At least they’re all homeless together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many people have YOU helped get a house or an apartment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you referring to professionals and/or blue collar workers who lost their careers due to illegals and Business Visas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most are homeless and cannot get a second chance due to B.S. people like you created.
> 
> I'm taking a break so flame me while I'm not here.  It will show how little class you REALLY have.
Click to expand...

Nassau County has many homeless shelters and many retired members of my community volunteer.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can dig a tunnel under a drone even easier.  Or just walk past it.  Or shoot the drone down.  Have any idea what a good drone costs?  Who's going to fly it?  Refuel it?  Monitor its camera?  Or camouflage myself so the drone doesn't see me.  With a wall, people are stopped, The few that try to get over or under are picked up by cameras or drones, or vibration sensors or patrols, but someone still has to monitor all that.  And they still have to get to the action.  By the time your drone sees me and you get there, I'm LONG GONE buddy!  At least with the wall, I was greatly slowed down giving you time to respond.
> 
> Gee, you act like they will be putting the wall in your backyard!  Last I checked, most people along the border WANT the wall.  And it can be easily paid for by simply collecting the fines every illegal is due us.  According to my math, that comes to 53 billion dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poll: Majority opposes border wall with Mexico
> 
> So, is America a Republic or a Democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They voted for Trump, not a majority but enough.  The wall was only one of a dozen reasons for the Trump victory.  This is why 51% to 69% of Americans say they either oppose building a wall or say it's not a priority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell the mayor of El Paso that the 3500 illegals being dumped in his lap a week because the courts say we can't hold them, that a wall isn't a priority. And that's just ONE city.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you want to hold them?
Click to expand...


Like with all criminals, to adjudicate their case, they have no assets to assure their appearance in court.

.


----------



## boedicca

Porter Rockwell said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like about 50,000 other people living in Nassau County...and that’s a good thing.
> Being obnoxious is not a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you weren't being obnoxious and we had a real debate, you'd get your ass beat.  That means one on one.  You don't pack the gear nor have the brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m afraid you are delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stand away from the mirror.  You'll be okay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ Diagnosis:  Terminal Projection ^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't project shit.  I bet you can't debate twelve posters at a time.
Click to expand...


If you call what you are doing "debate", you are sorely delusional.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you gained seats in the House, but lost them in the Senate.  And if you bother to look at the results, you'd see that both parties had an outstanding and historical turnout.  It's just that the hatred of the Democrats won over.  But Trump supporters are still behind him as they were during the presidential election.
> 
> Nobody ever said the wall is the sole solution.  You are making up that BS in your head.  The wall (as border patrol stated) is a very helpful part of the solution.  The solution is multi-level.  The sole solution would be to get the Congress to pass a law making being here illegally a first degree felony with a minimum five year prison sentence.  Then there would be no need for a wall, no need for e-veryfiy, no need for additional border agents, no need to track down illegals here.  Most of them would pack up and leave the country.
> 
> I know quite well what this is all about--you don't.  You remain ignorant of the long term goals by the Democrat party yet support their initiatives and furthermore claim yourself as a conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have endured your dumbassery long enough.  I didn't win a damn thing Ray as I voted Republican.  I don't support Democracy - not in name, not by party, not by ideology.  YOU DO and I'm sick and tired of your dishonesty so I'll treat you like you treat me.
> 
> You have one standard.  If someone does not back the silly wall, they are a liberal, etc.  THAT is what separates you from others with an IQ higher than their shoe size.
> 
> If you had *ANY* IQ, you would know why Congress can pass no such law as you suggest.  My *only point* to you is that we are restricted by the parameters of the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings in what kind of legislation we an pass.
> 
> You have proven to be a fake, a phony, a fraud, and a poseur.  YOU adopted Bill Clinton's philosophy and have your head stuck so far up the liberals ass that if they fart, you will choke to death or get your first breath of air.
> 
> Now, you've called me a liberal for the last time.  Put up, shut up or get ready for a nasty back and forth.  Enough of this B.S.  You didn't know what an unalienable Right is so you don't have a clue when you advocate withholding one or denying one to someone.  You would have to kill me Ray in order to do some of the things you propose.  My Rights are unalienable.  You cannot take them; you cannot impose on them.  To even suggest it shows that YOU ARE NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN.
> 
> You should start at post #2806.  Read it and then cull through those 500 posts so you can see the number of times you LIED, called me names and tried to deflect when asked direct questions.  It's not my fault that the left misled you and made a socialist out of you.  Now, you want a discussion or a pissing match?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put up a wall and no rights of yours will be taken away.  If that happens, you let me know what right you lost, and I'll join your side.  This "losing rights' nonsense is some sort of black helicopter scare tactic that will never work.  You want to prove yourself as a conservative?  Then join the conservatives on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I promised you a response.  It takes two parts.  Here is the first part, the second one to follow:
> 
> Ray, challenging me on a subject you have shown an absolute ignorant and /or disdain of can be very costly.  To begin with, the build the wall guys say if you are not for a wall, you are a liberal, lefty, etc.  That is absolutely idiotic as we shall see.
> 
> The way I view the topic is best described in an analogy.  In this analogy a man is stuck in a burning apartment on the third floor of a building (this part of the analogy describes our situation in America.)  If this man stays in his current position, he dies.   If the man goes out the door, there is a 100 percent chance that he will be killed (that part of the analogy refers to the nutty wall idea.)  If he jumps out the window, the fall might kill him, but then again, he might live.  That part of the analogy refers to a solution *OTHER THAN* the nutty wall idea.
> 
> I am neither pro-open borders *NOR* am I anti – closed borders.  So, let’s get that understood and make an attempt to be honest.  It’s just that a militarized border with a wall around it will not work in the United States.
> 
> The REAL cost of the wall is Liberty.  So far, no build the wall guy has addressed the issue of Liberty.  In the Declaration of Independence, we find these words:
> 
> *“WE *hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”
> 
> Of this document, the Declaration of Independence, the SCOTUS ruled:
> 
> The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."   _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> The Bible is clear about this subject as well:
> 
> “Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land Unto *All the Inhabitants thereof*”  Leviticus 25: 10  and this Bible verse can be found on the Liberty Bell at Independence Hall.  This Old Testament verse refers to the "Jubilee", or the instructions to the Israelites to return property and free slaves.every 50 years.
> 
> In II Timothy 3: 16 we read that “*All* scripture _is_ given by inspiration of God, and _is_ profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
> 
> Finally, in II Corinthians 3 : 17 we read that:
> 
> “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord _is_, there _is_ Liberty.”
> 
> But what is Liberty?  Well in a *biblical *sense, liberty means freedom (see # 1865 in the Greek Dictionary of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.  In *law*, Liberty means Freedom; exemption *from* extraneous control.  …freedom regulated by law. (Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition)
> 
> My take on it is very simple:
> 
> In New Jersey, they passed a law requiring people to turn in high capacity magazines… this included even off duty police.  Nobody complied?  Why?  People think the law is unconstitutional.  The Right to Life and Liberty are unalienable Rights.  The Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right.  It is an extension of both a Right to Life AND a Right to Liberty.  So, no matter how many laws are passed, the majority of gun owners will not forfeit that Right.  On that issue, they understand the concept.
> 
> Those same people would, however, deny to *me* my Rights and punish me for hiring undocumented foreigners.  The sad truth is, just as the feds are usurping the Second Amendment, they are waging a war against your Liberty.  Those wanting a wall cannot find *any* biblical precedent for *CONTROLLING* people (which was one the first reasons cited to me in favor of a wall) and that was followed up by Ray – falsely believing we can keep people out.  What a crock!   (Continued in part II)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're forcing me to repeat myself.
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be the damned funniest thing I've read on this board. Everyone in our country has rights, but they are also subject to our laws if they abuse those rights. The same damned thing applies to illegal aliens, that's how our LAW refers to them. So take your semantics game and shove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution doesn't apply to the whole freaking world, the entry of aliens (meaning not of this country) are regulated by our laws. Not by your fantasies.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've repeated myself EIGHT times to Ray.  You bitch because you cannot understand one simple thing:
> 
> While the Constitution governs us, there are laws above the Constitution
Click to expand...



Violating laws can take any right, up to and including life. You can pretend natural laws trump ours, but nature doesn't have law enforcement officers and the only rights aliens have is due process. BTW that's the second time you've passed on my comment with out addressing it directly, what's wrong, can't argue with facts?

.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope Independent is destroying you in this debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That shows how little you know.  There is NO debate going on.  This is a discussion forum.  Pit me against a dozen people so I cannot "debate" someone and then claim a win???  You now know why you are destined to lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my opinion you were debating and you lost badly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one.  But if you throw a competitor into a ring and then put him against a dozen other guys, it's pretty damn desperate to claim he lost to any particular one of them.
> 
> That is why you guys are so dishonest.  I've spent over a thousand posts here, only to watch people like you and Independent change the goal posts, gang up on me and lie to the other posters while deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you did say you didn’t care what our border agents wanted. Pretty heartless imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They get paid to do a job and if I have to give up my Liberties for what they want, they can pound sand.
Click to expand...

What liberties are you giving up, They enforce against illegal aliens and drug smugglers, Human trafficking etc.....not to mention contraband goods into the country.

Unless you are illegal they don't make you give up jack squat.


----------



## basquebromance

"If Kushner (Trump) trades amnesty for a wall, history books will have to be pulled from the shelves to replace "Neville Chamberlain" with "Donald Trump."

If Kushner (Trump) trades DACA amnesty for a wall, Neville Chamberlain can relax. He will hereafter escape history's scorn." - Coulter


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one.  But if you throw a competitor into a ring and then put him against a dozen other guys, it's pretty damn desperate to claim he lost to any particular one of them.
> 
> That is why you guys are so dishonest.  I've spent over a thousand posts here, only to watch people like you and Independent change the goal posts, gang up on me and lie to the other posters while deflecting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you did say you didn’t care what our border agents wanted. Pretty heartless imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They get paid to do a job and if I have to give up my Liberties for what they want, they can pound sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does their ask for a wall infringe on your liberties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the pastor loves everyone, even if everyone winds up homeless.
> At least they’re all homeless together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many people have YOU helped get a house or an apartment?
Click to expand...

What the hell does that have to do with border security and illegal immigration........Your moving the goal posts.


----------



## basquebromance

"Here's my idea for a compromise deal!  How about a wall for Trump & Kushner's tax returns?"


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

basquebromance said:


> "Here's my idea for a compromise deal!  How about a wall for Trump & Kushner's tax returns?"



Was that a failed attempt on humor?


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?
> 
> Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they work for us, and we're obligated to give them the tools required to do the job we ask them to do in an effective and safe manner. We already have walls and barriers on roughly 1/3rd of the border. Now you cry babies claim adding an additional 10% will somehow restrict our liberties and would be IMMORAL. REALLY?? That seems to fly in the face of logic.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I don't know if adding a couple hundred miles of wall will seriously limit anyone's liberties but it's highly unlike to seriously reduce the number of illegal immigrants.  Most of the border will still be unfenced and we are doing nothing to stop the flow coming through ports of entry nor dealing with the fact that most illegal immigrants enter legally.  The wall is basically a waste of money and worse yet it deflects the nation's attention away other major problems.
Click to expand...


200 miles wont solve the problem, but 1400 miles will.  You're attacking a "solution" that no one has proposed.  Border crossing is 60% of the problem, but you're saying solving 60% of the problem is a waste of time.  You're just an open borders douchebag, or course, who doesn't want to solve the problem.  

Visa overstays is another problem that can easily be solved, but douchebags like you have obstructed the solution to that problem as well.  

It appears the one genuine obstacle to get real border security is douchebags like you.


----------



## bripat9643

AzogtheDefiler said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Here's my idea for a compromise deal!  How about a wall for Trump & Kushner's tax returns?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was that a failed attempt on humor?
Click to expand...

He's been off his meds for a while.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does their ask for a wall infringe on your liberties?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If people will give me a freaking break, I'll give you the post number, but it's been asked and answered in depth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If police officers ask for guns should we not give them guns because in someone’s opinion it infringes on their liberties? I find that odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you drunk?  What in the HELL did that mean?
> 
> I would never advocate giving up your gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you’re OK denying border agents another form of protection they feel they need?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The public Liberty comes first.  What did Franklin say about trading Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.?
Click to expand...


What did he say about safety with no trade of liberty?


----------



## Geaux4it

basquebromance said:


> "Here's my idea for a compromise deal!  How about a wall for Trump & Kushner's tax returns?"


and Obama's transcripts?

-Geaux


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope Independent is destroying you in this debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That shows how little you know.  There is NO debate going on.  This is a discussion forum.  Pit me against a dozen people so I cannot "debate" someone and then claim a win???  You now know why you are destined to lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my opinion you were debating and you lost badly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one.  But if you throw a competitor into a ring and then put him against a dozen other guys, it's pretty damn desperate to claim he lost to any particular one of them.
> 
> That is why you guys are so dishonest.  I've spent over a thousand posts here, only to watch people like you and Independent change the goal posts, gang up on me and lie to the other posters while deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you did say you didn’t care what our border agents wanted. Pretty heartless imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They get paid to do a job and if I have to give up my Liberties for what they want, they can pound sand.
Click to expand...


What liberties are you giving up?  If you want to hire foreigners, fine, but do it the legal way like everybody else.  We allow some foreigners into the country to work.  You may have to sponsor them, but it's possible.  Can you usher in a slew of people and then pick workers?  No you can't, but that has nothing to do with your liberties.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?
> 
> Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they work for us, and we're obligated to give them the tools required to do the job we ask them to do in an effective and safe manner. We already have walls and barriers on roughly 1/3rd of the border. Now you cry babies claim adding an additional 10% will somehow restrict our liberties and would be IMMORAL. REALLY?? That seems to fly in the face of logic.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I don't know if adding a couple hundred miles of wall will seriously limit anyone's liberties but it's highly unlike to seriously reduce the number of illegal immigrants.  Most of the border will still be unfenced and we are doing nothing to stop the flow coming through ports of entry nor dealing with the fact that most illegal immigrants enter legally.  The wall is basically a waste of money and worse yet it deflects the nation's attention away other major problems.
Click to expand...


In 2017, the border patrol made over 130,000 apprehensions and those are only the people they caught.  Just that number alone warrants a barrier to help those agents.


----------



## eagle1462010

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?
> 
> Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they work for us, and we're obligated to give them the tools required to do the job we ask them to do in an effective and safe manner. We already have walls and barriers on roughly 1/3rd of the border. Now you cry babies claim adding an additional 10% will somehow restrict our liberties and would be IMMORAL. REALLY?? That seems to fly in the face of logic.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I don't know if adding a couple hundred miles of wall will seriously limit anyone's liberties but it's highly unlike to seriously reduce the number of illegal immigrants.  Most of the border will still be unfenced and we are doing nothing to stop the flow coming through ports of entry nor dealing with the fact that most illegal immigrants enter legally.  The wall is basically a waste of money and worse yet it deflects the nation's attention away other major problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 2017, the border patrol made over 130,000 apprehensions and those are only the people they caught.  Just that number alone warrants a barrier to help those agents.
Click to expand...

Was more than 300k that year........

396 k 2018


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you gained seats in the House, but lost them in the Senate.  And if you bother to look at the results, you'd see that both parties had an outstanding and historical turnout.  It's just that the hatred of the Democrats won over.  But Trump supporters are still behind him as they were during the presidential election.
> 
> Nobody ever said the wall is the sole solution.  You are making up that BS in your head.  The wall (as border patrol stated) is a very helpful part of the solution.  The solution is multi-level.  The sole solution would be to get the Congress to pass a law making being here illegally a first degree felony with a minimum five year prison sentence.  Then there would be no need for a wall, no need for e-veryfiy, no need for additional border agents, no need to track down illegals here.  Most of them would pack up and leave the country.
> 
> I know quite well what this is all about--you don't.  You remain ignorant of the long term goals by the Democrat party yet support their initiatives and furthermore claim yourself as a conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have endured your dumbassery long enough.  I didn't win a damn thing Ray as I voted Republican.  I don't support Democracy - not in name, not by party, not by ideology.  YOU DO and I'm sick and tired of your dishonesty so I'll treat you like you treat me.
> 
> You have one standard.  If someone does not back the silly wall, they are a liberal, etc.  THAT is what separates you from others with an IQ higher than their shoe size.
> 
> If you had *ANY* IQ, you would know why Congress can pass no such law as you suggest.  My *only point* to you is that we are restricted by the parameters of the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings in what kind of legislation we an pass.
> 
> You have proven to be a fake, a phony, a fraud, and a poseur.  YOU adopted Bill Clinton's philosophy and have your head stuck so far up the liberals ass that if they fart, you will choke to death or get your first breath of air.
> 
> Now, you've called me a liberal for the last time.  Put up, shut up or get ready for a nasty back and forth.  Enough of this B.S.  You didn't know what an unalienable Right is so you don't have a clue when you advocate withholding one or denying one to someone.  You would have to kill me Ray in order to do some of the things you propose.  My Rights are unalienable.  You cannot take them; you cannot impose on them.  To even suggest it shows that YOU ARE NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN.
> 
> You should start at post #2806.  Read it and then cull through those 500 posts so you can see the number of times you LIED, called me names and tried to deflect when asked direct questions.  It's not my fault that the left misled you and made a socialist out of you.  Now, you want a discussion or a pissing match?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put up a wall and no rights of yours will be taken away.  If that happens, you let me know what right you lost, and I'll join your side.  This "losing rights' nonsense is some sort of black helicopter scare tactic that will never work.  You want to prove yourself as a conservative?  Then join the conservatives on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Part II of my response to you:
> 
> In Jesus Time, there were *THREE* walls that surrounded Jerusalem, 90 towers stood in the first wall, 14 in the second, and 60 in the third. The third wall was built by Herod Agrippa I.  These walls dated back to the time the first one was built in 130 B.C.   Yet, very clearly these walls did not work.  They did not keep the moneychangers out of the Temple (It didn’t even keep them outside the outer walls)   Furthermore, the walls *did not *keep out the poseurs who claimed to be Israelites, but were in fact,  half breed Canaanites that Jesus referred to as the Children of Hell.
> 
> America, being a cut above the third world is not Mexico, Canada, etc. *NOR *are we at war (which is the primary purpose of a wall …* OTHER THAN* preserving a culture.)
> 
> Those who want a wall cite they mythical stories that these foreigners steal jobs – impossible unless you live in a socialist country… and Ray wants to debate the meaning of socialism.  Since he previously rejected the dictionary definition*, I went directly to the socialists themselves*. These are THEIR words, not mine:
> 
> “we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.
> 
> Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. *We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them*”
> 
> What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)
> 
> These are Ray’s EXACT sentiments.  Ray advocates for that very kind of control as do those who have bothered to answer my questions.
> 
> I think it’s time for the build the wall guys, the right, the left, etc. to cut the crap and get real.  From where do your Rights come from?  If the government give you your rights via your citizenship, then government is your Creator and your God.  It’s time to read the Declaration of Independence and the Court cases related thereto.
> 
> Under that scenario, you have NO Right to keep and bear Arms, NO Right to Freedom of the Press or Freedom of Speech, No Right to Freedom of Religion, etc.  This is NOT multiple choice; it’s either / or.
> 
> IF you believe in the foundational principles upon which America was founded, then you accept the fact that unalienable Rights pre-existed before the Constitution was written.  Man cannot take them from you.  And so, rather than spew this idiotic charge that I’m “pro-open borders,” you have to ask yourself the REAL question:
> 
> Is your Liberty a gift from your Creator OR is it bestowed upon you by government?  IF you believe in God, you have to find the biblical justification for denying to people their Liberty.  Securing the border, protecting America from an invasion, regulating the flow of people are all legal, moral and constitutional.  Using the laws to control or keep people out is a violation of their unalienable Rights – unless you think that only Americans have a Right to be in the United States.  We don’t have to hire those people; nobody has to do business with them; we don’t have to interact with them and it is OUR politicians that allow them to partake of the privileges of citizenship without becoming citizens.  Your real beef is with the politicians.
> 
> 
> Either you believe in Liberty or you do not.  The build the wall guys understand this so they’ve created this talking point: you’re either for the wall or you are whatever insult they can conjure up.  I’m not going to bother calling them names.  I pointed out what socialists say and what the word of God says.  IF Liberty only applies to Americans, somebody refer me to that section of the Constitution, the Bible, the Declaration of Independence or  something (other that post 14th Amendment swill) that will give credence to the talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm running in and out of the house so I'll respond as I (if I have time) to read it since brevity  is not your skill set.
> 
> First of all our country does not belong to the world, it belongs to Americans as founded.  Our founding documents were written for this country, not the world.  Secondly, our country is not operated by any religion.  In fact it's one of the big no-no's in our Constitution.  Our founders expected us to believe in various religions, but not have our government run by them.
> 
> Biblical teachings were fine in the day.  But this is a new day and some are just no longer valid.  Be fruitful and multiply is a great theory when you have a thousand people on the planet, not such a great idea when you have 7.5 billion.
> 
> Inalienable rights are those you are born with whether you believe in God or not.  They come as part of occupying this planet.  NOBODY as the inalienable right to enter this country without our permission.  Freedom comes after you get here, but you have no freedom until we allow you to enter.  Afterwards certain rights apply, and if finally granted citizenship, all rights apply.  But nobody from Guatemala has United States rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you are with that dumbassery again - and dishonesty.  I have *not one time* argued inalienable rights.  Stick your inalienable rights where the sun don't shine.  I'm only concerned with unalienable Rights.
Click to expand...


They're the same thing dumbass.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our border is MORE secure than almost all other countries on the planet....except for Israel that is forced to employ fascist tactics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?
> 
> Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Border patrol agents owe there jobs to illegal immigrants.  Over the years we have doubled and tripled the number of agents.  Without migrants climbing those walls and fences, they would have no job.  If they thought a wall would seriously reduce or eliminate illegal crossing they would not be supporting it.  It's just like crime reduction programs and the city police.  They know it's not going to make a huge difference.
Click to expand...


That's like saying the cops don't want to arrest the attackers of a little old lady because if they solved all the crime, there would be no work for them.  

Border patrol people will always have a job even if we solved all border crossings.  The last thing they're worried about is running out of illegals.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bripat9643 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?
> 
> Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they work for us, and we're obligated to give them the tools required to do the job we ask them to do in an effective and safe manner. We already have walls and barriers on roughly 1/3rd of the border. Now you cry babies claim adding an additional 10% will somehow restrict our liberties and would be IMMORAL. REALLY?? That seems to fly in the face of logic.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I don't know if adding a couple hundred miles of wall will seriously limit anyone's liberties but it's highly unlike to seriously reduce the number of illegal immigrants.  Most of the border will still be unfenced and we are doing nothing to stop the flow coming through ports of entry nor dealing with the fact that most illegal immigrants enter legally.  The wall is basically a waste of money and worse yet it deflects the nation's attention away other major problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 200 miles wont solve the problem, but 1400 miles will.  You're attacking a "solution" that no one has proposed.  Border crossing is 60% of the problem, but you're saying solving 60% of the problem is a waste of time.  You're just an open borders douchebag, or course, who doesn't want to solve the problem.
> 
> Visa overstays is another problem that can easily be solved, but douchebags like you have obstructed the solution to that problem as well.
> 
> It appears the one genuine obstacle to get real border security is douchebags like you.
Click to expand...


The difference between border crossers and VISA overstays is the VISA people have been vetted.  The people jumping our border could have Lord knows what kind of diseases, Lord knows what minimal education, and Lord knows what kind of criminal record.  I'm sure many of them don't even know a word of English. 

Therefore border crossers have to be a priority over VISA overstays because it's not just about them being here illegally, it's more about our safety and culture.


----------



## depotoo

To sneak into Mexico illegally?  Lol





Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "front lines" of what, destroying our country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saving it from people like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are you saving it, by flooding it with ignorant peasants from Mexico?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered this for you three times:
> 
> 1)  I'm working to stop the drug addicts created by parents, government, doctors / mental health officials and Big Pharma
> 
> 2) We're taking people off the street, helping them get a GED, clean up their record if possible and get them back into the work-force
> 
> 3)  I am constantly lobbying legislators to pass legislation to get them to rehabilitate those in prison by giving prisoners an opportunity to earn shorter sentences via accomplishments while incarcerated:  Get their GED, learn a job skill, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can you not do this and support more border security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do support border security.  I simply do not support the wall.  It jeopardizes our Liberty.
Click to expand...


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO. Every progressive Leftist in this forum is also an anti Semite. It’s a disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think funds and pioneers the build the wall talking points?
> 
> Then again, you might be playing semantics with that term "anti-semite."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they work for us, and we're obligated to give them the tools required to do the job we ask them to do in an effective and safe manner. We already have walls and barriers on roughly 1/3rd of the border. Now you cry babies claim adding an additional 10% will somehow restrict our liberties and would be IMMORAL. REALLY?? That seems to fly in the face of logic.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I don't know if adding a couple hundred miles of wall will seriously limit anyone's liberties but it's highly unlike to seriously reduce the number of illegal immigrants.  Most of the border will still be unfenced and we are doing nothing to stop the flow coming through ports of entry nor dealing with the fact that most illegal immigrants enter legally.  The wall is basically a waste of money and worse yet it deflects the nation's attention away other major problems.
Click to expand...



The wall when erected in the San Diego sector reduced traffic by 95%, as I said before they are intended to slow people down, divert them to other areas and cause them to seek alternative methods of crossing. It still costs us almost $12,000 to catch, detain, process and deport each one that sets foot on US soil. Part of the answer is to have an expedited deportation process for OTMs. BTW I consider national security the number one concern of the feds.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you still haven't gotten the supremes to strike it down, they must not have been very effective briefs.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In trying to summarize my last post ..  It’s not what you HAVE, it’s what you can PROVE.  Resumes are only good hainging on someone’s wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, this dude has gone form some kind of social worker to now a constitutional lawyer. He hasn't even said why he thinks the 14th was implemented illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not relevant to the OP and I'd have to explain that while trying to reply to fifty four people attacking me on this thread.  If they would STFU and quit repeating the same points, I might be able to give you a hint as to why the 14th was illegally ratified... as if posters are too stupid to Google it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it's irrelevant, stop spewing about it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep bringing up irrelevant and off topic material.  What are you REALLY afraid of?
Click to expand...



You're the one making multiple posts claiming the 14th is illegal, and then saying it's irrelevant to the OP. You need to make up our minds.

.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have endured your dumbassery long enough.  I didn't win a damn thing Ray as I voted Republican.  I don't support Democracy - not in name, not by party, not by ideology.  YOU DO and I'm sick and tired of your dishonesty so I'll treat you like you treat me.
> 
> You have one standard.  If someone does not back the silly wall, they are a liberal, etc.  THAT is what separates you from others with an IQ higher than their shoe size.
> 
> If you had *ANY* IQ, you would know why Congress can pass no such law as you suggest.  My *only point* to you is that we are restricted by the parameters of the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings in what kind of legislation we an pass.
> 
> You have proven to be a fake, a phony, a fraud, and a poseur.  YOU adopted Bill Clinton's philosophy and have your head stuck so far up the liberals ass that if they fart, you will choke to death or get your first breath of air.
> 
> Now, you've called me a liberal for the last time.  Put up, shut up or get ready for a nasty back and forth.  Enough of this B.S.  You didn't know what an unalienable Right is so you don't have a clue when you advocate withholding one or denying one to someone.  You would have to kill me Ray in order to do some of the things you propose.  My Rights are unalienable.  You cannot take them; you cannot impose on them.  To even suggest it shows that YOU ARE NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN.
> 
> You should start at post #2806.  Read it and then cull through those 500 posts so you can see the number of times you LIED, called me names and tried to deflect when asked direct questions.  It's not my fault that the left misled you and made a socialist out of you.  Now, you want a discussion or a pissing match?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put up a wall and no rights of yours will be taken away.  If that happens, you let me know what right you lost, and I'll join your side.  This "losing rights' nonsense is some sort of black helicopter scare tactic that will never work.  You want to prove yourself as a conservative?  Then join the conservatives on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I promised you a response.  It takes two parts.  Here is the first part, the second one to follow:
> 
> Ray, challenging me on a subject you have shown an absolute ignorant and /or disdain of can be very costly.  To begin with, the build the wall guys say if you are not for a wall, you are a liberal, lefty, etc.  That is absolutely idiotic as we shall see.
> 
> The way I view the topic is best described in an analogy.  In this analogy a man is stuck in a burning apartment on the third floor of a building (this part of the analogy describes our situation in America.)  If this man stays in his current position, he dies.   If the man goes out the door, there is a 100 percent chance that he will be killed (that part of the analogy refers to the nutty wall idea.)  If he jumps out the window, the fall might kill him, but then again, he might live.  That part of the analogy refers to a solution *OTHER THAN* the nutty wall idea.
> 
> I am neither pro-open borders *NOR* am I anti – closed borders.  So, let’s get that understood and make an attempt to be honest.  It’s just that a militarized border with a wall around it will not work in the United States.
> 
> The REAL cost of the wall is Liberty.  So far, no build the wall guy has addressed the issue of Liberty.  In the Declaration of Independence, we find these words:
> 
> *“WE *hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”
> 
> Of this document, the Declaration of Independence, the SCOTUS ruled:
> 
> The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."   _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> The Bible is clear about this subject as well:
> 
> “Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land Unto *All the Inhabitants thereof*”  Leviticus 25: 10  and this Bible verse can be found on the Liberty Bell at Independence Hall.  This Old Testament verse refers to the "Jubilee", or the instructions to the Israelites to return property and free slaves.every 50 years.
> 
> In II Timothy 3: 16 we read that “*All* scripture _is_ given by inspiration of God, and _is_ profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
> 
> Finally, in II Corinthians 3 : 17 we read that:
> 
> “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord _is_, there _is_ Liberty.”
> 
> But what is Liberty?  Well in a *biblical *sense, liberty means freedom (see # 1865 in the Greek Dictionary of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.  In *law*, Liberty means Freedom; exemption *from* extraneous control.  …freedom regulated by law. (Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition)
> 
> My take on it is very simple:
> 
> In New Jersey, they passed a law requiring people to turn in high capacity magazines… this included even off duty police.  Nobody complied?  Why?  People think the law is unconstitutional.  The Right to Life and Liberty are unalienable Rights.  The Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right.  It is an extension of both a Right to Life AND a Right to Liberty.  So, no matter how many laws are passed, the majority of gun owners will not forfeit that Right.  On that issue, they understand the concept.
> 
> Those same people would, however, deny to *me* my Rights and punish me for hiring undocumented foreigners.  The sad truth is, just as the feds are usurping the Second Amendment, they are waging a war against your Liberty.  Those wanting a wall cannot find *any* biblical precedent for *CONTROLLING* people (which was one the first reasons cited to me in favor of a wall) and that was followed up by Ray – falsely believing we can keep people out.  What a crock!   (Continued in part II)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're forcing me to repeat myself.
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be the damned funniest thing I've read on this board. Everyone in our country has rights, but they are also subject to our laws if they abuse those rights. The same damned thing applies to illegal aliens, that's how our LAW refers to them. So take your semantics game and shove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution doesn't apply to the whole freaking world, the entry of aliens (meaning not of this country) are regulated by our laws. Not by your fantasies.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've repeated myself EIGHT times to Ray.  You bitch because you cannot understand one simple thing:
> 
> While the Constitution governs us, there are laws above the Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Violating laws can take any right, up to and including life. You can pretend natural laws trump ours, but nature doesn't have law enforcement officers and the only rights aliens have is due process. BTW that's the second time you've pass on my comment with out addressing it directly, what's wrong, can argue with facts?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


He gets very quiet when YOU are able to back up your position with references, and then challenge him to do the same.  Says a lot doesn’t it?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> In trying to summarize my last post ..  It’s not what you HAVE, it’s what you can PROVE.  Resumes are only good hainging on someone’s wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, this dude has gone form some kind of social worker to now a constitutional lawyer. He hasn't even said why he thinks the 14th was implemented illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not relevant to the OP and I'd have to explain that while trying to reply to fifty four people attacking me on this thread.  If they would STFU and quit repeating the same points, I might be able to give you a hint as to why the 14th was illegally ratified... as if posters are too stupid to Google it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it's irrelevant, stop spewing about it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep bringing up irrelevant and off topic material.  What are you REALLY afraid of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the only making multiple posts claiming the 14th is illegal, and then saying it's irrelevant to the OP. You need to make up our minds.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I already asked him to *prove* how exactly the 14th Amendment was shown to be an “illegal ratification” of the United States Constitution.  He has no answer, I’m still waiting.


----------



## basquebromance

if we had the wall, folks wouldnt  even bother making the journey. its a dangerous journey


----------



## basquebromance

America is the only country in the history of the world where if you put a foot in our country you get a court case. other countries they say GET OUT or worse. they never show up to their case. thats due to the idiotic ridiculous laws enacted by the Democrats


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you gained seats in the House, but lost them in the Senate.  And if you bother to look at the results, you'd see that both parties had an outstanding and historical turnout.  It's just that the hatred of the Democrats won over.  But Trump supporters are still behind him as they were during the presidential election.
> 
> Nobody ever said the wall is the sole solution.  You are making up that BS in your head.  The wall (as border patrol stated) is a very helpful part of the solution.  The solution is multi-level.  The sole solution would be to get the Congress to pass a law making being here illegally a first degree felony with a minimum five year prison sentence.  Then there would be no need for a wall, no need for e-veryfiy, no need for additional border agents, no need to track down illegals here.  Most of them would pack up and leave the country.
> 
> I know quite well what this is all about--you don't.  You remain ignorant of the long term goals by the Democrat party yet support their initiatives and furthermore claim yourself as a conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have endured your dumbassery long enough.  I didn't win a damn thing Ray as I voted Republican.  I don't support Democracy - not in name, not by party, not by ideology.  YOU DO and I'm sick and tired of your dishonesty so I'll treat you like you treat me.
> 
> You have one standard.  If someone does not back the silly wall, they are a liberal, etc.  THAT is what separates you from others with an IQ higher than their shoe size.
> 
> If you had *ANY* IQ, you would know why Congress can pass no such law as you suggest.  My *only point* to you is that we are restricted by the parameters of the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings in what kind of legislation we an pass.
> 
> You have proven to be a fake, a phony, a fraud, and a poseur.  YOU adopted Bill Clinton's philosophy and have your head stuck so far up the liberals ass that if they fart, you will choke to death or get your first breath of air.
> 
> Now, you've called me a liberal for the last time.  Put up, shut up or get ready for a nasty back and forth.  Enough of this B.S.  You didn't know what an unalienable Right is so you don't have a clue when you advocate withholding one or denying one to someone.  You would have to kill me Ray in order to do some of the things you propose.  My Rights are unalienable.  You cannot take them; you cannot impose on them.  To even suggest it shows that YOU ARE NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN.
> 
> You should start at post #2806.  Read it and then cull through those 500 posts so you can see the number of times you LIED, called me names and tried to deflect when asked direct questions.  It's not my fault that the left misled you and made a socialist out of you.  Now, you want a discussion or a pissing match?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put up a wall and no rights of yours will be taken away.  If that happens, you let me know what right you lost, and I'll join your side.  This "losing rights' nonsense is some sort of black helicopter scare tactic that will never work.  You want to prove yourself as a conservative?  Then join the conservatives on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Part II of my response to you:
> 
> In Jesus Time, there were *THREE* walls that surrounded Jerusalem, 90 towers stood in the first wall, 14 in the second, and 60 in the third. The third wall was built by Herod Agrippa I.  These walls dated back to the time the first one was built in 130 B.C.   Yet, very clearly these walls did not work.  They did not keep the moneychangers out of the Temple (It didn’t even keep them outside the outer walls)   Furthermore, the walls *did not *keep out the poseurs who claimed to be Israelites, but were in fact,  half breed Canaanites that Jesus referred to as the Children of Hell.
> 
> America, being a cut above the third world is not Mexico, Canada, etc. *NOR *are we at war (which is the primary purpose of a wall …* OTHER THAN* preserving a culture.)
> 
> Those who want a wall cite they mythical stories that these foreigners steal jobs – impossible unless you live in a socialist country… and Ray wants to debate the meaning of socialism.  Since he previously rejected the dictionary definition*, I went directly to the socialists themselves*. These are THEIR words, not mine:
> 
> “we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.
> 
> Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. *We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them*”
> 
> What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)
> 
> These are Ray’s EXACT sentiments.  Ray advocates for that very kind of control as do those who have bothered to answer my questions.
> 
> I think it’s time for the build the wall guys, the right, the left, etc. to cut the crap and get real.  From where do your Rights come from?  If the government give you your rights via your citizenship, then government is your Creator and your God.  It’s time to read the Declaration of Independence and the Court cases related thereto.
> 
> Under that scenario, you have NO Right to keep and bear Arms, NO Right to Freedom of the Press or Freedom of Speech, No Right to Freedom of Religion, etc.  This is NOT multiple choice; it’s either / or.
> 
> IF you believe in the foundational principles upon which America was founded, then you accept the fact that unalienable Rights pre-existed before the Constitution was written.  Man cannot take them from you.  And so, rather than spew this idiotic charge that I’m “pro-open borders,” you have to ask yourself the REAL question:
> 
> Is your Liberty a gift from your Creator OR is it bestowed upon you by government?  IF you believe in God, you have to find the biblical justification for denying to people their Liberty.  Securing the border, protecting America from an invasion, regulating the flow of people are all legal, moral and constitutional.  Using the laws to control or keep people out is a violation of their unalienable Rights – unless you think that only Americans have a Right to be in the United States.  We don’t have to hire those people; nobody has to do business with them; we don’t have to interact with them and it is OUR politicians that allow them to partake of the privileges of citizenship without becoming citizens.  Your real beef is with the politicians.
> 
> 
> Either you believe in Liberty or you do not.  The build the wall guys understand this so they’ve created this talking point: you’re either for the wall or you are whatever insult they can conjure up.  I’m not going to bother calling them names.  I pointed out what socialists say and what the word of God says.  IF Liberty only applies to Americans, somebody refer me to that section of the Constitution, the Bible, the Declaration of Independence or  something (other that post 14th Amendment swill) that will give credence to the talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm running in and out of the house so I'll respond as I (if I have time) to read it since brevity  is not your skill set.
> 
> First of all our country does not belong to the world, it belongs to Americans as founded.  Our founding documents were written for this country, not the world.  Secondly, our country is not operated by any religion.  In fact it's one of the big no-no's in our Constitution.  Our founders expected us to believe in various religions, but not have our government run by them.
> 
> Biblical teachings were fine in the day.  But this is a new day and some are just no longer valid.  Be fruitful and multiply is a great theory when you have a thousand people on the planet, not such a great idea when you have 7.5 billion.
> 
> Inalienable rights are those you are born with whether you believe in God or not.  They come as part of occupying this planet.  NOBODY as the inalienable right to enter this country without our permission.  Freedom comes after you get here, but you have no freedom until we allow you to enter.  Afterwards certain rights apply, and if finally granted citizenship, all rights apply.  But nobody from Guatemala has United States rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you are with that dumbassery again - and dishonesty.  I have *not one time* argued inalienable rights.  Stick your inalienable rights where the sun don't shine.  I'm only concerned with unalienable Rights.
Click to expand...


 No, they are NOT you stupid asshole.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does their ask for a wall infringe on your liberties?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the pastor loves everyone, even if everyone winds up homeless.
> At least they’re all homeless together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many people have YOU helped get a house or an apartment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you referring to professionals and/or blue collar workers who lost their careers due to illegals and Business Visas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most are homeless and cannot get a second chance due to B.S. people like you created.
> 
> I'm taking a break so flame me while I'm not here.  It will show how little class you REALLY have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very belligerent. Unfortunate.
Click to expand...


Start at post # 2806 and tell me how much B.S. you would have taken before responding to these self appointed gurus in like kind.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poll: Majority opposes border wall with Mexico
> 
> So, is America a Republic or a Democracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They voted for Trump, not a majority but enough.  The wall was only one of a dozen reasons for the Trump victory.  This is why 51% to 69% of Americans say they either oppose building a wall or say it's not a priority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell the mayor of El Paso that the 3500 illegals being dumped in his lap a week because the courts say we can't hold them, that a wall isn't a priority. And that's just ONE city.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you want to hold them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like with all criminals, to adjudicate their case, they have no assets to assure their appearance in court.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


 Totally non-responsive


----------



## Porter Rockwell

boedicca said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you weren't being obnoxious and we had a real debate, you'd get your ass beat.  That means one on one.  You don't pack the gear nor have the brains.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m afraid you are delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stand away from the mirror.  You'll be okay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ Diagnosis:  Terminal Projection ^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't project shit.  I bet you can't debate twelve posters at a time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you call what you are doing "debate", you are sorely delusional.
Click to expand...


If you think I EVER called this ambush a debate, YOU are sorely delusional.  It's a lot of name calling by those who made the wall a religion.  They cannot answer simple questions and they want to call people names while lying and deflecting.

I'm being required to "debate" (THEIR WORDS) a dozen at a time because not even one of them will leave the comfort of USM and debate on a level playing field.  It's an ambush by people who struggle with their own conscience on this issue.  See posts 3475 and 3476 for proof.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have endured your dumbassery long enough.  I didn't win a damn thing Ray as I voted Republican.  I don't support Democracy - not in name, not by party, not by ideology.  YOU DO and I'm sick and tired of your dishonesty so I'll treat you like you treat me.
> 
> You have one standard.  If someone does not back the silly wall, they are a liberal, etc.  THAT is what separates you from others with an IQ higher than their shoe size.
> 
> If you had *ANY* IQ, you would know why Congress can pass no such law as you suggest.  My *only point* to you is that we are restricted by the parameters of the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings in what kind of legislation we an pass.
> 
> You have proven to be a fake, a phony, a fraud, and a poseur.  YOU adopted Bill Clinton's philosophy and have your head stuck so far up the liberals ass that if they fart, you will choke to death or get your first breath of air.
> 
> Now, you've called me a liberal for the last time.  Put up, shut up or get ready for a nasty back and forth.  Enough of this B.S.  You didn't know what an unalienable Right is so you don't have a clue when you advocate withholding one or denying one to someone.  You would have to kill me Ray in order to do some of the things you propose.  My Rights are unalienable.  You cannot take them; you cannot impose on them.  To even suggest it shows that YOU ARE NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN.
> 
> You should start at post #2806.  Read it and then cull through those 500 posts so you can see the number of times you LIED, called me names and tried to deflect when asked direct questions.  It's not my fault that the left misled you and made a socialist out of you.  Now, you want a discussion or a pissing match?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put up a wall and no rights of yours will be taken away.  If that happens, you let me know what right you lost, and I'll join your side.  This "losing rights' nonsense is some sort of black helicopter scare tactic that will never work.  You want to prove yourself as a conservative?  Then join the conservatives on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I promised you a response.  It takes two parts.  Here is the first part, the second one to follow:
> 
> Ray, challenging me on a subject you have shown an absolute ignorant and /or disdain of can be very costly.  To begin with, the build the wall guys say if you are not for a wall, you are a liberal, lefty, etc.  That is absolutely idiotic as we shall see.
> 
> The way I view the topic is best described in an analogy.  In this analogy a man is stuck in a burning apartment on the third floor of a building (this part of the analogy describes our situation in America.)  If this man stays in his current position, he dies.   If the man goes out the door, there is a 100 percent chance that he will be killed (that part of the analogy refers to the nutty wall idea.)  If he jumps out the window, the fall might kill him, but then again, he might live.  That part of the analogy refers to a solution *OTHER THAN* the nutty wall idea.
> 
> I am neither pro-open borders *NOR* am I anti – closed borders.  So, let’s get that understood and make an attempt to be honest.  It’s just that a militarized border with a wall around it will not work in the United States.
> 
> The REAL cost of the wall is Liberty.  So far, no build the wall guy has addressed the issue of Liberty.  In the Declaration of Independence, we find these words:
> 
> *“WE *hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”
> 
> Of this document, the Declaration of Independence, the SCOTUS ruled:
> 
> The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."   _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> The Bible is clear about this subject as well:
> 
> “Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land Unto *All the Inhabitants thereof*”  Leviticus 25: 10  and this Bible verse can be found on the Liberty Bell at Independence Hall.  This Old Testament verse refers to the "Jubilee", or the instructions to the Israelites to return property and free slaves.every 50 years.
> 
> In II Timothy 3: 16 we read that “*All* scripture _is_ given by inspiration of God, and _is_ profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
> 
> Finally, in II Corinthians 3 : 17 we read that:
> 
> “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord _is_, there _is_ Liberty.”
> 
> But what is Liberty?  Well in a *biblical *sense, liberty means freedom (see # 1865 in the Greek Dictionary of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.  In *law*, Liberty means Freedom; exemption *from* extraneous control.  …freedom regulated by law. (Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition)
> 
> My take on it is very simple:
> 
> In New Jersey, they passed a law requiring people to turn in high capacity magazines… this included even off duty police.  Nobody complied?  Why?  People think the law is unconstitutional.  The Right to Life and Liberty are unalienable Rights.  The Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right.  It is an extension of both a Right to Life AND a Right to Liberty.  So, no matter how many laws are passed, the majority of gun owners will not forfeit that Right.  On that issue, they understand the concept.
> 
> Those same people would, however, deny to *me* my Rights and punish me for hiring undocumented foreigners.  The sad truth is, just as the feds are usurping the Second Amendment, they are waging a war against your Liberty.  Those wanting a wall cannot find *any* biblical precedent for *CONTROLLING* people (which was one the first reasons cited to me in favor of a wall) and that was followed up by Ray – falsely believing we can keep people out.  What a crock!   (Continued in part II)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're forcing me to repeat myself.
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be the damned funniest thing I've read on this board. Everyone in our country has rights, but they are also subject to our laws if they abuse those rights. The same damned thing applies to illegal aliens, that's how our LAW refers to them. So take your semantics game and shove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution doesn't apply to the whole freaking world, the entry of aliens (meaning not of this country) are regulated by our laws. Not by your fantasies.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've repeated myself EIGHT times to Ray.  You bitch because you cannot understand one simple thing:
> 
> While the Constitution governs us, there are laws above the Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Violating laws can take any right, up to and including life. You can pretend natural laws trump ours, but nature doesn't have law enforcement officers and the only rights aliens have is due process. BTW that's the second time you've passed on my comment with out addressing it directly, what's wrong, can't argue with facts?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I have asked you innumerable questions that you have chosen to pass on.  Who in the Hell do you think you are?  God?  I don't owe you spit.  Just you say something don't make you God and I'm not obliged to answer you when you've spent the balance of your time on this thread lying and trying to be a damn bully.  

You answer my questions, I'll answer yours - and HELL no I won't look through this mess to find them for you.  You may have a few lap dogs that believe crap you say just because they want to believe it, but that don't make it true and it will *NEVER *add up to a fact.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put up a wall and no rights of yours will be taken away.  If that happens, you let me know what right you lost, and I'll join your side.  This "losing rights' nonsense is some sort of black helicopter scare tactic that will never work.  You want to prove yourself as a conservative?  Then join the conservatives on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I promised you a response.  It takes two parts.  Here is the first part, the second one to follow:
> 
> Ray, challenging me on a subject you have shown an absolute ignorant and /or disdain of can be very costly.  To begin with, the build the wall guys say if you are not for a wall, you are a liberal, lefty, etc.  That is absolutely idiotic as we shall see.
> 
> The way I view the topic is best described in an analogy.  In this analogy a man is stuck in a burning apartment on the third floor of a building (this part of the analogy describes our situation in America.)  If this man stays in his current position, he dies.   If the man goes out the door, there is a 100 percent chance that he will be killed (that part of the analogy refers to the nutty wall idea.)  If he jumps out the window, the fall might kill him, but then again, he might live.  That part of the analogy refers to a solution *OTHER THAN* the nutty wall idea.
> 
> I am neither pro-open borders *NOR* am I anti – closed borders.  So, let’s get that understood and make an attempt to be honest.  It’s just that a militarized border with a wall around it will not work in the United States.
> 
> The REAL cost of the wall is Liberty.  So far, no build the wall guy has addressed the issue of Liberty.  In the Declaration of Independence, we find these words:
> 
> *“WE *hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”
> 
> Of this document, the Declaration of Independence, the SCOTUS ruled:
> 
> The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."   _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> The Bible is clear about this subject as well:
> 
> “Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land Unto *All the Inhabitants thereof*”  Leviticus 25: 10  and this Bible verse can be found on the Liberty Bell at Independence Hall.  This Old Testament verse refers to the "Jubilee", or the instructions to the Israelites to return property and free slaves.every 50 years.
> 
> In II Timothy 3: 16 we read that “*All* scripture _is_ given by inspiration of God, and _is_ profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
> 
> Finally, in II Corinthians 3 : 17 we read that:
> 
> “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord _is_, there _is_ Liberty.”
> 
> But what is Liberty?  Well in a *biblical *sense, liberty means freedom (see # 1865 in the Greek Dictionary of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.  In *law*, Liberty means Freedom; exemption *from* extraneous control.  …freedom regulated by law. (Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition)
> 
> My take on it is very simple:
> 
> In New Jersey, they passed a law requiring people to turn in high capacity magazines… this included even off duty police.  Nobody complied?  Why?  People think the law is unconstitutional.  The Right to Life and Liberty are unalienable Rights.  The Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right.  It is an extension of both a Right to Life AND a Right to Liberty.  So, no matter how many laws are passed, the majority of gun owners will not forfeit that Right.  On that issue, they understand the concept.
> 
> Those same people would, however, deny to *me* my Rights and punish me for hiring undocumented foreigners.  The sad truth is, just as the feds are usurping the Second Amendment, they are waging a war against your Liberty.  Those wanting a wall cannot find *any* biblical precedent for *CONTROLLING* people (which was one the first reasons cited to me in favor of a wall) and that was followed up by Ray – falsely believing we can keep people out.  What a crock!   (Continued in part II)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're forcing me to repeat myself.
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be the damned funniest thing I've read on this board. Everyone in our country has rights, but they are also subject to our laws if they abuse those rights. The same damned thing applies to illegal aliens, that's how our LAW refers to them. So take your semantics game and shove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution doesn't apply to the whole freaking world, the entry of aliens (meaning not of this country) are regulated by our laws. Not by your fantasies.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've repeated myself EIGHT times to Ray.  You bitch because you cannot understand one simple thing:
> 
> While the Constitution governs us, there are laws above the Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Violating laws can take any right, up to and including life. You can pretend natural laws trump ours, but nature doesn't have law enforcement officers and the only rights aliens have is due process. BTW that's the second time you've pass on my comment with out addressing it directly, what's wrong, can argue with facts?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He gets very quiet when YOU are able to back up your position with references, and then challenge him to do the same.  Says a lot doesn’t it?
Click to expand...


I didn't get quiet.  I quit letting the dumb asses ambush me and the truth is, after more than SIX attempts, none of you have offered to answer the questions I asked first.  Quiet?  Open challenge to any one of you to meet me one on one off this board in a REAL debate.

I haven't finished my rant about Liberty yet.  See posts 3475 and 3476


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If people will give me a freaking break, I'll give you the post number, but it's been asked and answered in depth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If police officers ask for guns should we not give them guns because in someone’s opinion it infringes on their liberties? I find that odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you drunk?  What in the HELL did that mean?
> 
> I would never advocate giving up your gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you’re OK denying border agents another form of protection they feel they need?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The public Liberty comes first.  What did Franklin say about trading Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did he say about safety with no trade of liberty?
Click to expand...


If you knew, you would not be doing it every day - IF you were a REAL American.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, this dude has gone form some kind of social worker to now a constitutional lawyer. He hasn't even said why he thinks the 14th was implemented illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not relevant to the OP and I'd have to explain that while trying to reply to fifty four people attacking me on this thread.  If they would STFU and quit repeating the same points, I might be able to give you a hint as to why the 14th was illegally ratified... as if posters are too stupid to Google it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it's irrelevant, stop spewing about it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep bringing up irrelevant and off topic material.  What are you REALLY afraid of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the only making multiple posts claiming the 14th is illegal, and then saying it's irrelevant to the OP. You need to make up our minds.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already asked him to *prove* how exactly the 14th Amendment was shown to be an “illegal ratification” of the United States Constitution.  He has no answer, I’m still waiting.
Click to expand...


You can wait until Hell freezes over.  I asked questions first and you may think you're God, but you aren't.  Besides such a discussion is not the subject of the OP.  Open challenge to have a debate on a board of my choosing - where it is you and I and nobody else gets to participate.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

depotoo said:


> To sneak into Mexico illegally?  Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saving it from people like you
> 
> 
> 
> How are you saving it, by flooding it with ignorant peasants from Mexico?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered this for you three times:
> 
> 1)  I'm working to stop the drug addicts created by parents, government, doctors / mental health officials and Big Pharma
> 
> 2) We're taking people off the street, helping them get a GED, clean up their record if possible and get them back into the work-force
> 
> 3)  I am constantly lobbying legislators to pass legislation to get them to rehabilitate those in prison by giving prisoners an opportunity to earn shorter sentences via accomplishments while incarcerated:  Get their GED, learn a job skill, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can you not do this and support more border security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do support border security.  I simply do not support the wall.  It jeopardizes our Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You need some new jokes.  That wasn't funny.


----------



## OKTexas

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That shows how little you know.  There is NO debate going on.  This is a discussion forum.  Pit me against a dozen people so I cannot "debate" someone and then claim a win???  You now know why you are destined to lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion you were debating and you lost badly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one.  But if you throw a competitor into a ring and then put him against a dozen other guys, it's pretty damn desperate to claim he lost to any particular one of them.
> 
> That is why you guys are so dishonest.  I've spent over a thousand posts here, only to watch people like you and Independent change the goal posts, gang up on me and lie to the other posters while deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you did say you didn’t care what our border agents wanted. Pretty heartless imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They get paid to do a job and if I have to give up my Liberties for what they want, they can pound sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What liberties are you giving up?  If you want to hire foreigners, fine, but do it the legal way like everybody else.  We allow some foreigners into the country to work.  You may have to sponsor them, but it's possible.  Can you usher in a slew of people and then pick workers?  No you can't, but that has nothing to do with your liberties.
Click to expand...



I wonder why he doesn't hire his ex-cons instead of illegals?

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> In trying to summarize my last post ..  It’s not what you HAVE, it’s what you can PROVE.  Resumes are only good hainging on someone’s wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, this dude has gone form some kind of social worker to now a constitutional lawyer. He hasn't even said why he thinks the 14th was implemented illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not relevant to the OP and I'd have to explain that while trying to reply to fifty four people attacking me on this thread.  If they would STFU and quit repeating the same points, I might be able to give you a hint as to why the 14th was illegally ratified... as if posters are too stupid to Google it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it's irrelevant, stop spewing about it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep bringing up irrelevant and off topic material.  What are you REALLY afraid of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the only making multiple posts claiming the 14th is illegal, and then saying it's irrelevant to the OP. You need to make up our minds.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I'm giving you the same amount of information your side gives me.  Laundry list for laundry list.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion you were debating and you lost badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one.  But if you throw a competitor into a ring and then put him against a dozen other guys, it's pretty damn desperate to claim he lost to any particular one of them.
> 
> That is why you guys are so dishonest.  I've spent over a thousand posts here, only to watch people like you and Independent change the goal posts, gang up on me and lie to the other posters while deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you did say you didn’t care what our border agents wanted. Pretty heartless imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They get paid to do a job and if I have to give up my Liberties for what they want, they can pound sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What liberties are you giving up?  If you want to hire foreigners, fine, but do it the legal way like everybody else.  We allow some foreigners into the country to work.  You may have to sponsor them, but it's possible.  Can you usher in a slew of people and then pick workers?  No you can't, but that has nothing to do with your liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder why he doesn't hire his ex-cons instead of illegals?
> 
> .
Click to expand...



If you READ THIS THREAD you would know why.  Sorry ass Americans are not going to work while the government is paying them not to do anything.  There aren't enough homeless looking to better themselves either, but I keep trying.


----------



## OKTexas

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put up a wall and no rights of yours will be taken away.  If that happens, you let me know what right you lost, and I'll join your side.  This "losing rights' nonsense is some sort of black helicopter scare tactic that will never work.  You want to prove yourself as a conservative?  Then join the conservatives on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I promised you a response.  It takes two parts.  Here is the first part, the second one to follow:
> 
> Ray, challenging me on a subject you have shown an absolute ignorant and /or disdain of can be very costly.  To begin with, the build the wall guys say if you are not for a wall, you are a liberal, lefty, etc.  That is absolutely idiotic as we shall see.
> 
> The way I view the topic is best described in an analogy.  In this analogy a man is stuck in a burning apartment on the third floor of a building (this part of the analogy describes our situation in America.)  If this man stays in his current position, he dies.   If the man goes out the door, there is a 100 percent chance that he will be killed (that part of the analogy refers to the nutty wall idea.)  If he jumps out the window, the fall might kill him, but then again, he might live.  That part of the analogy refers to a solution *OTHER THAN* the nutty wall idea.
> 
> I am neither pro-open borders *NOR* am I anti – closed borders.  So, let’s get that understood and make an attempt to be honest.  It’s just that a militarized border with a wall around it will not work in the United States.
> 
> The REAL cost of the wall is Liberty.  So far, no build the wall guy has addressed the issue of Liberty.  In the Declaration of Independence, we find these words:
> 
> *“WE *hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”
> 
> Of this document, the Declaration of Independence, the SCOTUS ruled:
> 
> The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."   _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> The Bible is clear about this subject as well:
> 
> “Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land Unto *All the Inhabitants thereof*”  Leviticus 25: 10  and this Bible verse can be found on the Liberty Bell at Independence Hall.  This Old Testament verse refers to the "Jubilee", or the instructions to the Israelites to return property and free slaves.every 50 years.
> 
> In II Timothy 3: 16 we read that “*All* scripture _is_ given by inspiration of God, and _is_ profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
> 
> Finally, in II Corinthians 3 : 17 we read that:
> 
> “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord _is_, there _is_ Liberty.”
> 
> But what is Liberty?  Well in a *biblical *sense, liberty means freedom (see # 1865 in the Greek Dictionary of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.  In *law*, Liberty means Freedom; exemption *from* extraneous control.  …freedom regulated by law. (Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition)
> 
> My take on it is very simple:
> 
> In New Jersey, they passed a law requiring people to turn in high capacity magazines… this included even off duty police.  Nobody complied?  Why?  People think the law is unconstitutional.  The Right to Life and Liberty are unalienable Rights.  The Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right.  It is an extension of both a Right to Life AND a Right to Liberty.  So, no matter how many laws are passed, the majority of gun owners will not forfeit that Right.  On that issue, they understand the concept.
> 
> Those same people would, however, deny to *me* my Rights and punish me for hiring undocumented foreigners.  The sad truth is, just as the feds are usurping the Second Amendment, they are waging a war against your Liberty.  Those wanting a wall cannot find *any* biblical precedent for *CONTROLLING* people (which was one the first reasons cited to me in favor of a wall) and that was followed up by Ray – falsely believing we can keep people out.  What a crock!   (Continued in part II)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're forcing me to repeat myself.
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be the damned funniest thing I've read on this board. Everyone in our country has rights, but they are also subject to our laws if they abuse those rights. The same damned thing applies to illegal aliens, that's how our LAW refers to them. So take your semantics game and shove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution doesn't apply to the whole freaking world, the entry of aliens (meaning not of this country) are regulated by our laws. Not by your fantasies.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've repeated myself EIGHT times to Ray.  You bitch because you cannot understand one simple thing:
> 
> While the Constitution governs us, there are laws above the Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Violating laws can take any right, up to and including life. You can pretend natural laws trump ours, but nature doesn't have law enforcement officers and the only rights aliens have is due process. BTW that's the second time you've pass on my comment with out addressing it directly, what's wrong, can argue with facts?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He gets very quiet when YOU are able to back up your position with references, and then challenge him to do the same.  Says a lot doesn’t it?
Click to expand...



Yep

.


----------



## basquebromance

"Per the pool reporter, Trump said this afternoon that he has "informed my folks" that it will be a steel barrier rather than concrete, because: "They don't like concrete so we'll give them steel." (Democrats' issue with the wall is obviously not about which material is used.)"


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have endured your dumbassery long enough.  I didn't win a damn thing Ray as I voted Republican.  I don't support Democracy - not in name, not by party, not by ideology.  YOU DO and I'm sick and tired of your dishonesty so I'll treat you like you treat me.
> 
> You have one standard.  If someone does not back the silly wall, they are a liberal, etc.  THAT is what separates you from others with an IQ higher than their shoe size.
> 
> If you had *ANY* IQ, you would know why Congress can pass no such law as you suggest.  My *only point* to you is that we are restricted by the parameters of the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings in what kind of legislation we an pass.
> 
> You have proven to be a fake, a phony, a fraud, and a poseur.  YOU adopted Bill Clinton's philosophy and have your head stuck so far up the liberals ass that if they fart, you will choke to death or get your first breath of air.
> 
> Now, you've called me a liberal for the last time.  Put up, shut up or get ready for a nasty back and forth.  Enough of this B.S.  You didn't know what an unalienable Right is so you don't have a clue when you advocate withholding one or denying one to someone.  You would have to kill me Ray in order to do some of the things you propose.  My Rights are unalienable.  You cannot take them; you cannot impose on them.  To even suggest it shows that YOU ARE NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN.
> 
> You should start at post #2806.  Read it and then cull through those 500 posts so you can see the number of times you LIED, called me names and tried to deflect when asked direct questions.  It's not my fault that the left misled you and made a socialist out of you.  Now, you want a discussion or a pissing match?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put up a wall and no rights of yours will be taken away.  If that happens, you let me know what right you lost, and I'll join your side.  This "losing rights' nonsense is some sort of black helicopter scare tactic that will never work.  You want to prove yourself as a conservative?  Then join the conservatives on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Part II of my response to you:
> 
> In Jesus Time, there were *THREE* walls that surrounded Jerusalem, 90 towers stood in the first wall, 14 in the second, and 60 in the third. The third wall was built by Herod Agrippa I.  These walls dated back to the time the first one was built in 130 B.C.   Yet, very clearly these walls did not work.  They did not keep the moneychangers out of the Temple (It didn’t even keep them outside the outer walls)   Furthermore, the walls *did not *keep out the poseurs who claimed to be Israelites, but were in fact,  half breed Canaanites that Jesus referred to as the Children of Hell.
> 
> America, being a cut above the third world is not Mexico, Canada, etc. *NOR *are we at war (which is the primary purpose of a wall …* OTHER THAN* preserving a culture.)
> 
> Those who want a wall cite they mythical stories that these foreigners steal jobs – impossible unless you live in a socialist country… and Ray wants to debate the meaning of socialism.  Since he previously rejected the dictionary definition*, I went directly to the socialists themselves*. These are THEIR words, not mine:
> 
> “we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.
> 
> Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. *We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them*”
> 
> What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)
> 
> These are Ray’s EXACT sentiments.  Ray advocates for that very kind of control as do those who have bothered to answer my questions.
> 
> I think it’s time for the build the wall guys, the right, the left, etc. to cut the crap and get real.  From where do your Rights come from?  If the government give you your rights via your citizenship, then government is your Creator and your God.  It’s time to read the Declaration of Independence and the Court cases related thereto.
> 
> Under that scenario, you have NO Right to keep and bear Arms, NO Right to Freedom of the Press or Freedom of Speech, No Right to Freedom of Religion, etc.  This is NOT multiple choice; it’s either / or.
> 
> IF you believe in the foundational principles upon which America was founded, then you accept the fact that unalienable Rights pre-existed before the Constitution was written.  Man cannot take them from you.  And so, rather than spew this idiotic charge that I’m “pro-open borders,” you have to ask yourself the REAL question:
> 
> Is your Liberty a gift from your Creator OR is it bestowed upon you by government?  IF you believe in God, you have to find the biblical justification for denying to people their Liberty.  Securing the border, protecting America from an invasion, regulating the flow of people are all legal, moral and constitutional.  Using the laws to control or keep people out is a violation of their unalienable Rights – unless you think that only Americans have a Right to be in the United States.  We don’t have to hire those people; nobody has to do business with them; we don’t have to interact with them and it is OUR politicians that allow them to partake of the privileges of citizenship without becoming citizens.  Your real beef is with the politicians.
> 
> 
> Either you believe in Liberty or you do not.  The build the wall guys understand this so they’ve created this talking point: you’re either for the wall or you are whatever insult they can conjure up.  I’m not going to bother calling them names.  I pointed out what socialists say and what the word of God says.  IF Liberty only applies to Americans, somebody refer me to that section of the Constitution, the Bible, the Declaration of Independence or  something (other that post 14th Amendment swill) that will give credence to the talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm running in and out of the house so I'll respond as I (if I have time) to read it since brevity  is not your skill set.
> 
> First of all our country does not belong to the world, it belongs to Americans as founded.  Our founding documents were written for this country, not the world.  Secondly, our country is not operated by any religion.  In fact it's one of the big no-no's in our Constitution.  Our founders expected us to believe in various religions, but not have our government run by them.
> 
> Biblical teachings were fine in the day.  But this is a new day and some are just no longer valid.  Be fruitful and multiply is a great theory when you have a thousand people on the planet, not such a great idea when you have 7.5 billion.
> 
> Inalienable rights are those you are born with whether you believe in God or not.  They come as part of occupying this planet.  NOBODY as the inalienable right to enter this country without our permission.  Freedom comes after you get here, but you have no freedom until we allow you to enter.  Afterwards certain rights apply, and if finally granted citizenship, all rights apply.  But nobody from Guatemala has United States rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you are with that dumbassery again - and dishonesty.  I have *not one time* argued inalienable rights.  Stick your inalienable rights where the sun don't shine.  I'm only concerned with unalienable Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are NOT you stupid asshole.
Click to expand...



No need to be so tough on yourself. You are aware you quoted yourself, RIGHT?

.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> They voted for Trump, not a majority but enough.  The wall was only one of a dozen reasons for the Trump victory.  This is why 51% to 69% of Americans say they either oppose building a wall or say it's not a priority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell the mayor of El Paso that the 3500 illegals being dumped in his lap a week because the courts say we can't hold them, that a wall isn't a priority. And that's just ONE city.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you want to hold them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like with all criminals, to adjudicate their case, they have no assets to assure their appearance in court.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally non-responsive
Click to expand...



Liar.

.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I promised you a response.  It takes two parts.  Here is the first part, the second one to follow:
> 
> Ray, challenging me on a subject you have shown an absolute ignorant and /or disdain of can be very costly.  To begin with, the build the wall guys say if you are not for a wall, you are a liberal, lefty, etc.  That is absolutely idiotic as we shall see.
> 
> The way I view the topic is best described in an analogy.  In this analogy a man is stuck in a burning apartment on the third floor of a building (this part of the analogy describes our situation in America.)  If this man stays in his current position, he dies.   If the man goes out the door, there is a 100 percent chance that he will be killed (that part of the analogy refers to the nutty wall idea.)  If he jumps out the window, the fall might kill him, but then again, he might live.  That part of the analogy refers to a solution *OTHER THAN* the nutty wall idea.
> 
> I am neither pro-open borders *NOR* am I anti – closed borders.  So, let’s get that understood and make an attempt to be honest.  It’s just that a militarized border with a wall around it will not work in the United States.
> 
> The REAL cost of the wall is Liberty.  So far, no build the wall guy has addressed the issue of Liberty.  In the Declaration of Independence, we find these words:
> 
> *“WE *hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”
> 
> Of this document, the Declaration of Independence, the SCOTUS ruled:
> 
> The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."   _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> The Bible is clear about this subject as well:
> 
> “Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land Unto *All the Inhabitants thereof*”  Leviticus 25: 10  and this Bible verse can be found on the Liberty Bell at Independence Hall.  This Old Testament verse refers to the "Jubilee", or the instructions to the Israelites to return property and free slaves.every 50 years.
> 
> In II Timothy 3: 16 we read that “*All* scripture _is_ given by inspiration of God, and _is_ profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
> 
> Finally, in II Corinthians 3 : 17 we read that:
> 
> “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord _is_, there _is_ Liberty.”
> 
> But what is Liberty?  Well in a *biblical *sense, liberty means freedom (see # 1865 in the Greek Dictionary of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.  In *law*, Liberty means Freedom; exemption *from* extraneous control.  …freedom regulated by law. (Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition)
> 
> My take on it is very simple:
> 
> In New Jersey, they passed a law requiring people to turn in high capacity magazines… this included even off duty police.  Nobody complied?  Why?  People think the law is unconstitutional.  The Right to Life and Liberty are unalienable Rights.  The Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right.  It is an extension of both a Right to Life AND a Right to Liberty.  So, no matter how many laws are passed, the majority of gun owners will not forfeit that Right.  On that issue, they understand the concept.
> 
> Those same people would, however, deny to *me* my Rights and punish me for hiring undocumented foreigners.  The sad truth is, just as the feds are usurping the Second Amendment, they are waging a war against your Liberty.  Those wanting a wall cannot find *any* biblical precedent for *CONTROLLING* people (which was one the first reasons cited to me in favor of a wall) and that was followed up by Ray – falsely believing we can keep people out.  What a crock!   (Continued in part II)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're forcing me to repeat myself.
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be the damned funniest thing I've read on this board. Everyone in our country has rights, but they are also subject to our laws if they abuse those rights. The same damned thing applies to illegal aliens, that's how our LAW refers to them. So take your semantics game and shove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution doesn't apply to the whole freaking world, the entry of aliens (meaning not of this country) are regulated by our laws. Not by your fantasies.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've repeated myself EIGHT times to Ray.  You bitch because you cannot understand one simple thing:
> 
> While the Constitution governs us, there are laws above the Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Violating laws can take any right, up to and including life. You can pretend natural laws trump ours, but nature doesn't have law enforcement officers and the only rights aliens have is due process. BTW that's the second time you've pass on my comment with out addressing it directly, what's wrong, can argue with facts?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He gets very quiet when YOU are able to back up your position with references, and then challenge him to do the same.  Says a lot doesn’t it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't get quiet.  I quit letting the dumb asses ambush me and the truth is, after more than SIX attempts, none of you have offered to answer the questions I asked first.  Quiet?  Open challenge to any one of you to meet me one on one off this board in a REAL debate.
> 
> I haven't finished my rant about Liberty yet.  See posts 3475 and 3476
Click to expand...


Again, no proof of any references as to why the 14th Amendment is an illegal ratification of the United States Constitution.

Constitutional Lawyer my ass


----------



## basquebromance

"If Republicans think we have an immigration crisis now, just wait until there are tens of millions of migrants/refugees as the result of climate change."


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not relevant to the OP and I'd have to explain that while trying to reply to fifty four people attacking me on this thread.  If they would STFU and quit repeating the same points, I might be able to give you a hint as to why the 14th was illegally ratified... as if posters are too stupid to Google it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's irrelevant, stop spewing about it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep bringing up irrelevant and off topic material.  What are you REALLY afraid of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the only making multiple posts claiming the 14th is illegal, and then saying it's irrelevant to the OP. You need to make up our minds.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already asked him to *prove* how exactly the 14th Amendment was shown to be an “illegal ratification” of the United States Constitution.  He has no answer, I’m still waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can wait until Hell freezes over.  I asked questions first and you may think you're God, but you aren't.  Besides such a discussion is not the subject of the OP.  Open challenge to have a debate on a board of my choosing - where it is you and I and nobody else gets to participate.
Click to expand...


Ask me your questions.  I bet you don’t have the Constitutional knowledge nor references to actually back up anything you say.  You are a fraud


----------



## depotoo

Porter Rockwell said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> To sneak into Mexico illegally?  Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are you saving it, by flooding it with ignorant peasants from Mexico?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered this for you three times:
> 
> 1)  I'm working to stop the drug addicts created by parents, government, doctors / mental health officials and Big Pharma
> 
> 2) We're taking people off the street, helping them get a GED, clean up their record if possible and get them back into the work-force
> 
> 3)  I am constantly lobbying legislators to pass legislation to get them to rehabilitate those in prison by giving prisoners an opportunity to earn shorter sentences via accomplishments while incarcerated:  Get their GED, learn a job skill, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can you not do this and support more border security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do support border security.  I simply do not support the wall.  It jeopardizes our Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need some new jokes.  That wasn't funny.
Click to expand...

First time ever used.  Your statement it is a threat to liberty deserved it.


----------



## MaryL

We already have a border wall, don't we?  And it isn't working . It is  ugly and scar on our landscape. I want to tear it down. Now, I am NOT a modern day liberal. But what I really want, no more freekin'   "LIBERAL"  driven Sanctuary Cities thing.  Especially; since that was never on any voter approved ballot or initiative. It suddenly popped up regardless  or  despite the local  constituency .    THAT seemingly is the crux of this biscuit.  That has got to end. And that  is an internal legal issue. I think, I believe, that sanctuary cities are unconstitutional and the people that have silently and covertly pushed  special treatment for illegal aliens  need to be investigated by congress. And we don't need a border wall. Thank you for listening to my rant.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put up a wall and no rights of yours will be taken away.  If that happens, you let me know what right you lost, and I'll join your side.  This "losing rights' nonsense is some sort of black helicopter scare tactic that will never work.  You want to prove yourself as a conservative?  Then join the conservatives on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I promised you a response.  It takes two parts.  Here is the first part, the second one to follow:
> 
> Ray, challenging me on a subject you have shown an absolute ignorant and /or disdain of can be very costly.  To begin with, the build the wall guys say if you are not for a wall, you are a liberal, lefty, etc.  That is absolutely idiotic as we shall see.
> 
> The way I view the topic is best described in an analogy.  In this analogy a man is stuck in a burning apartment on the third floor of a building (this part of the analogy describes our situation in America.)  If this man stays in his current position, he dies.   If the man goes out the door, there is a 100 percent chance that he will be killed (that part of the analogy refers to the nutty wall idea.)  If he jumps out the window, the fall might kill him, but then again, he might live.  That part of the analogy refers to a solution *OTHER THAN* the nutty wall idea.
> 
> I am neither pro-open borders *NOR* am I anti – closed borders.  So, let’s get that understood and make an attempt to be honest.  It’s just that a militarized border with a wall around it will not work in the United States.
> 
> The REAL cost of the wall is Liberty.  So far, no build the wall guy has addressed the issue of Liberty.  In the Declaration of Independence, we find these words:
> 
> *“WE *hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”
> 
> Of this document, the Declaration of Independence, the SCOTUS ruled:
> 
> The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."   _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)
> 
> The Bible is clear about this subject as well:
> 
> “Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land Unto *All the Inhabitants thereof*”  Leviticus 25: 10  and this Bible verse can be found on the Liberty Bell at Independence Hall.  This Old Testament verse refers to the "Jubilee", or the instructions to the Israelites to return property and free slaves.every 50 years.
> 
> In II Timothy 3: 16 we read that “*All* scripture _is_ given by inspiration of God, and _is_ profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
> 
> Finally, in II Corinthians 3 : 17 we read that:
> 
> “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord _is_, there _is_ Liberty.”
> 
> But what is Liberty?  Well in a *biblical *sense, liberty means freedom (see # 1865 in the Greek Dictionary of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.  In *law*, Liberty means Freedom; exemption *from* extraneous control.  …freedom regulated by law. (Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition)
> 
> My take on it is very simple:
> 
> In New Jersey, they passed a law requiring people to turn in high capacity magazines… this included even off duty police.  Nobody complied?  Why?  People think the law is unconstitutional.  The Right to Life and Liberty are unalienable Rights.  The Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right.  It is an extension of both a Right to Life AND a Right to Liberty.  So, no matter how many laws are passed, the majority of gun owners will not forfeit that Right.  On that issue, they understand the concept.
> 
> Those same people would, however, deny to *me* my Rights and punish me for hiring undocumented foreigners.  The sad truth is, just as the feds are usurping the Second Amendment, they are waging a war against your Liberty.  Those wanting a wall cannot find *any* biblical precedent for *CONTROLLING* people (which was one the first reasons cited to me in favor of a wall) and that was followed up by Ray – falsely believing we can keep people out.  What a crock!   (Continued in part II)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're forcing me to repeat myself.
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be the damned funniest thing I've read on this board. Everyone in our country has rights, but they are also subject to our laws if they abuse those rights. The same damned thing applies to illegal aliens, that's how our LAW refers to them. So take your semantics game and shove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution doesn't apply to the whole freaking world, the entry of aliens (meaning not of this country) are regulated by our laws. Not by your fantasies.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've repeated myself EIGHT times to Ray.  You bitch because you cannot understand one simple thing:
> 
> While the Constitution governs us, there are laws above the Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Violating laws can take any right, up to and including life. You can pretend natural laws trump ours, but nature doesn't have law enforcement officers and the only rights aliens have is due process. BTW that's the second time you've passed on my comment with out addressing it directly, what's wrong, can't argue with facts?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked you innumerable questions that you have chosen to pass on.  Who in the Hell do you think you are?  God?  I don't owe you spit.  Just you say something don't make you God and I'm not obliged to answer you when you've spent the balance of your time on this thread lying and trying to be a damn bully.
> 
> You answer my questions, I'll answer yours - and HELL no I won't look through this mess to find them for you.  You may have a few lap dogs that believe crap you say just because they want to believe it, but that don't make it true and it will *NEVER *add up to a fact.
Click to expand...



Poor little thing, I've addressed every question you've asked me, it's your problem it you didn't like my answers.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If police officers ask for guns should we not give them guns because in someone’s opinion it infringes on their liberties? I find that odd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you drunk?  What in the HELL did that mean?
> 
> I would never advocate giving up your gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you’re OK denying border agents another form of protection they feel they need?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The public Liberty comes first.  What did Franklin say about trading Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did he say about safety with no trade of liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you knew, you would not be doing it every day - IF you were a REAL American.
Click to expand...



Wow, a social worker, constitutional lawyer and now the arbiter of who is a "REAL American", damn you're versatile ain't ya?

.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one.  But if you throw a competitor into a ring and then put him against a dozen other guys, it's pretty damn desperate to claim he lost to any particular one of them.
> 
> That is why you guys are so dishonest.  I've spent over a thousand posts here, only to watch people like you and Independent change the goal posts, gang up on me and lie to the other posters while deflecting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you did say you didn’t care what our border agents wanted. Pretty heartless imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They get paid to do a job and if I have to give up my Liberties for what they want, they can pound sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What liberties are you giving up?  If you want to hire foreigners, fine, but do it the legal way like everybody else.  We allow some foreigners into the country to work.  You may have to sponsor them, but it's possible.  Can you usher in a slew of people and then pick workers?  No you can't, but that has nothing to do with your liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder why he doesn't hire his ex-cons instead of illegals?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you READ THIS THREAD you would know why.  Sorry ass Americans are not going to work while the government is paying them not to do anything.  There aren't enough homeless looking to better themselves either, but I keep trying.
Click to expand...



What did you say about excuses? You see unlike you I've actually hired people who have been in jail to do odd jobs around my place instead of illegals. I guess I practice what you preach better than you do.

.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, this dude has gone form some kind of social worker to now a constitutional lawyer. He hasn't even said why he thinks the 14th was implemented illegally.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not relevant to the OP and I'd have to explain that while trying to reply to fifty four people attacking me on this thread.  If they would STFU and quit repeating the same points, I might be able to give you a hint as to why the 14th was illegally ratified... as if posters are too stupid to Google it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it's irrelevant, stop spewing about it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep bringing up irrelevant and off topic material.  What are you REALLY afraid of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the only making multiple posts claiming the 14th is illegal, and then saying it's irrelevant to the OP. You need to make up our minds.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm giving you the same amount of information your side gives me.  Laundry list for laundry list.
Click to expand...


Excuse me but, unlike you, I provided references behind the positions I posted.  I just found a way to shut you up.  That’s why you’re avoiding bringing up your immigration position with me, because I already have demonstrated to you that I can actually back up my position with referenced facts.

For someone that claims “Constitutional knowledge with 250 cases” ... research and providing references was never your strong suit on this thread.  If you are going to boast all this court experience, at least back it up with showing you know how to do research.  At least I know enough never to claim knowledge in a career I don’t actually possess.


----------



## MaryL

What is so funny about my post? I am feeling like Elvis Costello.  Peace love & understanding. So, If ya' all want to keep the wankers out, don't hire them! Make them Prove their national identity with  state sanctioned national identity card linked to their, DNA, Fingerprints.  Things that are verifiable.  Might be cheaper and more effective than building a wall on the southern border. But let's keep up cheap petty appearances, like  "Border walls". Bully.


----------



## boedicca

Porter Rockwell said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m afraid you are delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stand away from the mirror.  You'll be okay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ Diagnosis:  Terminal Projection ^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't project shit.  I bet you can't debate twelve posters at a time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you call what you are doing "debate", you are sorely delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think I EVER called this ambush a debate, YOU are sorely delusional.  It's a lot of name calling by those who made the wall a religion.  They cannot answer simple questions and they want to call people names while lying and deflecting.
> 
> I'm being required to "debate" (THEIR WORDS) a dozen at a time because not even one of them will leave the comfort of USM and debate on a level playing field.  It's an ambush by people who struggle with their own conscience on this issue.  See posts 3475 and 3476 for proof.
Click to expand...



Scuze moi, but you claimed to be debating 12 people simultaneously.

As if.


----------



## Flopper

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poll: Majority opposes border wall with Mexico
> 
> So, is America a Republic or a Democracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was three years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was TWO years ago, and about two months,.  Just a little off in your math.  Now Trump votes of just TWO years ago no longer matter, but don't EVER expect the Left to stop trying to shove a video of Trump bragging and trying to impress some guy about what a babe magnet he was from FOURTEEN years ago!  At least we KNOW the votes REALLY HAPPENED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Public opinion went against the wall after Trump was elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You, of course, mean the media that was against Trump breathing from the moment he tossed his hat in the ring.
Click to expand...

In his first speech announcing his candidacy he attached the Muslims, the Chinese, Mexicans, Central and South Americans.  In his next speech he declared war on the media.   He missed the Blacks but that was soon to follow:

From his first speech he said, "They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

When he threw his hat in the ring he essential declared war on all minorities aligning himself with the white majority.  I'm sure white supremacists across the country felt they finally had a candidate they could support.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents want it. That to me is first and foremost in importance. Progressive Left is anti Semitic. That is also a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they work for us, and we're obligated to give them the tools required to do the job we ask them to do in an effective and safe manner. We already have walls and barriers on roughly 1/3rd of the border. Now you cry babies claim adding an additional 10% will somehow restrict our liberties and would be IMMORAL. REALLY?? That seems to fly in the face of logic.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I don't know if adding a couple hundred miles of wall will seriously limit anyone's liberties but it's highly unlike to seriously reduce the number of illegal immigrants.  Most of the border will still be unfenced and we are doing nothing to stop the flow coming through ports of entry nor dealing with the fact that most illegal immigrants enter legally.  The wall is basically a waste of money and worse yet it deflects the nation's attention away other major problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 200 miles wont solve the problem, but 1400 miles will.  You're attacking a "solution" that no one has proposed.  Border crossing is 60% of the problem, but you're saying solving 60% of the problem is a waste of time.  You're just an open borders douchebag, or course, who doesn't want to solve the problem.
> 
> Visa overstays is another problem that can easily be solved, but douchebags like you have obstructed the solution to that problem as well.
> 
> It appears the one genuine obstacle to get real border security is douchebags like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference between border crossers and VISA overstays is the VISA people have been vetted.  The people jumping our border could have Lord knows what kind of diseases, Lord knows what minimal education, and Lord knows what kind of criminal record.  I'm sure many of them don't even know a word of English.
> 
> Therefore border crossers have to be a priority over VISA overstays because it's not just about them being here illegally, it's more about our safety and culture.
Click to expand...


Ray, You never responded to posts 3475 and 3476.  So, I will try yet again.  Here is part III - a continuation to see if you will keep your word:

Part III


I’m saving my best stuff for last, but I wanted to continue on answering Ray (who is too ashamed to respond to his request that I tell him what Liberties are lost with the wall.


If you throw a rock into a still pond, it makes a lot of ripples.  One right wing book I read called Unintended Consequences by John Ross.  It is a fictional novel based upon current laws and how they could be used in an anti-gun scenario.  It demonstrates how one action may impact another.

When I was a teen, I spoke out publicly and was then recruited by the Young Republicans Club and the John Birch Society not to mention other organizations and I became hard core right.  Since then, my major theme has not changed; the movement has.  Those who want a wall around the southern border refuse to answer a few simple questions:

If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens?  What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights?  T*hey keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken.  I’m asking them for proof of their position*. 

Unable to do that they call me a lot of names that they cannot back up.  But, I want to remind them of a few things:

If you go back to the mid to late 1990s the John Birch Society, Concern Conservative Citizens Society, Young Republicans Club, etc. were *AGAINST* the New World Order, One World Government, the abolition of jurisdictions,the Constitution Free Zone, militarized police, National ID, surveillance society, the unconstitutional 14th and 16th Amendments (neither passing constitutional muster), and the assaults on religion.  They fought gun control, eminent domain abuses, and warrant less search and seizures.  Probably, the last great effort to gain national attention was Alex Jones video* POLICE STATE 2000* (put out in the late 1980s) and a book called Operation Vampire Killer 2000 (written in the early 1990s by Jack McLamb of Police Against the New World Order.)

Operation Vampire Killer 2000 - The Lawful Path


If one were to return to that era, the uninformed build the wall guys, would swear and be damned the conservatives were the liberals. Well, the right adopted the left’s solutions:


Meanwhile, the left has jumped on the privacy bandwagon, warning Americans about the Constitution Free Zone:




Reminds me of the old Johnny Cash song The One on the Right is on the Left.

Anyway, with the wall up, it will immediately affect your Liberties in about a dozen ways.  For this installment, I’ll list three:


1  There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone.  There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER.  Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights

2  The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom.  It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb

3  As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.


I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach.  The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it.  If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort.  We got a long way to go.


----------



## OKTexas

MaryL said:


> What is so funny about my post? I am feeling like Elvis Costello.  Peace love & understanding. So, If ya' all want to keep the wankers out, don't hire them! Make them Prove their national identity with  state sanctioned national identity card linked to their, DNA, Fingerprints.  Things that are verifiable.  Might be cheaper and more effective than building a wall on the southern border. But let's keep up cheap petty appearances, like  "Border walls". Bully.




What's so funny, you said walls don't work in-spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The fact is they do work, that's why the border patrol is asking for more. If you don't like how it looks, do an about face, problem solved.

.


----------



## MaryL

Our Constitution proports the idea : NO ONE is above the law. Even people that skirt immigration law. And when local and state officials seem to think they can transcend  that and local voters,  and the well being of Americans in general, that is too much. This has got to end. I hold that Sanctuary cities are Unconstitutional, and we need to examine that.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was three years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was TWO years ago, and about two months,.  Just a little off in your math.  Now Trump votes of just TWO years ago no longer matter, but don't EVER expect the Left to stop trying to shove a video of Trump bragging and trying to impress some guy about what a babe magnet he was from FOURTEEN years ago!  At least we KNOW the votes REALLY HAPPENED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Public opinion went against the wall after Trump was elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You, of course, mean the media that was against Trump breathing from the moment he tossed his hat in the ring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In his first speech announcing his candidacy he attached the Muslims, the Chinese, Mexicans, Central and South Americans.  In his next speech he declared war on the media.   He missed the Blacks but that was soon to follow:
> 
> From his first speech he said, "They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
> 
> When he threw his hat in the ring he essential declared war on all minorities aligning himself with the white majority.  I'm sure white supremacists across the country felt they finally had a candidate they could support.
Click to expand...



Actually he aligned himself with the law abiding of all stripes.

.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

MaryL said:


> What is so funny about my post? I am feeling like Elvis Costello.  Peace love & understanding. So, If ya' all want to keep the wankers out, don't hire them! Make them Prove their national identity with  state sanctioned national identity card linked to their, DNA, Fingerprints.  Things that are verifiable.  Might be cheaper and more effective than building a wall on the southern border. But let's keep up cheap petty appearances, like  "Border walls". Bully.



Border walls isn’t just about immigration.  Do you remember the Jacob Chambers Case under the Obama Administration?  You might remember it as Eric Holder botching what was otherwise called “Fast and Furious”.  The left will tell me the failure of strict gun regulations to stop rising gun violence, is due to illegal guns filtering across from outside state lines.  However, the left favors “open borders” on the US / Mexican border where guns are filtering in this country.  How does open borders stop the democrats position of desiring more gun regulations and stopping gun violence?  Actually they are their own problem.

What a wall DOES do is make those who wish to enter, use designated access points to enter the United States.  We have designated access points in Canada, so this preventing people the liberty to freely cross the border is inaccurate, unproven, and false. 

You also have MS-13 gang violence which has made their way to the United States from Mexico. Do Democrats have any answers to my of these problems I addressed here? No.

Also, Harry Reid was strongly opposed to illegals entering this country.  He provided actual researched statistics as well as cost burdens, which  I posted on this thread with a video.  So why the big change to now support what they once was so sternly opposed?


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "front lines" of what, destroying our country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saving it from people like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are you saving it, by flooding it with ignorant peasants from Mexico?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered this for you three times:
> 
> 1)  I'm working to stop the drug addicts created by parents, government, doctors / mental health officials and Big Pharma
> 
> 2) We're taking people off the street, helping them get a GED, clean up their record if possible and get them back into the work-force
> 
> 3)  I am constantly lobbying legislators to pass legislation to get them to rehabilitate those in prison by giving prisoners an opportunity to earn shorter sentences via accomplishments while incarcerated:  Get their GED, learn a job skill, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can you not do this and support more border security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do support border security.  I simply do not support the wall.  It jeopardizes our Liberty.
Click to expand...

You can't keep them out without a wall. Cameras and sensors will not stop them from crossing the border. We can't hire enough people to insure every illegal is caught and we don't have enough prisons to house them.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they work for us, and we're obligated to give them the tools required to do the job we ask them to do in an effective and safe manner. We already have walls and barriers on roughly 1/3rd of the border. Now you cry babies claim adding an additional 10% will somehow restrict our liberties and would be IMMORAL. REALLY?? That seems to fly in the face of logic.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I don't know if adding a couple hundred miles of wall will seriously limit anyone's liberties but it's highly unlike to seriously reduce the number of illegal immigrants.  Most of the border will still be unfenced and we are doing nothing to stop the flow coming through ports of entry nor dealing with the fact that most illegal immigrants enter legally.  The wall is basically a waste of money and worse yet it deflects the nation's attention away other major problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 200 miles wont solve the problem, but 1400 miles will.  You're attacking a "solution" that no one has proposed.  Border crossing is 60% of the problem, but you're saying solving 60% of the problem is a waste of time.  You're just an open borders douchebag, or course, who doesn't want to solve the problem.
> 
> Visa overstays is another problem that can easily be solved, but douchebags like you have obstructed the solution to that problem as well.
> 
> It appears the one genuine obstacle to get real border security is douchebags like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference between border crossers and VISA overstays is the VISA people have been vetted.  The people jumping our border could have Lord knows what kind of diseases, Lord knows what minimal education, and Lord knows what kind of criminal record.  I'm sure many of them don't even know a word of English.
> 
> Therefore border crossers have to be a priority over VISA overstays because it's not just about them being here illegally, it's more about our safety and culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ray, You never responded to posts 3475 and 3476.  So, I will try yet again.  Here is part III - a continuation to see if you will keep your word:
> 
> Part III
> 
> 
> I’m saving my best stuff for last, but I wanted to continue on answering Ray (who is too ashamed to respond to his request that I tell him what Liberties are lost with the wall.
> 
> 
> If you throw a rock into a still pond, it makes a lot of ripples.  One right wing book I read called Unintended Consequences by John Ross.  It is a fictional novel based upon current laws and how they could be used in an anti-gun scenario.  It demonstrates how one action may impact another.
> 
> When I was a teen, I spoke out publicly and was then recruited by the Young Republicans Club and the John Birch Society not to mention other organizations and I became hard core right.  Since then, my major theme has not changed; the movement has.  Those who want a wall around the southern border refuse to answer a few simple questions:
> 
> If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens?  What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights?  T*hey keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken.  I’m asking them for proof of their position*.
> 
> Unable to do that they call me a lot of names that they cannot back up.  But, I want to remind them of a few things:
> 
> If you go back to the mid to late 1990s the John Birch Society, Concern Conservative Citizens Society, Young Republicans Club, etc. were *AGAINST* the New World Order, One World Government, the abolition of jurisdictions,the Constitution Free Zone, militarized police, National ID, surveillance society, the unconstitutional 14th and 16th Amendments (neither passing constitutional muster), and the assaults on religion.  They fought gun control, eminent domain abuses, and warrant less search and seizures.  Probably, the last great effort to gain national attention was Alex Jones video* POLICE STATE 2000* (put out in the late 1980s) and a book called Operation Vampire Killer 2000 (written in the early 1990s by Jack McLamb of Police Against the New World Order.)
> 
> Operation Vampire Killer 2000 - The Lawful Path
> 
> 
> If one were to return to that era, the uninformed build the wall guys, would swear and be damned the conservatives were the liberals. Well, the right adopted the left’s solutions:
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, the left has jumped on the privacy bandwagon, warning Americans about the Constitution Free Zone:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me of the old Johnny Cash song The One on the Right is on the Left.
> 
> Anyway, with the wall up, it will immediately affect your Liberties in about a dozen ways.  For this installment, I’ll list three:
> 
> 
> 1  There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone.  There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER.  Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights
> 
> 2  The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom.  It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb
> 
> 3  As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.
> 
> 
> I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach.  The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it.  If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort.  We got a long way to go.
Click to expand...

Foreigners might have unalienable rights in their own country but they have no right to be here.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enough Americans voted for the wall to put Trump in office along with a butt load of congresscritters in 2016.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was three years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was TWO years ago, and about two months,.  Just a little off in your math.  Now Trump votes of just TWO years ago no longer matter, but don't EVER expect the Left to stop trying to shove a video of Trump bragging and trying to impress some guy about what a babe magnet he was from FOURTEEN years ago!  At least we KNOW the votes REALLY HAPPENED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Public opinion went against the wall after Trump was elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You, of course, mean the media that was against Trump breathing from the moment he tossed his hat in the ring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In his first speech announcing his candidacy he attached the Muslims, the Chinese, Mexicans, Central and South Americans.  In his next speech he declared war on the media.   He missed the Blacks but that was soon to follow:
> 
> From his first speech he said, "They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
> 
> When he threw his hat in the ring he essential declared war on all minorities aligning himself with the white majority.  I'm sure white supremacists across the country felt they finally had a candidate they could support.
Click to expand...


If you think the phony race thing still works, think again.  It doesn't have anything to do with race.


----------



## sealybobo

Norman said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The democrat version of this story doesn't have a happy ending, does it?
Click to expand...

I don’t remember any wars on Clinton or Obama’s watch but Iraq 1&2 and Afghan war all on Bush 1&2s watch.


----------



## Manonthestreet

sealybobo said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The democrat version of this story doesn't have a happy ending, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t remember any wars on Clinton or Obama’s watch but Iraq 1&2 and Afghan war all on Bush 1&2s watch.
Click to expand...

Syria Libya....adventurism all over Africa....Africom expanded huge


----------



## MaryL

OKTexas said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so funny about my post? I am feeling like Elvis Costello.  Peace love & understanding. So, If ya' all want to keep the wankers out, don't hire them! Make them Prove their national identity with  state sanctioned national identity card linked to their, DNA, Fingerprints.  Things that are verifiable.  Might be cheaper and more effective than building a wall on the southern border. But let's keep up cheap petty appearances, like  "Border walls". Bully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's so funny, you said walls don't word in-spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The fact is they do work, that's why the border patrol is asking for more. If you don't like how it looks, do an about face, problem solved.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Love ya'all.  Good fences make for good neighbors. We have liberal assholes that give illegal aliens freebies . Sanctuary cities. Now, nobody got to vote on whether or not their home town became a sanctuary city, that was so  much a  liberal cadre " They just presumed they could get away with"  thing. Sanctuary cities?  Seems  that was a overriding Constitutional  issue people ignore. Who got to vote to give their city / state  ignore  federal immigration laws?  I didn't, did any of you? Was it on a ballot anywhere? Because, that a pretty significant  issue. Ignoring the will of the people and constitutional laws.


----------



## Flopper

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> They get paid to do a job and if I have to give up my Liberties for what they want, they can pound sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does their ask for a wall infringe on your liberties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If people will give me a freaking break, I'll give you the post number, but it's been asked and answered in depth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If police officers ask for guns should we not give them guns because in someone’s opinion it infringes on their liberties? I find that odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you drunk?  What in the HELL did that mean?
> 
> I would never advocate giving up your gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you’re OK denying border agents another form of protection they feel they need?
Click to expand...

Who exactly are these border agents; the ones Trump's Customs and Border Protection Director hand picked for Trump's border barrier infomercial at the white house?

Border Patrol agents on the front lines say they need more technology and additional personnel to curb the illegal traffic, according to a report released on Thursday by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggested a border wall.
What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)


----------



## danielpalos

MaryL said:


> Our Constitution proports the idea : NO ONE is above the law. Even people that skirt immigration law. And when local and state officials seem to think they can transcend  that and local voters,  and the well being of Americans in general, that is too much. This has got to end. I hold that Sanctuary cities are Unconstitutional, and we need to examine that.


nobody takes the right wing seriuosly about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.  We don't have an immigration clause we have an establishment clause for naturalization.


----------



## MaryL

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so funny about my post? I am feeling like Elvis Costello.  Peace love & understanding. So, If ya' all want to keep the wankers out, don't hire them! Make them Prove their national identity with  state sanctioned national identity card linked to their, DNA, Fingerprints.  Things that are verifiable.  Might be cheaper and more effective than building a wall on the southern border. But let's keep up cheap petty appearances, like  "Border walls". Bully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Border walls isn’t just about immigration.  Do you remember the Jacob Chambers Case under the Obama Administration?  You might remember it as Eric Holder botching what was otherwise called “Fast and Furious”.  The left will tell me the failure of strict gun regulations to stop rising gun violence, is due to illegal guns filtering across from outside state lines.  However, the left favors “open borders” on the US / Mexican border where guns are filtering in this country.  How does open borders stop the democrats position of desiring more gun regulations and stopping gun violence?  Actually they are their own problem.
> 
> What a wall DOES do is make those who wish to enter, use designated access points to enter the United States.  We have designated access points in Canada, so this preventing people the liberty to freely cross the border is inaccurate, unproven, and false.
> 
> You also have MS-13 gang violence which has made their way to the United States from Mexico. Do Democrats have any answers to my of these problems I addressed here? No.
> 
> Also, Harry Reid was strongly opposed to illegals entering this country.  He provided actual researched statistics as well as cost burdens, which  I posted on this thread with a video.  So why the big change to now support what they once was so sternly opposed?
Click to expand...

I think this is a far deeper Constitutional issue. When we have liberals enabling people that ignore immigration laws, and ignoring the wishes of the people to enable the violators  empower those that exploit them, that isn't what America is about. Well, unless  we have just become a bunch of  amoral nihilist manipulators.


----------



## Flopper

basquebromance said:


> "If Kushner (Trump) trades amnesty for a wall, history books will have to be pulled from the shelves to replace "Neville Chamberlain" with "Donald Trump."
> 
> If Kushner (Trump) trades DACA amnesty for a wall, Neville Chamberlain can relax. He will hereafter escape history's scorn." - Coulter


A path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is probably the only thing democrats would accept.  Last Spring, they might have accepted a deal involving DACD but not now.  Speaking politically, there's no reason for democrats to back down.  Trump is taking responsibility for the government shutdown.  The majority of Americans support neither building a wall or the government paying for it.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does their ask for a wall infringe on your liberties?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If people will give me a freaking break, I'll give you the post number, but it's been asked and answered in depth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If police officers ask for guns should we not give them guns because in someone’s opinion it infringes on their liberties? I find that odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you drunk?  What in the HELL did that mean?
> 
> I would never advocate giving up your gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you’re OK denying border agents another form of protection they feel they need?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who exactly are these border agents; the ones Trump's Customs and Border Protection Director hand picked for Trump's border barrier infomercial at the white house?
> 
> Border Patrol agents on the front lines say they need more technology and additional personnel to curb the illegal traffic, according to a report released on Thursday by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggested a border wall.
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
Click to expand...

You just said we can't trust the border agents that Trump chose for his "infomercial," so why should anyone trust the border agents the Democrats picked for their poll?


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If Kushner (Trump) trades amnesty for a wall, history books will have to be pulled from the shelves to replace "Neville Chamberlain" with "Donald Trump."
> 
> If Kushner (Trump) trades DACA amnesty for a wall, Neville Chamberlain can relax. He will hereafter escape history's scorn." - Coulter
> 
> 
> 
> A path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is probably the only thing democrats would accept.  Last Spring, they might have accepted a deal involving DACD but not now.  Speaking politically, there's no reason for democrats to back down.  Trump is taking responsibility for the government shutdown.  The majority of Americans support neither building a wall or the government paying for it.
Click to expand...

The majority of Americans are not going to accept a blanket amnesty for all illegal aliens, especially without guaranteed security for our border.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Border agents appeared on TV and explicitly stated they wanted a wall because it would help them. This is good enough for me. I thank them for their dangerous service.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Flopper said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If Kushner (Trump) trades amnesty for a wall, history books will have to be pulled from the shelves to replace "Neville Chamberlain" with "Donald Trump."
> 
> If Kushner (Trump) trades DACA amnesty for a wall, Neville Chamberlain can relax. He will hereafter escape history's scorn." - Coulter
> 
> 
> 
> A path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is probably the only thing democrats would accept.  Last Spring, they might have accepted a deal involving DACD but not now.  Speaking politically, there's no reason for democrats to back down.  Trump is taking responsibility for the government shutdown.  The majority of Americans support neither building a wall or the government paying for it.
Click to expand...


Path to more Democrat voters you mean? Seems very self serving.


----------



## OKTexas

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saving it from people like you
> 
> 
> 
> How are you saving it, by flooding it with ignorant peasants from Mexico?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered this for you three times:
> 
> 1)  I'm working to stop the drug addicts created by parents, government, doctors / mental health officials and Big Pharma
> 
> 2) We're taking people off the street, helping them get a GED, clean up their record if possible and get them back into the work-force
> 
> 3)  I am constantly lobbying legislators to pass legislation to get them to rehabilitate those in prison by giving prisoners an opportunity to earn shorter sentences via accomplishments while incarcerated:  Get their GED, learn a job skill, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can you not do this and support more border security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do support border security.  I simply do not support the wall.  It jeopardizes our Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't keep them out without a wall. Cameras and sensors will not stop them from crossing the border. We can't hire enough people to insure every illegal is caught and we don't have enough prisons to house them.
Click to expand...



Yep, just like surveillance cameras don't stop all bank robberies. And for the ones that get in, we can start prosecuting those that harbor them by giving them jobs, allowing them to rent housing and ban sanctuary cities nationally, like we did here in TX. There are tons of things that can be done to rid us of these parasites and no I'm not talking about just hispanics.

.


----------



## Flopper

basquebromance said:


> "Per the pool reporter, Trump said this afternoon that he has "informed my folks" that it will be a steel barrier rather than concrete, because: "They don't like concrete so we'll give them steel." (Democrats' issue with the wall is obviously not about which material is used.)"


I think it's always been steel.  However, since Trump never gave Congress any specifications as to exactly what he would build, or where he would build it, he could build pretty much anything he wanted anywhere he wants it.


----------



## Flopper

basquebromance said:


> "If Republicans think we have an immigration crisis now, just wait until there are tens of millions of migrants/refugees as the result of climate change."


No, that can't happen.  Republicans deny the climate is changing.


----------



## MaryL

I actually have been to the INS. I am appalled that we had so many illegal aliens from ...then I was cut at the knees.  In 1993. Apparently it's OK Mexican illegals sneak in and then... Fill in the blank. I have known all these other immigrants from like ...fill in the blank.  Immigrants that worked hard to get visas and fulfilled their contracts as immigrants.  To be honest, I can't remember most of them.  Rumanians? Hungarians?  They worked bloody hard to get in here.  . They acclimated and  respected America.    And giving them sanctuary cities? That never happened back in the day.
But, Mexicans?  Or Hondurans?  How did giving sanctuary cities to people ignoring federal immigration law from Latin America just suddenly happen extra judicially? Anybody  get to vote on that sanctuary city  stuff? I seem to think that  giving people that violate immigration laws  immunity from laws is unconstitutional somehow...But that's just me. ​


----------



## Flopper

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Border agents appeared on TV and explicitly stated they wanted a wall because it would help them. This is good enough for me. I thank them for their dangerous service.


If you're referring to Trump's infomercial at the White House, those agents were hand picked by the Customs director.  

If you really want to know what agents think then you need to read the report prepared by Homeland Security in which they did a survey of hundreds of agents asking them for solutions to the illegal immigration problem.  Not surprisingly, only a handful even mention a barrier wall as a solution. Furthermore, Homeland Security has never put a wall in their budget request before Trump.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> Well, I'm a libertarian



You owe me a keyboard. I just spit coffee all over my desk laughing!


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they work for us, and we're obligated to give them the tools required to do the job we ask them to do in an effective and safe manner. We already have walls and barriers on roughly 1/3rd of the border. Now you cry babies claim adding an additional 10% will somehow restrict our liberties and would be IMMORAL. REALLY?? That seems to fly in the face of logic.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I don't know if adding a couple hundred miles of wall will seriously limit anyone's liberties but it's highly unlike to seriously reduce the number of illegal immigrants.  Most of the border will still be unfenced and we are doing nothing to stop the flow coming through ports of entry nor dealing with the fact that most illegal immigrants enter legally.  The wall is basically a waste of money and worse yet it deflects the nation's attention away other major problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 200 miles wont solve the problem, but 1400 miles will.  You're attacking a "solution" that no one has proposed.  Border crossing is 60% of the problem, but you're saying solving 60% of the problem is a waste of time.  You're just an open borders douchebag, or course, who doesn't want to solve the problem.
> 
> Visa overstays is another problem that can easily be solved, but douchebags like you have obstructed the solution to that problem as well.
> 
> It appears the one genuine obstacle to get real border security is douchebags like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference between border crossers and VISA overstays is the VISA people have been vetted.  The people jumping our border could have Lord knows what kind of diseases, Lord knows what minimal education, and Lord knows what kind of criminal record.  I'm sure many of them don't even know a word of English.
> 
> Therefore border crossers have to be a priority over VISA overstays because it's not just about them being here illegally, it's more about our safety and culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ray, You never responded to posts 3475 and 3476.  So, I will try yet again.  Here is part III - a continuation to see if you will keep your word:
> 
> Part III
> 
> 
> I’m saving my best stuff for last, but I wanted to continue on answering Ray (who is too ashamed to respond to his request that I tell him what Liberties are lost with the wall.
> 
> 
> If you throw a rock into a still pond, it makes a lot of ripples.  One right wing book I read called Unintended Consequences by John Ross.  It is a fictional novel based upon current laws and how they could be used in an anti-gun scenario.  It demonstrates how one action may impact another.
> 
> When I was a teen, I spoke out publicly and was then recruited by the Young Republicans Club and the John Birch Society not to mention other organizations and I became hard core right.  Since then, my major theme has not changed; the movement has.  Those who want a wall around the southern border refuse to answer a few simple questions:
> 
> If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens?  What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights?  T*hey keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken.  I’m asking them for proof of their position*.
> 
> Unable to do that they call me a lot of names that they cannot back up.  But, I want to remind them of a few things:
> 
> If you go back to the mid to late 1990s the John Birch Society, Concern Conservative Citizens Society, Young Republicans Club, etc. were *AGAINST* the New World Order, One World Government, the abolition of jurisdictions,the Constitution Free Zone, militarized police, National ID, surveillance society, the unconstitutional 14th and 16th Amendments (neither passing constitutional muster), and the assaults on religion.  They fought gun control, eminent domain abuses, and warrant less search and seizures.  Probably, the last great effort to gain national attention was Alex Jones video* POLICE STATE 2000* (put out in the late 1980s) and a book called Operation Vampire Killer 2000 (written in the early 1990s by Jack McLamb of Police Against the New World Order.)
> 
> Operation Vampire Killer 2000 - The Lawful Path
> 
> 
> If one were to return to that era, the uninformed build the wall guys, would swear and be damned the conservatives were the liberals. Well, the right adopted the left’s solutions:
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, the left has jumped on the privacy bandwagon, warning Americans about the Constitution Free Zone:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me of the old Johnny Cash song The One on the Right is on the Left.
> 
> Anyway, with the wall up, it will immediately affect your Liberties in about a dozen ways.  For this installment, I’ll list three:
> 
> 
> 1  There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone.  There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER.  Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights
> 
> 2  The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom.  It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb
> 
> 3  As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.
> 
> 
> I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach.  The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it.  If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort.  We got a long way to go.
Click to expand...

And I've lived through all of that..............It was 1996 that Billy Boy talked about border security and Fencing.  It was all a lead up to the elections..............imagine that.

In 2006.......the same that complain about the wall and border security were talking just like Trump.  Passed the Act and shouted we will secure the Southern Border.........right before an election ..........imagine that.

Trump election.........hot topic .......imagine that...............

In 1986 Reagan pushed for border security..........granted Amnesty even though the people didn't really like it...but it promised to stop them from going to work...........didn't work...........they went around it ........and started a ID forgery ring to give them fake IDs.................Then didn't prosecute the businesses because they so called didn't know......and if caught ..........oh well........pay the fine......illegals deported........and it's over..............imagine that.

This is not a new issue in this country..........since I was a kid it's been a hot topic...........always to secure the border...........and always the establishment not really wanting to secure the borders.

Your trying to say the POLAR SHIFT of the parties........well. ........Politicians shift for votes with the prevailing wind.  They have always done this...........and never intended to stop illegal immigration.........the PEOPLE HAVE........Since I was a child...............This is not new...............and extra security at the border, with infrastructure is what I have wanted........and the people have wanted for DECADES...............

You are DANCING...........playing the POLITICAL GAME...........when the people have wanted this done for a long long time.

Build the Wall and increase the ability of CBP to do their job............what they are asking for is well documented......and have proven results......That is my position..........and no amount of your posturing is going to change that.


----------



## Flopper

MaryL said:


> I actually have been to the INS. I am appalled that we had so many illegal aliens from ...then I was cut at the ankles.  In 1993. Apparently it's OK Mexican illegals sneak in and then...and THEN. I damn, I have known all these other immigrants from like ...fill in the blank. To be honest, I can't remember most of them.  Rumanians? Hungarians?    And giving them sanctuary cities? That never happened back in the day.
> But, Mexicans?  Or Hondurans?  How did giving sanctuary cities to people ignoring federal immigration law from Latin America just suddenly happen extra judicially. Anybody  get to vote on that sanctuary city  stuff? I seem to think that  giving people that violate immigration laws  immunity from laws is unconstitutional somehow...But that's just me. ​


There are over 500 sanctuary cities in America and there is no specific definition of the term "sanctuary city".  At one extreme, cities have vowed to stop deportations of it's people.  Other cities have passed resolutions to not cooperated with federal immigration in any way while others have been specific as to what cooperation they will offer.  At the other end of the spectrum cities such as the one I reside have issued proclamations welcoming all people to their city regardless of citizenship status.

I don't think there's anyway the federal government can force cities to cooperate with INS.  The Trump administration might be able to withhold federal funds to the city law enforcement but for most cities that's a very small part of their budget.  Holding back major funds for schools, healthcare, roads, etc won't fly.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a rip what Border Patrol agents want.  They work for the taxpayers.  Who do you think researched and wrote the talking points that the build the wall guys rely on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they work for us, and we're obligated to give them the tools required to do the job we ask them to do in an effective and safe manner. We already have walls and barriers on roughly 1/3rd of the border. Now you cry babies claim adding an additional 10% will somehow restrict our liberties and would be IMMORAL. REALLY?? That seems to fly in the face of logic.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I don't know if adding a couple hundred miles of wall will seriously limit anyone's liberties but it's highly unlike to seriously reduce the number of illegal immigrants.  Most of the border will still be unfenced and we are doing nothing to stop the flow coming through ports of entry nor dealing with the fact that most illegal immigrants enter legally.  The wall is basically a waste of money and worse yet it deflects the nation's attention away other major problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 200 miles wont solve the problem, but 1400 miles will.  You're attacking a "solution" that no one has proposed.  Border crossing is 60% of the problem, but you're saying solving 60% of the problem is a waste of time.  You're just an open borders douchebag, or course, who doesn't want to solve the problem.
> 
> Visa overstays is another problem that can easily be solved, but douchebags like you have obstructed the solution to that problem as well.
> 
> It appears the one genuine obstacle to get real border security is douchebags like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference between border crossers and VISA overstays is the VISA people have been vetted.  The people jumping our border could have Lord knows what kind of diseases, Lord knows what minimal education, and Lord knows what kind of criminal record.  I'm sure many of them don't even know a word of English.
> 
> Therefore border crossers have to be a priority over VISA overstays because it's not just about them being here illegally, it's more about our safety and culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ray, You never responded to posts 3475 and 3476.  So, I will try yet again.  Here is part III - a continuation to see if you will keep your word:
> 
> Part III
> 
> 
> I’m saving my best stuff for last, but I wanted to continue on answering Ray (who is too ashamed to respond to his request that I tell him what Liberties are lost with the wall.
> 
> 
> If you throw a rock into a still pond, it makes a lot of ripples.  One right wing book I read called Unintended Consequences by John Ross.  It is a fictional novel based upon current laws and how they could be used in an anti-gun scenario.  It demonstrates how one action may impact another.
> 
> When I was a teen, I spoke out publicly and was then recruited by the Young Republicans Club and the John Birch Society not to mention other organizations and I became hard core right.  Since then, my major theme has not changed; the movement has.  Those who want a wall around the southern border refuse to answer a few simple questions:
> 
> If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens?  What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights?  T*hey keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken.  I’m asking them for proof of their position*.
> 
> Unable to do that they call me a lot of names that they cannot back up.  But, I want to remind them of a few things:
> 
> If you go back to the mid to late 1990s the John Birch Society, Concern Conservative Citizens Society, Young Republicans Club, etc. were *AGAINST* the New World Order, One World Government, the abolition of jurisdictions,the Constitution Free Zone, militarized police, National ID, surveillance society, the unconstitutional 14th and 16th Amendments (neither passing constitutional muster), and the assaults on religion.  They fought gun control, eminent domain abuses, and warrant less search and seizures.  Probably, the last great effort to gain national attention was Alex Jones video* POLICE STATE 2000* (put out in the late 1980s) and a book called Operation Vampire Killer 2000 (written in the early 1990s by Jack McLamb of Police Against the New World Order.)
> 
> Operation Vampire Killer 2000 - The Lawful Path
> 
> 
> If one were to return to that era, the uninformed build the wall guys, would swear and be damned the conservatives were the liberals. Well, the right adopted the left’s solutions:
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, the left has jumped on the privacy bandwagon, warning Americans about the Constitution Free Zone:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me of the old Johnny Cash song The One on the Right is on the Left.
> 
> Anyway, with the wall up, it will immediately affect your Liberties in about a dozen ways.  For this installment, I’ll list three:
> 
> 
> 1  There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone.  There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER.  Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights
> 
> 2  The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom.  It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb
> 
> 3  As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.
> 
> 
> I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach.  The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it.  If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort.  We got a long way to go.
Click to expand...



Damn, you're such a silly child. No constitutional amendment, beyond the first 10, which emphasized constitutional principles, would pass constitutional muster until they are ratified by the States. That's why we do amendments and the whole point of the Article 5 process.

Also this myth of Constitution free zones is a great conspiracy theory, but it doesn't reflect reality. Otherwise we could just heard illegals into the Rio Grand and see if they can swim.

So now we know you're just another conspiracy nut, who I doubt will be around these forums very long.

.


----------



## MaryL

Show of hands here: Who voted for sanctuary city for illegal aliens? Frowny face  of those that never asked for it or never wanted it. Happy face if you just accept it because...people tell you to.


----------



## OKTexas

MaryL said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so funny about my post? I am feeling like Elvis Costello.  Peace love & understanding. So, If ya' all want to keep the wankers out, don't hire them! Make them Prove their national identity with  state sanctioned national identity card linked to their, DNA, Fingerprints.  Things that are verifiable.  Might be cheaper and more effective than building a wall on the southern border. But let's keep up cheap petty appearances, like  "Border walls". Bully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's so funny, you said walls don't word in-spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The fact is they do work, that's why the border patrol is asking for more. If you don't like how it looks, do an about face, problem solved.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love ya'all.  Good fences make for good neighbors. We have liberal assholes that give illegal aliens freebies . Sanctuary cities. Now, nobody got to vote on whether or not their home town became a sanctuary city, that was so  much a  liberal cadre " They just presumed they could get away with"  thing. Sanctuary cities?  Seems  that was a overriding Constitutional  issue people ignore. Who got to vote to give their city / state  ignore  federal immigration laws?  I didn't, did any of you? Was it on a ballot anywhere? Because, that a pretty significant  issue. Ignoring the will of the people and constitutional laws.
Click to expand...



I don't have to worry about sanctuary cities in my State, the State outlawed them and require State sanctioned law enforcement agencies (which are all of them) to cooperate with immigration officials.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does their ask for a wall infringe on your liberties?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If people will give me a freaking break, I'll give you the post number, but it's been asked and answered in depth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If police officers ask for guns should we not give them guns because in someone’s opinion it infringes on their liberties? I find that odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you drunk?  What in the HELL did that mean?
> 
> I would never advocate giving up your gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you’re OK denying border agents another form of protection they feel they need?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who exactly are these border agents; the ones Trump's Customs and Border Protection Director hand picked for Trump's border barrier infomercial at the white house?
> 
> Border Patrol agents on the front lines say they need more technology and additional personnel to curb the illegal traffic, according to a report released on Thursday by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggested a border wall.
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
Click to expand...



Well if the commiecrats say it, it must be true. LMAO

.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Border agents appeared on TV and explicitly stated they wanted a wall because it would help them. This is good enough for me. I thank them for their dangerous service.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're referring to Trump's infomercial at the White House, those agents were hand picked by the Customs director.
> 
> If you really want to know what agents think then you need to read the report prepared by Homeland Security in which they did a survey of hundreds of agents asking them for solutions to the illegal immigration problem.  Not surprisingly, only a handful even mention a barrier wall as a solution. Furthermore, Homeland Security has never put a wall in their budget request before Trump.
Click to expand...



You're a liar, they were there to speak to the president, once the briefing was over he told them we need to take this to the American people. What occurred in the briefing room was done on the spur of the moment. That's why the press only got a 5 minute warning of the briefing.

.


----------



## MaryL

Texas is like cheek to jowl to  Mexico. So do go on.Colorado is like light years away from ya'al.
Here in mainland America. We have these weirdos that tell us, nay, dictate to Us how good Mexican illegals are. In fact, they are dictating that to us. We HAVE to accept illegal aliens...Why
 cant we question illegal aliens from Mexico? Racism...I know plenty of immigrants from Europe. Fleeing  communist oppression but still they never got sanctuary cities like Mexicans. What makes Mexicans so bleeding special?


----------



## Flopper

It will interesting to see how long the 54,000 Customs and Border Protection agents and customs officers are willing to work without pay.  But what I'm really interested in is the TSA because I travel a lot by air.


----------



## MaryL

Flopper said:


> It will interesting to see how long the 54,000 Customs and Border Protection agents and customs officers are willing to work without pay.  But what I'm really interested in is the TSA because I travel a lot by air.


I remember PATCO strike and that didn't end well, either.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does their ask for a wall infringe on your liberties?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If people will give me a freaking break, I'll give you the post number, but it's been asked and answered in depth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If police officers ask for guns should we not give them guns because in someone’s opinion it infringes on their liberties? I find that odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you drunk?  What in the HELL did that mean?
> 
> I would never advocate giving up your gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you’re OK denying border agents another form of protection they feel they need?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who exactly are these border agents; the ones Trump's Customs and Border Protection Director hand picked for Trump's border barrier infomercial at the white house?
> 
> Border Patrol agents on the front lines say they need more technology and additional personnel to curb the illegal traffic, according to a report released on Thursday by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggested a border wall.
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
Click to expand...


From your New York Times (what else) article:

_*Officials at Customs and Border Protection called the report inaccurate, saying it confused how agents’ feedback about security vulnerabilities is used to develop programs to counter threats.*_

This issue in March is in sharp contrast to this article in the Washington Times a month later

Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds


----------



## Flopper

OKTexas said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Border agents appeared on TV and explicitly stated they wanted a wall because it would help them. This is good enough for me. I thank them for their dangerous service.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're referring to Trump's infomercial at the White House, those agents were hand picked by the Customs director.
> 
> If you really want to know what agents think then you need to read the report prepared by Homeland Security in which they did a survey of hundreds of agents asking them for solutions to the illegal immigration problem.  Not surprisingly, only a handful even mention a barrier wall as a solution. Furthermore, Homeland Security has never put a wall in their budget request before Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a liar, they were there to speak to the president, once the briefing was over he told them we need to take this to the American people. What occurred in the briefing room was done on the spur of the moment. That's why the press only got a 5 minute warning of the briefing.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Not likely.  They gathered up some border agents that thought building a wall was a good idea and flew them to Washington.  So you really think they would send agents that opposed building the wall to meet with the president.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Border agents appeared on TV and explicitly stated they wanted a wall because it would help them. This is good enough for me. I thank them for their dangerous service.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're referring to Trump's infomercial at the White House, those agents were hand picked by the Customs director.
> 
> If you really want to know what agents think then you need to read the report prepared by Homeland Security in which they did a survey of hundreds of agents asking them for solutions to the illegal immigration problem.  Not surprisingly, only a handful even mention a barrier wall as a solution. Furthermore, Homeland Security has never put a wall in their budget request before Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a liar, they were there to speak to the president, once the briefing was over he told them we need to take this to the American people. What occurred in the briefing room was done on the spur of the moment. That's why the press only got a 5 minute warning of the briefing.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not likely.  They gathered up some border agents that thought building a wall was a good idea and flew them to Washington.  So you really think they would send agents that opposed building the wall to meet with the president.
Click to expand...



I've got a link, how about you? It's even from one of your commie news outlets, so you'll love the bias.

Trump pushes border wall in surprise media briefing, but takes no questions

.


----------



## MaryL

OKTexas said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so funny about my post? I am feeling like Elvis Costello.  Peace love & understanding. So, If ya' all want to keep the wankers out, don't hire them! Make them Prove their national identity with  state sanctioned national identity card linked to their, DNA, Fingerprints.  Things that are verifiable.  Might be cheaper and more effective than building a wall on the southern border. But let's keep up cheap petty appearances, like  "Border walls". Bully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's so funny, you said walls don't word in-spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The fact is they do work, that's why the border patrol is asking for more. If you don't like how it looks, do an about face, problem solved.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love ya'all.  Good fences make for good neighbors. We have liberal assholes that give illegal aliens freebies . Sanctuary cities. Now, nobody got to vote on whether or not their home town became a sanctuary city, that was so  much a  liberal cadre " They just presumed they could get away with"  thing. Sanctuary cities?  Seems  that was a overriding Constitutional  issue people ignore. Who got to vote to give their city / state  ignore  federal immigration laws?  I didn't, did any of you? Was it on a ballot anywhere? Because, that a pretty significant  issue. Ignoring the will of the people and constitutional laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to worry about sanctuary cities in my State, the State outlawed them and require State sanctioned law enforcement agencies (which are all of them) to cooperate with immigration officials.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Um, well the rest of us have to worry about unsanctioned legitimizing of illegal aliens. Giving them the vote. The motor voter thing, the whole nine yards. Everything about giving illegal aliens special rights. But they can't follow the same immigration laws everyone else does. Sanctuary cities for Albanians?  Or Hungarians? Just Mexicans Because, that's fair. Just Mexicans. Mexicans are so special they transcend the Constitution. And when you notice something broken about that? Hate and xenophobia is what they say.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Flopper said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Border agents appeared on TV and explicitly stated they wanted a wall because it would help them. This is good enough for me. I thank them for their dangerous service.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're referring to Trump's infomercial at the White House, those agents were hand picked by the Customs director.
> 
> If you really want to know what agents think then you need to read the report prepared by Homeland Security in which they did a survey of hundreds of agents asking them for solutions to the illegal immigration problem.  Not surprisingly, only a handful even mention a barrier wall as a solution. Furthermore, Homeland Security has never put a wall in their budget request before Trump.
Click to expand...


So you think those persons were actors and didn’t represent the majority of border patrol agents?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Border agents appeared on TV and explicitly stated they wanted a wall because it would help them. This is good enough for me. I thank them for their dangerous service.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're referring to Trump's infomercial at the White House, those agents were hand picked by the Customs director.
> 
> If you really want to know what agents think then you need to read the report prepared by Homeland Security in which they did a survey of hundreds of agents asking them for solutions to the illegal immigration problem.  Not surprisingly, only a handful even mention a barrier wall as a solution. Furthermore, Homeland Security has never put a wall in their budget request before Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a liar, they were there to speak to the president, once the briefing was over he told them we need to take this to the American people. What occurred in the briefing room was done on the spur of the moment. That's why the press only got a 5 minute warning of the briefing.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not likely.  They gathered up some border agents that thought building a wall was a good idea and flew them to Washington.  So you really think they would send agents that opposed building the wall to meet with the president.
Click to expand...


May I ask why Logically a border patrol agent would not want a wall? Speaking for me I like my house having walls and doors?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens? What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights? T*hey keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken. I’m asking them for proof of their position*.



Our people (government) does not take any inalienable rights away from people because they can't.  Rights however are granted to people that are in our country.  If visitors, they are granted some constitutional rights.  If they become citizens, they are granted all constitutional rights.  But constitutional rights are not the same as inalienable rights.  It's something I think you're confused about.  

A right to be in this country is not an inalienable right, it's a right granted by the government.  Therefore it's a right that can be removed by our government.  



Porter Rockwell said:


> 1 There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone. There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER. Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights



A wall won't change any of that.  If the government wanted a strict enforcement of the free zone, they could do that tomorrow with no wall.  Therefore your claim is moot.  



Porter Rockwell said:


> 2 The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom. It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb



So WTF does that have to do with the wall?  And I"m sorry, I just don't buy into any stories that involve.....





Porter Rockwell said:


> 3 As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.



A wall does that?  How?  I know nothing about any national ID card.  I don't have one, I've never been notified I must have one, and I have no plans to get one.  



Porter Rockwell said:


> I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach. The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it. If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort. We got a long way to go.



Again, a wall has nothing to do with that.  These conspiracy theories of yours are not even part of this planet yet alone country.  

I changed my opinion about you.  You are not a liberal, you are not a conservative, you're just a plain old kook.  But just for shits and giggles, can you tell me how the government could not know I was building a weapon of some sort if a wall wasn't there????  

Your associations are so far out even somebody smoking the best pot can't connect them.  A wall will not take one right away from you, from me, from any citizen.  A wall (like a firearm) has no mystical power of it's own. A wall is simply that, a wall. A wall can't change the Constitution, a wall can't change any laws, a wall can't change anything in the federalist papers.  It's simply an inanimate object.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saving it from people like you
> 
> 
> 
> How are you saving it, by flooding it with ignorant peasants from Mexico?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered this for you three times:
> 
> 1)  I'm working to stop the drug addicts created by parents, government, doctors / mental health officials and Big Pharma
> 
> 2) We're taking people off the street, helping them get a GED, clean up their record if possible and get them back into the work-force
> 
> 3)  I am constantly lobbying legislators to pass legislation to get them to rehabilitate those in prison by giving prisoners an opportunity to earn shorter sentences via accomplishments while incarcerated:  Get their GED, learn a job skill, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can you not do this and support more border security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do support border security.  I simply do not support the wall.  It jeopardizes our Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't keep them out without a wall. Cameras and sensors will not stop them from crossing the border. We can't hire enough people to insure every illegal is caught and we don't have enough prisons to house them.
Click to expand...


See posts 3475, 3476 and


Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saving it from people like you
> 
> 
> 
> How are you saving it, by flooding it with ignorant peasants from Mexico?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered this for you three times:
> 
> 1)  I'm working to stop the drug addicts created by parents, government, doctors / mental health officials and Big Pharma
> 
> 2) We're taking people off the street, helping them get a GED, clean up their record if possible and get them back into the work-force
> 
> 3)  I am constantly lobbying legislators to pass legislation to get them to rehabilitate those in prison by giving prisoners an opportunity to earn shorter sentences via accomplishments while incarcerated:  Get their GED, learn a job skill, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can you not do this and support more border security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do support border security.  I simply do not support the wall.  It jeopardizes our Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't keep them out without a wall. Cameras and sensors will not stop them from crossing the border. We can't hire enough people to insure every illegal is caught and we don't have enough prisons to house them.
Click to expand...


Asked and answered in posts # 3475, 3476, and 3618  Also see post # 2806


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they work for us, and we're obligated to give them the tools required to do the job we ask them to do in an effective and safe manner. We already have walls and barriers on roughly 1/3rd of the border. Now you cry babies claim adding an additional 10% will somehow restrict our liberties and would be IMMORAL. REALLY?? That seems to fly in the face of logic.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't know if adding a couple hundred miles of wall will seriously limit anyone's liberties but it's highly unlike to seriously reduce the number of illegal immigrants.  Most of the border will still be unfenced and we are doing nothing to stop the flow coming through ports of entry nor dealing with the fact that most illegal immigrants enter legally.  The wall is basically a waste of money and worse yet it deflects the nation's attention away other major problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 200 miles wont solve the problem, but 1400 miles will.  You're attacking a "solution" that no one has proposed.  Border crossing is 60% of the problem, but you're saying solving 60% of the problem is a waste of time.  You're just an open borders douchebag, or course, who doesn't want to solve the problem.
> 
> Visa overstays is another problem that can easily be solved, but douchebags like you have obstructed the solution to that problem as well.
> 
> It appears the one genuine obstacle to get real border security is douchebags like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference between border crossers and VISA overstays is the VISA people have been vetted.  The people jumping our border could have Lord knows what kind of diseases, Lord knows what minimal education, and Lord knows what kind of criminal record.  I'm sure many of them don't even know a word of English.
> 
> Therefore border crossers have to be a priority over VISA overstays because it's not just about them being here illegally, it's more about our safety and culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ray, You never responded to posts 3475 and 3476.  So, I will try yet again.  Here is part III - a continuation to see if you will keep your word:
> 
> Part III
> 
> 
> I’m saving my best stuff for last, but I wanted to continue on answering Ray (who is too ashamed to respond to his request that I tell him what Liberties are lost with the wall.
> 
> 
> If you throw a rock into a still pond, it makes a lot of ripples.  One right wing book I read called Unintended Consequences by John Ross.  It is a fictional novel based upon current laws and how they could be used in an anti-gun scenario.  It demonstrates how one action may impact another.
> 
> When I was a teen, I spoke out publicly and was then recruited by the Young Republicans Club and the John Birch Society not to mention other organizations and I became hard core right.  Since then, my major theme has not changed; the movement has.  Those who want a wall around the southern border refuse to answer a few simple questions:
> 
> If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens?  What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights?  T*hey keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken.  I’m asking them for proof of their position*.
> 
> Unable to do that they call me a lot of names that they cannot back up.  But, I want to remind them of a few things:
> 
> If you go back to the mid to late 1990s the John Birch Society, Concern Conservative Citizens Society, Young Republicans Club, etc. were *AGAINST* the New World Order, One World Government, the abolition of jurisdictions,the Constitution Free Zone, militarized police, National ID, surveillance society, the unconstitutional 14th and 16th Amendments (neither passing constitutional muster), and the assaults on religion.  They fought gun control, eminent domain abuses, and warrant less search and seizures.  Probably, the last great effort to gain national attention was Alex Jones video* POLICE STATE 2000* (put out in the late 1980s) and a book called Operation Vampire Killer 2000 (written in the early 1990s by Jack McLamb of Police Against the New World Order.)
> 
> Operation Vampire Killer 2000 - The Lawful Path
> 
> 
> If one were to return to that era, the uninformed build the wall guys, would swear and be damned the conservatives were the liberals. Well, the right adopted the left’s solutions:
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, the left has jumped on the privacy bandwagon, warning Americans about the Constitution Free Zone:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me of the old Johnny Cash song The One on the Right is on the Left.
> 
> Anyway, with the wall up, it will immediately affect your Liberties in about a dozen ways.  For this installment, I’ll list three:
> 
> 
> 1  There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone.  There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER.  Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights
> 
> 2  The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom.  It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb
> 
> 3  As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.
> 
> 
> I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach.  The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it.  If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort.  We got a long way to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreigners might have unalienable rights in their own country but they have no right to be here.
Click to expand...


Where do you get your Rights from?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was three years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was TWO years ago, and about two months,.  Just a little off in your math.  Now Trump votes of just TWO years ago no longer matter, but don't EVER expect the Left to stop trying to shove a video of Trump bragging and trying to impress some guy about what a babe magnet he was from FOURTEEN years ago!  At least we KNOW the votes REALLY HAPPENED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Public opinion went against the wall after Trump was elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You, of course, mean the media that was against Trump breathing from the moment he tossed his hat in the ring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In his first speech announcing his candidacy he attached the Muslims, the Chinese, Mexicans, Central and South Americans.  In his next speech he declared war on the media.   He missed the Blacks but that was soon to follow:
> 
> From his first speech he said, "They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
> 
> When he threw his hat in the ring he essential declared war on all minorities aligning himself with the white majority.  I'm sure white supremacists across the country felt they finally had a candidate they could support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think the phony race thing still works, think again.  It doesn't have anything to do with race.
Click to expand...


You are lying.  It's ONE of *your *laundry list reasons for being for the wall


----------



## MaryL

I visited the INS because I was so alarmed at all those wetters. Back in 1993 or so. I have known Europeans that have immigrated legally. Paid lawyers fees and actually immigrated here legally. I see people that fled  Yugoslavia , East Germany, Rumania and Hungary as well as other European counties. They had to pay for it! Lawyers and immigration fees and wait months or even years to get in this country. They didn't sneak in here and then get granted immunity from  immigration laws. Because they  weren't cheap labor whores..funny how that works. Mexicans will sneak in avoid all those immigration fees, years of waiting so they can be willingly be exploited on the cheap by American businesses. Mexican illegals merit sanctuary cities...  Because, American business are such assholes they are willing to exploit them  and make it seem  humanitarian at the same time...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was TWO years ago, and about two months,.  Just a little off in your math.  Now Trump votes of just TWO years ago no longer matter, but don't EVER expect the Left to stop trying to shove a video of Trump bragging and trying to impress some guy about what a babe magnet he was from FOURTEEN years ago!  At least we KNOW the votes REALLY HAPPENED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Public opinion went against the wall after Trump was elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You, of course, mean the media that was against Trump breathing from the moment he tossed his hat in the ring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In his first speech announcing his candidacy he attached the Muslims, the Chinese, Mexicans, Central and South Americans.  In his next speech he declared war on the media.   He missed the Blacks but that was soon to follow:
> 
> From his first speech he said, "They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
> 
> When he threw his hat in the ring he essential declared war on all minorities aligning himself with the white majority.  I'm sure white supremacists across the country felt they finally had a candidate they could support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think the phony race thing still works, think again.  It doesn't have anything to do with race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are lying.  It's ONE of *your *laundry list reasons for being for the wall
Click to expand...


Yes, it is a concern of mine, but not necessarily Trump's.  

Can you tell me in what country would people welcome a government trying to make them a minority in their own country other than stupid white liberals?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they work for us, and we're obligated to give them the tools required to do the job we ask them to do in an effective and safe manner. We already have walls and barriers on roughly 1/3rd of the border. Now you cry babies claim adding an additional 10% will somehow restrict our liberties and would be IMMORAL. REALLY?? That seems to fly in the face of logic.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't know if adding a couple hundred miles of wall will seriously limit anyone's liberties but it's highly unlike to seriously reduce the number of illegal immigrants.  Most of the border will still be unfenced and we are doing nothing to stop the flow coming through ports of entry nor dealing with the fact that most illegal immigrants enter legally.  The wall is basically a waste of money and worse yet it deflects the nation's attention away other major problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 200 miles wont solve the problem, but 1400 miles will.  You're attacking a "solution" that no one has proposed.  Border crossing is 60% of the problem, but you're saying solving 60% of the problem is a waste of time.  You're just an open borders douchebag, or course, who doesn't want to solve the problem.
> 
> Visa overstays is another problem that can easily be solved, but douchebags like you have obstructed the solution to that problem as well.
> 
> It appears the one genuine obstacle to get real border security is douchebags like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference between border crossers and VISA overstays is the VISA people have been vetted.  The people jumping our border could have Lord knows what kind of diseases, Lord knows what minimal education, and Lord knows what kind of criminal record.  I'm sure many of them don't even know a word of English.
> 
> Therefore border crossers have to be a priority over VISA overstays because it's not just about them being here illegally, it's more about our safety and culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ray, You never responded to posts 3475 and 3476.  So, I will try yet again.  Here is part III - a continuation to see if you will keep your word:
> 
> Part III
> 
> 
> I’m saving my best stuff for last, but I wanted to continue on answering Ray (who is too ashamed to respond to his request that I tell him what Liberties are lost with the wall.
> 
> 
> If you throw a rock into a still pond, it makes a lot of ripples.  One right wing book I read called Unintended Consequences by John Ross.  It is a fictional novel based upon current laws and how they could be used in an anti-gun scenario.  It demonstrates how one action may impact another.
> 
> When I was a teen, I spoke out publicly and was then recruited by the Young Republicans Club and the John Birch Society not to mention other organizations and I became hard core right.  Since then, my major theme has not changed; the movement has.  Those who want a wall around the southern border refuse to answer a few simple questions:
> 
> If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens?  What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights?  T*hey keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken.  I’m asking them for proof of their position*.
> 
> Unable to do that they call me a lot of names that they cannot back up.  But, I want to remind them of a few things:
> 
> If you go back to the mid to late 1990s the John Birch Society, Concern Conservative Citizens Society, Young Republicans Club, etc. were *AGAINST* the New World Order, One World Government, the abolition of jurisdictions,the Constitution Free Zone, militarized police, National ID, surveillance society, the unconstitutional 14th and 16th Amendments (neither passing constitutional muster), and the assaults on religion.  They fought gun control, eminent domain abuses, and warrant less search and seizures.  Probably, the last great effort to gain national attention was Alex Jones video* POLICE STATE 2000* (put out in the late 1980s) and a book called Operation Vampire Killer 2000 (written in the early 1990s by Jack McLamb of Police Against the New World Order.)
> 
> Operation Vampire Killer 2000 - The Lawful Path
> 
> 
> If one were to return to that era, the uninformed build the wall guys, would swear and be damned the conservatives were the liberals. Well, the right adopted the left’s solutions:
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, the left has jumped on the privacy bandwagon, warning Americans about the Constitution Free Zone:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me of the old Johnny Cash song The One on the Right is on the Left.
> 
> Anyway, with the wall up, it will immediately affect your Liberties in about a dozen ways.  For this installment, I’ll list three:
> 
> 
> 1  There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone.  There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER.  Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights
> 
> 2  The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom.  It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb
> 
> 3  As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.
> 
> 
> I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach.  The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it.  If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort.  We got a long way to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I've lived through all of that..............It was 1996 that Billy Boy talked about border security and Fencing.  It was all a lead up to the elections..............imagine that.
> 
> In 2006.......the same that complain about the wall and border security were talking just like Trump.  Passed the Act and shouted we will secure the Southern Border.........right before an election ..........imagine that.
> 
> Trump election.........hot topic .......imagine that...............
> 
> In 1986 Reagan pushed for border security..........granted Amnesty even though the people didn't really like it...but it promised to stop them from going to work...........didn't work...........they went around it ........and started a ID forgery ring to give them fake IDs.................Then didn't prosecute the businesses because they so called didn't know......and if caught ..........oh well........pay the fine......illegals deported........and it's over..............imagine that.
> 
> This is not a new issue in this country..........since I was a kid it's been a hot topic...........always to secure the border...........and always the establishment not really wanting to secure the borders.
> 
> Your trying to say the POLAR SHIFT of the parties........well. ........Politicians shift for votes with the prevailing wind.  They have always done this...........and never intended to stop illegal immigration.........the PEOPLE HAVE........Since I was a child...............This is not new...............and extra security at the border, with infrastructure is what I have wanted........and the people have wanted for DECADES...............
> 
> You are DANCING...........playing the POLITICAL GAME...........when the people have wanted this done for a long long time.
> 
> Build the Wall and increase the ability of CBP to do their job............what they are asking for is well documented......and have proven results......That is my position..........and no amount of your posturing is going to change that.
Click to expand...


I'm not dancing and I don't play political games.  I asked some people honest questions and could not get honest answers.  All I get are defensive allegations and childish name calling.  Add that into the amateurs that think they can read minds via a posting on the Internet and it shows that, like the left, the right has its share of loonies.


----------



## OKTexas

MaryL said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so funny about my post? I am feeling like Elvis Costello.  Peace love & understanding. So, If ya' all want to keep the wankers out, don't hire them! Make them Prove their national identity with  state sanctioned national identity card linked to their, DNA, Fingerprints.  Things that are verifiable.  Might be cheaper and more effective than building a wall on the southern border. But let's keep up cheap petty appearances, like  "Border walls". Bully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's so funny, you said walls don't word in-spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The fact is they do work, that's why the border patrol is asking for more. If you don't like how it looks, do an about face, problem solved.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love ya'all.  Good fences make for good neighbors. We have liberal assholes that give illegal aliens freebies . Sanctuary cities. Now, nobody got to vote on whether or not their home town became a sanctuary city, that was so  much a  liberal cadre " They just presumed they could get away with"  thing. Sanctuary cities?  Seems  that was a overriding Constitutional  issue people ignore. Who got to vote to give their city / state  ignore  federal immigration laws?  I didn't, did any of you? Was it on a ballot anywhere? Because, that a pretty significant  issue. Ignoring the will of the people and constitutional laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to worry about sanctuary cities in my State, the State outlawed them and require State sanctioned law enforcement agencies (which are all of them) to cooperate with immigration officials.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um, well the rest of us have to worry about unsanctioned legitimizing of illegal aliens. Giving them the vote. The motor voter thing, the whole nine yards. Everything about giving illegal aliens special rights. But they can't follow the same immigration laws everyone else does. Sanctuary cities for Albanians?  Or Hungarians? Just Mexicans Because, that's fair. Just Mexicans. Mexicans are so special they transcend the Constitution. And when you notice something broken about that? Hate and xenophobia is what they say.
Click to expand...



No, they'll try to protect illegals where ever they're form or how they got here. We have illegals from virtually every country in the world.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they work for us, and we're obligated to give them the tools required to do the job we ask them to do in an effective and safe manner. We already have walls and barriers on roughly 1/3rd of the border. Now you cry babies claim adding an additional 10% will somehow restrict our liberties and would be IMMORAL. REALLY?? That seems to fly in the face of logic.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't know if adding a couple hundred miles of wall will seriously limit anyone's liberties but it's highly unlike to seriously reduce the number of illegal immigrants.  Most of the border will still be unfenced and we are doing nothing to stop the flow coming through ports of entry nor dealing with the fact that most illegal immigrants enter legally.  The wall is basically a waste of money and worse yet it deflects the nation's attention away other major problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 200 miles wont solve the problem, but 1400 miles will.  You're attacking a "solution" that no one has proposed.  Border crossing is 60% of the problem, but you're saying solving 60% of the problem is a waste of time.  You're just an open borders douchebag, or course, who doesn't want to solve the problem.
> 
> Visa overstays is another problem that can easily be solved, but douchebags like you have obstructed the solution to that problem as well.
> 
> It appears the one genuine obstacle to get real border security is douchebags like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference between border crossers and VISA overstays is the VISA people have been vetted.  The people jumping our border could have Lord knows what kind of diseases, Lord knows what minimal education, and Lord knows what kind of criminal record.  I'm sure many of them don't even know a word of English.
> 
> Therefore border crossers have to be a priority over VISA overstays because it's not just about them being here illegally, it's more about our safety and culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ray, You never responded to posts 3475 and 3476.  So, I will try yet again.  Here is part III - a continuation to see if you will keep your word:
> 
> Part III
> 
> 
> I’m saving my best stuff for last, but I wanted to continue on answering Ray (who is too ashamed to respond to his request that I tell him what Liberties are lost with the wall.
> 
> 
> If you throw a rock into a still pond, it makes a lot of ripples.  One right wing book I read called Unintended Consequences by John Ross.  It is a fictional novel based upon current laws and how they could be used in an anti-gun scenario.  It demonstrates how one action may impact another.
> 
> When I was a teen, I spoke out publicly and was then recruited by the Young Republicans Club and the John Birch Society not to mention other organizations and I became hard core right.  Since then, my major theme has not changed; the movement has.  Those who want a wall around the southern border refuse to answer a few simple questions:
> 
> If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens?  What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights?  T*hey keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken.  I’m asking them for proof of their position*.
> 
> Unable to do that they call me a lot of names that they cannot back up.  But, I want to remind them of a few things:
> 
> If you go back to the mid to late 1990s the John Birch Society, Concern Conservative Citizens Society, Young Republicans Club, etc. were *AGAINST* the New World Order, One World Government, the abolition of jurisdictions,the Constitution Free Zone, militarized police, National ID, surveillance society, the unconstitutional 14th and 16th Amendments (neither passing constitutional muster), and the assaults on religion.  They fought gun control, eminent domain abuses, and warrant less search and seizures.  Probably, the last great effort to gain national attention was Alex Jones video* POLICE STATE 2000* (put out in the late 1980s) and a book called Operation Vampire Killer 2000 (written in the early 1990s by Jack McLamb of Police Against the New World Order.)
> 
> Operation Vampire Killer 2000 - The Lawful Path
> 
> 
> If one were to return to that era, the uninformed build the wall guys, would swear and be damned the conservatives were the liberals. Well, the right adopted the left’s solutions:
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, the left has jumped on the privacy bandwagon, warning Americans about the Constitution Free Zone:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me of the old Johnny Cash song The One on the Right is on the Left.
> 
> Anyway, with the wall up, it will immediately affect your Liberties in about a dozen ways.  For this installment, I’ll list three:
> 
> 
> 1  There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone.  There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER.  Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights
> 
> 2  The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom.  It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb
> 
> 3  As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.
> 
> 
> I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach.  The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it.  If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort.  We got a long way to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, you're such a silly child. No constitutional amendment, beyond the first 10, which emphasized constitutional principles, would pass constitutional muster until they are ratified by the States. That's why we do amendments and the whole point of the Article 5 process.
> 
> Also this myth of Constitution free zones is a great conspiracy theory, but it doesn't reflect reality. Otherwise we could just heard illegals into the Rio Grand and see if they can swim.
> 
> So now we know you're just another conspiracy nut, who I doubt will be around these forums very long.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Cases that have been courts are not theories.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Public opinion went against the wall after Trump was elected.
> 
> 
> 
> You, of course, mean the media that was against Trump breathing from the moment he tossed his hat in the ring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In his first speech announcing his candidacy he attached the Muslims, the Chinese, Mexicans, Central and South Americans.  In his next speech he declared war on the media.   He missed the Blacks but that was soon to follow:
> 
> From his first speech he said, "They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
> 
> When he threw his hat in the ring he essential declared war on all minorities aligning himself with the white majority.  I'm sure white supremacists across the country felt they finally had a candidate they could support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think the phony race thing still works, think again.  It doesn't have anything to do with race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are lying.  It's ONE of *your *laundry list reasons for being for the wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is a concern of mine, but not necessarily Trump's.
> 
> Can you tell me in what country would people welcome a government trying to make them a minority in their own country other than stupid white liberals?
Click to expand...


Trump is playing you.  America was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion.  Within six months of the ratification of the Constitution, only whites could be citizens by federal law.  In virtually all the colonies, only whites could vote and / or hold public office and that spilled over into state constitutions.

It's not like this stuff is sinful or something we should be ashamed of.  Hell, most of you guys argue what China does (92.5 percent of them are of one race.)  So why the deflections?  Why the dishonesty?  Yo cannot preserve your culture without protecting your race.  Why do you think the black liberals are erasing your history?


----------



## MaryL

OKTexas said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so funny about my post? I am feeling like Elvis Costello.  Peace love & understanding. So, If ya' all want to keep the wankers out, don't hire them! Make them Prove their national identity with  state sanctioned national identity card linked to their, DNA, Fingerprints.  Things that are verifiable.  Might be cheaper and more effective than building a wall on the southern border. But let's keep up cheap petty appearances, like  "Border walls". Bully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's so funny, you said walls don't word in-spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The fact is they do work, that's why the border patrol is asking for more. If you don't like how it looks, do an about face, problem solved.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love ya'all.  Good fences make for good neighbors. We have liberal assholes that give illegal aliens freebies . Sanctuary cities. Now, nobody got to vote on whether or not their home town became a sanctuary city, that was so  much a  liberal cadre " They just presumed they could get away with"  thing. Sanctuary cities?  Seems  that was a overriding Constitutional  issue people ignore. Who got to vote to give their city / state  ignore  federal immigration laws?  I didn't, did any of you? Was it on a ballot anywhere? Because, that a pretty significant  issue. Ignoring the will of the people and constitutional laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to worry about sanctuary cities in my State, the State outlawed them and require State sanctioned law enforcement agencies (which are all of them) to cooperate with immigration officials.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Where I live (Denver Colorado) It was NEVER ever put up to a vote. Our wonderful magnificent  plutocrats sort of made this a sanctuary city/state. Vote as in, lets' say, DEMOCRACY? That never happened. Sanctuary city for illegal was mandated,  but sure the hell not by the  will of working class plebeans.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't know if adding a couple hundred miles of wall will seriously limit anyone's liberties but it's highly unlike to seriously reduce the number of illegal immigrants.  Most of the border will still be unfenced and we are doing nothing to stop the flow coming through ports of entry nor dealing with the fact that most illegal immigrants enter legally.  The wall is basically a waste of money and worse yet it deflects the nation's attention away other major problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 200 miles wont solve the problem, but 1400 miles will.  You're attacking a "solution" that no one has proposed.  Border crossing is 60% of the problem, but you're saying solving 60% of the problem is a waste of time.  You're just an open borders douchebag, or course, who doesn't want to solve the problem.
> 
> Visa overstays is another problem that can easily be solved, but douchebags like you have obstructed the solution to that problem as well.
> 
> It appears the one genuine obstacle to get real border security is douchebags like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference between border crossers and VISA overstays is the VISA people have been vetted.  The people jumping our border could have Lord knows what kind of diseases, Lord knows what minimal education, and Lord knows what kind of criminal record.  I'm sure many of them don't even know a word of English.
> 
> Therefore border crossers have to be a priority over VISA overstays because it's not just about them being here illegally, it's more about our safety and culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ray, You never responded to posts 3475 and 3476.  So, I will try yet again.  Here is part III - a continuation to see if you will keep your word:
> 
> Part III
> 
> 
> I’m saving my best stuff for last, but I wanted to continue on answering Ray (who is too ashamed to respond to his request that I tell him what Liberties are lost with the wall.
> 
> 
> If you throw a rock into a still pond, it makes a lot of ripples.  One right wing book I read called Unintended Consequences by John Ross.  It is a fictional novel based upon current laws and how they could be used in an anti-gun scenario.  It demonstrates how one action may impact another.
> 
> When I was a teen, I spoke out publicly and was then recruited by the Young Republicans Club and the John Birch Society not to mention other organizations and I became hard core right.  Since then, my major theme has not changed; the movement has.  Those who want a wall around the southern border refuse to answer a few simple questions:
> 
> If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens?  What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights?  T*hey keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken.  I’m asking them for proof of their position*.
> 
> Unable to do that they call me a lot of names that they cannot back up.  But, I want to remind them of a few things:
> 
> If you go back to the mid to late 1990s the John Birch Society, Concern Conservative Citizens Society, Young Republicans Club, etc. were *AGAINST* the New World Order, One World Government, the abolition of jurisdictions,the Constitution Free Zone, militarized police, National ID, surveillance society, the unconstitutional 14th and 16th Amendments (neither passing constitutional muster), and the assaults on religion.  They fought gun control, eminent domain abuses, and warrant less search and seizures.  Probably, the last great effort to gain national attention was Alex Jones video* POLICE STATE 2000* (put out in the late 1980s) and a book called Operation Vampire Killer 2000 (written in the early 1990s by Jack McLamb of Police Against the New World Order.)
> 
> Operation Vampire Killer 2000 - The Lawful Path
> 
> 
> If one were to return to that era, the uninformed build the wall guys, would swear and be damned the conservatives were the liberals. Well, the right adopted the left’s solutions:
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, the left has jumped on the privacy bandwagon, warning Americans about the Constitution Free Zone:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me of the old Johnny Cash song The One on the Right is on the Left.
> 
> Anyway, with the wall up, it will immediately affect your Liberties in about a dozen ways.  For this installment, I’ll list three:
> 
> 
> 1  There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone.  There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER.  Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights
> 
> 2  The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom.  It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb
> 
> 3  As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.
> 
> 
> I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach.  The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it.  If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort.  We got a long way to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, you're such a silly child. No constitutional amendment, beyond the first 10, which emphasized constitutional principles, would pass constitutional muster until they are ratified by the States. That's why we do amendments and the whole point of the Article 5 process.
> 
> Also this myth of Constitution free zones is a great conspiracy theory, but it doesn't reflect reality. Otherwise we could just heard illegals into the Rio Grand and see if they can swim.
> 
> So now we know you're just another conspiracy nut, who I doubt will be around these forums very long.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cases that have been courts are not theories.
Click to expand...



Terry v. Ohio. Didn't even have to look it up.

.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, of course, mean the media that was against Trump breathing from the moment he tossed his hat in the ring.
> 
> 
> 
> In his first speech announcing his candidacy he attached the Muslims, the Chinese, Mexicans, Central and South Americans.  In his next speech he declared war on the media.   He missed the Blacks but that was soon to follow:
> 
> From his first speech he said, "They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
> 
> When he threw his hat in the ring he essential declared war on all minorities aligning himself with the white majority.  I'm sure white supremacists across the country felt they finally had a candidate they could support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think the phony race thing still works, think again.  It doesn't have anything to do with race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are lying.  It's ONE of *your *laundry list reasons for being for the wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is a concern of mine, but not necessarily Trump's.
> 
> Can you tell me in what country would people welcome a government trying to make them a minority in their own country other than stupid white liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is playing you.  America was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion.  Within six months of the ratification of the Constitution, only whites could be citizens by federal law.  In virtually all the colonies, only whites could vote and / or hold public office and that spilled over into state constitutions.
> 
> It's not like this stuff is sinful or something we should be ashamed of.  Hell, most of you guys argue what China does (92.5 percent of them are of one race.)  So why the deflections?  Why the dishonesty?  Yo cannot preserve your culture without protecting your race.  Why do you think the black liberals are erasing your history?
Click to expand...


Who said anything about black liberals? 

The plot behind the Democrat party is to make whites a minority in this country for political power.  Why do you suppose they fight for their Sanctuary cities and now states?  Why do you suppose they stopped Kate's Law from becoming law; a law that may have saved the life of that police officer in California?  Why do you suppose they are willing to shutdown the government over a measly 5 billion dollars which is less than what we spend on food stamps in one month?  Why do you suppose they give welcome and comfort to illegals by giving them drivers licenses and sending their kids to our schools?  

It's pretty obvious what's going on here, and it's not because Democrats are so compassionate.  I think your next quest should be to look for the man behind the curtain.


----------



## Flopper

OKTexas said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Border agents appeared on TV and explicitly stated they wanted a wall because it would help them. This is good enough for me. I thank them for their dangerous service.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're referring to Trump's infomercial at the White House, those agents were hand picked by the Customs director.
> 
> If you really want to know what agents think then you need to read the report prepared by Homeland Security in which they did a survey of hundreds of agents asking them for solutions to the illegal immigration problem.  Not surprisingly, only a handful even mention a barrier wall as a solution. Furthermore, Homeland Security has never put a wall in their budget request before Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a liar, they were there to speak to the president, once the briefing was over he told them we need to take this to the American people. What occurred in the briefing room was done on the spur of the moment. That's why the press only got a 5 minute warning of the briefing.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not likely.  They gathered up some border agents that thought building a wall was a good idea and flew them to Washington.  So you really think they would send agents that opposed building the wall to meet with the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a link, how about you? It's even from one of your commie news outlets, so you'll love the bias.
> 
> Trump pushes border wall in surprise media briefing, but takes no questions
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Interesting link.  3 federal employees making a political pitch before the camera for Trump's border wall and support for border agents working without pay, a pretty clear violation of the 1939 law that forbids federal employees from engaging in such activity.     

Since they are on the executive council of the union and claim to be speaking for the members, there're dragging the whole 12,000 member union into it.  I have to wonder what the unions position will be when their members have gone without pay for a couple of months. Customs inspectors have already made it clear that Judd does not speak for them. 

Even more interesting is the union itself has long questioned spending on border walls. Even after Trump took office, in March 2017 the union put out a response to his proposed border spending, delicately questioning the need for spending on walls.   I would say members are far from united on the need for the wall and even less united when it comes to working without pay.  We'll see how they feel after they've gone without pay for a couple of months.
Steller column: Border agents' union gambles with interests of members, nation


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

You never answered me. Do you think they are actors?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens? What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights? T*hey keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken. I’m asking them for proof of their position*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our people (government) does not take any inalienable rights away from people because they can't.  Rights however are granted to people that are in our country.  If visitors, they are granted some constitutional rights.  If they become citizens, they are granted all constitutional rights.  But constitutional rights are not the same as inalienable rights.  It's something I think you're confused about.
> 
> A right to be in this country is not an inalienable right, it's a right granted by the government.  Therefore it's a right that can be removed by our government.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone. There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER. Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall won't change any of that.  If the government wanted a strict enforcement of the free zone, they could do that tomorrow with no wall.  Therefore your claim is moot.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom. It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So WTF does that have to do with the wall?  And I"m sorry, I just don't buy into any stories that involve.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall does that?  How?  I know nothing about any national ID card.  I don't have one, I've never been notified I must have one, and I have no plans to get one.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach. The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it. If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort. We got a long way to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, a wall has nothing to do with that.  These conspiracy theories of yours are not even part of this planet yet alone country.
> 
> I changed my opinion about you.  You are not a liberal, you are not a conservative, you're just a plain old kook.  But just for shits and giggles, can you tell me how the government could not know I was building a weapon of some sort if a wall wasn't there????
> 
> Your associations are so far out even somebody smoking the best pot can't connect them.  A wall will not take one right away from you, from me, from any citizen.  A wall (like a firearm) has no mystical power of it's own. A wall is simply that, a wall. A wall can't change the Constitution, a wall can't change any laws, a wall can't change anything in the federalist papers.  It's simply an inanimate object.
Click to expand...



1)  I am not arguing inalienable rights.

2)  You wrote:  " Rights however are granted to people that are in our country."

In one of the earliest United States Supreme Court decisions on this, the court ruled as follows:

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* rights,-'life, *liberty*, and the pursuit of happiness;' *and to 'secure*,' *not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. *That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of*, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

In other words what I create is MINE and I don't owe you a job to benefit you - it's my job to give.  This is *THE* fatal flaw of your argument.

3)  I agree that the government "could" strictly enforce the Constitution Free Zone.  IF they did, the people would see this is VERY real and they would rebel.  So, they do it in small doses.  YouTube is full of videos of law abiding Americans who have had their Rights violated in the Constitution Free Zone.

As you will recall, Al Capone was arrested on a 25 year old law that had possibly never been enforced - the people would have rebelled had they known what it was REALLY about (income tax evasion.)

4)  I don't do theories.  I live in the real world.  In order to enforce the laws relative to the wall, your boys have already passed the so - called "Patriot Act," the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify and trashed the policies of a presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty.  You're perfectly comfortable with the Constitution Free Zone and I'd bet there are over 500 suggestions from people you agree with on this thread alone advocating that we "crack down on those sending money out of this country."   Those precedents are a dual edged sword. 

Frederick Douglass, a former slave and a Republican once said:

"No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened around his own neck."

So, you create a bad precedent on the border, falsely thinking it will apply only to undocumented foreigners only to find out it's being used against you.  You don't have a very sound strategy.  All you've supported in the past expands into a cashless society wherein all your transactions are tracked by the paper trail you left on a computer.  You'd support a cashless society if it would get rid of the little brown guys from south of the border.  All that will be enacted in order to assist in enforcing the wall... an untended consequence for those who realize that we may be engaged in an internal civil war some day.

The unintended consequences of giving the government as much power as you would - on the pretext that it will save you from yourself is foolish and your repetitive posts and covering the same ground over and over won't make my point any less true.

You know you're defeated; that's why the deflections and your inability to be honest with me.  In the end, YOU will be screwed by the very monster you are helping to build... and you will have done it to yourself.  We got a lot of ground to cover grasshopper.  I'm not going to try and debate everyone at the same time who want some - though the best is invited to a REAL debate on another board where it will be *one on one* - no holds barred.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Border agents appeared on TV and explicitly stated they wanted a wall because it would help them. This is good enough for me. I thank them for their dangerous service.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're referring to Trump's infomercial at the White House, those agents were hand picked by the Customs director.
> 
> If you really want to know what agents think then you need to read the report prepared by Homeland Security in which they did a survey of hundreds of agents asking them for solutions to the illegal immigration problem.  Not surprisingly, only a handful even mention a barrier wall as a solution. Furthermore, Homeland Security has never put a wall in their budget request before Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a liar, they were there to speak to the president, once the briefing was over he told them we need to take this to the American people. What occurred in the briefing room was done on the spur of the moment. That's why the press only got a 5 minute warning of the briefing.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not likely.  They gathered up some border agents that thought building a wall was a good idea and flew them to Washington.  So you really think they would send agents that opposed building the wall to meet with the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a link, how about you? It's even from one of your commie news outlets, so you'll love the bias.
> 
> Trump pushes border wall in surprise media briefing, but takes no questions
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting link.  3 federal employees making a political pitch before the camera for Trump's border wall and support for border agents working without pay, a pretty clear violation of the 1939 law that forbids federal employees from engaging in such activity.
> 
> Since they are on the executive council of the union and claim to be speaking for the members, there're dragging the whole 12,000 member union into it.  I have to wonder what the unions position will be when their members have gone without pay for a couple of months. Customs inspectors have already made it clear that Judd does not speak for them.
> 
> Even more interesting is the union itself has long questioned spending on border walls. Even after Trump took office, in March 2017 the union put out a response to his proposed border spending, delicately questioning the need for spending on walls.   I would say members are far from united on the need for the wall and even less united when it comes to working without pay.  We'll see how they feel after they've gone without pay for a couple of months.
> Steller column: Border agents' union gambles with interests of members, nation
Click to expand...



Border patrol agents telling the public what tools they feel they need is not a political activity. And the 2017 statements were when the MSM was blasting to the world that Trump planned to build a wall form sea to shining sea. After they actually got together and talked about needed requirements, that changed.

.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens? What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights? T*hey keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken. I’m asking them for proof of their position*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our people (government) does not take any inalienable rights away from people because they can't.  Rights however are granted to people that are in our country.  If visitors, they are granted some constitutional rights.  If they become citizens, they are granted all constitutional rights.  But constitutional rights are not the same as inalienable rights.  It's something I think you're confused about.
> 
> A right to be in this country is not an inalienable right, it's a right granted by the government.  Therefore it's a right that can be removed by our government.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone. There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER. Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall won't change any of that.  If the government wanted a strict enforcement of the free zone, they could do that tomorrow with no wall.  Therefore your claim is moot.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom. It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So WTF does that have to do with the wall?  And I"m sorry, I just don't buy into any stories that involve.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall does that?  How?  I know nothing about any national ID card.  I don't have one, I've never been notified I must have one, and I have no plans to get one.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach. The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it. If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort. We got a long way to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, a wall has nothing to do with that.  These conspiracy theories of yours are not even part of this planet yet alone country.
> 
> I changed my opinion about you.  You are not a liberal, you are not a conservative, you're just a plain old kook.  But just for shits and giggles, can you tell me how the government could not know I was building a weapon of some sort if a wall wasn't there????
> 
> Your associations are so far out even somebody smoking the best pot can't connect them.  A wall will not take one right away from you, from me, from any citizen.  A wall (like a firearm) has no mystical power of it's own. A wall is simply that, a wall. A wall can't change the Constitution, a wall can't change any laws, a wall can't change anything in the federalist papers.  It's simply an inanimate object.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I am not arguing inalienable rights.
> 
> 2)  You wrote:  " Rights however are granted to people that are in our country."
> 
> In one of the earliest United States Supreme Court decisions on this, the court ruled as follows:
> 
> "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* rights,-'life, *liberty*, and the pursuit of happiness;' *and to 'secure*,' *not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. *That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of*, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
> 
> 3)  I agree that the government "could" strictly enforce the Constitution Free Zone.  IF they did, the people would see this is VERY real and they would rebel.  So, they do it in small doses.  YouTube is full of videos of law abiding Americans who have had their Rights violated in the Constitution Free Zone.
> 
> As you will recall, Al Capone was arrested on a 25 year old law that had possibly never been enforced - the people would have rebelled had they known what it was REALLY about (income tax evasion.)
> 
> 4)  I don't do theories.  I live in the real world.  In order to enforce the laws relative to the wall, your boys have already passed the so - called "Patriot Act," the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify and trashed the policies of a presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty.  You're perfectly comfortable with the Constitution Free Zone and I'd bet there are over 500 suggestions from people you agree with on this thread alone advocating that we "crack down on those sending money out of this country."   Those precedents are a dual edged sword.
> 
> Frederick Douglass, a former slave and a Republican once said:
> 
> "No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened around his own neck."
> 
> So, you create a bad precedent on the border, falsely thinking it will apply only to undocumented foreigners only to find out it's being used against you.  You don't have a very sound strategy.  All you've supported in the past expands into a cashless society wherein all your transactions are tracked by the paper trail you left on a computer.  You'd support a cashless society if it would get rid of the little brown guys from south of the border.  All that will be enacted in order to assist in enforcing the wall... an untended consequence for those who realize that we may be engaged in an internal civil war some day.
> 
> The unintended consequences of giving the government as much power as you would - on the pretext that it will save you from yourself is foolish and your repetitive posts and covering the same ground over and over won't make my point any less true.
> 
> You know you're defeated; that's why the deflections and your inability to be honest with me.  In the end, YOU will be screwed by the very monster you are helping to build... and you will have done it to yourself.  We got a lot of ground to cover grasshopper.  I'm not going to try and debate everyone at the same time who want some - though the best is invited to a REAL debate on another board where it will be *one on one* - no holds barred.
Click to expand...

So one of the functions of the federal government is not to protect it’s citizens?
And flooding our borders with cheap Labor is enforcing the General Welfare clause?
You have an interesting POV of what defines a nation.
We might as well rename the US the Open Borders.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

MaryL said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so funny about my post? I am feeling like Elvis Costello.  Peace love & understanding. So, If ya' all want to keep the wankers out, don't hire them! Make them Prove their national identity with  state sanctioned national identity card linked to their, DNA, Fingerprints.  Things that are verifiable.  Might be cheaper and more effective than building a wall on the southern border. But let's keep up cheap petty appearances, like  "Border walls". Bully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's so funny, you said walls don't word in-spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The fact is they do work, that's why the border patrol is asking for more. If you don't like how it looks, do an about face, problem solved.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love ya'all.  Good fences make for good neighbors. We have liberal assholes that give illegal aliens freebies . Sanctuary cities. Now, nobody got to vote on whether or not their home town became a sanctuary city, that was so  much a  liberal cadre " They just presumed they could get away with"  thing. Sanctuary cities?  Seems  that was a overriding Constitutional  issue people ignore. Who got to vote to give their city / state  ignore  federal immigration laws?  I didn't, did any of you? Was it on a ballot anywhere? Because, that a pretty significant  issue. Ignoring the will of the people and constitutional laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to worry about sanctuary cities in my State, the State outlawed them and require State sanctioned law enforcement agencies (which are all of them) to cooperate with immigration officials.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where I live (Denver Colorado) It was NEVER ever put up to a vote. Our wonderful magnificent  plutocrats sort of made this a sanctuary city/state. Vote as in, lets' say, DEMOCRACY? That never happened. Sanctuary city for illegal was mandated,  but sure the hell not by the  will of working class plebeans.
Click to expand...


Do you live in a Democracy or a Republic?  In the last election did you vote the plutocrats (sic) out of office?


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so funny about my post? I am feeling like Elvis Costello.  Peace love & understanding. So, If ya' all want to keep the wankers out, don't hire them! Make them Prove their national identity with  state sanctioned national identity card linked to their, DNA, Fingerprints.  Things that are verifiable.  Might be cheaper and more effective than building a wall on the southern border. But let's keep up cheap petty appearances, like  "Border walls". Bully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's so funny, you said walls don't word in-spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The fact is they do work, that's why the border patrol is asking for more. If you don't like how it looks, do an about face, problem solved.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love ya'all.  Good fences make for good neighbors. We have liberal assholes that give illegal aliens freebies . Sanctuary cities. Now, nobody got to vote on whether or not their home town became a sanctuary city, that was so  much a  liberal cadre " They just presumed they could get away with"  thing. Sanctuary cities?  Seems  that was a overriding Constitutional  issue people ignore. Who got to vote to give their city / state  ignore  federal immigration laws?  I didn't, did any of you? Was it on a ballot anywhere? Because, that a pretty significant  issue. Ignoring the will of the people and constitutional laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to worry about sanctuary cities in my State, the State outlawed them and require State sanctioned law enforcement agencies (which are all of them) to cooperate with immigration officials.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where I live (Denver Colorado) It was NEVER ever put up to a vote. Our wonderful magnificent  plutocrats sort of made this a sanctuary city/state. Vote as in, lets' say, DEMOCRACY? That never happened. Sanctuary city for illegal was mandated,  but sure the hell not by the  will of working class plebeans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you live in a Democracy or a Republic?  In the last election did you vote the plutocrats (sic) out of office?
Click to expand...

Kind of hard to do when there were no non-plutocrats running.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens? What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights? T*hey keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken. I’m asking them for proof of their position*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our people (government) does not take any inalienable rights away from people because they can't.  Rights however are granted to people that are in our country.  If visitors, they are granted some constitutional rights.  If they become citizens, they are granted all constitutional rights.  But constitutional rights are not the same as inalienable rights.  It's something I think you're confused about.
> 
> A right to be in this country is not an inalienable right, it's a right granted by the government.  Therefore it's a right that can be removed by our government.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone. There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER. Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall won't change any of that.  If the government wanted a strict enforcement of the free zone, they could do that tomorrow with no wall.  Therefore your claim is moot.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom. It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So WTF does that have to do with the wall?  And I"m sorry, I just don't buy into any stories that involve.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall does that?  How?  I know nothing about any national ID card.  I don't have one, I've never been notified I must have one, and I have no plans to get one.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach. The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it. If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort. We got a long way to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, a wall has nothing to do with that.  These conspiracy theories of yours are not even part of this planet yet alone country.
> 
> I changed my opinion about you.  You are not a liberal, you are not a conservative, you're just a plain old kook.  But just for shits and giggles, can you tell me how the government could not know I was building a weapon of some sort if a wall wasn't there????
> 
> Your associations are so far out even somebody smoking the best pot can't connect them.  A wall will not take one right away from you, from me, from any citizen.  A wall (like a firearm) has no mystical power of it's own. A wall is simply that, a wall. A wall can't change the Constitution, a wall can't change any laws, a wall can't change anything in the federalist papers.  It's simply an inanimate object.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I am not arguing inalienable rights.
> 
> 2)  You wrote:  " Rights however are granted to people that are in our country."
> 
> In one of the earliest United States Supreme Court decisions on this, the court ruled as follows:
> 
> "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* rights,-'life, *liberty*, and the pursuit of happiness;' *and to 'secure*,' *not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. *That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of*, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
> 
> 3)  I agree that the government "could" strictly enforce the Constitution Free Zone.  IF they did, the people would see this is VERY real and they would rebel.  So, they do it in small doses.  YouTube is full of videos of law abiding Americans who have had their Rights violated in the Constitution Free Zone.
> 
> As you will recall, Al Capone was arrested on a 25 year old law that had possibly never been enforced - the people would have rebelled had they known what it was REALLY about (income tax evasion.)
> 
> 4)  I don't do theories.  I live in the real world.  In order to enforce the laws relative to the wall, your boys have already passed the so - called "Patriot Act," the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify and trashed the policies of a presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty.  You're perfectly comfortable with the Constitution Free Zone and I'd bet there are over 500 suggestions from people you agree with on this thread alone advocating that we "crack down on those sending money out of this country."   Those precedents are a dual edged sword.
> 
> Frederick Douglass, a former slave and a Republican once said:
> 
> "No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened around his own neck."
> 
> So, you create a bad precedent on the border, falsely thinking it will apply only to undocumented foreigners only to find out it's being used against you.  You don't have a very sound strategy.  All you've supported in the past expands into a cashless society wherein all your transactions are tracked by the paper trail you left on a computer.  You'd support a cashless society if it would get rid of the little brown guys from south of the border.  All that will be enacted in order to assist in enforcing the wall... an untended consequence for those who realize that we may be engaged in an internal civil war some day.
> 
> The unintended consequences of giving the government as much power as you would - on the pretext that it will save you from yourself is foolish and your repetitive posts and covering the same ground over and over won't make my point any less true.
> 
> You know you're defeated; that's why the deflections and your inability to be honest with me.  In the end, YOU will be screwed by the very monster you are helping to build... and you will have done it to yourself.  We got a lot of ground to cover grasshopper.  I'm not going to try and debate everyone at the same time who want some - though the best is invited to a REAL debate on another board where it will be *one on one* - no holds barred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So one of the functions of the federal government is not to protect it’s citizens?
> And flooding our borders with cheap Labor is enforcing the General Welfare clause?
> You have an interesting POV of what defines a nation.
> We might as well rename the US the Open Borders.
Click to expand...


You are dishonest and probably amoral.  Since I have so specified at least a dozen times that it is the function of the government to protect us - it just should not serve as a tool to protect you from your own actions. As for the rest, even danielpalos has a point once each year.  He's already answered this lame ass allegation from you and others.  You need some new material.

Since I cannot "debate" a dozen people as the delusional call these exchanges, I'm sure you will wait your turn.  I'm having a discussion with Ray, so save your lies and when we're on equal footing, I'll take you on.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's so funny, you said walls don't word in-spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The fact is they do work, that's why the border patrol is asking for more. If you don't like how it looks, do an about face, problem solved.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Love ya'all.  Good fences make for good neighbors. We have liberal assholes that give illegal aliens freebies . Sanctuary cities. Now, nobody got to vote on whether or not their home town became a sanctuary city, that was so  much a  liberal cadre " They just presumed they could get away with"  thing. Sanctuary cities?  Seems  that was a overriding Constitutional  issue people ignore. Who got to vote to give their city / state  ignore  federal immigration laws?  I didn't, did any of you? Was it on a ballot anywhere? Because, that a pretty significant  issue. Ignoring the will of the people and constitutional laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to worry about sanctuary cities in my State, the State outlawed them and require State sanctioned law enforcement agencies (which are all of them) to cooperate with immigration officials.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where I live (Denver Colorado) It was NEVER ever put up to a vote. Our wonderful magnificent  plutocrats sort of made this a sanctuary city/state. Vote as in, lets' say, DEMOCRACY? That never happened. Sanctuary city for illegal was mandated,  but sure the hell not by the  will of working class plebeans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you live in a Democracy or a Republic?  In the last election did you vote the plutocrats (sic) out of office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kind of hard to do when there were no non-plutocrats running.
Click to expand...


You could have gone and helped out.... unless everyone there is a plutocrat - and that would mean, Democratically, you lose.

BTW, I do not support Democracy in any way, shape, fashion, or form.  I don't support in ideology, name or political ideology.  I don't even like the word.


----------



## MaryL

When LIBERALS LOVE TO CLAIM SOMETHING is "unconstitutional", that cuts both ways. Sanctuary cities ?  Nobody got to vote on whether or not they want sanctuary cities. That seems so exceptional so Unconstitutional. Nobody go to vote on this issue, it's mandated, it's dictated  by the moral minority. by who's power, even?   Sanctuary cities? I can't speak for the majority, but I suspect most of us rather want federal immigration laws enforced, it won't hurt us, and it might just help.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> In his first speech announcing his candidacy he attached the Muslims, the Chinese, Mexicans, Central and South Americans.  In his next speech he declared war on the media.   He missed the Blacks but that was soon to follow:
> 
> From his first speech he said, "They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
> 
> When he threw his hat in the ring he essential declared war on all minorities aligning himself with the white majority.  I'm sure white supremacists across the country felt they finally had a candidate they could support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think the phony race thing still works, think again.  It doesn't have anything to do with race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are lying.  It's ONE of *your *laundry list reasons for being for the wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is a concern of mine, but not necessarily Trump's.
> 
> Can you tell me in what country would people welcome a government trying to make them a minority in their own country other than stupid white liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is playing you.  America was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion.  Within six months of the ratification of the Constitution, only whites could be citizens by federal law.  In virtually all the colonies, only whites could vote and / or hold public office and that spilled over into state constitutions.
> 
> It's not like this stuff is sinful or something we should be ashamed of.  Hell, most of you guys argue what China does (92.5 percent of them are of one race.)  So why the deflections?  Why the dishonesty?  Yo cannot preserve your culture without protecting your race.  Why do you think the black liberals are erasing your history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about black liberals?
> 
> The plot behind the Democrat party is to make whites a minority in this country for political power.  Why do you suppose they fight for their Sanctuary cities and now states?  Why do you suppose they stopped Kate's Law from becoming law; a law that may have saved the life of that police officer in California?  Why do you suppose they are willing to shutdown the government over a measly 5 billion dollars which is less than what we spend on food stamps in one month?  Why do you suppose they give welcome and comfort to illegals by giving them drivers licenses and sending their kids to our schools?
> 
> It's pretty obvious what's going on here, and it's not because Democrats are so compassionate.  I think your next quest should be to look for the man behind the curtain.
Click to expand...

It might be of interest to you to know that 60% of democrats are white. You republicans beat us with 89% white.  Must be all those white supremacist and Islamophobes that you guys are so proud of.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens? What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights? T*hey keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken. I’m asking them for proof of their position*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our people (government) does not take any inalienable rights away from people because they can't.  Rights however are granted to people that are in our country.  If visitors, they are granted some constitutional rights.  If they become citizens, they are granted all constitutional rights.  But constitutional rights are not the same as inalienable rights.  It's something I think you're confused about.
> 
> A right to be in this country is not an inalienable right, it's a right granted by the government.  Therefore it's a right that can be removed by our government.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone. There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER. Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall won't change any of that.  If the government wanted a strict enforcement of the free zone, they could do that tomorrow with no wall.  Therefore your claim is moot.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom. It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So WTF does that have to do with the wall?  And I"m sorry, I just don't buy into any stories that involve.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall does that?  How?  I know nothing about any national ID card.  I don't have one, I've never been notified I must have one, and I have no plans to get one.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach. The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it. If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort. We got a long way to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, a wall has nothing to do with that.  These conspiracy theories of yours are not even part of this planet yet alone country.
> 
> I changed my opinion about you.  You are not a liberal, you are not a conservative, you're just a plain old kook.  But just for shits and giggles, can you tell me how the government could not know I was building a weapon of some sort if a wall wasn't there????
> 
> Your associations are so far out even somebody smoking the best pot can't connect them.  A wall will not take one right away from you, from me, from any citizen.  A wall (like a firearm) has no mystical power of it's own. A wall is simply that, a wall. A wall can't change the Constitution, a wall can't change any laws, a wall can't change anything in the federalist papers.  It's simply an inanimate object.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I am not arguing inalienable rights.
> 
> 2)  You wrote:  " Rights however are granted to people that are in our country."
> 
> In one of the earliest United States Supreme Court decisions on this, the court ruled as follows:
> 
> "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* rights,-'life, *liberty*, and the pursuit of happiness;' *and to 'secure*,' *not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. *That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of*, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
> 
> 3)  I agree that the government "could" strictly enforce the Constitution Free Zone.  IF they did, the people would see this is VERY real and they would rebel.  So, they do it in small doses.  YouTube is full of videos of law abiding Americans who have had their Rights violated in the Constitution Free Zone.
> 
> As you will recall, Al Capone was arrested on a 25 year old law that had possibly never been enforced - the people would have rebelled had they known what it was REALLY about (income tax evasion.)
> 
> 4)  I don't do theories.  I live in the real world.  In order to enforce the laws relative to the wall, your boys have already passed the so - called "Patriot Act," the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify and trashed the policies of a presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty.  You're perfectly comfortable with the Constitution Free Zone and I'd bet there are over 500 suggestions from people you agree with on this thread alone advocating that we "crack down on those sending money out of this country."   Those precedents are a dual edged sword.
> 
> Frederick Douglass, a former slave and a Republican once said:
> 
> "No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened around his own neck."
> 
> So, you create a bad precedent on the border, falsely thinking it will apply only to undocumented foreigners only to find out it's being used against you.  You don't have a very sound strategy.  All you've supported in the past expands into a cashless society wherein all your transactions are tracked by the paper trail you left on a computer.  You'd support a cashless society if it would get rid of the little brown guys from south of the border.  All that will be enacted in order to assist in enforcing the wall... an untended consequence for those who realize that we may be engaged in an internal civil war some day.
> 
> The unintended consequences of giving the government as much power as you would - on the pretext that it will save you from yourself is foolish and your repetitive posts and covering the same ground over and over won't make my point any less true.
> 
> You know you're defeated; that's why the deflections and your inability to be honest with me.  In the end, YOU will be screwed by the very monster you are helping to build... and you will have done it to yourself.  We got a lot of ground to cover grasshopper.  I'm not going to try and debate everyone at the same time who want some - though the best is invited to a REAL debate on another board where it will be *one on one* - no holds barred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So one of the functions of the federal government is not to protect it’s citizens?
> And flooding our borders with cheap Labor is enforcing the General Welfare clause?
> You have an interesting POV of what defines a nation.
> We might as well rename the US the Open Borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are dishonest and probably amoral.  Since I have so specified at least a dozen times that it is the function of the government to protect us - it just should not serve as a tool to protect you from your own actions. As for the rest, even danielpalos has a point once each year.  He's already answered this lame ass allegation from you and others.  You need some new material.
> 
> Since I cannot "debate" a dozen people as the delusional call these exchanges, I'm sure you will wait your turn.  I'm having a discussion with Ray, so save your lies and when we're on equal footing, I'll take you on.
Click to expand...

If you want a one on one argument take it to pm.


----------



## Ame®icano

Porter Rockwell said:


> America was founded on the principle that each person is born with unalienable Rights.  The Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> So, when I ask you where your Rights come from, I am in reference to the foundational principle found in the DOI as quoted above.  Where do YOUR Rights come from?
> 
> Some people have a problem with inherent, natural, God given, unalienable, absolute, irrevocable Rights.  So, as per the DOI all men have been bestowed by their Creator (their God, whomever they deem that to be) with unalienable Rights.  If you disagree, I'm only asking where you get your Rights from.  I'm not trying to start some shit with you, only looking for the disconnect.  I'm trying to get beyond all the accusations and counter-accusations.



As I told you in private message, I couldn't reply to you right away. In short, and we could discuss about it more later, here is my answer. Sorry for delay, by the way, I'm still recovering from holidays. 

As per this, and some of your other posts, I take you as religious person believe that our rights come from "creator". Since I am not religious, I disagree with that approach, because legal existence of our rights required our founding fathers to frame them into Bill of Rights, and without it our fundamental freedoms (free speech, religious rights, gun rights, due process, etc.) would not exist. God can be credited for the rights, but without founding fathers "human action" probably none of it would matter. If our rights do come from "creator" than it would be impossible to take them away, but we do know that US Constitution and it's Amendments could and have been changed in the past, and will probably be changed in the future.

Therefore, I believe our rights come from *us* and our beliefs that only those who value freedom can be free and defend those freedoms enough to protect them in the form of the Constitution that limits Government from taking those rights and freedoms away (therefore unalienable). In other words, the "creator" for someone religious is a god, and for non religious, creator are we, ourselves.



Porter Rockwell said:


> Do so - called "illegals" have a right (sic) to be here?  I'm asking the question of if they do not have a right (sic) to be here, then are you of the opinion that government creates and / or grants rights?
> 
> I'm looking for where the disconnect is, not which side is right or wrong.  I'm not here to ask you a question and then go off on a tangent calling you an idiot as most of these end up being like.  I'm asking a question to see, exactly, where the disconnect is.



Let's start with this. Anyone who enter the country illegally and is not subject to US jurisdiction do not have the full scope of affirmative constitutional rights of a US citizen. The government job is not to create and grant rights, although the government would disagree with that. We already have rights, and they are protected by the Constitution that forbids government from passing any law that restrict those rights.

Now you answer, does Chinese citizen living in China have US constitutional rights, and specifically the right to come to US?


----------



## MaryL

I think most liberals are 90% white kids with a huge "Blame daddy"  for all their neurotic
 guilt trip fixations. Now, I am a ex liberal,  so I know from whence I speak. I blame the kids, they know better.


----------



## Flopper

MaryL said:


> When LIBERALS LOVE TO CLAIM SOMETHING is "unconstitutional", that cuts both ways. Sanctuary cities ?  Nobody got to vote on whether or not they want sanctuary cities. That seems so exceptional so Unconstitutional. Nobody go to vote on this issue, it's mandated, it's dictated  by the moral minority. by who's power, even?   Sanctuary cities? I can't speak for the majority, but I suspect most of us rather want federal immigration laws enforced, it won't hurt us, and it might just help.


In most cities, citizens only get to vote for elected officials, referendums which have a sufficient number of signatures, bond issues, and other items specified in state laws.  I'm sure you know what to do if you don't like how your city council votes.  So stop whining.  It's not a democracy.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens? What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights? T*hey keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken. I’m asking them for proof of their position*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our people (government) does not take any inalienable rights away from people because they can't.  Rights however are granted to people that are in our country.  If visitors, they are granted some constitutional rights.  If they become citizens, they are granted all constitutional rights.  But constitutional rights are not the same as inalienable rights.  It's something I think you're confused about.
> 
> A right to be in this country is not an inalienable right, it's a right granted by the government.  Therefore it's a right that can be removed by our government.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone. There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER. Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall won't change any of that.  If the government wanted a strict enforcement of the free zone, they could do that tomorrow with no wall.  Therefore your claim is moot.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom. It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So WTF does that have to do with the wall?  And I"m sorry, I just don't buy into any stories that involve.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall does that?  How?  I know nothing about any national ID card.  I don't have one, I've never been notified I must have one, and I have no plans to get one.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach. The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it. If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort. We got a long way to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, a wall has nothing to do with that.  These conspiracy theories of yours are not even part of this planet yet alone country.
> 
> I changed my opinion about you.  You are not a liberal, you are not a conservative, you're just a plain old kook.  But just for shits and giggles, can you tell me how the government could not know I was building a weapon of some sort if a wall wasn't there????
> 
> Your associations are so far out even somebody smoking the best pot can't connect them.  A wall will not take one right away from you, from me, from any citizen.  A wall (like a firearm) has no mystical power of it's own. A wall is simply that, a wall. A wall can't change the Constitution, a wall can't change any laws, a wall can't change anything in the federalist papers.  It's simply an inanimate object.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I am not arguing inalienable rights.
> 
> 2)  You wrote:  " Rights however are granted to people that are in our country."
> 
> In one of the earliest United States Supreme Court decisions on this, the court ruled as follows:
> 
> "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* rights,-'life, *liberty*, and the pursuit of happiness;' *and to 'secure*,' *not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. *That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of*, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
> 
> 3)  I agree that the government "could" strictly enforce the Constitution Free Zone.  IF they did, the people would see this is VERY real and they would rebel.  So, they do it in small doses.  YouTube is full of videos of law abiding Americans who have had their Rights violated in the Constitution Free Zone.
> 
> As you will recall, Al Capone was arrested on a 25 year old law that had possibly never been enforced - the people would have rebelled had they known what it was REALLY about (income tax evasion.)
> 
> 4)  I don't do theories.  I live in the real world.  In order to enforce the laws relative to the wall, your boys have already passed the so - called "Patriot Act," the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify and trashed the policies of a presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty.  You're perfectly comfortable with the Constitution Free Zone and I'd bet there are over 500 suggestions from people you agree with on this thread alone advocating that we "crack down on those sending money out of this country."   Those precedents are a dual edged sword.
> 
> Frederick Douglass, a former slave and a Republican once said:
> 
> "No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened around his own neck."
> 
> So, you create a bad precedent on the border, falsely thinking it will apply only to undocumented foreigners only to find out it's being used against you.  You don't have a very sound strategy.  All you've supported in the past expands into a cashless society wherein all your transactions are tracked by the paper trail you left on a computer.  You'd support a cashless society if it would get rid of the little brown guys from south of the border.  All that will be enacted in order to assist in enforcing the wall... an untended consequence for those who realize that we may be engaged in an internal civil war some day.
> 
> The unintended consequences of giving the government as much power as you would - on the pretext that it will save you from yourself is foolish and your repetitive posts and covering the same ground over and over won't make my point any less true.
> 
> You know you're defeated; that's why the deflections and your inability to be honest with me.  In the end, YOU will be screwed by the very monster you are helping to build... and you will have done it to yourself.  We got a lot of ground to cover grasshopper.  I'm not going to try and debate everyone at the same time who want some - though the best is invited to a REAL debate on another board where it will be *one on one* - no holds barred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So one of the functions of the federal government is not to protect it’s citizens?
> And flooding our borders with cheap Labor is enforcing the General Welfare clause?
> You have an interesting POV of what defines a nation.
> We might as well rename the US the Open Borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are dishonest and probably amoral.  Since I have so specified at least a dozen times that it is the function of the government to protect us - it just should not serve as a tool to protect you from your own actions. As for the rest, even danielpalos has a point once each year.  He's already answered this lame ass allegation from you and others.  You need some new material.
> 
> Since I cannot "debate" a dozen people as the delusional call these exchanges, I'm sure you will wait your turn.  I'm having a discussion with Ray, so save your lies and when we're on equal footing, I'll take you on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want a one on one argument take it to pm.
Click to expand...


Did you ever read Proverbs 18: 13

Already did offer anyone open challenge to take place on another board.  Take it to PM to arrange.  No takers.  People are afraid to go one on one on a level playing field.  Got anything else?


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens? What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights? T*hey keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken. I’m asking them for proof of their position*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our people (government) does not take any inalienable rights away from people because they can't.  Rights however are granted to people that are in our country.  If visitors, they are granted some constitutional rights.  If they become citizens, they are granted all constitutional rights.  But constitutional rights are not the same as inalienable rights.  It's something I think you're confused about.
> 
> A right to be in this country is not an inalienable right, it's a right granted by the government.  Therefore it's a right that can be removed by our government.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone. There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER. Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall won't change any of that.  If the government wanted a strict enforcement of the free zone, they could do that tomorrow with no wall.  Therefore your claim is moot.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom. It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So WTF does that have to do with the wall?  And I"m sorry, I just don't buy into any stories that involve.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall does that?  How?  I know nothing about any national ID card.  I don't have one, I've never been notified I must have one, and I have no plans to get one.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach. The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it. If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort. We got a long way to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, a wall has nothing to do with that.  These conspiracy theories of yours are not even part of this planet yet alone country.
> 
> I changed my opinion about you.  You are not a liberal, you are not a conservative, you're just a plain old kook.  But just for shits and giggles, can you tell me how the government could not know I was building a weapon of some sort if a wall wasn't there????
> 
> Your associations are so far out even somebody smoking the best pot can't connect them.  A wall will not take one right away from you, from me, from any citizen.  A wall (like a firearm) has no mystical power of it's own. A wall is simply that, a wall. A wall can't change the Constitution, a wall can't change any laws, a wall can't change anything in the federalist papers.  It's simply an inanimate object.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I am not arguing inalienable rights.
> 
> 2)  You wrote:  " Rights however are granted to people that are in our country."
> 
> In one of the earliest United States Supreme Court decisions on this, the court ruled as follows:
> 
> "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* rights,-'life, *liberty*, and the pursuit of happiness;' *and to 'secure*,' *not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. *That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of*, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
> 
> 3)  I agree that the government "could" strictly enforce the Constitution Free Zone.  IF they did, the people would see this is VERY real and they would rebel.  So, they do it in small doses.  YouTube is full of videos of law abiding Americans who have had their Rights violated in the Constitution Free Zone.
> 
> As you will recall, Al Capone was arrested on a 25 year old law that had possibly never been enforced - the people would have rebelled had they known what it was REALLY about (income tax evasion.)
> 
> 4)  I don't do theories.  I live in the real world.  In order to enforce the laws relative to the wall, your boys have already passed the so - called "Patriot Act," the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify and trashed the policies of a presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty.  You're perfectly comfortable with the Constitution Free Zone and I'd bet there are over 500 suggestions from people you agree with on this thread alone advocating that we "crack down on those sending money out of this country."   Those precedents are a dual edged sword.
> 
> Frederick Douglass, a former slave and a Republican once said:
> 
> "No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened around his own neck."
> 
> So, you create a bad precedent on the border, falsely thinking it will apply only to undocumented foreigners only to find out it's being used against you.  You don't have a very sound strategy.  All you've supported in the past expands into a cashless society wherein all your transactions are tracked by the paper trail you left on a computer.  You'd support a cashless society if it would get rid of the little brown guys from south of the border.  All that will be enacted in order to assist in enforcing the wall... an untended consequence for those who realize that we may be engaged in an internal civil war some day.
> 
> The unintended consequences of giving the government as much power as you would - on the pretext that it will save you from yourself is foolish and your repetitive posts and covering the same ground over and over won't make my point any less true.
> 
> You know you're defeated; that's why the deflections and your inability to be honest with me.  In the end, YOU will be screwed by the very monster you are helping to build... and you will have done it to yourself.  We got a lot of ground to cover grasshopper.  I'm not going to try and debate everyone at the same time who want some - though the best is invited to a REAL debate on another board where it will be *one on one* - no holds barred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So one of the functions of the federal government is not to protect it’s citizens?
> And flooding our borders with cheap Labor is enforcing the General Welfare clause?
> You have an interesting POV of what defines a nation.
> We might as well rename the US the Open Borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are dishonest and probably amoral.  Since I have so specified at least a dozen times that it is the function of the government to protect us - it just should not serve as a tool to protect you from your own actions. As for the rest, even danielpalos has a point once each year.  He's already answered this lame ass allegation from you and others.  You need some new material.
> 
> Since I cannot "debate" a dozen people as the delusional call these exchanges, I'm sure you will wait your turn.  I'm having a discussion with Ray, so save your lies and when we're on equal footing, I'll take you on.
Click to expand...

Your posts are dissertations.
Physical Open Borders are good for people like you who love playing god to the underdog.
I already stated I prefer bombing drug cities to hell, collateral damage and all...much better than a wall.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our people (government) does not take any inalienable rights away from people because they can't.  Rights however are granted to people that are in our country.  If visitors, they are granted some constitutional rights.  If they become citizens, they are granted all constitutional rights.  But constitutional rights are not the same as inalienable rights.  It's something I think you're confused about.
> 
> A right to be in this country is not an inalienable right, it's a right granted by the government.  Therefore it's a right that can be removed by our government.
> 
> A wall won't change any of that.  If the government wanted a strict enforcement of the free zone, they could do that tomorrow with no wall.  Therefore your claim is moot.
> 
> So WTF does that have to do with the wall?  And I"m sorry, I just don't buy into any stories that involve.....
> 
> 
> 
> A wall does that?  How?  I know nothing about any national ID card.  I don't have one, I've never been notified I must have one, and I have no plans to get one.
> 
> Again, a wall has nothing to do with that.  These conspiracy theories of yours are not even part of this planet yet alone country.
> 
> I changed my opinion about you.  You are not a liberal, you are not a conservative, you're just a plain old kook.  But just for shits and giggles, can you tell me how the government could not know I was building a weapon of some sort if a wall wasn't there????
> 
> Your associations are so far out even somebody smoking the best pot can't connect them.  A wall will not take one right away from you, from me, from any citizen.  A wall (like a firearm) has no mystical power of it's own. A wall is simply that, a wall. A wall can't change the Constitution, a wall can't change any laws, a wall can't change anything in the federalist papers.  It's simply an inanimate object.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I am not arguing inalienable rights.
> 
> 2)  You wrote:  " Rights however are granted to people that are in our country."
> 
> In one of the earliest United States Supreme Court decisions on this, the court ruled as follows:
> 
> "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* rights,-'life, *liberty*, and the pursuit of happiness;' *and to 'secure*,' *not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. *That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of*, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
> 
> 3)  I agree that the government "could" strictly enforce the Constitution Free Zone.  IF they did, the people would see this is VERY real and they would rebel.  So, they do it in small doses.  YouTube is full of videos of law abiding Americans who have had their Rights violated in the Constitution Free Zone.
> 
> As you will recall, Al Capone was arrested on a 25 year old law that had possibly never been enforced - the people would have rebelled had they known what it was REALLY about (income tax evasion.)
> 
> 4)  I don't do theories.  I live in the real world.  In order to enforce the laws relative to the wall, your boys have already passed the so - called "Patriot Act," the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify and trashed the policies of a presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty.  You're perfectly comfortable with the Constitution Free Zone and I'd bet there are over 500 suggestions from people you agree with on this thread alone advocating that we "crack down on those sending money out of this country."   Those precedents are a dual edged sword.
> 
> Frederick Douglass, a former slave and a Republican once said:
> 
> "No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened around his own neck."
> 
> So, you create a bad precedent on the border, falsely thinking it will apply only to undocumented foreigners only to find out it's being used against you.  You don't have a very sound strategy.  All you've supported in the past expands into a cashless society wherein all your transactions are tracked by the paper trail you left on a computer.  You'd support a cashless society if it would get rid of the little brown guys from south of the border.  All that will be enacted in order to assist in enforcing the wall... an untended consequence for those who realize that we may be engaged in an internal civil war some day.
> 
> The unintended consequences of giving the government as much power as you would - on the pretext that it will save you from yourself is foolish and your repetitive posts and covering the same ground over and over won't make my point any less true.
> 
> You know you're defeated; that's why the deflections and your inability to be honest with me.  In the end, YOU will be screwed by the very monster you are helping to build... and you will have done it to yourself.  We got a lot of ground to cover grasshopper.  I'm not going to try and debate everyone at the same time who want some - though the best is invited to a REAL debate on another board where it will be *one on one* - no holds barred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So one of the functions of the federal government is not to protect it’s citizens?
> And flooding our borders with cheap Labor is enforcing the General Welfare clause?
> You have an interesting POV of what defines a nation.
> We might as well rename the US the Open Borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are dishonest and probably amoral.  Since I have so specified at least a dozen times that it is the function of the government to protect us - it just should not serve as a tool to protect you from your own actions. As for the rest, even danielpalos has a point once each year.  He's already answered this lame ass allegation from you and others.  You need some new material.
> 
> Since I cannot "debate" a dozen people as the delusional call these exchanges, I'm sure you will wait your turn.  I'm having a discussion with Ray, so save your lies and when we're on equal footing, I'll take you on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want a one on one argument take it to pm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever read Proverbs 18: 13
> 
> Already did offer anyone open challenge to take place on another board.  Take it to PM to arrange.  No takers.  People are afraid to go one on one on a level playing field.  Got anything else?
Click to expand...

Since 5 Billion is a pittance of the budget what is wrong with giving the President a bone? Doesn't he deserve a pet project just like all the other pork earmarks in the bills?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ame®icano said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> America was founded on the principle that each person is born with unalienable Rights.  The Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> So, when I ask you where your Rights come from, I am in reference to the foundational principle found in the DOI as quoted above.  Where do YOUR Rights come from?
> 
> Some people have a problem with inherent, natural, God given, unalienable, absolute, irrevocable Rights.  So, as per the DOI all men have been bestowed by their Creator (their God, whomever they deem that to be) with unalienable Rights.  If you disagree, I'm only asking where you get your Rights from.  I'm not trying to start some shit with you, only looking for the disconnect.  I'm trying to get beyond all the accusations and counter-accusations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I told you in private message, I couldn't reply to you right away. In short, and we could discuss about it more later, here is my answer. Sorry for delay, by the way, I'm still recovering from holidays.
> 
> As per this, and some of your other posts, I take you as religious person believe that our rights come from "creator". Since I am not religious, I disagree with that approach, because legal existence of our rights required our founding fathers to frame them into Bill of Rights, and without it our fundamental freedoms (free speech, religious rights, gun rights, due process, etc.) would not exist. God can be credited for the rights, but without founding fathers "human action" probably none of it would matter. If our rights do come from "creator" than it would be impossible to take them away, but we do know that US Constitution and it's Amendments could and have been changed in the past, and will probably be changed in the future.
> 
> Therefore, I believe our rights come from *us* and our beliefs that only those who value freedom can be free and defend those freedoms enough to protect them in the form of the Constitution that limits Government from taking those rights and freedoms away (therefore unalienable). In other words, the "creator" for someone religious is a god, and for non religious, creator are we, ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do so - called "illegals" have a right (sic) to be here?  I'm asking the question of if they do not have a right (sic) to be here, then are you of the opinion that government creates and / or grants rights?
> 
> I'm looking for where the disconnect is, not which side is right or wrong.  I'm not here to ask you a question and then go off on a tangent calling you an idiot as most of these end up being like.  I'm asking a question to see, exactly, where the disconnect is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's start with this. Anyone who enter the country illegally and is not subject to US jurisdiction do not have the full scope of affirmative constitutional rights of a US citizen. The government job is not to create and grant rights, although the government would disagree with that. We already have rights, and they are protected by the Constitution that forbids government from passing any law that restrict those rights.
> 
> Now you answer, does Chinese citizen living in China have US constitutional rights, and specifically the right to come to US?
Click to expand...


I'm now in a deep discussion with Ray, but will take a brief moment for you.

Posts 2806, 3475, 3476, 3613 and 3669 were necessitated by dumbassery of people who try to make the same points over and over - after being responded to umpteen times (NINE at last count for Ray.)

Inherent, natural, God given, unalienable, irrevocable, absolute... whatever term you like best.  Those posts will answer you.

No American is guaranteed any U.S. constitutional Right, but then again, they do not have the Declaration of Independence AND the numbered posts delve into that deeper for you.


----------



## MaryL

Flopper said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> When LIBERALS LOVE TO CLAIM SOMETHING is "unconstitutional", that cuts both ways. Sanctuary cities ?  Nobody got to vote on whether or not they want sanctuary cities. That seems so exceptional so Unconstitutional. Nobody go to vote on this issue, it's mandated, it's dictated  by the moral minority. by who's power, even?   Sanctuary cities? I can't speak for the majority, but I suspect most of us rather want federal immigration laws enforced, it won't hurt us, and it might just help.
> 
> 
> 
> In most cities, citizens only get to vote for elected officials, referendums which have a sufficient number of signatures, bond issues, and other items specified in state laws.  I'm sure you know what to do if you don't like how your city council votes.  So stop whining.  It's not a democracy.
Click to expand...

Not a personal thing, we get to vote on say, judges or trash pick up days or picayune minutiae. But you think complaining about not being able to vote on such  significant issue as being a sanctuary city is whining..Are you  nutz? THIS IS A DEMOCRACY, and we should be able to decide on such a thing. YES?   A minority doesn't dictate to the majority its will, because that's  just   thinly disguised  fascism. And that's some scary stuff you are putting out here.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I am not arguing inalienable rights.
> 
> 2)  You wrote:  " Rights however are granted to people that are in our country."
> 
> In one of the earliest United States Supreme Court decisions on this, the court ruled as follows:
> 
> "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* rights,-'life, *liberty*, and the pursuit of happiness;' *and to 'secure*,' *not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. *That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of*, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
> 
> 3)  I agree that the government "could" strictly enforce the Constitution Free Zone.  IF they did, the people would see this is VERY real and they would rebel.  So, they do it in small doses.  YouTube is full of videos of law abiding Americans who have had their Rights violated in the Constitution Free Zone.
> 
> As you will recall, Al Capone was arrested on a 25 year old law that had possibly never been enforced - the people would have rebelled had they known what it was REALLY about (income tax evasion.)
> 
> 4)  I don't do theories.  I live in the real world.  In order to enforce the laws relative to the wall, your boys have already passed the so - called "Patriot Act," the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify and trashed the policies of a presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty.  You're perfectly comfortable with the Constitution Free Zone and I'd bet there are over 500 suggestions from people you agree with on this thread alone advocating that we "crack down on those sending money out of this country."   Those precedents are a dual edged sword.
> 
> Frederick Douglass, a former slave and a Republican once said:
> 
> "No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened around his own neck."
> 
> So, you create a bad precedent on the border, falsely thinking it will apply only to undocumented foreigners only to find out it's being used against you.  You don't have a very sound strategy.  All you've supported in the past expands into a cashless society wherein all your transactions are tracked by the paper trail you left on a computer.  You'd support a cashless society if it would get rid of the little brown guys from south of the border.  All that will be enacted in order to assist in enforcing the wall... an untended consequence for those who realize that we may be engaged in an internal civil war some day.
> 
> The unintended consequences of giving the government as much power as you would - on the pretext that it will save you from yourself is foolish and your repetitive posts and covering the same ground over and over won't make my point any less true.
> 
> You know you're defeated; that's why the deflections and your inability to be honest with me.  In the end, YOU will be screwed by the very monster you are helping to build... and you will have done it to yourself.  We got a lot of ground to cover grasshopper.  I'm not going to try and debate everyone at the same time who want some - though the best is invited to a REAL debate on another board where it will be *one on one* - no holds barred.
> 
> 
> 
> So one of the functions of the federal government is not to protect it’s citizens?
> And flooding our borders with cheap Labor is enforcing the General Welfare clause?
> You have an interesting POV of what defines a nation.
> We might as well rename the US the Open Borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are dishonest and probably amoral.  Since I have so specified at least a dozen times that it is the function of the government to protect us - it just should not serve as a tool to protect you from your own actions. As for the rest, even danielpalos has a point once each year.  He's already answered this lame ass allegation from you and others.  You need some new material.
> 
> Since I cannot "debate" a dozen people as the delusional call these exchanges, I'm sure you will wait your turn.  I'm having a discussion with Ray, so save your lies and when we're on equal footing, I'll take you on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want a one on one argument take it to pm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever read Proverbs 18: 13
> 
> Already did offer anyone open challenge to take place on another board.  Take it to PM to arrange.  No takers.  People are afraid to go one on one on a level playing field.  Got anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since 5 Billion is a pittance of the budget what is wrong with giving the President a bone? Doesn't he deserve a pet project just like all the other pork earmarks in the bills?
Click to expand...


Again, see posts 2806, 3475, 3476, 3613, and 3669.  We keep covering the same ground over and over.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

MaryL said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> When LIBERALS LOVE TO CLAIM SOMETHING is "unconstitutional", that cuts both ways. Sanctuary cities ?  Nobody got to vote on whether or not they want sanctuary cities. That seems so exceptional so Unconstitutional. Nobody go to vote on this issue, it's mandated, it's dictated  by the moral minority. by who's power, even?   Sanctuary cities? I can't speak for the majority, but I suspect most of us rather want federal immigration laws enforced, it won't hurt us, and it might just help.
> 
> 
> 
> In most cities, citizens only get to vote for elected officials, referendums which have a sufficient number of signatures, bond issues, and other items specified in state laws.  I'm sure you know what to do if you don't like how your city council votes.  So stop whining.  It's not a democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a personal thing, we get to vote on say, judges or trash pick up days or picayune minutiae. But you think complaining about not being able to vote on such  significant issue as being a sanctuary city is whining  Are you nutz? THIS IS a DEMOCRACY, you moron.
Click to expand...



You'd better reread Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution
Recite the Pledge of Allegiance
Read the Federalist Papers


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens? What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights? T*hey keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken. I’m asking them for proof of their position*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our people (government) does not take any inalienable rights away from people because they can't.  Rights however are granted to people that are in our country.  If visitors, they are granted some constitutional rights.  If they become citizens, they are granted all constitutional rights.  But constitutional rights are not the same as inalienable rights.  It's something I think you're confused about.
> 
> A right to be in this country is not an inalienable right, it's a right granted by the government.  Therefore it's a right that can be removed by our government.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone. There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER. Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall won't change any of that.  If the government wanted a strict enforcement of the free zone, they could do that tomorrow with no wall.  Therefore your claim is moot.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom. It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So WTF does that have to do with the wall?  And I"m sorry, I just don't buy into any stories that involve.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall does that?  How?  I know nothing about any national ID card.  I don't have one, I've never been notified I must have one, and I have no plans to get one.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach. The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it. If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort. We got a long way to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, a wall has nothing to do with that.  These conspiracy theories of yours are not even part of this planet yet alone country.
> 
> I changed my opinion about you.  You are not a liberal, you are not a conservative, you're just a plain old kook.  But just for shits and giggles, can you tell me how the government could not know I was building a weapon of some sort if a wall wasn't there????
> 
> Your associations are so far out even somebody smoking the best pot can't connect them.  A wall will not take one right away from you, from me, from any citizen.  A wall (like a firearm) has no mystical power of it's own. A wall is simply that, a wall. A wall can't change the Constitution, a wall can't change any laws, a wall can't change anything in the federalist papers.  It's simply an inanimate object.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I am not arguing inalienable rights.
> 
> 2)  You wrote:  " Rights however are granted to people that are in our country."
> 
> In one of the earliest United States Supreme Court decisions on this, the court ruled as follows:
> 
> "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* rights,-'life, *liberty*, and the pursuit of happiness;' *and to 'secure*,' *not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. *That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of*, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
> 
> In other words what I create is MINE and I don't owe you a job to benefit you - it's my job to give.  This is *THE* fatal flaw of your argument.
> 
> 3)  I agree that the government "could" strictly enforce the Constitution Free Zone.  IF they did, the people would see this is VERY real and they would rebel.  So, they do it in small doses.  YouTube is full of videos of law abiding Americans who have had their Rights violated in the Constitution Free Zone.
> 
> As you will recall, Al Capone was arrested on a 25 year old law that had possibly never been enforced - the people would have rebelled had they known what it was REALLY about (income tax evasion.)
> 
> 4)  I don't do theories.  I live in the real world.  In order to enforce the laws relative to the wall, your boys have already passed the so - called "Patriot Act," the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify and trashed the policies of a presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty.  You're perfectly comfortable with the Constitution Free Zone and I'd bet there are over 500 suggestions from people you agree with on this thread alone advocating that we "crack down on those sending money out of this country."   Those precedents are a dual edged sword.
> 
> Frederick Douglass, a former slave and a Republican once said:
> 
> "No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened around his own neck."
> 
> So, you create a bad precedent on the border, falsely thinking it will apply only to undocumented foreigners only to find out it's being used against you.  You don't have a very sound strategy.  All you've supported in the past expands into a cashless society wherein all your transactions are tracked by the paper trail you left on a computer.  You'd support a cashless society if it would get rid of the little brown guys from south of the border.  All that will be enacted in order to assist in enforcing the wall... an untended consequence for those who realize that we may be engaged in an internal civil war some day.
> 
> The unintended consequences of giving the government as much power as you would - on the pretext that it will save you from yourself is foolish and your repetitive posts and covering the same ground over and over won't make my point any less true.
> 
> You know you're defeated; that's why the deflections and your inability to be honest with me.  In the end, YOU will be screwed by the very monster you are helping to build... and you will have done it to yourself.  We got a lot of ground to cover grasshopper.  I'm not going to try and debate everyone at the same time who want some - though the best is invited to a REAL debate on another board where it will be *one on one* - no holds barred.
Click to expand...

If we don't control immigration we have the potential of having 158 million people from poverty countries up and decide to move to America to get a share of our American Lifestyle ruining for us who are already here. We paid for this lifestyle via our ancestors who both fought the Civil War, and the war of Independence from England in the first war of our nation. Our ancestors broke into the west and tamed it. Our ancestors bought with sweat, tears, and bullets the luxurious lifestyle we now have. If these people want the same lifestyle we have then they need to fix their own damn country and not ruin what we fought generations for.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If people will give me a freaking break, I'll give you the post number, but it's been asked and answered in depth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If police officers ask for guns should we not give them guns because in someone’s opinion it infringes on their liberties? I find that odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you drunk?  What in the HELL did that mean?
> 
> I would never advocate giving up your gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you’re OK denying border agents another form of protection they feel they need?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who exactly are these border agents; the ones Trump's Customs and Border Protection Director hand picked for Trump's border barrier infomercial at the white house?
> 
> Border Patrol agents on the front lines say they need more technology and additional personnel to curb the illegal traffic, according to a report released on Thursday by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggested a border wall.
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your New York Times (what else) article:
> 
> _*Officials at Customs and Border Protection called the report inaccurate, saying it confused how agents’ feedback about security vulnerabilities is used to develop programs to counter threats.*_
> 
> This issue in March is in sharp contrast to this article in the Washington Times a month later
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
Click to expand...

Notice the term strategic locations.  Funny how a border wall changed to a 1000 mile wall, to a wall in strategic locations to a border barrier/border fence which is currently 212 miles long, 112 miles of it replaces a border barrier built in 2006.  Unable to get a single dollar to build the great wall Trump promised on the campaign trail, he has now settled on a new strategy: repairing and upgrading the existing fence and calling that his “wall.”   Is that what you guys voted for?


----------



## Clementine

Building the wall is not wrong.    Some politicians have much to gain, like voters, and they want illegals to overwhelm us.   It's literally part of the plan.    Some of you need to read the Cloward-Piven plan and Alinsky's Rule for Radicals.    Or just watch what the left has actually been doing.   Kinda like watching the movie instead of reading the book.    

They don't give a shit about people.   The open borders are controlled by the nastiest scum on earth- drug dealers, human traffickers, terrorists and other filth.    The innocent victims are lured there by a promise of an easier life, but the majority are harmed before they get here.    Kids and women are forced into the sex trade.    Drug runners and traffickers rely on the easy entry to do their dirty business.    And the left looks the other way.    They know who is coming and they don't care.    Even when some of these scumbags are convicted of violent crimes and murder, the left still doesn't deport them.   Sanctuary cities release them back onto the streets.    Even if they were deported, there is NOTHING to prevent them from coming right back in.

When a leftist talks about deporting the violent criminals, it's a joke when they want open borders.


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If police officers ask for guns should we not give them guns because in someone’s opinion it infringes on their liberties? I find that odd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you drunk?  What in the HELL did that mean?
> 
> I would never advocate giving up your gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you’re OK denying border agents another form of protection they feel they need?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who exactly are these border agents; the ones Trump's Customs and Border Protection Director hand picked for Trump's border barrier infomercial at the white house?
> 
> Border Patrol agents on the front lines say they need more technology and additional personnel to curb the illegal traffic, according to a report released on Thursday by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggested a border wall.
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your New York Times (what else) article:
> 
> _*Officials at Customs and Border Protection called the report inaccurate, saying it confused how agents’ feedback about security vulnerabilities is used to develop programs to counter threats.*_
> 
> This issue in March is in sharp contrast to this article in the Washington Times a month later
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice the term strategic locations.  Funny how a border wall changed to a 1000 mile wall, to a wall in strategic locations to a border barrier/border fence which is currently 212 miles long, 112 miles of it replaces a border barrier built in 2006.  Unable to get a single dollar to build the great wall Trump promised on the campaign trail, he has now settled on a new strategy: repairing and upgrading the existing fence and calling that his “wall.”   Is that what you guys voted for?
Click to expand...

So your saying he shouldn't compromise he should build a 2,000 mile wall or he didn't deserve to be elected by we who elected him?


----------



## Slyhunter

Adding to what I already wrote;
Parents try to build a better life for their children then they themselves have. They go through trials and tribulations they hope their children won't have to go through to attain the same lifestyle. Over the course of generations this goes from living in a log cabin and eating what you shot to what we have now. We Americans deserve the better life because Our ancestors built it for us. If you want what we have fix your own damn country. Don't come to America to water down what we have and ruin it for those who have already gone through the trials and tribulations to get here.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If police officers ask for guns should we not give them guns because in someone’s opinion it infringes on their liberties? I find that odd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you drunk?  What in the HELL did that mean?
> 
> I would never advocate giving up your gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you’re OK denying border agents another form of protection they feel they need?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who exactly are these border agents; the ones Trump's Customs and Border Protection Director hand picked for Trump's border barrier infomercial at the white house?
> 
> Border Patrol agents on the front lines say they need more technology and additional personnel to curb the illegal traffic, according to a report released on Thursday by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggested a border wall.
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your New York Times (what else) article:
> 
> _*Officials at Customs and Border Protection called the report inaccurate, saying it confused how agents’ feedback about security vulnerabilities is used to develop programs to counter threats.*_
> 
> This issue in March is in sharp contrast to this article in the Washington Times a month later
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice the term strategic locations.  Funny how a border wall changed to a 1000 mile wall, to a wall in strategic locations to a border barrier/border fence which is currently 212 miles long, 112 miles of it replaces a border barrier built in 2006.  Unable to get a single dollar to build the great wall Trump promised on the campaign trail, he has now settled on a new strategy: repairing and upgrading the existing fence and calling that his “wall.”   Is that what you guys voted for?
Click to expand...

That's only for the first $5 billion, moron.  He'll build the rest when he gets the money for the rest.

Notice how you're a fucking dumbass?


----------



## MaryL

Porter Rockwell said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> When LIBERALS LOVE TO CLAIM SOMETHING is "unconstitutional", that cuts both ways. Sanctuary cities ?  Nobody got to vote on whether or not they want sanctuary cities. That seems so exceptional so Unconstitutional. Nobody go to vote on this issue, it's mandated, it's dictated  by the moral minority. by who's power, even?   Sanctuary cities? I can't speak for the majority, but I suspect most of us rather want federal immigration laws enforced, it won't hurt us, and it might just help.
> 
> 
> 
> In most cities, citizens only get to vote for elected officials, referendums which have a sufficient number of signatures, bond issues, and other items specified in state laws.  I'm sure you know what to do if you don't like how your city council votes.  So stop whining.  It's not a democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a personal thing, we get to vote on say, judges or trash pick up days or picayune minutiae. But you think complaining about not being able to vote on such  significant issue as being a sanctuary city is whining  Are you nutz? THIS IS a DEMOCRACY, you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You'd better reread Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution
> Recite the Pledge of Allegiance
> Read the Federalist Papers
Click to expand...

Democracy  doesn't mean a tiny bunch of entitled elitists can impose their will on the majority, I will not let that stand. Nobody got to vote on sanctuary cities, and that is scary thing. Doesn't that bother anyone else? It's like someone hijacked our government. It's outrageous! Don't tells us what to think!


----------



## Flopper

MaryL said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so funny about my post? I am feeling like Elvis Costello.  Peace love & understanding. So, If ya' all want to keep the wankers out, don't hire them! Make them Prove their national identity with  state sanctioned national identity card linked to their, DNA, Fingerprints.  Things that are verifiable.  Might be cheaper and more effective than building a wall on the southern border. But let's keep up cheap petty appearances, like  "Border walls". Bully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's so funny, you said walls don't word in-spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The fact is they do work, that's why the border patrol is asking for more. If you don't like how it looks, do an about face, problem solved.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love ya'all.  Good fences make for good neighbors. We have liberal assholes that give illegal aliens freebies . Sanctuary cities. Now, nobody got to vote on whether or not their home town became a sanctuary city, that was so  much a  liberal cadre " They just presumed they could get away with"  thing. Sanctuary cities?  Seems  that was a overriding Constitutional  issue people ignore. Who got to vote to give their city / state  ignore  federal immigration laws?  I didn't, did any of you? Was it on a ballot anywhere? Because, that a pretty significant  issue. Ignoring the will of the people and constitutional laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to worry about sanctuary cities in my State, the State outlawed them and require State sanctioned law enforcement agencies (which are all of them) to cooperate with immigration officials.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um, well the rest of us have to worry about unsanctioned legitimizing of illegal aliens. Giving them the vote. The motor voter thing, the whole nine yards. Everything about giving illegal aliens special rights. But they can't follow the same immigration laws everyone else does. Sanctuary cities for Albanians?  Or Hungarians? Just Mexicans Because, that's fair. Just Mexicans. Mexicans are so special they transcend the Constitution. And when you notice something broken about that? Hate and xenophobia is what they say.
Click to expand...

If you expect them to follow the same immigration laws and regulations and wait their turn then you have to give them a chance to do so.  In Central American countries and also in Mexico to a lesser extent, these people have no chance to legally immigrate.

These countries have immigration limits establish by congress.  That limit is reduced by family sponsored immigration, employer sponsored immigration, critical skills immigration, change in immigration status of those holding visas, refugee admissions, reserved categories such as the clergy and other special circumstances.  After reducing the immigration limit for all these categories, there is essential no way to legally immigrate even if you wait for years.

There's a rule that bans a person from legally immigrating for 5 or 10 years if caught entering the country illegally or overstaying visas.   However, in these countries that ban means nothing to people deported because there's no way they would ever get into the country legally so they just keep trying.

Immigration laws make no sense.  Why does it take over 10 years to immigrate from Honduras and 1 year from Ethiopia and never from India if don't have a family sponsor.


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so funny about my post? I am feeling like Elvis Costello.  Peace love & understanding. So, If ya' all want to keep the wankers out, don't hire them! Make them Prove their national identity with  state sanctioned national identity card linked to their, DNA, Fingerprints.  Things that are verifiable.  Might be cheaper and more effective than building a wall on the southern border. But let's keep up cheap petty appearances, like  "Border walls". Bully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's so funny, you said walls don't word in-spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The fact is they do work, that's why the border patrol is asking for more. If you don't like how it looks, do an about face, problem solved.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love ya'all.  Good fences make for good neighbors. We have liberal assholes that give illegal aliens freebies . Sanctuary cities. Now, nobody got to vote on whether or not their home town became a sanctuary city, that was so  much a  liberal cadre " They just presumed they could get away with"  thing. Sanctuary cities?  Seems  that was a overriding Constitutional  issue people ignore. Who got to vote to give their city / state  ignore  federal immigration laws?  I didn't, did any of you? Was it on a ballot anywhere? Because, that a pretty significant  issue. Ignoring the will of the people and constitutional laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to worry about sanctuary cities in my State, the State outlawed them and require State sanctioned law enforcement agencies (which are all of them) to cooperate with immigration officials.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um, well the rest of us have to worry about unsanctioned legitimizing of illegal aliens. Giving them the vote. The motor voter thing, the whole nine yards. Everything about giving illegal aliens special rights. But they can't follow the same immigration laws everyone else does. Sanctuary cities for Albanians?  Or Hungarians? Just Mexicans Because, that's fair. Just Mexicans. Mexicans are so special they transcend the Constitution. And when you notice something broken about that? Hate and xenophobia is what they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you expect them to follow the same immigration laws and regulations and wait their turn then you have to give them a chance to do so.  In Central American countries and also in Mexico to a lesser extent, these people have no chance to legally immigrate.
> 
> These countries have immigration limits establish by congress.  That limit is reduced by family sponsored immigration, employer sponsored immigration, critical skills immigration, change in immigration status of those holding visas, refugee admissions, reserved categories such as the clergy and other special circumstances.  After reducing the immigration limit for all these categories, there is essential no way to legally immigrate even if you wait for years.
> 
> There's a rule that bans a person from legally legally immigrating for 5 or 10 years if caught entering the country illegally or overstaying visas.   However, in these countries that ban means nothing to people deported because there's no way they would ever get into the country legally.
> 
> Immigration laws make no sense.  Why does it take over 10 years to immigrate from Honduras and 1 year from Ethiopia and never from India if don't have family sponsor.
Click to expand...

Because we can't hold them all. You seem to think anyone who wants to should be able to move to America. That would be the end of America.


----------



## Flopper

AzogtheDefiler said:


> You never answered me. Do you think they are actors?


If you ask a question or expect a reply from a particular person you need to issue a reply to that person, not to the whole thread which is at bottom of the screen.


----------



## Flopper

Slyhunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's so funny, you said walls don't word in-spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The fact is they do work, that's why the border patrol is asking for more. If you don't like how it looks, do an about face, problem solved.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Love ya'all.  Good fences make for good neighbors. We have liberal assholes that give illegal aliens freebies . Sanctuary cities. Now, nobody got to vote on whether or not their home town became a sanctuary city, that was so  much a  liberal cadre " They just presumed they could get away with"  thing. Sanctuary cities?  Seems  that was a overriding Constitutional  issue people ignore. Who got to vote to give their city / state  ignore  federal immigration laws?  I didn't, did any of you? Was it on a ballot anywhere? Because, that a pretty significant  issue. Ignoring the will of the people and constitutional laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to worry about sanctuary cities in my State, the State outlawed them and require State sanctioned law enforcement agencies (which are all of them) to cooperate with immigration officials.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um, well the rest of us have to worry about unsanctioned legitimizing of illegal aliens. Giving them the vote. The motor voter thing, the whole nine yards. Everything about giving illegal aliens special rights. But they can't follow the same immigration laws everyone else does. Sanctuary cities for Albanians?  Or Hungarians? Just Mexicans Because, that's fair. Just Mexicans. Mexicans are so special they transcend the Constitution. And when you notice something broken about that? Hate and xenophobia is what they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you expect them to follow the same immigration laws and regulations and wait their turn then you have to give them a chance to do so.  In Central American countries and also in Mexico to a lesser extent, these people have no chance to legally immigrate.
> 
> These countries have immigration limits establish by congress.  That limit is reduced by family sponsored immigration, employer sponsored immigration, critical skills immigration, change in immigration status of those holding visas, refugee admissions, reserved categories such as the clergy and other special circumstances.  After reducing the immigration limit for all these categories, there is essential no way to legally immigrate even if you wait for years.
> 
> There's a rule that bans a person from legally legally immigrating for 5 or 10 years if caught entering the country illegally or overstaying visas.   However, in these countries that ban means nothing to people deported because there's no way they would ever get into the country legally.
> 
> Immigration laws make no sense.  Why does it take over 10 years to immigrate from Honduras and 1 year from Ethiopia and never from India if don't have family sponsor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we can't hold them all. You seem to think anyone who wants to should be able to move to America. That would be the end of America.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not.  We just need to have policies that are fairer and make sense.  Do we really think Ethiopians make such good citizens that they should be admitted in a year and Hondurans should have to wait 10 year or more.


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love ya'all.  Good fences make for good neighbors. We have liberal assholes that give illegal aliens freebies . Sanctuary cities. Now, nobody got to vote on whether or not their home town became a sanctuary city, that was so  much a  liberal cadre " They just presumed they could get away with"  thing. Sanctuary cities?  Seems  that was a overriding Constitutional  issue people ignore. Who got to vote to give their city / state  ignore  federal immigration laws?  I didn't, did any of you? Was it on a ballot anywhere? Because, that a pretty significant  issue. Ignoring the will of the people and constitutional laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to worry about sanctuary cities in my State, the State outlawed them and require State sanctioned law enforcement agencies (which are all of them) to cooperate with immigration officials.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um, well the rest of us have to worry about unsanctioned legitimizing of illegal aliens. Giving them the vote. The motor voter thing, the whole nine yards. Everything about giving illegal aliens special rights. But they can't follow the same immigration laws everyone else does. Sanctuary cities for Albanians?  Or Hungarians? Just Mexicans Because, that's fair. Just Mexicans. Mexicans are so special they transcend the Constitution. And when you notice something broken about that? Hate and xenophobia is what they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you expect them to follow the same immigration laws and regulations and wait their turn then you have to give them a chance to do so.  In Central American countries and also in Mexico to a lesser extent, these people have no chance to legally immigrate.
> 
> These countries have immigration limits establish by congress.  That limit is reduced by family sponsored immigration, employer sponsored immigration, critical skills immigration, change in immigration status of those holding visas, refugee admissions, reserved categories such as the clergy and other special circumstances.  After reducing the immigration limit for all these categories, there is essential no way to legally immigrate even if you wait for years.
> 
> There's a rule that bans a person from legally legally immigrating for 5 or 10 years if caught entering the country illegally or overstaying visas.   However, in these countries that ban means nothing to people deported because there's no way they would ever get into the country legally.
> 
> Immigration laws make no sense.  Why does it take over 10 years to immigrate from Honduras and 1 year from Ethiopia and never from India if don't have family sponsor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we can't hold them all. You seem to think anyone who wants to should be able to move to America. That would be the end of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely not.  We just need to have policies that are fairer and make sense.  Do we really think Ethiopians make such good citizens that they should be admitted in a year and Hondurans should have to wait 10 year or more.
Click to expand...

I don;'t think it works that way. We have a limit of 1 million immigrants a year. They divide that up. Doesn't sound to me they worry about immigrants in year 10 much less in year 2 they just worry about the limit for the current year. Now there may be so many Hondurans in line it'll take 10 years to reach a new immigrant applicant if they added themselves to the list today, but that is due to how many more are applying every year then being allowed in.

I would limit immigration to those with money or those directly related to someone in America. We don't need unskilled laborers anymore so they should be left outside of the cue, unable to ever immigrate to America.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love ya'all.  Good fences make for good neighbors. We have liberal assholes that give illegal aliens freebies . Sanctuary cities. Now, nobody got to vote on whether or not their home town became a sanctuary city, that was so  much a  liberal cadre " They just presumed they could get away with"  thing. Sanctuary cities?  Seems  that was a overriding Constitutional  issue people ignore. Who got to vote to give their city / state  ignore  federal immigration laws?  I didn't, did any of you? Was it on a ballot anywhere? Because, that a pretty significant  issue. Ignoring the will of the people and constitutional laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to worry about sanctuary cities in my State, the State outlawed them and require State sanctioned law enforcement agencies (which are all of them) to cooperate with immigration officials.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um, well the rest of us have to worry about unsanctioned legitimizing of illegal aliens. Giving them the vote. The motor voter thing, the whole nine yards. Everything about giving illegal aliens special rights. But they can't follow the same immigration laws everyone else does. Sanctuary cities for Albanians?  Or Hungarians? Just Mexicans Because, that's fair. Just Mexicans. Mexicans are so special they transcend the Constitution. And when you notice something broken about that? Hate and xenophobia is what they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you expect them to follow the same immigration laws and regulations and wait their turn then you have to give them a chance to do so.  In Central American countries and also in Mexico to a lesser extent, these people have no chance to legally immigrate.
> 
> These countries have immigration limits establish by congress.  That limit is reduced by family sponsored immigration, employer sponsored immigration, critical skills immigration, change in immigration status of those holding visas, refugee admissions, reserved categories such as the clergy and other special circumstances.  After reducing the immigration limit for all these categories, there is essential no way to legally immigrate even if you wait for years.
> 
> There's a rule that bans a person from legally legally immigrating for 5 or 10 years if caught entering the country illegally or overstaying visas.   However, in these countries that ban means nothing to people deported because there's no way they would ever get into the country legally.
> 
> Immigration laws make no sense.  Why does it take over 10 years to immigrate from Honduras and 1 year from Ethiopia and never from India if don't have family sponsor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we can't hold them all. You seem to think anyone who wants to should be able to move to America. That would be the end of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely not.  We just need to have policies that are fairer and make sense.  Do we really think Ethiopians make such good citizens that they should be admitted in a year and Hondurans should have to wait 10 year or more.
Click to expand...



Why would we want either unless they have skills this country needs? Have you ever been to rural areas of Honduras? 

.


----------



## Flopper

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I am not arguing inalienable rights.
> 
> 2)  You wrote:  " Rights however are granted to people that are in our country."
> 
> In one of the earliest United States Supreme Court decisions on this, the court ruled as follows:
> 
> "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* rights,-'life, *liberty*, and the pursuit of happiness;' *and to 'secure*,' *not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. *That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of*, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
> 
> 3)  I agree that the government "could" strictly enforce the Constitution Free Zone.  IF they did, the people would see this is VERY real and they would rebel.  So, they do it in small doses.  YouTube is full of videos of law abiding Americans who have had their Rights violated in the Constitution Free Zone.
> 
> As you will recall, Al Capone was arrested on a 25 year old law that had possibly never been enforced - the people would have rebelled had they known what it was REALLY about (income tax evasion.)
> 
> 4)  I don't do theories.  I live in the real world.  In order to enforce the laws relative to the wall, your boys have already passed the so - called "Patriot Act," the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify and trashed the policies of a presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty.  You're perfectly comfortable with the Constitution Free Zone and I'd bet there are over 500 suggestions from people you agree with on this thread alone advocating that we "crack down on those sending money out of this country."   Those precedents are a dual edged sword.
> 
> Frederick Douglass, a former slave and a Republican once said:
> 
> "No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened around his own neck."
> 
> So, you create a bad precedent on the border, falsely thinking it will apply only to undocumented foreigners only to find out it's being used against you.  You don't have a very sound strategy.  All you've supported in the past expands into a cashless society wherein all your transactions are tracked by the paper trail you left on a computer.  You'd support a cashless society if it would get rid of the little brown guys from south of the border.  All that will be enacted in order to assist in enforcing the wall... an untended consequence for those who realize that we may be engaged in an internal civil war some day.
> 
> The unintended consequences of giving the government as much power as you would - on the pretext that it will save you from yourself is foolish and your repetitive posts and covering the same ground over and over won't make my point any less true.
> 
> You know you're defeated; that's why the deflections and your inability to be honest with me.  In the end, YOU will be screwed by the very monster you are helping to build... and you will have done it to yourself.  We got a lot of ground to cover grasshopper.  I'm not going to try and debate everyone at the same time who want some - though the best is invited to a REAL debate on another board where it will be *one on one* - no holds barred.
> 
> 
> 
> So one of the functions of the federal government is not to protect it’s citizens?
> And flooding our borders with cheap Labor is enforcing the General Welfare clause?
> You have an interesting POV of what defines a nation.
> We might as well rename the US the Open Borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are dishonest and probably amoral.  Since I have so specified at least a dozen times that it is the function of the government to protect us - it just should not serve as a tool to protect you from your own actions. As for the rest, even danielpalos has a point once each year.  He's already answered this lame ass allegation from you and others.  You need some new material.
> 
> Since I cannot "debate" a dozen people as the delusional call these exchanges, I'm sure you will wait your turn.  I'm having a discussion with Ray, so save your lies and when we're on equal footing, I'll take you on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want a one on one argument take it to pm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever read Proverbs 18: 13
> 
> Already did offer anyone open challenge to take place on another board.  Take it to PM to arrange.  No takers.  People are afraid to go one on one on a level playing field.  Got anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since 5 Billion is a pittance of the budget what is wrong with giving the President a bone? Doesn't he deserve a pet project just like all the other pork earmarks in the bills?
Click to expand...

If John McCain, Romey, Jeb Bush, Mark Rubio, Ted Cruz, or any of a half dozen other republican presidential candidates were president and asked for 5 billion dollars for border security last year they would have it now. Why? because they are politicians.  They know how to deal with congress and the media. They would be asked for 5 billion to improve border security including improving barriers at selected locations and better facilities for detainees.  They certainly would not be asked for money to build a big beautiful wall to keep out Mexican rapist and murders.  That's nuts.  Such language is guaranteed to create a fight in congress, not approval which should be the goal.   This is the main reason I never would consider voting for Trump.  His primary goal is winning, what he actually wins is of little importance.  It's winning that's important to him, not the actual prize, it's about rubbing the opposition's face in the dirt.  For Trump and unfortunately many of his followers that what's important.  Look where we are now, a shutdown of government that creating hardships for millions of Americas and it's completely unnecessary.  The fact is most of you could have done a better job than Trump because he's a sick narcissist that's totally out of his depth.


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So one of the functions of the federal government is not to protect it’s citizens?
> And flooding our borders with cheap Labor is enforcing the General Welfare clause?
> You have an interesting POV of what defines a nation.
> We might as well rename the US the Open Borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are dishonest and probably amoral.  Since I have so specified at least a dozen times that it is the function of the government to protect us - it just should not serve as a tool to protect you from your own actions. As for the rest, even danielpalos has a point once each year.  He's already answered this lame ass allegation from you and others.  You need some new material.
> 
> Since I cannot "debate" a dozen people as the delusional call these exchanges, I'm sure you will wait your turn.  I'm having a discussion with Ray, so save your lies and when we're on equal footing, I'll take you on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want a one on one argument take it to pm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever read Proverbs 18: 13
> 
> Already did offer anyone open challenge to take place on another board.  Take it to PM to arrange.  No takers.  People are afraid to go one on one on a level playing field.  Got anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since 5 Billion is a pittance of the budget what is wrong with giving the President a bone? Doesn't he deserve a pet project just like all the other pork earmarks in the bills?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If John McCain, Romey, Jeb Bush, Mark Rubio, Ted Cruz, or any of a half dozen other republican presidential candidates were president and asked for 5 billion dollars for border security last year they would have it now. Why? because they are politicians.  They know how to deal with congress and the media. They would be asked for 5 billion to improve border security including improving barriers at selected locations and better facilities for detainees.  They certainly would not be asked for money to build a big beautiful wall to keep out Mexican rapist and murders.  That's nuts.  Such language is guaranteed to create a fight in congress, not approval which should be the goal.   This is the main reason I never would consider voting for Trump.  His primary goal is winning, what he actually wins is of little importance.  It's winning that's important to him, not the actual prize, it's about rubbing the opposition's face in the dirt.  For Trump and unfortunately many of his followers that what's important.  Look where we are now, a shutdown of government that creating hardships for millions of Americas and it's completely unnecessary.  The fact is most of you could have done a better job than Trump because he's a sick narcissist that's totally out of his depth.
Click to expand...

I voted for him because he's not your typical politician. I voted for him because he's honest and blunt. He can be his own worst enemy. Calling someone a name one moment then wondering why they stab him in the back the next "McCain". He forgets other people have egos that needs to be stoked to get a deal.


----------



## Flopper

Slyhunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you drunk?  What in the HELL did that mean?
> 
> I would never advocate giving up your gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you’re OK denying border agents another form of protection they feel they need?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who exactly are these border agents; the ones Trump's Customs and Border Protection Director hand picked for Trump's border barrier infomercial at the white house?
> 
> Border Patrol agents on the front lines say they need more technology and additional personnel to curb the illegal traffic, according to a report released on Thursday by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggested a border wall.
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your New York Times (what else) article:
> 
> _*Officials at Customs and Border Protection called the report inaccurate, saying it confused how agents’ feedback about security vulnerabilities is used to develop programs to counter threats.*_
> 
> This issue in March is in sharp contrast to this article in the Washington Times a month later
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice the term strategic locations.  Funny how a border wall changed to a 1000 mile wall, to a wall in strategic locations to a border barrier/border fence which is currently 212 miles long, 112 miles of it replaces a border barrier built in 2006.  Unable to get a single dollar to build the great wall Trump promised on the campaign trail, he has now settled on a new strategy: repairing and upgrading the existing fence and calling that his “wall.”   Is that what you guys voted for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your saying he shouldn't compromise he should build a 2,000 mile wall or he didn't deserve to be elected by we who elected him?
Click to expand...

I'm saying he should have told the truth to his supporters, that what was needed was a border barrier in selected locations which is what he is trying to get congress to approve.  He never should have accused Mexicans of being rapist and murders.  He should never have said he will make Mexico pay for the wall. He just made it that much more difficult getting his border wall approved by congress.  Any other republican candidate would have had  the 5 billion dollars approved now.  Instead we have a standoff between congress and the administration that could last for months hurting millions of Americans.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so funny about my post? I am feeling like Elvis Costello.  Peace love & understanding. So, If ya' all want to keep the wankers out, don't hire them! Make them Prove their national identity with  state sanctioned national identity card linked to their, DNA, Fingerprints.  Things that are verifiable.  Might be cheaper and more effective than building a wall on the southern border. But let's keep up cheap petty appearances, like  "Border walls". Bully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's so funny, you said walls don't word in-spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The fact is they do work, that's why the border patrol is asking for more. If you don't like how it looks, do an about face, problem solved.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love ya'all.  Good fences make for good neighbors. We have liberal assholes that give illegal aliens freebies . Sanctuary cities. Now, nobody got to vote on whether or not their home town became a sanctuary city, that was so  much a  liberal cadre " They just presumed they could get away with"  thing. Sanctuary cities?  Seems  that was a overriding Constitutional  issue people ignore. Who got to vote to give their city / state  ignore  federal immigration laws?  I didn't, did any of you? Was it on a ballot anywhere? Because, that a pretty significant  issue. Ignoring the will of the people and constitutional laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to worry about sanctuary cities in my State, the State outlawed them and require State sanctioned law enforcement agencies (which are all of them) to cooperate with immigration officials.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um, well the rest of us have to worry about unsanctioned legitimizing of illegal aliens. Giving them the vote. The motor voter thing, the whole nine yards. Everything about giving illegal aliens special rights. But they can't follow the same immigration laws everyone else does. Sanctuary cities for Albanians?  Or Hungarians? Just Mexicans Because, that's fair. Just Mexicans. Mexicans are so special they transcend the Constitution. And when you notice something broken about that? Hate and xenophobia is what they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you expect them to follow the same immigration laws and regulations and wait their turn then you have to give them a chance to do so.  In Central American countries and also in Mexico to a lesser extent, these people have no chance to legally immigrate.
> 
> These countries have immigration limits establish by congress.  That limit is reduced by family sponsored immigration, employer sponsored immigration, critical skills immigration, change in immigration status of those holding visas, refugee admissions, reserved categories such as the clergy and other special circumstances.  After reducing the immigration limit for all these categories, there is essential no way to legally immigrate even if you wait for years.
> 
> There's a rule that bans a person from legally immigrating for 5 or 10 years if caught entering the country illegally or overstaying visas.   However, in these countries that ban means nothing to people deported because there's no way they would ever get into the country legally so they just keep trying.
> 
> Immigration laws make no sense.  Why does it take over 10 years to immigrate from Honduras and 1 year from Ethiopia and never from India if don't have a family sponsor.
Click to expand...

No, we don't have to give them a chance.  Our immigration laws exist for the benefit of American citizens, not for the benefit of foreigners.  They can go to the American embassy and apply for a visa like everyone else.  this "refugee" status is a scam.  None of these people are refugees.


----------



## bripat9643

Slyhunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are dishonest and probably amoral.  Since I have so specified at least a dozen times that it is the function of the government to protect us - it just should not serve as a tool to protect you from your own actions. As for the rest, even danielpalos has a point once each year.  He's already answered this lame ass allegation from you and others.  You need some new material.
> 
> Since I cannot "debate" a dozen people as the delusional call these exchanges, I'm sure you will wait your turn.  I'm having a discussion with Ray, so save your lies and when we're on equal footing, I'll take you on.
> 
> 
> 
> If you want a one on one argument take it to pm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever read Proverbs 18: 13
> 
> Already did offer anyone open challenge to take place on another board.  Take it to PM to arrange.  No takers.  People are afraid to go one on one on a level playing field.  Got anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since 5 Billion is a pittance of the budget what is wrong with giving the President a bone? Doesn't he deserve a pet project just like all the other pork earmarks in the bills?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If John McCain, Romey, Jeb Bush, Mark Rubio, Ted Cruz, or any of a half dozen other republican presidential candidates were president and asked for 5 billion dollars for border security last year they would have it now. Why? because they are politicians.  They know how to deal with congress and the media. They would be asked for 5 billion to improve border security including improving barriers at selected locations and better facilities for detainees.  They certainly would not be asked for money to build a big beautiful wall to keep out Mexican rapist and murders.  That's nuts.  Such language is guaranteed to create a fight in congress, not approval which should be the goal.   This is the main reason I never would consider voting for Trump.  His primary goal is winning, what he actually wins is of little importance.  It's winning that's important to him, not the actual prize, it's about rubbing the opposition's face in the dirt.  For Trump and unfortunately many of his followers that what's important.  Look where we are now, a shutdown of government that creating hardships for millions of Americas and it's completely unnecessary.  The fact is most of you could have done a better job than Trump because he's a sick narcissist that's totally out of his depth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I voted for him because he's not your typical politician. I voted for him because he's honest and blunt. He can be his own worst enemy. Calling someone a name one moment then wondering why they stab him in the back the next "McCain". He forgets other people have egos that needs to be stoked to get a deal.
Click to expand...

McCain has always been a back stabbing scumbag.  He stabbed Trump in the front before Trump ever said anything about him.


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you’re OK denying border agents another form of protection they feel they need?
> 
> 
> 
> Who exactly are these border agents; the ones Trump's Customs and Border Protection Director hand picked for Trump's border barrier infomercial at the white house?
> 
> Border Patrol agents on the front lines say they need more technology and additional personnel to curb the illegal traffic, according to a report released on Thursday by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggested a border wall.
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your New York Times (what else) article:
> 
> _*Officials at Customs and Border Protection called the report inaccurate, saying it confused how agents’ feedback about security vulnerabilities is used to develop programs to counter threats.*_
> 
> This issue in March is in sharp contrast to this article in the Washington Times a month later
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice the term strategic locations.  Funny how a border wall changed to a 1000 mile wall, to a wall in strategic locations to a border barrier/border fence which is currently 212 miles long, 112 miles of it replaces a border barrier built in 2006.  Unable to get a single dollar to build the great wall Trump promised on the campaign trail, he has now settled on a new strategy: repairing and upgrading the existing fence and calling that his “wall.”   Is that what you guys voted for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your saying he shouldn't compromise he should build a 2,000 mile wall or he didn't deserve to be elected by we who elected him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying he should have told the truth to his supporters, that what was needed was a border barrier in selected locations which is what he is trying to get congress to approve.  He never should have accused Mexicans of being rapist and murders.  He should never have said he will make Mexico pay for the wall. He just made it that much more difficult getting his border wall approved by congress.  Any other republican candidate would have had  the 5 billion dollars approved now.  Instead we have a standoff between congress and the administration that could last for months hurting millions of Americans.
Click to expand...

He told the truth, as he knew it at the time. He tends to talk out his ass so don't expect his version of truth to be letter perfect to the actual truth. 
He didn't call Mexicans rapist and murders, he called the Mexicans who snuck across the border rapist and murders and as far as we know they were.
He meant for Mexico to pay for the wall but didn't truly understand the limits of his power or how he would do it once he was President.
Any other candidate wouldn't of built the wall at all.


----------



## bripat9643

Slyhunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to worry about sanctuary cities in my State, the State outlawed them and require State sanctioned law enforcement agencies (which are all of them) to cooperate with immigration officials.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Um, well the rest of us have to worry about unsanctioned legitimizing of illegal aliens. Giving them the vote. The motor voter thing, the whole nine yards. Everything about giving illegal aliens special rights. But they can't follow the same immigration laws everyone else does. Sanctuary cities for Albanians?  Or Hungarians? Just Mexicans Because, that's fair. Just Mexicans. Mexicans are so special they transcend the Constitution. And when you notice something broken about that? Hate and xenophobia is what they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you expect them to follow the same immigration laws and regulations and wait their turn then you have to give them a chance to do so.  In Central American countries and also in Mexico to a lesser extent, these people have no chance to legally immigrate.
> 
> These countries have immigration limits establish by congress.  That limit is reduced by family sponsored immigration, employer sponsored immigration, critical skills immigration, change in immigration status of those holding visas, refugee admissions, reserved categories such as the clergy and other special circumstances.  After reducing the immigration limit for all these categories, there is essential no way to legally immigrate even if you wait for years.
> 
> There's a rule that bans a person from legally legally immigrating for 5 or 10 years if caught entering the country illegally or overstaying visas.   However, in these countries that ban means nothing to people deported because there's no way they would ever get into the country legally.
> 
> Immigration laws make no sense.  Why does it take over 10 years to immigrate from Honduras and 1 year from Ethiopia and never from India if don't have family sponsor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we can't hold them all. You seem to think anyone who wants to should be able to move to America. That would be the end of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely not.  We just need to have policies that are fairer and make sense.  Do we really think Ethiopians make such good citizens that they should be admitted in a year and Hondurans should have to wait 10 year or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don;'t think it works that way. We have a limit of 1 million immigrants a year. They divide that up. Doesn't sound to me they worry about immigrants in year 10 much less in year 2 they just worry about the limit for the current year. Now there may be so many Hondurans in line it'll take 10 years to reach a new immigrant applicant if they added themselves to the list today, but that is due to how many more are applying every year then being allowed in.
> 
> I would limit immigration to those with money or those directly related to someone in America. We don't need unskilled laborers anymore so they should be left outside of the cue, unable to ever immigrate to America.
Click to expand...

"Related" means immediate family:  wives and children, not brothers aunts, uncles or parents or cousins.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So one of the functions of the federal government is not to protect it’s citizens?
> And flooding our borders with cheap Labor is enforcing the General Welfare clause?
> You have an interesting POV of what defines a nation.
> We might as well rename the US the Open Borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are dishonest and probably amoral.  Since I have so specified at least a dozen times that it is the function of the government to protect us - it just should not serve as a tool to protect you from your own actions. As for the rest, even danielpalos has a point once each year.  He's already answered this lame ass allegation from you and others.  You need some new material.
> 
> Since I cannot "debate" a dozen people as the delusional call these exchanges, I'm sure you will wait your turn.  I'm having a discussion with Ray, so save your lies and when we're on equal footing, I'll take you on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want a one on one argument take it to pm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever read Proverbs 18: 13
> 
> Already did offer anyone open challenge to take place on another board.  Take it to PM to arrange.  No takers.  People are afraid to go one on one on a level playing field.  Got anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since 5 Billion is a pittance of the budget what is wrong with giving the President a bone? Doesn't he deserve a pet project just like all the other pork earmarks in the bills?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If John McCain, Romey, Jeb Bush, Mark Rubio, Ted Cruz, or any of a half dozen other republican presidential candidates were president and asked for 5 billion dollars for border security last year they would have it now. Why? because they are politicians.  They know how to deal with congress and the media. They would be asked for 5 billion to improve border security including improving barriers at selected locations and better facilities for detainees.  They certainly would not be asked for money to build a big beautiful wall to keep out Mexican rapist and murders.  That's nuts.  Such language is guaranteed to create a fight in congress, not approval which should be the goal.   This is the main reason I never would consider voting for Trump.  His primary goal is winning, what he actually wins is of little importance.  It's winning that's important to him, not the actual prize, it's about rubbing the opposition's face in the dirt.  For Trump and unfortunately many of his followers that what's important.  Look where we are now, a shutdown of government that creating hardships for millions of Americas and it's completely unnecessary.  The fact is most of you could have done a better job than Trump because he's a sick narcissist that's totally out of his depth.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.  The Dims don't want border security.  They want more Democrats to come flooding into the country.


----------



## Flopper

OKTexas said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to worry about sanctuary cities in my State, the State outlawed them and require State sanctioned law enforcement agencies (which are all of them) to cooperate with immigration officials.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Um, well the rest of us have to worry about unsanctioned legitimizing of illegal aliens. Giving them the vote. The motor voter thing, the whole nine yards. Everything about giving illegal aliens special rights. But they can't follow the same immigration laws everyone else does. Sanctuary cities for Albanians?  Or Hungarians? Just Mexicans Because, that's fair. Just Mexicans. Mexicans are so special they transcend the Constitution. And when you notice something broken about that? Hate and xenophobia is what they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you expect them to follow the same immigration laws and regulations and wait their turn then you have to give them a chance to do so.  In Central American countries and also in Mexico to a lesser extent, these people have no chance to legally immigrate.
> 
> These countries have immigration limits establish by congress.  That limit is reduced by family sponsored immigration, employer sponsored immigration, critical skills immigration, change in immigration status of those holding visas, refugee admissions, reserved categories such as the clergy and other special circumstances.  After reducing the immigration limit for all these categories, there is essential no way to legally immigrate even if you wait for years.
> 
> There's a rule that bans a person from legally legally immigrating for 5 or 10 years if caught entering the country illegally or overstaying visas.   However, in these countries that ban means nothing to people deported because there's no way they would ever get into the country legally.
> 
> Immigration laws make no sense.  Why does it take over 10 years to immigrate from Honduras and 1 year from Ethiopia and never from India if don't have family sponsor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we can't hold them all. You seem to think anyone who wants to should be able to move to America. That would be the end of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely not.  We just need to have policies that are fairer and make sense.  Do we really think Ethiopians make such good citizens that they should be admitted in a year and Hondurans should have to wait 10 year or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we want either unless they have skills this country needs? Have you ever been to rural areas of Honduras?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

No, but I've been to Guatemala. It's not about letting the in the people we need.  It's about changing the environment that sends tens of thousand of people to our border.  Instead of sending our military to the our border to sit on their ass and build housing for detainees, we need to clean out the Northern Triangle and stop sending money to these dictators that funnel it to cartels and gangs.  We need to increase the immigration limits on Central American countries by only few thousand so there is reasonable wait time.  That in itself will reduce the number heading toward our border.  By making life better in these countries we will not only reduce illegal immigration but also reduce drugs headed toward the US.


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, well the rest of us have to worry about unsanctioned legitimizing of illegal aliens. Giving them the vote. The motor voter thing, the whole nine yards. Everything about giving illegal aliens special rights. But they can't follow the same immigration laws everyone else does. Sanctuary cities for Albanians?  Or Hungarians? Just Mexicans Because, that's fair. Just Mexicans. Mexicans are so special they transcend the Constitution. And when you notice something broken about that? Hate and xenophobia is what they say.
> 
> 
> 
> If you expect them to follow the same immigration laws and regulations and wait their turn then you have to give them a chance to do so.  In Central American countries and also in Mexico to a lesser extent, these people have no chance to legally immigrate.
> 
> These countries have immigration limits establish by congress.  That limit is reduced by family sponsored immigration, employer sponsored immigration, critical skills immigration, change in immigration status of those holding visas, refugee admissions, reserved categories such as the clergy and other special circumstances.  After reducing the immigration limit for all these categories, there is essential no way to legally immigrate even if you wait for years.
> 
> There's a rule that bans a person from legally legally immigrating for 5 or 10 years if caught entering the country illegally or overstaying visas.   However, in these countries that ban means nothing to people deported because there's no way they would ever get into the country legally.
> 
> Immigration laws make no sense.  Why does it take over 10 years to immigrate from Honduras and 1 year from Ethiopia and never from India if don't have family sponsor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we can't hold them all. You seem to think anyone who wants to should be able to move to America. That would be the end of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely not.  We just need to have policies that are fairer and make sense.  Do we really think Ethiopians make such good citizens that they should be admitted in a year and Hondurans should have to wait 10 year or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we want either unless they have skills this country needs? Have you ever been to rural areas of Honduras?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but I've been to Guatemala. It's not about letting the in the people we need.  It's about changing the environment that sends tens of thousand of people to our border.  Instead of sending our military to the our border to sit on their ass and build housing for detainees, we need to clean out the Northern Triangle and stop sending money to these dictators that funnel it to cartels and gangs.  We need to increase the immigration limits on Central American countries by only few thousand so there is reasonable wait time.  That in itself will reduce the number heading toward our border.  By making life better in these countries we will not only reduce illegal immigration but also reduce drugs headed toward the US.
Click to expand...

It isn't our job to fix their problems. Immigration should be shut off totally from poverty stricken countries until they fix their own problems. It's unreasonable to expect us to accommodate their needs without regards to our needs.


----------



## Flopper

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, well the rest of us have to worry about unsanctioned legitimizing of illegal aliens. Giving them the vote. The motor voter thing, the whole nine yards. Everything about giving illegal aliens special rights. But they can't follow the same immigration laws everyone else does. Sanctuary cities for Albanians?  Or Hungarians? Just Mexicans Because, that's fair. Just Mexicans. Mexicans are so special they transcend the Constitution. And when you notice something broken about that? Hate and xenophobia is what they say.
> 
> 
> 
> If you expect them to follow the same immigration laws and regulations and wait their turn then you have to give them a chance to do so.  In Central American countries and also in Mexico to a lesser extent, these people have no chance to legally immigrate.
> 
> These countries have immigration limits establish by congress.  That limit is reduced by family sponsored immigration, employer sponsored immigration, critical skills immigration, change in immigration status of those holding visas, refugee admissions, reserved categories such as the clergy and other special circumstances.  After reducing the immigration limit for all these categories, there is essential no way to legally immigrate even if you wait for years.
> 
> There's a rule that bans a person from legally legally immigrating for 5 or 10 years if caught entering the country illegally or overstaying visas.   However, in these countries that ban means nothing to people deported because there's no way they would ever get into the country legally.
> 
> Immigration laws make no sense.  Why does it take over 10 years to immigrate from Honduras and 1 year from Ethiopia and never from India if don't have family sponsor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we can't hold them all. You seem to think anyone who wants to should be able to move to America. That would be the end of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely not.  We just need to have policies that are fairer and make sense.  Do we really think Ethiopians make such good citizens that they should be admitted in a year and Hondurans should have to wait 10 year or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we want either unless they have skills this country needs? Have you ever been to rural areas of Honduras?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but I've been to Guatemala. It's not about letting the in the people we need.  It's about changing the environment that sends tens of thousand of people to our border.  Instead of sending our military to the our border to sit on their ass and build housing for detainees, we need to clean out the Northern Triangle and stop sending money to these dictators that funnel it to cartels and gangs.  We need to increase the immigration limits on Central American countries by only few thousand so there is reasonable wait time.  That in itself will reduce the number heading toward our border.  By making life better in these countries we will not only reduce illegal immigration but also reduce drugs headed toward the US.
Click to expand...


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, well the rest of us have to worry about unsanctioned legitimizing of illegal aliens. Giving them the vote. The motor voter thing, the whole nine yards. Everything about giving illegal aliens special rights. But they can't follow the same immigration laws everyone else does. Sanctuary cities for Albanians?  Or Hungarians? Just Mexicans Because, that's fair. Just Mexicans. Mexicans are so special they transcend the Constitution. And when you notice something broken about that? Hate and xenophobia is what they say.
> 
> 
> 
> If you expect them to follow the same immigration laws and regulations and wait their turn then you have to give them a chance to do so.  In Central American countries and also in Mexico to a lesser extent, these people have no chance to legally immigrate.
> 
> These countries have immigration limits establish by congress.  That limit is reduced by family sponsored immigration, employer sponsored immigration, critical skills immigration, change in immigration status of those holding visas, refugee admissions, reserved categories such as the clergy and other special circumstances.  After reducing the immigration limit for all these categories, there is essential no way to legally immigrate even if you wait for years.
> 
> There's a rule that bans a person from legally legally immigrating for 5 or 10 years if caught entering the country illegally or overstaying visas.   However, in these countries that ban means nothing to people deported because there's no way they would ever get into the country legally.
> 
> Immigration laws make no sense.  Why does it take over 10 years to immigrate from Honduras and 1 year from Ethiopia and never from India if don't have family sponsor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we can't hold them all. You seem to think anyone who wants to should be able to move to America. That would be the end of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely not.  We just need to have policies that are fairer and make sense.  Do we really think Ethiopians make such good citizens that they should be admitted in a year and Hondurans should have to wait 10 year or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we want either unless they have skills this country needs? Have you ever been to rural areas of Honduras?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but I've been to Guatemala. It's not about letting the in the people we need.  It's about changing the environment that sends tens of thousand of people to our border.  Instead of sending our military to the our border to sit on their ass and build housing for detainees, we need to clean out the Northern Triangle and stop sending money to these dictators that funnel it to cartels and gangs.  We need to increase the immigration limits on Central American countries by only few thousand so there is reasonable wait time.  That in itself will reduce the number heading toward our border.  By making life better in these countries we will not only reduce illegal immigration but also reduce drugs headed toward the US.
Click to expand...

Wrong.  The one thing we don't need is to allow more people from Central American shit holes into this country.

Quit blaming America for these corrupt governments.


----------



## bripat9643

Slyhunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you expect them to follow the same immigration laws and regulations and wait their turn then you have to give them a chance to do so.  In Central American countries and also in Mexico to a lesser extent, these people have no chance to legally immigrate.
> 
> These countries have immigration limits establish by congress.  That limit is reduced by family sponsored immigration, employer sponsored immigration, critical skills immigration, change in immigration status of those holding visas, refugee admissions, reserved categories such as the clergy and other special circumstances.  After reducing the immigration limit for all these categories, there is essential no way to legally immigrate even if you wait for years.
> 
> There's a rule that bans a person from legally legally immigrating for 5 or 10 years if caught entering the country illegally or overstaying visas.   However, in these countries that ban means nothing to people deported because there's no way they would ever get into the country legally.
> 
> Immigration laws make no sense.  Why does it take over 10 years to immigrate from Honduras and 1 year from Ethiopia and never from India if don't have family sponsor.
> 
> 
> 
> Because we can't hold them all. You seem to think anyone who wants to should be able to move to America. That would be the end of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely not.  We just need to have policies that are fairer and make sense.  Do we really think Ethiopians make such good citizens that they should be admitted in a year and Hondurans should have to wait 10 year or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we want either unless they have skills this country needs? Have you ever been to rural areas of Honduras?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but I've been to Guatemala. It's not about letting the in the people we need.  It's about changing the environment that sends tens of thousand of people to our border.  Instead of sending our military to the our border to sit on their ass and build housing for detainees, we need to clean out the Northern Triangle and stop sending money to these dictators that funnel it to cartels and gangs.  We need to increase the immigration limits on Central American countries by only few thousand so there is reasonable wait time.  That in itself will reduce the number heading toward our border.  By making life better in these countries we will not only reduce illegal immigration but also reduce drugs headed toward the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't our job to fix their problems. Immigration should be shut off totally from poverty stricken countries until they fix their own problems. It's unreasonable to expect us to accommodate their needs without regards to our needs.
Click to expand...

Flopper believes we are the welfare agency for the entire world.


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> You are lying.  It's ONE of *your *laundry list reasons for being for the wall



EXCUSE ME for interjecting here, I see you are STILL arguing about the wall!  I honestly don't see what the debate is about:

Indigent Illegals crossing the southern borders in mass quantities?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*

This has a negative impact on our resources and wage earning potential for many americans competing in similar job markets that Mexicans do here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*

Putting up a complete, better wall would hugely impact their coming here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*

This country safer from potential terrorist intrusion with the wall?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*

Being for the wall?  Are you kidding me?  This is never about a wall, it is about national security and sovereignty.  If anyone says it is about protectionism, so what if it is? * LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me protectionism is bad and they are against it and I will ask them if they have a lock on their front door, if they lock their car, have a security light or security system?  *LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me they don't PROTECT what they have, and I'll call you a LIAR.

Being for the wall?   The issue here is BEING FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.  The wall makes us more secure with it than without it.  Anyone here arguing against national security is either a commie, an anti-American or has fruit loops for brains.

Better ways to do it?  BULL.

Cheaper ways to do it?  BULL?

Immoral?  Go fuck yourself.

Anyone who claims a wall is "immoral" against these mobs of dirty, stinking, diseased illegals but its not "immoral" for what blindly letting these people into the country is doing to us here, is a fucking idiot.  Maybe you don't see it where you live, but we are approaching 12 million of these people.  That's about 4% of the population.  Cut them off today and in another decade with their kids (all supported by low income government programs that come out of YOUR pocket, they'll be at 10%.

Like all things, you get what you fund.  We are funding a low income, low education, low skill, high dependence work force.   The exact OPPOSITE of what this country made itself great with.

Enough.  End it now.  Its the LAW.  Defend the borders.  I'm tired of hearing people argue against the most basic, fundamental responsibility of the federal government.  Trump:  tear the shit down until these motherfuckers in Congress say uncle!  It's go for broke right now and I say put the bastard democrats in prison if they continue to block what we put you in office to do.  If you don't like Trump and didn't put him in office, fine.  When you get YOUR guy in office, then it'll be your time to get YOUR agenda carried out.

But I really think democrats oppose the wall so much because THEY KNOW IT WILL WORK.  And they don't WANT it to work.  Democratic scum care less about Americans than they do every dirty wetback minority they can dig out from under a rock.


----------



## Flopper

Slyhunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you expect them to follow the same immigration laws and regulations and wait their turn then you have to give them a chance to do so.  In Central American countries and also in Mexico to a lesser extent, these people have no chance to legally immigrate.
> 
> These countries have immigration limits establish by congress.  That limit is reduced by family sponsored immigration, employer sponsored immigration, critical skills immigration, change in immigration status of those holding visas, refugee admissions, reserved categories such as the clergy and other special circumstances.  After reducing the immigration limit for all these categories, there is essential no way to legally immigrate even if you wait for years.
> 
> There's a rule that bans a person from legally legally immigrating for 5 or 10 years if caught entering the country illegally or overstaying visas.   However, in these countries that ban means nothing to people deported because there's no way they would ever get into the country legally.
> 
> Immigration laws make no sense.  Why does it take over 10 years to immigrate from Honduras and 1 year from Ethiopia and never from India if don't have family sponsor.
> 
> 
> 
> Because we can't hold them all. You seem to think anyone who wants to should be able to move to America. That would be the end of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely not.  We just need to have policies that are fairer and make sense.  Do we really think Ethiopians make such good citizens that they should be admitted in a year and Hondurans should have to wait 10 year or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we want either unless they have skills this country needs? Have you ever been to rural areas of Honduras?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but I've been to Guatemala. It's not about letting the in the people we need.  It's about changing the environment that sends tens of thousand of people to our border.  Instead of sending our military to the our border to sit on their ass and build housing for detainees, we need to clean out the Northern Triangle and stop sending money to these dictators that funnel it to cartels and gangs.  We need to increase the immigration limits on Central American countries by only few thousand so there is reasonable wait time.  That in itself will reduce the number heading toward our border.  By making life better in these countries we will not only reduce illegal immigration but also reduce drugs headed toward the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't our job to fix their problems. Immigration should be shut off totally from poverty stricken countries until they fix their own problems. It's unreasonable to expect us to accommodate their needs without regards to our needs.
Click to expand...

Well it may not be our job but when it fixes our problem as well as there's it just might be worth considering.  Financially, building barriers is a losing game.  We build them, hire thousands of board guards and 10 years latter we tear them down and build new barrier a few feet higher and hire more guards.  When the barrier get too high, the migrants move to easier entry points.  We are spending 40 billion now on boarder security.  Homeland security wants 200 billion. At the rate we are spending money on border security, we might just want to consider paying these people to stay home.


----------



## Slyhunter

Flopper said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because we can't hold them all. You seem to think anyone who wants to should be able to move to America. That would be the end of America.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not.  We just need to have policies that are fairer and make sense.  Do we really think Ethiopians make such good citizens that they should be admitted in a year and Hondurans should have to wait 10 year or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we want either unless they have skills this country needs? Have you ever been to rural areas of Honduras?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but I've been to Guatemala. It's not about letting the in the people we need.  It's about changing the environment that sends tens of thousand of people to our border.  Instead of sending our military to the our border to sit on their ass and build housing for detainees, we need to clean out the Northern Triangle and stop sending money to these dictators that funnel it to cartels and gangs.  We need to increase the immigration limits on Central American countries by only few thousand so there is reasonable wait time.  That in itself will reduce the number heading toward our border.  By making life better in these countries we will not only reduce illegal immigration but also reduce drugs headed toward the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't our job to fix their problems. Immigration should be shut off totally from poverty stricken countries until they fix their own problems. It's unreasonable to expect us to accommodate their needs without regards to our needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well it may not be our job but when it fixes our problem as well as there's it just might be worth considering.  Financially building barriers is a losing game.  We build them, hire thousands of board guards and 10 years we tear them down and build new barrier a few feet higher and hire more guards.  When the barrier get too high, the migrants move easier entry point.  We are spending 40 billion now on boarder security.  Homeland security wants 200 billion. At the rate we are spending money on border security, we might just want to consider paying these people to stay home.
Click to expand...

You pay them they'll multiply.


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because we can't hold them all. You seem to think anyone who wants to should be able to move to America. That would be the end of America.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not.  We just need to have policies that are fairer and make sense.  Do we really think Ethiopians make such good citizens that they should be admitted in a year and Hondurans should have to wait 10 year or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we want either unless they have skills this country needs? Have you ever been to rural areas of Honduras?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but I've been to Guatemala. It's not about letting the in the people we need.  It's about changing the environment that sends tens of thousand of people to our border.  Instead of sending our military to the our border to sit on their ass and build housing for detainees, we need to clean out the Northern Triangle and stop sending money to these dictators that funnel it to cartels and gangs.  We need to increase the immigration limits on Central American countries by only few thousand so there is reasonable wait time.  That in itself will reduce the number heading toward our border.  By making life better in these countries we will not only reduce illegal immigration but also reduce drugs headed toward the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't our job to fix their problems. Immigration should be shut off totally from poverty stricken countries until they fix their own problems. It's unreasonable to expect us to accommodate their needs without regards to our needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well it may not be our job but when it fixes our problem as well as there's it just might be worth considering.  Financially, building barriers is a losing game.  We build them, hire thousands of board guards and 10 years latter we tear them down and build new barrier a few feet higher and hire more guards.  When the barrier get too high, the migrants move to easier entry points.  We are spending 40 billion now on boarder security.  Homeland security wants 200 billion. At the rate we are spending money on border security, we might just want to consider paying these people to stay home.
Click to expand...

You are so full of shit.  No, we don't "build them, hire thousands of board guards and 10 years latter we tear them down and build new barrier a few feet higher and hire more guards."  If we build a solid 30 foot wall, we will do it once.

Homeland security includes things like the Coast Gaurd, the TSA, FEMA and more.  Its entire budget is $40 billion.


----------



## danielpalos

MaryL said:


> I actually have been to the INS. I am appalled that we had so many illegal aliens from ...then I was cut at the knees.  In 1993. Apparently it's OK Mexican illegals sneak in and then... Fill in the blank. I have known all these other immigrants from like ...fill in the blank.  Immigrants that worked hard to get visas and fulfilled their contracts as immigrants.  To be honest, I can't remember most of them.  Rumanians? Hungarians?  They worked bloody hard to get in here.  . They acclimated and  respected America.    And giving them sanctuary cities? That never happened back in the day.
> But, Mexicans?  Or Hondurans?  How did giving sanctuary cities to people ignoring federal immigration law from Latin America just suddenly happen extra judicially? Anybody  get to vote on that sanctuary city  stuff? I seem to think that  giving people that violate immigration laws  immunity from laws is unconstitutional somehow...But that's just me. ​


our drug war is destabilizing Latin America and is unconstitutional. only the right wing never gets it.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If police officers ask for guns should we not give them guns because in someone’s opinion it infringes on their liberties? I find that odd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you drunk?  What in the HELL did that mean?
> 
> I would never advocate giving up your gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you’re OK denying border agents another form of protection they feel they need?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who exactly are these border agents; the ones Trump's Customs and Border Protection Director hand picked for Trump's border barrier infomercial at the white house?
> 
> Border Patrol agents on the front lines say they need more technology and additional personnel to curb the illegal traffic, according to a report released on Thursday by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggested a border wall.
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your New York Times (what else) article:
> 
> _*Officials at Customs and Border Protection called the report inaccurate, saying it confused how agents’ feedback about security vulnerabilities is used to develop programs to counter threats.*_
> 
> This issue in March is in sharp contrast to this article in the Washington Times a month later
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice the term strategic locations.  Funny how a border wall changed to a 1000 mile wall, to a wall in strategic locations to a border barrier/border fence which is currently 212 miles long, 112 miles of it replaces a border barrier built in 2006.  Unable to get a single dollar to build the great wall Trump promised on the campaign trail, he has now settled on a new strategy: repairing and upgrading the existing fence and calling that his “wall.”   Is that what you guys voted for?
Click to expand...


To me “wall” was short for stronger border security. I didn’t take it literally but after hearing the border patrol agents I think the monies are reasonable and they are on the frontlines. As I asked you before and you conveniently ignored, do you live in a house with walls and doors? Why should our country not have the same protection?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Flopper said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never answered me. Do you think they are actors?
> 
> 
> 
> If you ask a question or expect a reply from a particular person you need to issue a reply to that person, not to the whole thread which is at bottom of the screen.
Click to expand...


Dodging you are.


----------



## Indeependent

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If police officers ask for guns should we not give them guns because in someone’s opinion it infringes on their liberties? I find that odd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you drunk?  What in the HELL did that mean?
> 
> I would never advocate giving up your gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you’re OK denying border agents another form of protection they feel they need?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who exactly are these border agents; the ones Trump's Customs and Border Protection Director hand picked for Trump's border barrier infomercial at the white house?
> 
> Border Patrol agents on the front lines say they need more technology and additional personnel to curb the illegal traffic, according to a report released on Thursday by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggested a border wall.
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your New York Times (what else) article:
> 
> _*Officials at Customs and Border Protection called the report inaccurate, saying it confused how agents’ feedback about security vulnerabilities is used to develop programs to counter threats.*_
> 
> This issue in March is in sharp contrast to this article in the Washington Times a month later
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice the term strategic locations.  Funny how a border wall changed to a 1000 mile wall, to a wall in strategic locations to a border barrier/border fence which is currently 212 miles long, 112 miles of it replaces a border barrier built in 2006.  Unable to get a single dollar to build the great wall Trump promised on the campaign trail, he has now settled on a new strategy: repairing and upgrading the existing fence and calling that his “wall.”   Is that what you guys voted for?
Click to expand...

It never changed; you never listened to 1 speech.


----------



## danielpalos

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you drunk?  What in the HELL did that mean?
> 
> I would never advocate giving up your gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you’re OK denying border agents another form of protection they feel they need?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who exactly are these border agents; the ones Trump's Customs and Border Protection Director hand picked for Trump's border barrier infomercial at the white house?
> 
> Border Patrol agents on the front lines say they need more technology and additional personnel to curb the illegal traffic, according to a report released on Thursday by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggested a border wall.
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your New York Times (what else) article:
> 
> _*Officials at Customs and Border Protection called the report inaccurate, saying it confused how agents’ feedback about security vulnerabilities is used to develop programs to counter threats.*_
> 
> This issue in March is in sharp contrast to this article in the Washington Times a month later
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice the term strategic locations.  Funny how a border wall changed to a 1000 mile wall, to a wall in strategic locations to a border barrier/border fence which is currently 212 miles long, 112 miles of it replaces a border barrier built in 2006.  Unable to get a single dollar to build the great wall Trump promised on the campaign trail, he has now settled on a new strategy: repairing and upgrading the existing fence and calling that his “wall.”   Is that what you guys voted for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To me “wall” was short for stronger border security. I didn’t take it literally but after hearing the border patrol agents I think the monies are reasonable and they are on the frontlines. As I asked you before and you conveniently ignored, do you live in a house with walls and doors? Why should our country not have the same protection?
Click to expand...

there is no express wall building clause and we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.  only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens? What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights? T*hey keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken. I’m asking them for proof of their position*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our people (government) does not take any inalienable rights away from people because they can't.  Rights however are granted to people that are in our country.  If visitors, they are granted some constitutional rights.  If they become citizens, they are granted all constitutional rights.  But constitutional rights are not the same as inalienable rights.  It's something I think you're confused about.
> 
> A right to be in this country is not an inalienable right, it's a right granted by the government.  Therefore it's a right that can be removed by our government.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone. There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER. Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall won't change any of that.  If the government wanted a strict enforcement of the free zone, they could do that tomorrow with no wall.  Therefore your claim is moot.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom. It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So WTF does that have to do with the wall?  And I"m sorry, I just don't buy into any stories that involve.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall does that?  How?  I know nothing about any national ID card.  I don't have one, I've never been notified I must have one, and I have no plans to get one.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach. The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it. If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort. We got a long way to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, a wall has nothing to do with that.  These conspiracy theories of yours are not even part of this planet yet alone country.
> 
> I changed my opinion about you.  You are not a liberal, you are not a conservative, you're just a plain old kook.  But just for shits and giggles, can you tell me how the government could not know I was building a weapon of some sort if a wall wasn't there????
> 
> Your associations are so far out even somebody smoking the best pot can't connect them.  A wall will not take one right away from you, from me, from any citizen.  A wall (like a firearm) has no mystical power of it's own. A wall is simply that, a wall. A wall can't change the Constitution, a wall can't change any laws, a wall can't change anything in the federalist papers.  It's simply an inanimate object.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I am not arguing inalienable rights.
> 
> 2)  You wrote:  " Rights however are granted to people that are in our country."
> 
> In one of the earliest United States Supreme Court decisions on this, the court ruled as follows:
> 
> "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* rights,-'life, *liberty*, and the pursuit of happiness;' *and to 'secure*,' *not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. *That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of*, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
> 
> In other words what I create is MINE and I don't owe you a job to benefit you - it's my job to give.  This is *THE* fatal flaw of your argument.
> 
> 3)  I agree that the government "could" strictly enforce the Constitution Free Zone.  IF they did, the people would see this is VERY real and they would rebel.  So, they do it in small doses.  YouTube is full of videos of law abiding Americans who have had their Rights violated in the Constitution Free Zone.
> 
> As you will recall, Al Capone was arrested on a 25 year old law that had possibly never been enforced - the people would have rebelled had they known what it was REALLY about (income tax evasion.)
> 
> 4)  I don't do theories.  I live in the real world.  In order to enforce the laws relative to the wall, your boys have already passed the so - called "Patriot Act," the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify and trashed the policies of a presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty.  You're perfectly comfortable with the Constitution Free Zone and I'd bet there are over 500 suggestions from people you agree with on this thread alone advocating that we "crack down on those sending money out of this country."   Those precedents are a dual edged sword.
> 
> Frederick Douglass, a former slave and a Republican once said:
> 
> "No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened around his own neck."
> 
> So, you create a bad precedent on the border, falsely thinking it will apply only to undocumented foreigners only to find out it's being used against you.  You don't have a very sound strategy.  All you've supported in the past expands into a cashless society wherein all your transactions are tracked by the paper trail you left on a computer.  You'd support a cashless society if it would get rid of the little brown guys from south of the border.  All that will be enacted in order to assist in enforcing the wall... an untended consequence for those who realize that we may be engaged in an internal civil war some day.
> 
> The unintended consequences of giving the government as much power as you would - on the pretext that it will save you from yourself is foolish and your repetitive posts and covering the same ground over and over won't make my point any less true.
> 
> You know you're defeated; that's why the deflections and your inability to be honest with me.  In the end, YOU will be screwed by the very monster you are helping to build... and you will have done it to yourself.  We got a lot of ground to cover grasshopper.  I'm not going to try and debate everyone at the same time who want some - though the best is invited to a REAL debate on another board where it will be *one on one* - no holds barred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we don't control immigration we have the potential of having 158 million people from poverty countries up and decide to move to America to get a share of our American Lifestyle ruining for us who are already here. We paid for this lifestyle via our ancestors who both fought the Civil War, and the war of Independence from England in the first war of our nation. Our ancestors broke into the west and tamed it. Our ancestors bought with sweat, tears, and bullets the luxurious lifestyle we now have. If these people want the same lifestyle we have then they need to fix their own damn country and not ruin what we fought generations for.
Click to expand...


Maybe we could revisit this topic of citizenship if you feel that way.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

MaryL said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> When LIBERALS LOVE TO CLAIM SOMETHING is "unconstitutional", that cuts both ways. Sanctuary cities ?  Nobody got to vote on whether or not they want sanctuary cities. That seems so exceptional so Unconstitutional. Nobody go to vote on this issue, it's mandated, it's dictated  by the moral minority. by who's power, even?   Sanctuary cities? I can't speak for the majority, but I suspect most of us rather want federal immigration laws enforced, it won't hurt us, and it might just help.
> 
> 
> 
> In most cities, citizens only get to vote for elected officials, referendums which have a sufficient number of signatures, bond issues, and other items specified in state laws.  I'm sure you know what to do if you don't like how your city council votes.  So stop whining.  It's not a democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a personal thing, we get to vote on say, judges or trash pick up days or picayune minutiae. But you think complaining about not being able to vote on such  significant issue as being a sanctuary city is whining  Are you nutz? THIS IS a DEMOCRACY, you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You'd better reread Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution
> Recite the Pledge of Allegiance
> Read the Federalist Papers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democracy  doesn't mean a tiny bunch of entitled elitists can impose their will on the majority, I will not let that stand. Nobody got to vote on sanctuary cities, and that is scary thing. Doesn't that bother anyone else? It's like someone hijacked our government. It's outrageous! Don't tells us what to think!
Click to expand...


You're the one trying to tell people what to think.  What you're doing is called projection.  California is quite comfortable electing Sanctuary City candidates while Georgia voted them down.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

danielpalos said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you’re OK denying border agents another form of protection they feel they need?
> 
> 
> 
> Who exactly are these border agents; the ones Trump's Customs and Border Protection Director hand picked for Trump's border barrier infomercial at the white house?
> 
> Border Patrol agents on the front lines say they need more technology and additional personnel to curb the illegal traffic, according to a report released on Thursday by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggested a border wall.
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your New York Times (what else) article:
> 
> _*Officials at Customs and Border Protection called the report inaccurate, saying it confused how agents’ feedback about security vulnerabilities is used to develop programs to counter threats.*_
> 
> This issue in March is in sharp contrast to this article in the Washington Times a month later
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice the term strategic locations.  Funny how a border wall changed to a 1000 mile wall, to a wall in strategic locations to a border barrier/border fence which is currently 212 miles long, 112 miles of it replaces a border barrier built in 2006.  Unable to get a single dollar to build the great wall Trump promised on the campaign trail, he has now settled on a new strategy: repairing and upgrading the existing fence and calling that his “wall.”   Is that what you guys voted for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To me “wall” was short for stronger border security. I didn’t take it literally but after hearing the border patrol agents I think the monies are reasonable and they are on the frontlines. As I asked you before and you conveniently ignored, do you live in a house with walls and doors? Why should our country not have the same protection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no express wall building clause and we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.  only the right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...





IDC about clauses. Stop beating the same drum. I am not right wing. I am logical. Stop responding to my posts with the same answers. You're trolling and I don't appreciate it.


----------



## dblack

AzogtheDefiler said:


> As I asked you before and you conveniently ignored, do you live in a house with walls and doors? Why should our country not have the same protection?



Because a country is not private property. When you wall off a country, you're walling off someone else's property. It should be up to property owners along the border whether they want to put up a wall or not.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

dblack said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I asked you before and you conveniently ignored, do you live in a house with walls and doors? Why should our country not have the same protection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because a country is not private property. When you wall off a country, you're walling off someone else's property. It should be up to property owners along the border whether they want to put up a wall or not.
Click to expand...


The US is not private property? What is it?


----------



## dblack

AzogtheDefiler said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I asked you before and you conveniently ignored, do you live in a house with walls and doors? Why should our country not have the same protection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because a country is not private property. When you wall off a country, you're walling off someone else's property. It should be up to property owners along the border whether they want to put up a wall or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US is not private property? What is it?
Click to expand...


It's a nation. Made of private property, owned by citizens. The government can only override the will of private property owners in specific ways delineated by the Constitution. The wall cowards are trying to invoke the specter of "war" to justify this, but the idea that a bunch of poor immigrants constitute an "invasion" is silly on the face of it.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

dblack said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I asked you before and you conveniently ignored, do you live in a house with walls and doors? Why should our country not have the same protection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because a country is not private property. When you wall off a country, you're walling off someone else's property. It should be up to property owners along the border whether they want to put up a wall or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US is not private property? What is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a nation. Made of private property, owned by citizens. The government can only override the will of private property owners in specific ways delineated by the Constitution. The wall cowards are trying to invoke the specter of "war" to justify this, but the idea that a bunch of poor immigrants constitute an "invasion" is silly on the face of it.
Click to expand...



Eminent Domain doesn't exist in the US? Again border patrol agents have asked for it. Not sure why your or my opinion overrides their respective opinions as they are on the frontlines.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

toobfreak said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are lying.  It's ONE of *your *laundry list reasons for being for the wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCUSE ME for interjecting here, I see you are STILL arguing about the wall!  I honestly don't see what the debate is about:
> 
> Indigent Illegals crossing the southern borders in mass quantities?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This has a negative impact on our resources and wage earning potential for many americans competing in similar job markets that Mexicans do here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Putting up a complete, better wall would hugely impact their coming here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This country safer from potential terrorist intrusion with the wall?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Being for the wall?  Are you kidding me?  This is never about a wall, it is about national security and sovereignty.  If anyone says it is about protectionism, so what if it is? * LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me protectionism is bad and they are against it and I will ask them if they have a lock on their front door, if they lock their car, have a security light or security system?  *LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me they don't PROTECT what they have, and I'll call you a LIAR.
> 
> Being for the wall?   The issue here is BEING FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.  The wall makes us more secure with it than without it.  Anyone here arguing against national security is either a commie, an anti-American or has fruit loops for brains.
> 
> Better ways to do it?  BULL.
> 
> Cheaper ways to do it?  BULL?
> 
> Immoral?  Go fuck yourself.
> 
> Anyone who claims a wall is "immoral" against these mobs of dirty, stinking, diseased illegals but its not "immoral" for what blindly letting these people into the country is doing to us here, is a fucking idiot.  Maybe you don't see it where you live, but we are approaching 12 million of these people.  That's about 4% of the population.  Cut them off today and in another decade with their kids (all supported by low income government programs that come out of YOUR pocket, they'll be at 10%.
> 
> Like all things, you get what you fund.  We are funding a low income, low education, low skill, high dependence work force.   The exact OPPOSITE of what this country made itself great with.
> 
> Enough.  End it now.  Its the LAW.  Defend the borders.  I'm tired of hearing people argue against the most basic, fundamental responsibility of the federal government.  Trump:  tear the shit down until these motherfuckers in Congress say uncle!  It's go for broke right now and I say put the bastard democrats in prison if they continue to block what we put you in office to do.  If you don't like Trump and didn't put him in office, fine.  When you get YOUR guy in office, then it'll be your time to get YOUR agenda carried out.
> 
> But I really think democrats oppose the wall so much because THEY KNOW IT WILL WORK.  And they don't WANT it to work.  Democratic scum care less about Americans than they do every dirty wetback minority they can dig out from under a rock.
Click to expand...


Did anyone ever tell you that you are freaking HILARIOUS?  Yours was the funniest freaking post I've seen since I've been on this board.  Thank you for starting my day off with a laugh.  Now down to business:

1) I am not arguing with ANYONE about your silly wall

2)  This is NOT a debate forum, so we are not debating anything

3)  Just because you make a bold assertion and put it in big blue letters will not make it come true

4) * EVERY non - partisan* study I have read contradicts what the white supremacists are feeding Congress.  NOW, let me show you how this works:

"Despite all this, illegal immigration’s *overall impact on the US economy is small.* Low-skilled native workers who compete with unauthorized immigrants are the clearest losers. US employers, on the other hand, gain from lower labor costs and the ability to use their land, capital, and technology more productively. The stakes are highest for the unauthorized immigrants themselves, who see very substantial income gains after migrating. If we exclude these immigrants from the calculus, however (as domestic policymakers are naturally inclined to do), the small net gain that remains after subtracting US workers’ losses from US employers’ gains is tiny. *And if we account for the small fiscal burden that unauthorized immigrants impose, the overall economic benefit is close enough to zero to be essentially a wash*"

file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/Hanson-Dec09%20(3).pdf

(I had to copy and paste that link so you will have to do likewise to read it)

See the documentation in quotation marks and a citing source?  Notice how the study figures in not only the *cost*, but the* contribution* of the foreigner as well?  When you do that, you get a different economic picture.

You want people to take sides and if they don't agree with you  and then you use mob rule to ridicule and harass them?  That's your strategy? No wonder public opinion is swinging left.

5)  The goalposts are once again being moved.  As soon as I answer one objection, you build the wall guys conjure up another.  My current discussion is that Ray has a totally different argument - and at least his argument is half ass honest.  Yours is *absolute stupidity*.

This is NOT an issue about National Security because the American people are *WILLINGLY* doing business with the foreigners.   There is no threat of war and they are not taking any more than we are willing to give

6)  Just because you can deny what I'm saying will NEVER disprove it

7)  You can go fuck yourself too.  I'd prefer to have said that in person

8)  I've never weighed in on the morality of your silly wall so you had to create a straw man there in order to buffer the ass kicking you're taking here

9)  Your dumbassery is really showing.  THREE times in this thread I have told you I'm not on the left; that I voted for Trump.  So, lying won't give much credence to your B.S.

10)  Finally, all of this "wall" business was the talking points of the left BEFORE it was right wing fodder.  You should know the history of the arguments you're making.

It's damn foolish to trash the Constitution, take a dump on your unalienable Rights, and deliberately attempt to make America a third world dictatorship on the basis of lies.  Last night I heard the president of Egypt say that we are the world's strongest military power and it was our responsibility to help fight tyranny.  I don't know if I agree with his proposition; however, it is the epitome of idiocy to try and duplicate the ways of people who are inferior to you.

A better use of our money and time is to help other nations become like us so they don't feel a need to be at war with each other and not have the requisite knowledge to build a constitutional Republic with the potential of being financially strong and humane toward others.


----------



## dblack

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Eminent Domain doesn't exist in the US? Again border patrol agents have asked for it. Not sure why your or my opinion overrides their respective opinions as they are on the frontlines.



The tradition in the US is a bit different than most countries. Here we place a primacy on individual rights. Instead of asking why the will of individual property owners should override that of the border patrol, we first as the converse - why should the will of the border patrol override that of individual property owners?

Your use of the term "frontlines" suggests you buy into the war justification, which I find ridiculous.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

dblack said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eminent Domain doesn't exist in the US? Again border patrol agents have asked for it. Not sure why your or my opinion overrides their respective opinions as they are on the frontlines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tradition in the US is a bit different than most countries. Here we place a primacy on individual rights. Instead of asking why the will of individual property owners should override that of the border patrol, we first as the converse - why should the will of the border patrol override that of individual property owners?
> 
> Your use of the term "frontlines" suggests you buy into the war justification, which I find ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Except they are on the frontlines. They have guns, they have taken casualties and the people trying to cross illegally are often brutalized by coyotes and drug cartel members. The wall IMO is necessary. You are of course free to disagree, it is a free country. And they are SMEs. If a doctor told you that you needed surgery would you dismiss his opinion because others disagree with it? He is the expert for a reason. Border Patrol agents are experts in border security and they are pleading for a wall. You show a lot of hubris ignoring their please. Unfortunate.


----------



## dblack

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Except they are on the frontlines. They have guns, they have taken casualties and the people trying to cross illegally are often brutalized by coyotes and drug cartel members. The wall IMO is necessary. You are of course free to disagree, it is a free country.



Well, that's what we're discussing - whether it should remain free. The wall cowards want to override that freedom with authoritarian government.


----------



## danielpalos

AzogtheDefiler said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who exactly are these border agents; the ones Trump's Customs and Border Protection Director hand picked for Trump's border barrier infomercial at the white house?
> 
> Border Patrol agents on the front lines say they need more technology and additional personnel to curb the illegal traffic, according to a report released on Thursday by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggested a border wall.
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your New York Times (what else) article:
> 
> _*Officials at Customs and Border Protection called the report inaccurate, saying it confused how agents’ feedback about security vulnerabilities is used to develop programs to counter threats.*_
> 
> This issue in March is in sharp contrast to this article in the Washington Times a month later
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice the term strategic locations.  Funny how a border wall changed to a 1000 mile wall, to a wall in strategic locations to a border barrier/border fence which is currently 212 miles long, 112 miles of it replaces a border barrier built in 2006.  Unable to get a single dollar to build the great wall Trump promised on the campaign trail, he has now settled on a new strategy: repairing and upgrading the existing fence and calling that his “wall.”   Is that what you guys voted for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To me “wall” was short for stronger border security. I didn’t take it literally but after hearing the border patrol agents I think the monies are reasonable and they are on the frontlines. As I asked you before and you conveniently ignored, do you live in a house with walls and doors? Why should our country not have the same protection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no express wall building clause and we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.  only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IDC about clauses. Stop beating the same drum. I am not right wing. I am logical. Stop responding to my posts with the same answers. You're trolling and I don't appreciate it.
Click to expand...

you don't care about the law, Constitutional or otherwise; I got, right wingers.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eminent Domain doesn't exist in the US? Again border patrol agents have asked for it. Not sure why your or my opinion overrides their respective opinions as they are on the frontlines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tradition in the US is a bit different than most countries. Here we place a primacy on individual rights. Instead of asking why the will of individual property owners should override that of the border patrol, we first as the converse - why should the will of the border patrol override that of individual property owners?
> 
> Your use of the term "frontlines" suggests you buy into the war justification, which I find ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except they are on the frontlines. They have guns, they have taken casualties and the people trying to cross illegally are often brutalized by coyotes and drug cartel members. The wall IMO is necessary. You are of course free to disagree, it is a free country. And they are SMEs. If a doctor told you that you needed surgery would you dismiss his opinion because others disagree with it? He is the expert for a reason. Border Patrol agents are experts in border security and they are pleading for a wall. You show a lot of hubris ignoring their please. Unfortunate.
Click to expand...


Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier?  Years ago I worked in a warehouse.  The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.

The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.  

We are NOT talking border security with the wall.  What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships.  You'd be better served with some regulation.  No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

danielpalos said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your New York Times (what else) article:
> 
> _*Officials at Customs and Border Protection called the report inaccurate, saying it confused how agents’ feedback about security vulnerabilities is used to develop programs to counter threats.*_
> 
> This issue in March is in sharp contrast to this article in the Washington Times a month later
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the term strategic locations.  Funny how a border wall changed to a 1000 mile wall, to a wall in strategic locations to a border barrier/border fence which is currently 212 miles long, 112 miles of it replaces a border barrier built in 2006.  Unable to get a single dollar to build the great wall Trump promised on the campaign trail, he has now settled on a new strategy: repairing and upgrading the existing fence and calling that his “wall.”   Is that what you guys voted for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To me “wall” was short for stronger border security. I didn’t take it literally but after hearing the border patrol agents I think the monies are reasonable and they are on the frontlines. As I asked you before and you conveniently ignored, do you live in a house with walls and doors? Why should our country not have the same protection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no express wall building clause and we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.  only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IDC about clauses. Stop beating the same drum. I am not right wing. I am logical. Stop responding to my posts with the same answers. You're trolling and I don't appreciate it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't care about the law, Constitutional or otherwise; I got, right wingers.
Click to expand...


Okay Danny, while you're partly right on this, on many issues the left is willing trash the Constitution as well.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eminent Domain doesn't exist in the US? Again border patrol agents have asked for it. Not sure why your or my opinion overrides their respective opinions as they are on the frontlines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tradition in the US is a bit different than most countries. Here we place a primacy on individual rights. Instead of asking why the will of individual property owners should override that of the border patrol, we first as the converse - why should the will of the border patrol override that of individual property owners?
> 
> Your use of the term "frontlines" suggests you buy into the war justification, which I find ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except they are on the frontlines. They have guns, they have taken casualties and the people trying to cross illegally are often brutalized by coyotes and drug cartel members. The wall IMO is necessary. You are of course free to disagree, it is a free country. And they are SMEs. If a doctor told you that you needed surgery would you dismiss his opinion because others disagree with it? He is the expert for a reason. Border Patrol agents are experts in border security and they are pleading for a wall. You show a lot of hubris ignoring their please. Unfortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier?  Years ago I worked in a warehouse.  The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.
> 
> The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.
> 
> We are NOT talking border security with the wall.  What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships.  You'd be better served with some regulation.  No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.
Click to expand...


#1) I had a similar situation and the owner did put in AC
#2) This is not a runny a nose, this is a constant bleed.
#3) I disagree this is mutual beneficial.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eminent Domain doesn't exist in the US? Again border patrol agents have asked for it. Not sure why your or my opinion overrides their respective opinions as they are on the frontlines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tradition in the US is a bit different than most countries. Here we place a primacy on individual rights. Instead of asking why the will of individual property owners should override that of the border patrol, we first as the converse - why should the will of the border patrol override that of individual property owners?
> 
> Your use of the term "frontlines" suggests you buy into the war justification, which I find ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except they are on the frontlines. They have guns, they have taken casualties and the people trying to cross illegally are often brutalized by coyotes and drug cartel members. The wall IMO is necessary. You are of course free to disagree, it is a free country. And they are SMEs. If a doctor told you that you needed surgery would you dismiss his opinion because others disagree with it? He is the expert for a reason. Border Patrol agents are experts in border security and they are pleading for a wall. You show a lot of hubris ignoring their please. Unfortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier?  Years ago I worked in a warehouse.  The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.
> 
> The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.
> 
> We are NOT talking border security with the wall.  What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships.  You'd be better served with some regulation.  No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.
Click to expand...


We tried laws, we tried regulation, we tried more border patrol agents, and these people still come here against our wishes.  Now we need more barriers to stop them from getting in.  


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eminent Domain doesn't exist in the US? Again border patrol agents have asked for it. Not sure why your or my opinion overrides their respective opinions as they are on the frontlines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tradition in the US is a bit different than most countries. Here we place a primacy on individual rights. Instead of asking why the will of individual property owners should override that of the border patrol, we first as the converse - why should the will of the border patrol override that of individual property owners?
> 
> Your use of the term "frontlines" suggests you buy into the war justification, which I find ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except they are on the frontlines. They have guns, they have taken casualties and the people trying to cross illegally are often brutalized by coyotes and drug cartel members. The wall IMO is necessary. You are of course free to disagree, it is a free country. And they are SMEs. If a doctor told you that you needed surgery would you dismiss his opinion because others disagree with it? He is the expert for a reason. Border Patrol agents are experts in border security and they are pleading for a wall. You show a lot of hubris ignoring their please. Unfortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier?  Years ago I worked in a warehouse.  The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.
> 
> The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.
> 
> We are NOT talking border security with the wall.  What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships.  You'd be better served with some regulation.  No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #1) I had a similar situation and the owner did put in AC
> #2) This is not a runny a nose, this is a constant bleed.
> #3) I disagree this is mutual beneficial.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should look at post # 3731 and access the link I left there.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I asked you before and you conveniently ignored, do you live in a house with walls and doors? Why should our country not have the same protection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because a country is not private property. When you wall off a country, you're walling off someone else's property. It should be up to property owners along the border whether they want to put up a wall or not.
Click to expand...


How about a highway, how about oil lines, how about a prison or government garage?

Imagine how this country would be if we allowed private property owners to stop national progress. 


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eminent Domain doesn't exist in the US? Again border patrol agents have asked for it. Not sure why your or my opinion overrides their respective opinions as they are on the frontlines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tradition in the US is a bit different than most countries. Here we place a primacy on individual rights. Instead of asking why the will of individual property owners should override that of the border patrol, we first as the converse - why should the will of the border patrol override that of individual property owners?
> 
> Your use of the term "frontlines" suggests you buy into the war justification, which I find ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except they are on the frontlines. They have guns, they have taken casualties and the people trying to cross illegally are often brutalized by coyotes and drug cartel members. The wall IMO is necessary. You are of course free to disagree, it is a free country. And they are SMEs. If a doctor told you that you needed surgery would you dismiss his opinion because others disagree with it? He is the expert for a reason. Border Patrol agents are experts in border security and they are pleading for a wall. You show a lot of hubris ignoring their please. Unfortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier?  Years ago I worked in a warehouse.  The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.
> 
> The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.
> 
> We are NOT talking border security with the wall.  What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships.  You'd be better served with some regulation.  No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We tried laws, we tried regulation, we tried more border patrol agents, and these people still come here against our wishes.  Now we need more barriers to stop them from getting in.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...


We have *NEVER* tried regulation.  You are operating on laws that are in excess of FIFTY years old and don't even apply to the situation.

The fact that you don't understand we are NOT going to keep people out discredits anything you say on this board.  Whether we like it or not, wall or no wall, they will come.  BTW, in view of what I just told you, there is a question you should ask in light of my response.  Surely, you are not so much of a dullard that you don't know what that question is.

If that seems unfair to you, it's the treatment I got from your side.  Then, again, you have only assumed things; you never ASK.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eminent Domain doesn't exist in the US? Again border patrol agents have asked for it. Not sure why your or my opinion overrides their respective opinions as they are on the frontlines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tradition in the US is a bit different than most countries. Here we place a primacy on individual rights. Instead of asking why the will of individual property owners should override that of the border patrol, we first as the converse - why should the will of the border patrol override that of individual property owners?
> 
> Your use of the term "frontlines" suggests you buy into the war justification, which I find ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except they are on the frontlines. They have guns, they have taken casualties and the people trying to cross illegally are often brutalized by coyotes and drug cartel members. The wall IMO is necessary. You are of course free to disagree, it is a free country. And they are SMEs. If a doctor told you that you needed surgery would you dismiss his opinion because others disagree with it? He is the expert for a reason. Border Patrol agents are experts in border security and they are pleading for a wall. You show a lot of hubris ignoring their please. Unfortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier?  Years ago I worked in a warehouse.  The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.
> 
> The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.
> 
> We are NOT talking border security with the wall.  What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships.  You'd be better served with some regulation.  No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #1) I had a similar situation and the owner did put in AC
> #2) This is not a runny a nose, this is a constant bleed.
> #3) I disagree this is mutual beneficial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should look at post # 3731 and access the link I left there.
Click to expand...


No thank you. I will stand by my beliefs that we need stronger border security. As a child of legal immigrants and first generation American, I am extremly anti illegal immigration.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you’re OK denying border agents another form of protection they feel they need?
> 
> 
> 
> Who exactly are these border agents; the ones Trump's Customs and Border Protection Director hand picked for Trump's border barrier infomercial at the white house?
> 
> Border Patrol agents on the front lines say they need more technology and additional personnel to curb the illegal traffic, according to a report released on Thursday by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggested a border wall.
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your New York Times (what else) article:
> 
> _*Officials at Customs and Border Protection called the report inaccurate, saying it confused how agents’ feedback about security vulnerabilities is used to develop programs to counter threats.*_
> 
> This issue in March is in sharp contrast to this article in the Washington Times a month later
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice the term strategic locations.  Funny how a border wall changed to a 1000 mile wall, to a wall in strategic locations to a border barrier/border fence which is currently 212 miles long, 112 miles of it replaces a border barrier built in 2006.  Unable to get a single dollar to build the great wall Trump promised on the campaign trail, he has now settled on a new strategy: repairing and upgrading the existing fence and calling that his “wall.”   Is that what you guys voted for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your saying he shouldn't compromise he should build a 2,000 mile wall or he didn't deserve to be elected by we who elected him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying he should have told the truth to his supporters, that what was needed was a border barrier in selected locations which is what he is trying to get congress to approve.  He never should have accused Mexicans of being rapist and murders.  He should never have said he will make Mexico pay for the wall. He just made it that much more difficult getting his border wall approved by congress.  Any other republican candidate would have had  the 5 billion dollars approved now.  Instead we have a standoff between congress and the administration that could last for months hurting millions of Americans.
Click to expand...


The only reason Trump is asking for a barrier in certain places is because he’s being forced to settle.  If you brag to your family and friends that you’re going to buy a $35,000 car, but the bank only approved a loan for $20,000, you have to settle for what the bank approved.   I’m sure if he could get it, we would have a 40 billion dollar wall.  


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so funny about my post? I am feeling like Elvis Costello.  Peace love & understanding. So, If ya' all want to keep the wankers out, don't hire them! Make them Prove their national identity with  state sanctioned national identity card linked to their, DNA, Fingerprints.  Things that are verifiable.  Might be cheaper and more effective than building a wall on the southern border. But let's keep up cheap petty appearances, like  "Border walls". Bully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's so funny, you said walls don't word in-spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The fact is they do work, that's why the border patrol is asking for more. If you don't like how it looks, do an about face, problem solved.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love ya'all.  Good fences make for good neighbors. We have liberal assholes that give illegal aliens freebies . Sanctuary cities. Now, nobody got to vote on whether or not their home town became a sanctuary city, that was so  much a  liberal cadre " They just presumed they could get away with"  thing. Sanctuary cities?  Seems  that was a overriding Constitutional  issue people ignore. Who got to vote to give their city / state  ignore  federal immigration laws?  I didn't, did any of you? Was it on a ballot anywhere? Because, that a pretty significant  issue. Ignoring the will of the people and constitutional laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to worry about sanctuary cities in my State, the State outlawed them and require State sanctioned law enforcement agencies (which are all of them) to cooperate with immigration officials.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um, well the rest of us have to worry about unsanctioned legitimizing of illegal aliens. Giving them the vote. The motor voter thing, the whole nine yards. Everything about giving illegal aliens special rights. But they can't follow the same immigration laws everyone else does. Sanctuary cities for Albanians?  Or Hungarians? Just Mexicans Because, that's fair. Just Mexicans. Mexicans are so special they transcend the Constitution. And when you notice something broken about that? Hate and xenophobia is what they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you expect them to follow the same immigration laws and regulations and wait their turn then you have to give them a chance to do so.  In Central American countries and also in Mexico to a lesser extent, these people have no chance to legally immigrate.
> 
> These countries have immigration limits establish by congress.  That limit is reduced by family sponsored immigration, employer sponsored immigration, critical skills immigration, change in immigration status of those holding visas, refugee admissions, reserved categories such as the clergy and other special circumstances.  After reducing the immigration limit for all these categories, there is essential no way to legally immigrate even if you wait for years.
> 
> There's a rule that bans a person from legally immigrating for 5 or 10 years if caught entering the country illegally or overstaying visas.   However, in these countries that ban means nothing to people deported because there's no way they would ever get into the country legally so they just keep trying.
> 
> Immigration laws make no sense.  Why does it take over 10 years to immigrate from Honduras and 1 year from Ethiopia and never from India if don't have a family sponsor.
Click to expand...


The USA is like the best restaurant in town.  Sometimes you have to make reservations months ahead of time.  When you finally get there, you wait hours to get a table.  The restaurant can’t serve everybody because it’s not capable.  But what you don’t do is bust into the place and have a seat because you don’t want to wait like everybody else.   

We have limits on immigration for a reason.  People have to assimilate and learn our culture.  If we let everybody in, then they would be changing our country like they are now.  


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> How about a highway, how about oil lines, how about a prison or government garage?
> 
> Imagine how this country would be if we allowed private property owners to stop national progress.



So, are you arguing for a kind of unlimited eminent domain?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think the phony race thing still works, think again.  It doesn't have anything to do with race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are lying.  It's ONE of *your *laundry list reasons for being for the wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is a concern of mine, but not necessarily Trump's.
> 
> Can you tell me in what country would people welcome a government trying to make them a minority in their own country other than stupid white liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is playing you.  America was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion.  Within six months of the ratification of the Constitution, only whites could be citizens by federal law.  In virtually all the colonies, only whites could vote and / or hold public office and that spilled over into state constitutions.
> 
> It's not like this stuff is sinful or something we should be ashamed of.  Hell, most of you guys argue what China does (92.5 percent of them are of one race.)  So why the deflections?  Why the dishonesty?  Yo cannot preserve your culture without protecting your race.  Why do you think the black liberals are erasing your history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about black liberals?
> 
> The plot behind the Democrat party is to make whites a minority in this country for political power.  Why do you suppose they fight for their Sanctuary cities and now states?  Why do you suppose they stopped Kate's Law from becoming law; a law that may have saved the life of that police officer in California?  Why do you suppose they are willing to shutdown the government over a measly 5 billion dollars which is less than what we spend on food stamps in one month?  Why do you suppose they give welcome and comfort to illegals by giving them drivers licenses and sending their kids to our schools?
> 
> It's pretty obvious what's going on here, and it's not because Democrats are so compassionate.  I think your next quest should be to look for the man behind the curtain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It might be of interest to you to know that 60% of democrats are white. You republicans beat us with 89% white.  Must be all those white supremacist and Islamophobes that you guys are so proud of.
Click to expand...


It doesn’t matter how many Democrats are white, nothing is paramount to power.  Power means everything to a Democrat and they don’t care who they have to sellout to get it.  


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Flopper

toobfreak said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are lying.  It's ONE of *your *laundry list reasons for being for the wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCUSE ME for interjecting here, I see you are STILL arguing about the wall!  I honestly don't see what the debate is about:
> 
> Indigent Illegals crossing the southern borders in mass quantities?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This has a negative impact on our resources and wage earning potential for many americans competing in similar job markets that Mexicans do here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Putting up a complete, better wall would hugely impact their coming here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This country safer from potential terrorist intrusion with the wall?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Being for the wall?  Are you kidding me?  This is never about a wall, it is about national security and sovereignty.  If anyone says it is about protectionism, so what if it is? * LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me protectionism is bad and they are against it and I will ask them if they have a lock on their front door, if they lock their car, have a security light or security system?  *LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me they don't PROTECT what they have, and I'll call you a LIAR.
> 
> Being for the wall?   The issue here is BEING FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.  The wall makes us more secure with it than without it.  Anyone here arguing against national security is either a commie, an anti-American or has fruit loops for brains.
> 
> Better ways to do it?  BULL.
> 
> Cheaper ways to do it?  BULL?
> 
> Immoral?  Go fuck yourself.
> 
> Anyone who claims a wall is "immoral" against these mobs of dirty, stinking, diseased illegals but its not "immoral" for what blindly letting these people into the country is doing to us here, is a fucking idiot.  Maybe you don't see it where you live, but we are approaching 12 million of these people.  That's about 4% of the population.  Cut them off today and in another decade with their kids (all supported by low income government programs that come out of YOUR pocket, they'll be at 10%.
> 
> Like all things, you get what you fund.  We are funding a low income, low education, low skill, high dependence work force.   The exact OPPOSITE of what this country made itself great with.
> 
> Enough.  End it now.  Its the LAW.  Defend the borders.  I'm tired of hearing people argue against the most basic, fundamental responsibility of the federal government.  Trump:  tear the shit down until these motherfuckers in Congress say uncle!  It's go for broke right now and I say put the bastard democrats in prison if they continue to block what we put you in office to do.  If you don't like Trump and didn't put him in office, fine.  When you get YOUR guy in office, then it'll be your time to get YOUR agenda carried out.
> 
> But I really think democrats oppose the wall so much because THEY KNOW IT WILL WORK.  And they don't WANT it to work.  Democratic scum care less about Americans than they do every dirty wetback minority they can dig out from under a rock.
Click to expand...

That's what we heard 20 years when we started putting up real barriers.  And that's what we heard in 2006 when we replaced them with barriers 4 feet higher and that's what we're hearing now as we plan to replace them with barriers another 6 feet higher.

Do you realize Homeland Security is asking 40 billion dollars to secure our southern border. Last year deportations were 170,000.  The border patrol estimates that an equal number made it into the country.  That's 340,000 people that were either apprehended or made into the country.  That works out to about $108,000 per illegal immigrant.

Assuming the wall were 100% effective which of course it won't be then the cost for keeping that 170,000 a year out of the country would be about $216,000 a person.  Homeland Security estimated that the wall would reduce illegal immigration by 50% which brings the figure to $432,000 per person. This all assumes that we don't overrun the budget and the wall is effective as Homeland Security projects, and Democrats allow the project to reach completion.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tradition in the US is a bit different than most countries. Here we place a primacy on individual rights. Instead of asking why the will of individual property owners should override that of the border patrol, we first as the converse - why should the will of the border patrol override that of individual property owners?
> 
> Your use of the term "frontlines" suggests you buy into the war justification, which I find ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except they are on the frontlines. They have guns, they have taken casualties and the people trying to cross illegally are often brutalized by coyotes and drug cartel members. The wall IMO is necessary. You are of course free to disagree, it is a free country. And they are SMEs. If a doctor told you that you needed surgery would you dismiss his opinion because others disagree with it? He is the expert for a reason. Border Patrol agents are experts in border security and they are pleading for a wall. You show a lot of hubris ignoring their please. Unfortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier?  Years ago I worked in a warehouse.  The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.
> 
> The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.
> 
> We are NOT talking border security with the wall.  What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships.  You'd be better served with some regulation.  No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #1) I had a similar situation and the owner did put in AC
> #2) This is not a runny a nose, this is a constant bleed.
> #3) I disagree this is mutual beneficial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should look at post # 3731 and access the link I left there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No thank you. I will stand by my beliefs that we need stronger border security. As a child of legal immigrants and first generation American, I am extremly anti illegal immigration.
Click to expand...


Bigotry is not a virtue.  Your beliefs have been supplanted by facts.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens? What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights? T*hey keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken. I’m asking them for proof of their position*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our people (government) does not take any inalienable rights away from people because they can't.  Rights however are granted to people that are in our country.  If visitors, they are granted some constitutional rights.  If they become citizens, they are granted all constitutional rights.  But constitutional rights are not the same as inalienable rights.  It's something I think you're confused about.
> 
> A right to be in this country is not an inalienable right, it's a right granted by the government.  Therefore it's a right that can be removed by our government.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone. There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER. Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall won't change any of that.  If the government wanted a strict enforcement of the free zone, they could do that tomorrow with no wall.  Therefore your claim is moot.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom. It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So WTF does that have to do with the wall?  And I"m sorry, I just don't buy into any stories that involve.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall does that?  How?  I know nothing about any national ID card.  I don't have one, I've never been notified I must have one, and I have no plans to get one.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach. The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it. If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort. We got a long way to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, a wall has nothing to do with that.  These conspiracy theories of yours are not even part of this planet yet alone country.
> 
> I changed my opinion about you.  You are not a liberal, you are not a conservative, you're just a plain old kook.  But just for shits and giggles, can you tell me how the government could not know I was building a weapon of some sort if a wall wasn't there????
> 
> Your associations are so far out even somebody smoking the best pot can't connect them.  A wall will not take one right away from you, from me, from any citizen.  A wall (like a firearm) has no mystical power of it's own. A wall is simply that, a wall. A wall can't change the Constitution, a wall can't change any laws, a wall can't change anything in the federalist papers.  It's simply an inanimate object.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I am not arguing inalienable rights.
> 
> 2)  You wrote:  " Rights however are granted to people that are in our country."
> 
> In one of the earliest United States Supreme Court decisions on this, the court ruled as follows:
> 
> "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* rights,-'life, *liberty*, and the pursuit of happiness;' *and to 'secure*,' *not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. *That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of*, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
> 
> In other words what I create is MINE and I don't owe you a job to benefit you - it's my job to give.  This is *THE* fatal flaw of your argument.
> 
> 3)  I agree that the government "could" strictly enforce the Constitution Free Zone.  IF they did, the people would see this is VERY real and they would rebel.  So, they do it in small doses.  YouTube is full of videos of law abiding Americans who have had their Rights violated in the Constitution Free Zone.
> 
> As you will recall, Al Capone was arrested on a 25 year old law that had possibly never been enforced - the people would have rebelled had they known what it was REALLY about (income tax evasion.)
> 
> 4)  I don't do theories.  I live in the real world.  In order to enforce the laws relative to the wall, your boys have already passed the so - called "Patriot Act," the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify and trashed the policies of a presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty.  You're perfectly comfortable with the Constitution Free Zone and I'd bet there are over 500 suggestions from people you agree with on this thread alone advocating that we "crack down on those sending money out of this country."   Those precedents are a dual edged sword.
> 
> Frederick Douglass, a former slave and a Republican once said:
> 
> "No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened around his own neck."
> 
> So, you create a bad precedent on the border, falsely thinking it will apply only to undocumented foreigners only to find out it's being used against you.  You don't have a very sound strategy.  All you've supported in the past expands into a cashless society wherein all your transactions are tracked by the paper trail you left on a computer.  You'd support a cashless society if it would get rid of the little brown guys from south of the border.  All that will be enacted in order to assist in enforcing the wall... an untended consequence for those who realize that we may be engaged in an internal civil war some day.
> 
> The unintended consequences of giving the government as much power as you would - on the pretext that it will save you from yourself is foolish and your repetitive posts and covering the same ground over and over won't make my point any less true.
> 
> You know you're defeated; that's why the deflections and your inability to be honest with me.  In the end, YOU will be screwed by the very monster you are helping to build... and you will have done it to yourself.  We got a lot of ground to cover grasshopper.  I'm not going to try and debate everyone at the same time who want some - though the best is invited to a REAL debate on another board where it will be *one on one* - no holds barred.
Click to expand...


Yes, the court said “certain” rights, not all rights.  Some rights are actually inalienable rights such as the religion you worship, your preference on a mate, the kind of food you wish to eat.  But your right to free speech is a right granted to you by the US Constitution.  

A wall will no more empower the government than a bowl of fruit loops.  Government doesn’t get its power from a wall.  Government gets its power from the MSM, from brainwashing, from government dependents, from educational indoctrination, but it doesn’t get it from a wall. 


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Flopper

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never answered me. Do you think they are actors?
> 
> 
> 
> If you ask a question or expect a reply from a particular person you need to issue a reply to that person, not to the whole thread which is at bottom of the screen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dodging you are.
Click to expand...

I don't know to whom the question is directed?  I was only making a suggestion in to order to clarify communications.  Take it or leave it.  It doesn't matter to me.


----------



## H B Lowrie

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tradition in the US is a bit different than most countries. Here we place a primacy on individual rights. Instead of asking why the will of individual property owners should override that of the border patrol, we first as the converse - why should the will of the border patrol override that of individual property owners?
> 
> Your use of the term "frontlines" suggests you buy into the war justification, which I find ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except they are on the frontlines. They have guns, they have taken casualties and the people trying to cross illegally are often brutalized by coyotes and drug cartel members. The wall IMO is necessary. You are of course free to disagree, it is a free country. And they are SMEs. If a doctor told you that you needed surgery would you dismiss his opinion because others disagree with it? He is the expert for a reason. Border Patrol agents are experts in border security and they are pleading for a wall. You show a lot of hubris ignoring their please. Unfortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier?  Years ago I worked in a warehouse.  The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.
> 
> The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.
> 
> We are NOT talking border security with the wall.  What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships.  You'd be better served with some regulation.  No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #1) I had a similar situation and the owner did put in AC
> #2) This is not a runny a nose, this is a constant bleed.
> #3) I disagree this is mutual beneficial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should look at post # 3731 and access the link I left there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No thank you. I will stand by my beliefs that we need stronger border security. As a child of legal immigrants and first generation American, I am extremly anti illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

You should go read up on how euros came by this land mass.


----------



## H B Lowrie

bripat9643 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you expect them to follow the same immigration laws and regulations and wait their turn then you have to give them a chance to do so.  In Central American countries and also in Mexico to a lesser extent, these people have no chance to legally immigrate.
> 
> These countries have immigration limits establish by congress.  That limit is reduced by family sponsored immigration, employer sponsored immigration, critical skills immigration, change in immigration status of those holding visas, refugee admissions, reserved categories such as the clergy and other special circumstances.  After reducing the immigration limit for all these categories, there is essential no way to legally immigrate even if you wait for years.
> 
> There's a rule that bans a person from legally legally immigrating for 5 or 10 years if caught entering the country illegally or overstaying visas.   However, in these countries that ban means nothing to people deported because there's no way they would ever get into the country legally.
> 
> Immigration laws make no sense.  Why does it take over 10 years to immigrate from Honduras and 1 year from Ethiopia and never from India if don't have family sponsor.
> 
> 
> 
> Because we can't hold them all. You seem to think anyone who wants to should be able to move to America. That would be the end of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely not.  We just need to have policies that are fairer and make sense.  Do we really think Ethiopians make such good citizens that they should be admitted in a year and Hondurans should have to wait 10 year or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we want either unless they have skills this country needs? Have you ever been to rural areas of Honduras?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but I've been to Guatemala. It's not about letting the in the people we need.  It's about changing the environment that sends tens of thousand of people to our border.  Instead of sending our military to the our border to sit on their ass and build housing for detainees, we need to clean out the Northern Triangle and stop sending money to these dictators that funnel it to cartels and gangs.  We need to increase the immigration limits on Central American countries by only few thousand so there is reasonable wait time.  That in itself will reduce the number heading toward our border.  By making life better in these countries we will not only reduce illegal immigration but also reduce drugs headed toward the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  The one thing we don't need is to allow more people from Central American shit holes into this country.
> 
> Quit blaming America for these corrupt governments.
Click to expand...

Who gets the blame for the 2009 coup in Honduras we engaged in and supported?


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who exactly are these border agents; the ones Trump's Customs and Border Protection Director hand picked for Trump's border barrier infomercial at the white house?
> 
> Border Patrol agents on the front lines say they need more technology and additional personnel to curb the illegal traffic, according to a report released on Thursday by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggested a border wall.
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your New York Times (what else) article:
> 
> _*Officials at Customs and Border Protection called the report inaccurate, saying it confused how agents’ feedback about security vulnerabilities is used to develop programs to counter threats.*_
> 
> This issue in March is in sharp contrast to this article in the Washington Times a month later
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice the term strategic locations.  Funny how a border wall changed to a 1000 mile wall, to a wall in strategic locations to a border barrier/border fence which is currently 212 miles long, 112 miles of it replaces a border barrier built in 2006.  Unable to get a single dollar to build the great wall Trump promised on the campaign trail, he has now settled on a new strategy: repairing and upgrading the existing fence and calling that his “wall.”   Is that what you guys voted for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your saying he shouldn't compromise he should build a 2,000 mile wall or he didn't deserve to be elected by we who elected him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying he should have told the truth to his supporters, that what was needed was a border barrier in selected locations which is what he is trying to get congress to approve.  He never should have accused Mexicans of being rapist and murders.  He should never have said he will make Mexico pay for the wall. He just made it that much more difficult getting his border wall approved by congress.  Any other republican candidate would have had  the 5 billion dollars approved now.  Instead we have a standoff between congress and the administration that could last for months hurting millions of Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only reason Trump is asking for a barrier in certain places is because he’s being forced to settle.  If you brag to your family and friends that you’re going to buy a $35,000 car, but the bank only approved a loan for $20,000, you have to settle for what the bank approved.   I’m sure if he could get it, we would have a 40 billion dollar wall.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...

That really doesn't make much sense when we're talking about a barrier wall.  Suppose the farmer needs to fence his property to keep critters away from his crop and the bank says we will give you enough to fence 10% of your property.  So the farmer builds the fence and watches the critters go around the fence and enter fields in the 90% that is not fence.

The only thing that makes sense is to secure approval for the whole project before starting.  If you can't do that, then don't start the project.

Suppose congress had offered the president only 10% of the money to build the Panama Canal with no guarantee that more would come and the opposition party promising to stop all funding.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except they are on the frontlines. They have guns, they have taken casualties and the people trying to cross illegally are often brutalized by coyotes and drug cartel members. The wall IMO is necessary. You are of course free to disagree, it is a free country. And they are SMEs. If a doctor told you that you needed surgery would you dismiss his opinion because others disagree with it? He is the expert for a reason. Border Patrol agents are experts in border security and they are pleading for a wall. You show a lot of hubris ignoring their please. Unfortunate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier?  Years ago I worked in a warehouse.  The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.
> 
> The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.
> 
> We are NOT talking border security with the wall.  What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships.  You'd be better served with some regulation.  No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #1) I had a similar situation and the owner did put in AC
> #2) This is not a runny a nose, this is a constant bleed.
> #3) I disagree this is mutual beneficial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should look at post # 3731 and access the link I left there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No thank you. I will stand by my beliefs that we need stronger border security. As a child of legal immigrants and first generation American, I am extremly anti illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigotry is not a virtue.  Your beliefs have been supplanted by facts.
Click to expand...


I gave you facts that you conveniently ignored.

Let me ask you this even though I know you'll divert and won't answer.

You can buy a house for $500k it may be a great house, it may be average but needs some work or it may be a complete money pit. You don't know. Would you still buy the house? Of course not. So then why would you want people sneaking in here when you don't know who they are? Doesn't make any logical sense. This is not bigotry. Don't use Leftist tactics on me. I am a Jew. I know bigotry. I live it almost daily.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Flopper said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never answered me. Do you think they are actors?
> 
> 
> 
> If you ask a question or expect a reply from a particular person you need to issue a reply to that person, not to the whole thread which is at bottom of the screen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dodging you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know to whom the question is directed?  I was only making a suggestion in to order to clarify communications.  Take it or leave it.  It doesn't matter to me.
Click to expand...


Convenient. Since it shows your rhetoric to be BS.


----------



## Ame®icano

Wall is coming...


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> This is NOT a debate forum



Just what the hell do YOU think it is, corncob?






You think this is a forum where you simply issue your decrees and edicts about truth, honor and the American Way?
You're an even bigger blabber-brain than I realized!


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eminent Domain doesn't exist in the US? Again border patrol agents have asked for it. Not sure why your or my opinion overrides their respective opinions as they are on the frontlines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tradition in the US is a bit different than most countries. Here we place a primacy on individual rights. Instead of asking why the will of individual property owners should override that of the border patrol, we first as the converse - why should the will of the border patrol override that of individual property owners?
> 
> Your use of the term "frontlines" suggests you buy into the war justification, which I find ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It does.  That's all you need to know.


----------



## danielpalos

Porter Rockwell said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the term strategic locations.  Funny how a border wall changed to a 1000 mile wall, to a wall in strategic locations to a border barrier/border fence which is currently 212 miles long, 112 miles of it replaces a border barrier built in 2006.  Unable to get a single dollar to build the great wall Trump promised on the campaign trail, he has now settled on a new strategy: repairing and upgrading the existing fence and calling that his “wall.”   Is that what you guys voted for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To me “wall” was short for stronger border security. I didn’t take it literally but after hearing the border patrol agents I think the monies are reasonable and they are on the frontlines. As I asked you before and you conveniently ignored, do you live in a house with walls and doors? Why should our country not have the same protection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no express wall building clause and we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.  only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IDC about clauses. Stop beating the same drum. I am not right wing. I am logical. Stop responding to my posts with the same answers. You're trolling and I don't appreciate it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't care about the law, Constitutional or otherwise; I got, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay Danny, while you're partly right on this, on many issues the left is willing trash the Constitution as well.
Click to expand...

our welfare clause is general; we don't have a general warfare clause.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens? What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights? T*hey keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken. I’m asking them for proof of their position*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our people (government) does not take any inalienable rights away from people because they can't.  Rights however are granted to people that are in our country.  If visitors, they are granted some constitutional rights.  If they become citizens, they are granted all constitutional rights.  But constitutional rights are not the same as inalienable rights.  It's something I think you're confused about.
> 
> A right to be in this country is not an inalienable right, it's a right granted by the government.  Therefore it's a right that can be removed by our government.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone. There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER. Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall won't change any of that.  If the government wanted a strict enforcement of the free zone, they could do that tomorrow with no wall.  Therefore your claim is moot.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom. It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So WTF does that have to do with the wall?  And I"m sorry, I just don't buy into any stories that involve.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall does that?  How?  I know nothing about any national ID card.  I don't have one, I've never been notified I must have one, and I have no plans to get one.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach. The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it. If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort. We got a long way to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, a wall has nothing to do with that.  These conspiracy theories of yours are not even part of this planet yet alone country.
> 
> I changed my opinion about you.  You are not a liberal, you are not a conservative, you're just a plain old kook.  But just for shits and giggles, can you tell me how the government could not know I was building a weapon of some sort if a wall wasn't there????
> 
> Your associations are so far out even somebody smoking the best pot can't connect them.  A wall will not take one right away from you, from me, from any citizen.  A wall (like a firearm) has no mystical power of it's own. A wall is simply that, a wall. A wall can't change the Constitution, a wall can't change any laws, a wall can't change anything in the federalist papers.  It's simply an inanimate object.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I am not arguing inalienable rights.
> 
> 2)  You wrote:  " Rights however are granted to people that are in our country."
> 
> In one of the earliest United States Supreme Court decisions on this, the court ruled as follows:
> 
> "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* rights,-'life, *liberty*, and the pursuit of happiness;' *and to 'secure*,' *not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. *That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of*, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
> 
> In other words what I create is MINE and I don't owe you a job to benefit you - it's my job to give.  This is *THE* fatal flaw of your argument.
> 
> 3)  I agree that the government "could" strictly enforce the Constitution Free Zone.  IF they did, the people would see this is VERY real and they would rebel.  So, they do it in small doses.  YouTube is full of videos of law abiding Americans who have had their Rights violated in the Constitution Free Zone.
> 
> As you will recall, Al Capone was arrested on a 25 year old law that had possibly never been enforced - the people would have rebelled had they known what it was REALLY about (income tax evasion.)
> 
> 4)  I don't do theories.  I live in the real world.  In order to enforce the laws relative to the wall, your boys have already passed the so - called "Patriot Act," the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify and trashed the policies of a presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty.  You're perfectly comfortable with the Constitution Free Zone and I'd bet there are over 500 suggestions from people you agree with on this thread alone advocating that we "crack down on those sending money out of this country."   Those precedents are a dual edged sword.
> 
> Frederick Douglass, a former slave and a Republican once said:
> 
> "No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened around his own neck."
> 
> So, you create a bad precedent on the border, falsely thinking it will apply only to undocumented foreigners only to find out it's being used against you.  You don't have a very sound strategy.  All you've supported in the past expands into a cashless society wherein all your transactions are tracked by the paper trail you left on a computer.  You'd support a cashless society if it would get rid of the little brown guys from south of the border.  All that will be enacted in order to assist in enforcing the wall... an untended consequence for those who realize that we may be engaged in an internal civil war some day.
> 
> The unintended consequences of giving the government as much power as you would - on the pretext that it will save you from yourself is foolish and your repetitive posts and covering the same ground over and over won't make my point any less true.
> 
> You know you're defeated; that's why the deflections and your inability to be honest with me.  In the end, YOU will be screwed by the very monster you are helping to build... and you will have done it to yourself.  We got a lot of ground to cover grasshopper.  I'm not going to try and debate everyone at the same time who want some - though the best is invited to a REAL debate on another board where it will be *one on one* - no holds barred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the court said “certain” rights, not all rights.  Some rights are actually inalienable rights such as the religion you worship, your preference on a mate, the kind of food you wish to eat.  But your right to free speech is a right granted to you by the US Constitution.
> 
> A wall will no more empower the government than a bowl of fruit loops.  Government doesn’t get its power from a wall.  Government gets its power from the MSM, from brainwashing, from government dependents, from educational indoctrination, but it doesn’t get it from a wall.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...


You have the world's greatest ability to either remain the most ignorant individual I've ever met or one that is in love with abject stupidity.

The Rights to* unalienable Rights* - and let us get it right - *UNALIENABLE RIGHTS*,  are the Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* rights,-'life, *liberty*, and the pursuit of happiness;' *and to 'secure*,' *not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. *That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of*, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

The point being, which contradicts the swill you keep preaching is that the *GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GRANT NOR CREATE RIGHTS*. Those PRECISE Rights are the Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  Of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson stated:

_The Declaration of Independence [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man_."  

It has been explained to you in great detail how the wall has unintended consequences.  Yet you choose to deny the realities of our times.  For you, the wall is a religion.  As you've stated, "you just want them (sic) gone.  As this thread progresses, it will be interesting to see how little value your fellow build the wall supporters feel about your attitude toward Freeom and Liberty... ESPECIALLY if they have children who may have live in the aftermath of what you hope to create.


----------



## sealybobo

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's so funny, you said walls don't word in-spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The fact is they do work, that's why the border patrol is asking for more. If you don't like how it looks, do an about face, problem solved.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Love ya'all.  Good fences make for good neighbors. We have liberal assholes that give illegal aliens freebies . Sanctuary cities. Now, nobody got to vote on whether or not their home town became a sanctuary city, that was so  much a  liberal cadre " They just presumed they could get away with"  thing. Sanctuary cities?  Seems  that was a overriding Constitutional  issue people ignore. Who got to vote to give their city / state  ignore  federal immigration laws?  I didn't, did any of you? Was it on a ballot anywhere? Because, that a pretty significant  issue. Ignoring the will of the people and constitutional laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to worry about sanctuary cities in my State, the State outlawed them and require State sanctioned law enforcement agencies (which are all of them) to cooperate with immigration officials.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um, well the rest of us have to worry about unsanctioned legitimizing of illegal aliens. Giving them the vote. The motor voter thing, the whole nine yards. Everything about giving illegal aliens special rights. But they can't follow the same immigration laws everyone else does. Sanctuary cities for Albanians?  Or Hungarians? Just Mexicans Because, that's fair. Just Mexicans. Mexicans are so special they transcend the Constitution. And when you notice something broken about that? Hate and xenophobia is what they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you expect them to follow the same immigration laws and regulations and wait their turn then you have to give them a chance to do so.  In Central American countries and also in Mexico to a lesser extent, these people have no chance to legally immigrate.
> 
> These countries have immigration limits establish by congress.  That limit is reduced by family sponsored immigration, employer sponsored immigration, critical skills immigration, change in immigration status of those holding visas, refugee admissions, reserved categories such as the clergy and other special circumstances.  After reducing the immigration limit for all these categories, there is essential no way to legally immigrate even if you wait for years.
> 
> There's a rule that bans a person from legally immigrating for 5 or 10 years if caught entering the country illegally or overstaying visas.   However, in these countries that ban means nothing to people deported because there's no way they would ever get into the country legally so they just keep trying.
> 
> Immigration laws make no sense.  Why does it take over 10 years to immigrate from Honduras and 1 year from Ethiopia and never from India if don't have a family sponsor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The USA is like the best restaurant in town.  Sometimes you have to make reservations months ahead of time.  When you finally get there, you wait hours to get a table.  The restaurant can’t serve everybody because it’s not capable.  But what you don’t do is bust into the place and have a seat because you don’t want to wait like everybody else.
> 
> We have limits on immigration for a reason.  People have to assimilate and learn our culture.  If we let everybody in, then they would be changing our country like they are now.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...


Ray... You almost got close to something.  Instead of making that post a statement, I'd almost BEG you to phrase that last paragraph you made in the form of a question.  You would be in JEOPARDY (no pun intended.)


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, well the rest of us have to worry about unsanctioned legitimizing of illegal aliens. Giving them the vote. The motor voter thing, the whole nine yards. Everything about giving illegal aliens special rights. But they can't follow the same immigration laws everyone else does. Sanctuary cities for Albanians?  Or Hungarians? Just Mexicans Because, that's fair. Just Mexicans. Mexicans are so special they transcend the Constitution. And when you notice something broken about that? Hate and xenophobia is what they say.
> 
> 
> 
> If you expect them to follow the same immigration laws and regulations and wait their turn then you have to give them a chance to do so.  In Central American countries and also in Mexico to a lesser extent, these people have no chance to legally immigrate.
> 
> These countries have immigration limits establish by congress.  That limit is reduced by family sponsored immigration, employer sponsored immigration, critical skills immigration, change in immigration status of those holding visas, refugee admissions, reserved categories such as the clergy and other special circumstances.  After reducing the immigration limit for all these categories, there is essential no way to legally immigrate even if you wait for years.
> 
> There's a rule that bans a person from legally legally immigrating for 5 or 10 years if caught entering the country illegally or overstaying visas.   However, in these countries that ban means nothing to people deported because there's no way they would ever get into the country legally.
> 
> Immigration laws make no sense.  Why does it take over 10 years to immigrate from Honduras and 1 year from Ethiopia and never from India if don't have family sponsor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we can't hold them all. You seem to think anyone who wants to should be able to move to America. That would be the end of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely not.  We just need to have policies that are fairer and make sense.  Do we really think Ethiopians make such good citizens that they should be admitted in a year and Hondurans should have to wait 10 year or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we want either unless they have skills this country needs? Have you ever been to rural areas of Honduras?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but I've been to Guatemala. It's not about letting the in the people we need.  It's about changing the environment that sends tens of thousand of people to our border.  Instead of sending our military to the our border to sit on their ass and build housing for detainees, we need to clean out the Northern Triangle and stop sending money to these dictators that funnel it to cartels and gangs.  We need to increase the immigration limits on Central American countries by only few thousand so there is reasonable wait time.  That in itself will reduce the number heading toward our border.  By making life better in these countries we will not only reduce illegal immigration but also reduce drugs headed toward the US.
Click to expand...



I disagree, we can't police or be the refuge for every country in the world and maintain our lifestyle and culture. We already have too much crime and poverty, there is no reason to import more. Past interventions have proved fruitless and now you want to throw good money after bad. I can't buy that, it's time to take care of Americans and if we need to use force to secure our country, so be it.

.


----------



## danielpalos

sealybobo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

Capitalism is worthless if we need a wall.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier?  Years ago I worked in a warehouse.  The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.
> 
> The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.
> 
> We are NOT talking border security with the wall.  What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships.  You'd be better served with some regulation.  No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #1) I had a similar situation and the owner did put in AC
> #2) This is not a runny a nose, this is a constant bleed.
> #3) I disagree this is mutual beneficial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should look at post # 3731 and access the link I left there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No thank you. I will stand by my beliefs that we need stronger border security. As a child of legal immigrants and first generation American, I am extremly anti illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigotry is not a virtue.  Your beliefs have been supplanted by facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you facts that you conveniently ignored.
> 
> Let me ask you this even though I know you'll divert and won't answer.
> 
> You can buy a house for $500k it may be a great house, it may be average but needs some work or it may be a complete money pit. You don't know. Would you still buy the house? Of course not. So then why would you want people sneaking in here when you don't know who they are? Doesn't make any logical sense. This is not bigotry. Don't use Leftist tactics on me. I am a Jew. I know bigotry. I live it almost daily.
Click to expand...


Look, this is no diversionary tactic.  It's plain and it's simple.  Either people have a Right to Liberty or they do not.  As long as people are engaging in the free enterprise system, I do not think of them as "sneaking" in.  Had you actually READ this thread, you would know exactly what I think.  That way, you would not have to make ridiculous assumptions and then pretend to ask me a question based upon a hypothetical straw man.  So, do this, read post # 2806.  That should tell you my feelings toward immigration laws in general.  Then read these posts:

3475, 3476, 3613, 3669, and 3731.  It does little for me to keep repeating the same points over and over every day.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> #1) I had a similar situation and the owner did put in AC
> #2) This is not a runny a nose, this is a constant bleed.
> #3) I disagree this is mutual beneficial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should look at post # 3731 and access the link I left there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No thank you. I will stand by my beliefs that we need stronger border security. As a child of legal immigrants and first generation American, I am extremly anti illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigotry is not a virtue.  Your beliefs have been supplanted by facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you facts that you conveniently ignored.
> 
> Let me ask you this even though I know you'll divert and won't answer.
> 
> You can buy a house for $500k it may be a great house, it may be average but needs some work or it may be a complete money pit. You don't know. Would you still buy the house? Of course not. So then why would you want people sneaking in here when you don't know who they are? Doesn't make any logical sense. This is not bigotry. Don't use Leftist tactics on me. I am a Jew. I know bigotry. I live it almost daily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, this is no diversionary tactic.  It's plain and it's simple.  Either people have a Right to Liberty or they do not.  As long as people are engaging in the free enterprise system, I do not think of them as "sneaking" in.  Had you actually READ this thread, you would know exactly what I think.  That way, you would not have to make ridiculous assumptions and then pretend to ask me a question based upon a hypothetical straw man.  So, do this, read post # 2806.  That should tell you my feelings toward immigration laws in general.  Then read these posts:
> 
> 3475, 3476, 3613, 3669, and 3731.  It does little for me to keep repeating the same points over and over every day.
Click to expand...


We need to document and understand who the people who come in here are. Ever see the gates at an airport? You are just trolling now.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

toobfreak said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is NOT a debate forum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just what the hell do YOU think it is, corncob?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think this is a forum where you simply issue your decrees and edicts about truth, honor and the American Way?
> You're an even bigger blabber-brain than I realized!
Click to expand...


1)  This board, if you read the rules, the stuff about the board, etc. then this is a DISCUSSION board

2) You are standing in front of a mirror, projecting.

As for me, I've not said where I stand.  I may be playing the devil's advocate just to show you the flaws in your thinking process - and there are plenty.  What "decree" are you claiming I made or you just spewing crap again after you took that ass whipping?


----------



## hazlnut

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux




A,B

A major public works programs, building a infrastructure at a price that will never be justified by the outcomes.

*People who actually believed Trump when he promised something that would never happen must take responsibility for their own wilful ignorance*.



90% of drugs cross through legal ports of entry.

It's called smuggling.

Build a wall, they will tunnel under, climb over, test the wall to find a blind spot with surveillance and then blow a hole through it.

False sense of security.

Crime is prevented by intel, multi-agency coordination, and taking away incentives.

Most of the people here illegally are overstaying their temp work visa -- by the time you track them down, it will be time for a new harvest and they'll have a new LEGAL work visa.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should look at post # 3731 and access the link I left there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No thank you. I will stand by my beliefs that we need stronger border security. As a child of legal immigrants and first generation American, I am extremly anti illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigotry is not a virtue.  Your beliefs have been supplanted by facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you facts that you conveniently ignored.
> 
> Let me ask you this even though I know you'll divert and won't answer.
> 
> You can buy a house for $500k it may be a great house, it may be average but needs some work or it may be a complete money pit. You don't know. Would you still buy the house? Of course not. So then why would you want people sneaking in here when you don't know who they are? Doesn't make any logical sense. This is not bigotry. Don't use Leftist tactics on me. I am a Jew. I know bigotry. I live it almost daily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, this is no diversionary tactic.  It's plain and it's simple.  Either people have a Right to Liberty or they do not.  As long as people are engaging in the free enterprise system, I do not think of them as "sneaking" in.  Had you actually READ this thread, you would know exactly what I think.  That way, you would not have to make ridiculous assumptions and then pretend to ask me a question based upon a hypothetical straw man.  So, do this, read post # 2806.  That should tell you my feelings toward immigration laws in general.  Then read these posts:
> 
> 3475, 3476, 3613, 3669, and 3731.  It does little for me to keep repeating the same points over and over every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We need to document and understand who the people who come in here are. Ever see the gates at an airport? You are just trolling now.
Click to expand...


Asking you questions is "trolling" someone?  Confronting myths and misconceptions with reality is trolling?  On what planet?

Do you think that the citizens of one state should only go to a neighboring state via some "legal point of entry?"


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you expect them to follow the same immigration laws and regulations and wait their turn then you have to give them a chance to do so.  In Central American countries and also in Mexico to a lesser extent, these people have no chance to legally immigrate.
> 
> These countries have immigration limits establish by congress.  That limit is reduced by family sponsored immigration, employer sponsored immigration, critical skills immigration, change in immigration status of those holding visas, refugee admissions, reserved categories such as the clergy and other special circumstances.  After reducing the immigration limit for all these categories, there is essential no way to legally immigrate even if you wait for years.
> 
> There's a rule that bans a person from legally legally immigrating for 5 or 10 years if caught entering the country illegally or overstaying visas.   However, in these countries that ban means nothing to people deported because there's no way they would ever get into the country legally.
> 
> Immigration laws make no sense.  Why does it take over 10 years to immigrate from Honduras and 1 year from Ethiopia and never from India if don't have family sponsor.
> 
> 
> 
> Because we can't hold them all. You seem to think anyone who wants to should be able to move to America. That would be the end of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely not.  We just need to have policies that are fairer and make sense.  Do we really think Ethiopians make such good citizens that they should be admitted in a year and Hondurans should have to wait 10 year or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we want either unless they have skills this country needs? Have you ever been to rural areas of Honduras?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but I've been to Guatemala. It's not about letting the in the people we need.  It's about changing the environment that sends tens of thousand of people to our border.  Instead of sending our military to the our border to sit on their ass and build housing for detainees, we need to clean out the Northern Triangle and stop sending money to these dictators that funnel it to cartels and gangs.  We need to increase the immigration limits on Central American countries by only few thousand so there is reasonable wait time.  That in itself will reduce the number heading toward our border.  By making life better in these countries we will not only reduce illegal immigration but also reduce drugs headed toward the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, we can't police or be the refuge for every country in the world and maintain our lifestyle and culture. We already have too much crime and poverty, there is no reason to import more. Past interventions have proved fruitless and now you want to throw good money after bad. I can't buy that, it's time to take care of Americans and if we need to use force to secure our country, so be it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Would you take a moment and kindly explain American culture to me?


----------



## OKTexas

dblack said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I asked you before and you conveniently ignored, do you live in a house with walls and doors? Why should our country not have the same protection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because a country is not private property. When you wall off a country, you're walling off someone else's property. It should be up to property owners along the border whether they want to put up a wall or not.
Click to expand...



Why are you only concerned about border properties? The government uses imminent domain to take properties all the time. Where's your concern for the folks that lose land for a Post Office or other government functions?

.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are lying.  It's ONE of *your *laundry list reasons for being for the wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCUSE ME for interjecting here, I see you are STILL arguing about the wall!  I honestly don't see what the debate is about:
> 
> Indigent Illegals crossing the southern borders in mass quantities?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This has a negative impact on our resources and wage earning potential for many americans competing in similar job markets that Mexicans do here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Putting up a complete, better wall would hugely impact their coming here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This country safer from potential terrorist intrusion with the wall?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Being for the wall?  Are you kidding me?  This is never about a wall, it is about national security and sovereignty.  If anyone says it is about protectionism, so what if it is? * LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me protectionism is bad and they are against it and I will ask them if they have a lock on their front door, if they lock their car, have a security light or security system?  *LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me they don't PROTECT what they have, and I'll call you a LIAR.
> 
> Being for the wall?   The issue here is BEING FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.  The wall makes us more secure with it than without it.  Anyone here arguing against national security is either a commie, an anti-American or has fruit loops for brains.
> 
> Better ways to do it?  BULL.
> 
> Cheaper ways to do it?  BULL?
> 
> Immoral?  Go fuck yourself.
> 
> Anyone who claims a wall is "immoral" against these mobs of dirty, stinking, diseased illegals but its not "immoral" for what blindly letting these people into the country is doing to us here, is a fucking idiot.  Maybe you don't see it where you live, but we are approaching 12 million of these people.  That's about 4% of the population.  Cut them off today and in another decade with their kids (all supported by low income government programs that come out of YOUR pocket, they'll be at 10%.
> 
> Like all things, you get what you fund.  We are funding a low income, low education, low skill, high dependence work force.   The exact OPPOSITE of what this country made itself great with.
> 
> Enough.  End it now.  Its the LAW.  Defend the borders.  I'm tired of hearing people argue against the most basic, fundamental responsibility of the federal government.  Trump:  tear the shit down until these motherfuckers in Congress say uncle!  It's go for broke right now and I say put the bastard democrats in prison if they continue to block what we put you in office to do.  If you don't like Trump and didn't put him in office, fine.  When you get YOUR guy in office, then it'll be your time to get YOUR agenda carried out.
> 
> But I really think democrats oppose the wall so much because THEY KNOW IT WILL WORK.  And they don't WANT it to work.  Democratic scum care less about Americans than they do every dirty wetback minority they can dig out from under a rock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone ever tell you that you are freaking HILARIOUS?  Yours was the funniest freaking post I've seen since I've been on this board.  Thank you for starting my day off with a laugh.  Now down to business:
> 
> 1) I am not arguing with ANYONE about your silly wall
> 
> 2)  This is NOT a debate forum, so we are not debating anything
> 
> 3)  Just because you make a bold assertion and put it in big blue letters will not make it come true
> 
> 4) * EVERY non - partisan* study I have read contradicts what the white supremacists are feeding Congress.  NOW, let me show you how this works:
> 
> "Despite all this, illegal immigration’s *overall impact on the US economy is small.* Low-skilled native workers who compete with unauthorized immigrants are the clearest losers. US employers, on the other hand, gain from lower labor costs and the ability to use their land, capital, and technology more productively. The stakes are highest for the unauthorized immigrants themselves, who see very substantial income gains after migrating. If we exclude these immigrants from the calculus, however (as domestic policymakers are naturally inclined to do), the small net gain that remains after subtracting US workers’ losses from US employers’ gains is tiny. *And if we account for the small fiscal burden that unauthorized immigrants impose, the overall economic benefit is close enough to zero to be essentially a wash*"
> 
> file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/Hanson-Dec09%20(3).pdf
> 
> (I had to copy and paste that link so you will have to do likewise to read it)
> 
> See the documentation in quotation marks and a citing source?  Notice how the study figures in not only the *cost*, but the* contribution* of the foreigner as well?  When you do that, you get a different economic picture.
> 
> You want people to take sides and if they don't agree with you  and then you use mob rule to ridicule and harass them?  That's your strategy? No wonder public opinion is swinging left.
> 
> 5)  The goalposts are once again being moved.  As soon as I answer one objection, you build the wall guys conjure up another.  My current discussion is that Ray has a totally different argument - and at least his argument is half ass honest.  Yours is *absolute stupidity*.
> 
> This is NOT an issue about National Security because the American people are *WILLINGLY* doing business with the foreigners.   There is no threat of war and they are not taking any more than we are willing to give
> 
> 6)  Just because you can deny what I'm saying will NEVER disprove it
> 
> 7)  You can go fuck yourself too.  I'd prefer to have said that in person
> 
> 8)  I've never weighed in on the morality of your silly wall so you had to create a straw man there in order to buffer the ass kicking you're taking here
> 
> 9)  Your dumbassery is really showing.  THREE times in this thread I have told you I'm not on the left; that I voted for Trump.  So, lying won't give much credence to your B.S.
> 
> 10)  Finally, all of this "wall" business was the talking points of the left BEFORE it was right wing fodder.  You should know the history of the arguments you're making.
> 
> It's damn foolish to trash the Constitution, take a dump on your unalienable Rights, and deliberately attempt to make America a third world dictatorship on the basis of lies.  Last night I heard the president of Egypt say that we are the world's strongest military power and it was our responsibility to help fight tyranny.  I don't know if I agree with his proposition; however, it is the epitome of idiocy to try and duplicate the ways of people who are inferior to you.
> 
> A better use of our money and time is to help other nations become like us so they don't feel a need to be at war with each other and not have the requisite knowledge to build a constitutional Republic with the potential of being financially strong and humane toward others.
Click to expand...



Here's a live link:  https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/Hanson-Dec09.pdf

And pardon me if I disregard information provided by a left wing one worlder think tank.

.


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

Thanks for quoting the great expert on immigration, George S. Patton.


----------



## OKTexas

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eminent Domain doesn't exist in the US? Again border patrol agents have asked for it. Not sure why your or my opinion overrides their respective opinions as they are on the frontlines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tradition in the US is a bit different than most countries. Here we place a primacy on individual rights. Instead of asking why the will of individual property owners should override that of the border patrol, we first as the converse - why should the will of the border patrol override that of individual property owners?
> 
> Your use of the term "frontlines" suggests you buy into the war justification, which I find ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except they are on the frontlines. They have guns, they have taken casualties and the people trying to cross illegally are often brutalized by coyotes and drug cartel members. The wall IMO is necessary. You are of course free to disagree, it is a free country. And they are SMEs. If a doctor told you that you needed surgery would you dismiss his opinion because others disagree with it? He is the expert for a reason. Border Patrol agents are experts in border security and they are pleading for a wall. You show a lot of hubris ignoring their please. Unfortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier?  Years ago I worked in a warehouse.  The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.
> 
> The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.
> 
> We are NOT talking border security with the wall.  What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships.  You'd be better served with some regulation.  No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #1) I had a similar situation and the owner did put in AC
> #2) This is not a runny a nose, this is a constant bleed.
> #3) I disagree this is mutual beneficial.
Click to expand...



He doesn't seem to understand that's what ports of entry are for.

.


----------



## eagle1462010

Flopper said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So one of the functions of the federal government is not to protect it’s citizens?
> And flooding our borders with cheap Labor is enforcing the General Welfare clause?
> You have an interesting POV of what defines a nation.
> We might as well rename the US the Open Borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are dishonest and probably amoral.  Since I have so specified at least a dozen times that it is the function of the government to protect us - it just should not serve as a tool to protect you from your own actions. As for the rest, even danielpalos has a point once each year.  He's already answered this lame ass allegation from you and others.  You need some new material.
> 
> Since I cannot "debate" a dozen people as the delusional call these exchanges, I'm sure you will wait your turn.  I'm having a discussion with Ray, so save your lies and when we're on equal footing, I'll take you on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want a one on one argument take it to pm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever read Proverbs 18: 13
> 
> Already did offer anyone open challenge to take place on another board.  Take it to PM to arrange.  No takers.  People are afraid to go one on one on a level playing field.  Got anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since 5 Billion is a pittance of the budget what is wrong with giving the President a bone? Doesn't he deserve a pet project just like all the other pork earmarks in the bills?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If John McCain, Romey, Jeb Bush, Mark Rubio, Ted Cruz, or any of a half dozen other republican presidential candidates were president and asked for 5 billion dollars for border security last year they would have it now. Why? because they are politicians.  They know how to deal with congress and the media. They would be asked for 5 billion to improve border security including improving barriers at selected locations and better facilities for detainees.  They certainly would not be asked for money to build a big beautiful wall to keep out Mexican rapist and murders.  That's nuts.  Such language is guaranteed to create a fight in congress, not approval which should be the goal.   This is the main reason I never would consider voting for Trump.  His primary goal is winning, what he actually wins is of little importance.  It's winning that's important to him, not the actual prize, it's about rubbing the opposition's face in the dirt.  For Trump and unfortunately many of his followers that what's important.  Look where we are now, a shutdown of government that creating hardships for millions of Americas and it's completely unnecessary.  The fact is most of you could have done a better job than Trump because he's a sick narcissist that's totally out of his depth.
Click to expand...

Career politicians dont want it fixed


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are lying.  It's ONE of *your *laundry list reasons for being for the wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCUSE ME for interjecting here, I see you are STILL arguing about the wall!  I honestly don't see what the debate is about:
> 
> Indigent Illegals crossing the southern borders in mass quantities?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This has a negative impact on our resources and wage earning potential for many americans competing in similar job markets that Mexicans do here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Putting up a complete, better wall would hugely impact their coming here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This country safer from potential terrorist intrusion with the wall?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Being for the wall?  Are you kidding me?  This is never about a wall, it is about national security and sovereignty.  If anyone says it is about protectionism, so what if it is? * LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me protectionism is bad and they are against it and I will ask them if they have a lock on their front door, if they lock their car, have a security light or security system?  *LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me they don't PROTECT what they have, and I'll call you a LIAR.
> 
> Being for the wall?   The issue here is BEING FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.  The wall makes us more secure with it than without it.  Anyone here arguing against national security is either a commie, an anti-American or has fruit loops for brains.
> 
> Better ways to do it?  BULL.
> 
> Cheaper ways to do it?  BULL?
> 
> Immoral?  Go fuck yourself.
> 
> Anyone who claims a wall is "immoral" against these mobs of dirty, stinking, diseased illegals but its not "immoral" for what blindly letting these people into the country is doing to us here, is a fucking idiot.  Maybe you don't see it where you live, but we are approaching 12 million of these people.  That's about 4% of the population.  Cut them off today and in another decade with their kids (all supported by low income government programs that come out of YOUR pocket, they'll be at 10%.
> 
> Like all things, you get what you fund.  We are funding a low income, low education, low skill, high dependence work force.   The exact OPPOSITE of what this country made itself great with.
> 
> Enough.  End it now.  Its the LAW.  Defend the borders.  I'm tired of hearing people argue against the most basic, fundamental responsibility of the federal government.  Trump:  tear the shit down until these motherfuckers in Congress say uncle!  It's go for broke right now and I say put the bastard democrats in prison if they continue to block what we put you in office to do.  If you don't like Trump and didn't put him in office, fine.  When you get YOUR guy in office, then it'll be your time to get YOUR agenda carried out.
> 
> But I really think democrats oppose the wall so much because THEY KNOW IT WILL WORK.  And they don't WANT it to work.  Democratic scum care less about Americans than they do every dirty wetback minority they can dig out from under a rock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone ever tell you that you are freaking HILARIOUS?  Yours was the funniest freaking post I've seen since I've been on this board.  Thank you for starting my day off with a laugh.  Now down to business:
> 
> 1) I am not arguing with ANYONE about your silly wall
> 
> 2)  This is NOT a debate forum, so we are not debating anything
> 
> 3)  Just because you make a bold assertion and put it in big blue letters will not make it come true
> 
> 4) * EVERY non - partisan* study I have read contradicts what the white supremacists are feeding Congress.  NOW, let me show you how this works:
> 
> "Despite all this, illegal immigration’s *overall impact on the US economy is small.* Low-skilled native workers who compete with unauthorized immigrants are the clearest losers. US employers, on the other hand, gain from lower labor costs and the ability to use their land, capital, and technology more productively. The stakes are highest for the unauthorized immigrants themselves, who see very substantial income gains after migrating. If we exclude these immigrants from the calculus, however (as domestic policymakers are naturally inclined to do), the small net gain that remains after subtracting US workers’ losses from US employers’ gains is tiny. *And if we account for the small fiscal burden that unauthorized immigrants impose, the overall economic benefit is close enough to zero to be essentially a wash*"
> 
> file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/Hanson-Dec09%20(3).pdf
> 
> (I had to copy and paste that link so you will have to do likewise to read it)
> 
> See the documentation in quotation marks and a citing source?  Notice how the study figures in not only the *cost*, but the* contribution* of the foreigner as well?  When you do that, you get a different economic picture.
> 
> You want people to take sides and if they don't agree with you  and then you use mob rule to ridicule and harass them?  That's your strategy? No wonder public opinion is swinging left.
> 
> 5)  The goalposts are once again being moved.  As soon as I answer one objection, you build the wall guys conjure up another.  My current discussion is that Ray has a totally different argument - and at least his argument is half ass honest.  Yours is *absolute stupidity*.
> 
> This is NOT an issue about National Security because the American people are *WILLINGLY* doing business with the foreigners.   There is no threat of war and they are not taking any more than we are willing to give
> 
> 6)  Just because you can deny what I'm saying will NEVER disprove it
> 
> 7)  You can go fuck yourself too.  I'd prefer to have said that in person
> 
> 8)  I've never weighed in on the morality of your silly wall so you had to create a straw man there in order to buffer the ass kicking you're taking here
> 
> 9)  Your dumbassery is really showing.  THREE times in this thread I have told you I'm not on the left; that I voted for Trump.  So, lying won't give much credence to your B.S.
> 
> 10)  Finally, all of this "wall" business was the talking points of the left BEFORE it was right wing fodder.  You should know the history of the arguments you're making.
> 
> It's damn foolish to trash the Constitution, take a dump on your unalienable Rights, and deliberately attempt to make America a third world dictatorship on the basis of lies.  Last night I heard the president of Egypt say that we are the world's strongest military power and it was our responsibility to help fight tyranny.  I don't know if I agree with his proposition; however, it is the epitome of idiocy to try and duplicate the ways of people who are inferior to you.
> 
> A better use of our money and time is to help other nations become like us so they don't feel a need to be at war with each other and not have the requisite knowledge to build a constitutional Republic with the potential of being financially strong and humane toward others.
Click to expand...




Porter Rockwell said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are lying.  It's ONE of *your *laundry list reasons for being for the wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCUSE ME for interjecting here, I see you are STILL arguing about the wall!  I honestly don't see what the debate is about:
> 
> Indigent Illegals crossing the southern borders in mass quantities?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This has a negative impact on our resources and wage earning potential for many americans competing in similar job markets that Mexicans do here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Putting up a complete, better wall would hugely impact their coming here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This country safer from potential terrorist intrusion with the wall?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Being for the wall?  Are you kidding me?  This is never about a wall, it is about national security and sovereignty.  If anyone says it is about protectionism, so what if it is? * LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me protectionism is bad and they are against it and I will ask them if they have a lock on their front door, if they lock their car, have a security light or security system?  *LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me they don't PROTECT what they have, and I'll call you a LIAR.
> 
> Being for the wall?   The issue here is BEING FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.  The wall makes us more secure with it than without it.  Anyone here arguing against national security is either a commie, an anti-American or has fruit loops for brains.
> 
> Better ways to do it?  BULL.
> 
> Cheaper ways to do it?  BULL?
> 
> Immoral?  Go fuck yourself.
> 
> Anyone who claims a wall is "immoral" against these mobs of dirty, stinking, diseased illegals but its not "immoral" for what blindly letting these people into the country is doing to us here, is a fucking idiot.  Maybe you don't see it where you live, but we are approaching 12 million of these people.  That's about 4% of the population.  Cut them off today and in another decade with their kids (all supported by low income government programs that come out of YOUR pocket, they'll be at 10%.
> 
> Like all things, you get what you fund.  We are funding a low income, low education, low skill, high dependence work force.   The exact OPPOSITE of what this country made itself great with.
> 
> Enough.  End it now.  Its the LAW.  Defend the borders.  I'm tired of hearing people argue against the most basic, fundamental responsibility of the federal government.  Trump:  tear the shit down until these motherfuckers in Congress say uncle!  It's go for broke right now and I say put the bastard democrats in prison if they continue to block what we put you in office to do.  If you don't like Trump and didn't put him in office, fine.  When you get YOUR guy in office, then it'll be your time to get YOUR agenda carried out.
> 
> But I really think democrats oppose the wall so much because THEY KNOW IT WILL WORK.  And they don't WANT it to work.  Democratic scum care less about Americans than they do every dirty wetback minority they can dig out from under a rock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone ever tell you that you are freaking HILARIOUS?  Yours was the funniest freaking post I've seen since I've been on this board.  Thank you for starting my day off with a laugh.  Now down to business:
> 
> 1) I am not arguing with ANYONE about your silly wall
> 
> 2)  This is NOT a debate forum, so we are not debating anything
> 
> 3)  Just because you make a bold assertion and put it in big blue letters will not make it come true
> 
> 4) * EVERY non - partisan* study I have read contradicts what the white supremacists are feeding Congress.  NOW, let me show you how this works:
> 
> "Despite all this, illegal immigration’s *overall impact on the US economy is small.* Low-skilled native workers who compete with unauthorized immigrants are the clearest losers. US employers, on the other hand, gain from lower labor costs and the ability to use their land, capital, and technology more productively. The stakes are highest for the unauthorized immigrants themselves, who see very substantial income gains after migrating. If we exclude these immigrants from the calculus, however (as domestic policymakers are naturally inclined to do), the small net gain that remains after subtracting US workers’ losses from US employers’ gains is tiny. *And if we account for the small fiscal burden that unauthorized immigrants impose, the overall economic benefit is close enough to zero to be essentially a wash*"
> 
> file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/Hanson-Dec09%20(3).pdf
> 
> (I had to copy and paste that link so you will have to do likewise to read it)
> 
> See the documentation in quotation marks and a citing source?  Notice how the study figures in not only the *cost*, but the* contribution* of the foreigner as well?  When you do that, you get a different economic picture.
> 
> You want people to take sides and if they don't agree with you  and then you use mob rule to ridicule and harass them?  That's your strategy? No wonder public opinion is swinging left.
> 
> 5)  The goalposts are once again being moved.  As soon as I answer one objection, you build the wall guys conjure up another.  My current discussion is that Ray has a totally different argument - and at least his argument is half ass honest.  Yours is *absolute stupidity*.
> 
> This is NOT an issue about National Security because the American people are *WILLINGLY* doing business with the foreigners.   There is no threat of war and they are not taking any more than we are willing to give
> 
> 6)  Just because you can deny what I'm saying will NEVER disprove it
> 
> 7)  You can go fuck yourself too.  I'd prefer to have said that in person
> 
> 8)  I've never weighed in on the morality of your silly wall so you had to create a straw man there in order to buffer the ass kicking you're taking here
> 
> 9)  Your dumbassery is really showing.  THREE times in this thread I have told you I'm not on the left; that I voted for Trump.  So, lying won't give much credence to your B.S.
> 
> 10)  Finally, all of this "wall" business was the talking points of the left BEFORE it was right wing fodder.  You should know the history of the arguments you're making.
> 
> It's damn foolish to trash the Constitution, take a dump on your unalienable Rights, and deliberately attempt to make America a third world dictatorship on the basis of lies.  Last night I heard the president of Egypt say that we are the world's strongest military power and it was our responsibility to help fight tyranny.  I don't know if I agree with his proposition; however, it is the epitome of idiocy to try and duplicate the ways of people who are inferior to you.
> 
> A better use of our money and time is to help other nations become like us so they don't feel a need to be at war with each other and not have the requisite knowledge to build a constitutional Republic with the potential of being financially strong and humane toward others.
Click to expand...

It is not my responsibility to pay to make them become like us.  It is their problem.  Their country.  And yheir responsibility.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eminent Domain doesn't exist in the US? Again border patrol agents have asked for it. Not sure why your or my opinion overrides their respective opinions as they are on the frontlines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tradition in the US is a bit different than most countries. Here we place a primacy on individual rights. Instead of asking why the will of individual property owners should override that of the border patrol, we first as the converse - why should the will of the border patrol override that of individual property owners?
> 
> Your use of the term "frontlines" suggests you buy into the war justification, which I find ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except they are on the frontlines. They have guns, they have taken casualties and the people trying to cross illegally are often brutalized by coyotes and drug cartel members. The wall IMO is necessary. You are of course free to disagree, it is a free country. And they are SMEs. If a doctor told you that you needed surgery would you dismiss his opinion because others disagree with it? He is the expert for a reason. Border Patrol agents are experts in border security and they are pleading for a wall. You show a lot of hubris ignoring their please. Unfortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier?  Years ago I worked in a warehouse.  The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.
> 
> The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.
> 
> We are NOT talking border security with the wall.  What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships.  You'd be better served with some regulation.  No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We tried laws, we tried regulation, we tried more border patrol agents, and these people still come here against our wishes.  Now we need more barriers to stop them from getting in.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have *NEVER* tried regulation.  You are operating on laws that are in excess of FIFTY years old and don't even apply to the situation.
> 
> The fact that you don't understand we are NOT going to keep people out discredits anything you say on this board.  Whether we like it or not, wall or no wall, they will come.  BTW, in view of what I just told you, there is a question you should ask in light of my response.  Surely, you are not so much of a dullard that you don't know what that question is.
> 
> If that seems unfair to you, it's the treatment I got from your side.  Then, again, you have only assumed things; you never ASK.
Click to expand...

1986 regulation was tried to deny their ability to work here.  Penalized businesses for hiring them.  The I-9 form.  They skirted this law by ignoring forged ids.  A network was set up to give fake ids to illegals.  When caught workers get deported and come right back


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are lying.  It's ONE of *your *laundry list reasons for being for the wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCUSE ME for interjecting here, I see you are STILL arguing about the wall!  I honestly don't see what the debate is about:
> 
> Indigent Illegals crossing the southern borders in mass quantities?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This has a negative impact on our resources and wage earning potential for many americans competing in similar job markets that Mexicans do here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Putting up a complete, better wall would hugely impact their coming here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This country safer from potential terrorist intrusion with the wall?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Being for the wall?  Are you kidding me?  This is never about a wall, it is about national security and sovereignty.  If anyone says it is about protectionism, so what if it is? * LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me protectionism is bad and they are against it and I will ask them if they have a lock on their front door, if they lock their car, have a security light or security system?  *LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me they don't PROTECT what they have, and I'll call you a LIAR.
> 
> Being for the wall?   The issue here is BEING FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.  The wall makes us more secure with it than without it.  Anyone here arguing against national security is either a commie, an anti-American or has fruit loops for brains.
> 
> Better ways to do it?  BULL.
> 
> Cheaper ways to do it?  BULL?
> 
> Immoral?  Go fuck yourself.
> 
> Anyone who claims a wall is "immoral" against these mobs of dirty, stinking, diseased illegals but its not "immoral" for what blindly letting these people into the country is doing to us here, is a fucking idiot.  Maybe you don't see it where you live, but we are approaching 12 million of these people.  That's about 4% of the population.  Cut them off today and in another decade with their kids (all supported by low income government programs that come out of YOUR pocket, they'll be at 10%.
> 
> Like all things, you get what you fund.  We are funding a low income, low education, low skill, high dependence work force.   The exact OPPOSITE of what this country made itself great with.
> 
> Enough.  End it now.  Its the LAW.  Defend the borders.  I'm tired of hearing people argue against the most basic, fundamental responsibility of the federal government.  Trump:  tear the shit down until these motherfuckers in Congress say uncle!  It's go for broke right now and I say put the bastard democrats in prison if they continue to block what we put you in office to do.  If you don't like Trump and didn't put him in office, fine.  When you get YOUR guy in office, then it'll be your time to get YOUR agenda carried out.
> 
> But I really think democrats oppose the wall so much because THEY KNOW IT WILL WORK.  And they don't WANT it to work.  Democratic scum care less about Americans than they do every dirty wetback minority they can dig out from under a rock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone ever tell you that you are freaking HILARIOUS?  Yours was the funniest freaking post I've seen since I've been on this board.  Thank you for starting my day off with a laugh.  Now down to business:
> 
> 1) I am not arguing with ANYONE about your silly wall
> 
> 2)  This is NOT a debate forum, so we are not debating anything
> 
> 3)  Just because you make a bold assertion and put it in big blue letters will not make it come true
> 
> 4) * EVERY non - partisan* study I have read contradicts what the white supremacists are feeding Congress.  NOW, let me show you how this works:
> 
> "Despite all this, illegal immigration’s *overall impact on the US economy is small.* Low-skilled native workers who compete with unauthorized immigrants are the clearest losers. US employers, on the other hand, gain from lower labor costs and the ability to use their land, capital, and technology more productively. The stakes are highest for the unauthorized immigrants themselves, who see very substantial income gains after migrating. If we exclude these immigrants from the calculus, however (as domestic policymakers are naturally inclined to do), the small net gain that remains after subtracting US workers’ losses from US employers’ gains is tiny. *And if we account for the small fiscal burden that unauthorized immigrants impose, the overall economic benefit is close enough to zero to be essentially a wash*"
> 
> file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/Hanson-Dec09%20(3).pdf
> 
> (I had to copy and paste that link so you will have to do likewise to read it)
> 
> See the documentation in quotation marks and a citing source?  Notice how the study figures in not only the *cost*, but the* contribution* of the foreigner as well?  When you do that, you get a different economic picture.
> 
> You want people to take sides and if they don't agree with you  and then you use mob rule to ridicule and harass them?  That's your strategy? No wonder public opinion is swinging left.
> 
> 5)  The goalposts are once again being moved.  As soon as I answer one objection, you build the wall guys conjure up another.  My current discussion is that Ray has a totally different argument - and at least his argument is half ass honest.  Yours is *absolute stupidity*.
> 
> This is NOT an issue about National Security because the American people are *WILLINGLY* doing business with the foreigners.   There is no threat of war and they are not taking any more than we are willing to give
> 
> 6)  Just because you can deny what I'm saying will NEVER disprove it
> 
> 7)  You can go fuck yourself too.  I'd prefer to have said that in person
> 
> 8)  I've never weighed in on the morality of your silly wall so you had to create a straw man there in order to buffer the ass kicking you're taking here
> 
> 9)  Your dumbassery is really showing.  THREE times in this thread I have told you I'm not on the left; that I voted for Trump.  So, lying won't give much credence to your B.S.
> 
> 10)  Finally, all of this "wall" business was the talking points of the left BEFORE it was right wing fodder.  You should know the history of the arguments you're making.
> 
> It's damn foolish to trash the Constitution, take a dump on your unalienable Rights, and deliberately attempt to make America a third world dictatorship on the basis of lies.  Last night I heard the president of Egypt say that we are the world's strongest military power and it was our responsibility to help fight tyranny.  I don't know if I agree with his proposition; however, it is the epitome of idiocy to try and duplicate the ways of people who are inferior to you.
> 
> A better use of our money and time is to help other nations become like us so they don't feel a need to be at war with each other and not have the requisite knowledge to build a constitutional Republic with the potential of being financially strong and humane toward others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a live link:  https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/Hanson-Dec09.pdf
> 
> And pardon me if I disregard information provided by a left wing one worlder think tank.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Well champ, the joke is now on you.  That was a link used by a pro-wall supporter in a debate with someone on another board.  I chose to read it.

Thank you for being dishonest about it.  It's going to make it easier to prove that build the wall guy is not the beaming paragon of virtue he thinks he is.  left wing one worlder think tank... LMAO.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are lying.  It's ONE of *your *laundry list reasons for being for the wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCUSE ME for interjecting here, I see you are STILL arguing about the wall!  I honestly don't see what the debate is about:
> 
> Indigent Illegals crossing the southern borders in mass quantities?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This has a negative impact on our resources and wage earning potential for many americans competing in similar job markets that Mexicans do here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Putting up a complete, better wall would hugely impact their coming here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This country safer from potential terrorist intrusion with the wall?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Being for the wall?  Are you kidding me?  This is never about a wall, it is about national security and sovereignty.  If anyone says it is about protectionism, so what if it is? * LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me protectionism is bad and they are against it and I will ask them if they have a lock on their front door, if they lock their car, have a security light or security system?  *LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me they don't PROTECT what they have, and I'll call you a LIAR.
> 
> Being for the wall?   The issue here is BEING FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.  The wall makes us more secure with it than without it.  Anyone here arguing against national security is either a commie, an anti-American or has fruit loops for brains.
> 
> Better ways to do it?  BULL.
> 
> Cheaper ways to do it?  BULL?
> 
> Immoral?  Go fuck yourself.
> 
> Anyone who claims a wall is "immoral" against these mobs of dirty, stinking, diseased illegals but its not "immoral" for what blindly letting these people into the country is doing to us here, is a fucking idiot.  Maybe you don't see it where you live, but we are approaching 12 million of these people.  That's about 4% of the population.  Cut them off today and in another decade with their kids (all supported by low income government programs that come out of YOUR pocket, they'll be at 10%.
> 
> Like all things, you get what you fund.  We are funding a low income, low education, low skill, high dependence work force.   The exact OPPOSITE of what this country made itself great with.
> 
> Enough.  End it now.  Its the LAW.  Defend the borders.  I'm tired of hearing people argue against the most basic, fundamental responsibility of the federal government.  Trump:  tear the shit down until these motherfuckers in Congress say uncle!  It's go for broke right now and I say put the bastard democrats in prison if they continue to block what we put you in office to do.  If you don't like Trump and didn't put him in office, fine.  When you get YOUR guy in office, then it'll be your time to get YOUR agenda carried out.
> 
> But I really think democrats oppose the wall so much because THEY KNOW IT WILL WORK.  And they don't WANT it to work.  Democratic scum care less about Americans than they do every dirty wetback minority they can dig out from under a rock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone ever tell you that you are freaking HILARIOUS?  Yours was the funniest freaking post I've seen since I've been on this board.  Thank you for starting my day off with a laugh.  Now down to business:
> 
> 1) I am not arguing with ANYONE about your silly wall
> 
> 2)  This is NOT a debate forum, so we are not debating anything
> 
> 3)  Just because you make a bold assertion and put it in big blue letters will not make it come true
> 
> 4) * EVERY non - partisan* study I have read contradicts what the white supremacists are feeding Congress.  NOW, let me show you how this works:
> 
> "Despite all this, illegal immigration’s *overall impact on the US economy is small.* Low-skilled native workers who compete with unauthorized immigrants are the clearest losers. US employers, on the other hand, gain from lower labor costs and the ability to use their land, capital, and technology more productively. The stakes are highest for the unauthorized immigrants themselves, who see very substantial income gains after migrating. If we exclude these immigrants from the calculus, however (as domestic policymakers are naturally inclined to do), the small net gain that remains after subtracting US workers’ losses from US employers’ gains is tiny. *And if we account for the small fiscal burden that unauthorized immigrants impose, the overall economic benefit is close enough to zero to be essentially a wash*"
> 
> file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/Hanson-Dec09%20(3).pdf
> 
> (I had to copy and paste that link so you will have to do likewise to read it)
> 
> See the documentation in quotation marks and a citing source?  Notice how the study figures in not only the *cost*, but the* contribution* of the foreigner as well?  When you do that, you get a different economic picture.
> 
> You want people to take sides and if they don't agree with you  and then you use mob rule to ridicule and harass them?  That's your strategy? No wonder public opinion is swinging left.
> 
> 5)  The goalposts are once again being moved.  As soon as I answer one objection, you build the wall guys conjure up another.  My current discussion is that Ray has a totally different argument - and at least his argument is half ass honest.  Yours is *absolute stupidity*.
> 
> This is NOT an issue about National Security because the American people are *WILLINGLY* doing business with the foreigners.   There is no threat of war and they are not taking any more than we are willing to give
> 
> 6)  Just because you can deny what I'm saying will NEVER disprove it
> 
> 7)  You can go fuck yourself too.  I'd prefer to have said that in person
> 
> 8)  I've never weighed in on the morality of your silly wall so you had to create a straw man there in order to buffer the ass kicking you're taking here
> 
> 9)  Your dumbassery is really showing.  THREE times in this thread I have told you I'm not on the left; that I voted for Trump.  So, lying won't give much credence to your B.S.
> 
> 10)  Finally, all of this "wall" business was the talking points of the left BEFORE it was right wing fodder.  You should know the history of the arguments you're making.
> 
> It's damn foolish to trash the Constitution, take a dump on your unalienable Rights, and deliberately attempt to make America a third world dictatorship on the basis of lies.  Last night I heard the president of Egypt say that we are the world's strongest military power and it was our responsibility to help fight tyranny.  I don't know if I agree with his proposition; however, it is the epitome of idiocy to try and duplicate the ways of people who are inferior to you.
> 
> A better use of our money and time is to help other nations become like us so they don't feel a need to be at war with each other and not have the requisite knowledge to build a constitutional Republic with the potential of being financially strong and humane toward others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are lying.  It's ONE of *your *laundry list reasons for being for the wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> EXCUSE ME for interjecting here, I see you are STILL arguing about the wall!  I honestly don't see what the debate is about:
> 
> Indigent Illegals crossing the southern borders in mass quantities?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This has a negative impact on our resources and wage earning potential for many americans competing in similar job markets that Mexicans do here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Putting up a complete, better wall would hugely impact their coming here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This country safer from potential terrorist intrusion with the wall?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Being for the wall?  Are you kidding me?  This is never about a wall, it is about national security and sovereignty.  If anyone says it is about protectionism, so what if it is? * LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me protectionism is bad and they are against it and I will ask them if they have a lock on their front door, if they lock their car, have a security light or security system?  *LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me they don't PROTECT what they have, and I'll call you a LIAR.
> 
> Being for the wall?   The issue here is BEING FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.  The wall makes us more secure with it than without it.  Anyone here arguing against national security is either a commie, an anti-American or has fruit loops for brains.
> 
> Better ways to do it?  BULL.
> 
> Cheaper ways to do it?  BULL?
> 
> Immoral?  Go fuck yourself.
> 
> Anyone who claims a wall is "immoral" against these mobs of dirty, stinking, diseased illegals but its not "immoral" for what blindly letting these people into the country is doing to us here, is a fucking idiot.  Maybe you don't see it where you live, but we are approaching 12 million of these people.  That's about 4% of the population.  Cut them off today and in another decade with their kids (all supported by low income government programs that come out of YOUR pocket, they'll be at 10%.
> 
> Like all things, you get what you fund.  We are funding a low income, low education, low skill, high dependence work force.   The exact OPPOSITE of what this country made itself great with.
> 
> Enough.  End it now.  Its the LAW.  Defend the borders.  I'm tired of hearing people argue against the most basic, fundamental responsibility of the federal government.  Trump:  tear the shit down until these motherfuckers in Congress say uncle!  It's go for broke right now and I say put the bastard democrats in prison if they continue to block what we put you in office to do.  If you don't like Trump and didn't put him in office, fine.  When you get YOUR guy in office, then it'll be your time to get YOUR agenda carried out.
> 
> But I really think democrats oppose the wall so much because THEY KNOW IT WILL WORK.  And they don't WANT it to work.  Democratic scum care less about Americans than they do every dirty wetback minority they can dig out from under a rock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone ever tell you that you are freaking HILARIOUS?  Yours was the funniest freaking post I've seen since I've been on this board.  Thank you for starting my day off with a laugh.  Now down to business:
> 
> 1) I am not arguing with ANYONE about your silly wall
> 
> 2)  This is NOT a debate forum, so we are not debating anything
> 
> 3)  Just because you make a bold assertion and put it in big blue letters will not make it come true
> 
> 4) * EVERY non - partisan* study I have read contradicts what the white supremacists are feeding Congress.  NOW, let me show you how this works:
> 
> "Despite all this, illegal immigration’s *overall impact on the US economy is small.* Low-skilled native workers who compete with unauthorized immigrants are the clearest losers. US employers, on the other hand, gain from lower labor costs and the ability to use their land, capital, and technology more productively. The stakes are highest for the unauthorized immigrants themselves, who see very substantial income gains after migrating. If we exclude these immigrants from the calculus, however (as domestic policymakers are naturally inclined to do), the small net gain that remains after subtracting US workers’ losses from US employers’ gains is tiny. *And if we account for the small fiscal burden that unauthorized immigrants impose, the overall economic benefit is close enough to zero to be essentially a wash*"
> 
> file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/Hanson-Dec09%20(3).pdf
> 
> (I had to copy and paste that link so you will have to do likewise to read it)
> 
> See the documentation in quotation marks and a citing source?  Notice how the study figures in not only the *cost*, but the* contribution* of the foreigner as well?  When you do that, you get a different economic picture.
> 
> You want people to take sides and if they don't agree with you  and then you use mob rule to ridicule and harass them?  That's your strategy? No wonder public opinion is swinging left.
> 
> 5)  The goalposts are once again being moved.  As soon as I answer one objection, you build the wall guys conjure up another.  My current discussion is that Ray has a totally different argument - and at least his argument is half ass honest.  Yours is *absolute stupidity*.
> 
> This is NOT an issue about National Security because the American people are *WILLINGLY* doing business with the foreigners.   There is no threat of war and they are not taking any more than we are willing to give
> 
> 6)  Just because you can deny what I'm saying will NEVER disprove it
> 
> 7)  You can go fuck yourself too.  I'd prefer to have said that in person
> 
> 8)  I've never weighed in on the morality of your silly wall so you had to create a straw man there in order to buffer the ass kicking you're taking here
> 
> 9)  Your dumbassery is really showing.  THREE times in this thread I have told you I'm not on the left; that I voted for Trump.  So, lying won't give much credence to your B.S.
> 
> 10)  Finally, all of this "wall" business was the talking points of the left BEFORE it was right wing fodder.  You should know the history of the arguments you're making.
> 
> It's damn foolish to trash the Constitution, take a dump on your unalienable Rights, and deliberately attempt to make America a third world dictatorship on the basis of lies.  Last night I heard the president of Egypt say that we are the world's strongest military power and it was our responsibility to help fight tyranny.  I don't know if I agree with his proposition; however, it is the epitome of idiocy to try and duplicate the ways of people who are inferior to you.
> 
> A better use of our money and time is to help other nations become like us so they don't feel a need to be at war with each other and not have the requisite knowledge to build a constitutional Republic with the potential of being financially strong and humane toward others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not my responsibility to pay to make them become like us.  It is their problem.  Their country.  And yheir responsibility.
Click to expand...


You will either be a leader of a follower.  You choose to be a follower.  When America mirrors Venezuela, you'll be as happy as a pig in slop.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tradition in the US is a bit different than most countries. Here we place a primacy on individual rights. Instead of asking why the will of individual property owners should override that of the border patrol, we first as the converse - why should the will of the border patrol override that of individual property owners?
> 
> Your use of the term "frontlines" suggests you buy into the war justification, which I find ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except they are on the frontlines. They have guns, they have taken casualties and the people trying to cross illegally are often brutalized by coyotes and drug cartel members. The wall IMO is necessary. You are of course free to disagree, it is a free country. And they are SMEs. If a doctor told you that you needed surgery would you dismiss his opinion because others disagree with it? He is the expert for a reason. Border Patrol agents are experts in border security and they are pleading for a wall. You show a lot of hubris ignoring their please. Unfortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier?  Years ago I worked in a warehouse.  The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.
> 
> The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.
> 
> We are NOT talking border security with the wall.  What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships.  You'd be better served with some regulation.  No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We tried laws, we tried regulation, we tried more border patrol agents, and these people still come here against our wishes.  Now we need more barriers to stop them from getting in.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have *NEVER* tried regulation.  You are operating on laws that are in excess of FIFTY years old and don't even apply to the situation.
> 
> The fact that you don't understand we are NOT going to keep people out discredits anything you say on this board.  Whether we like it or not, wall or no wall, they will come.  BTW, in view of what I just told you, there is a question you should ask in light of my response.  Surely, you are not so much of a dullard that you don't know what that question is.
> 
> If that seems unfair to you, it's the treatment I got from your side.  Then, again, you have only assumed things; you never ASK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1986 regulation was tried to deny their ability to work here.  Penalized businesses for hiring them.  The I-9 form.  They skirted this law by ignoring forged ids.  A network was set up to give fake ids to illegals.  When caught workers get deported and come right back
Click to expand...


That wasn't regulation, but unconstitutional control.  Here is what is wrong with what happened there:

The IRS send out a form with an OMB number on it (that's the Office of Management and Budget.)  That form told employers by what authority the government was "requiring" compliance.

The IRS had exactly ZERO, ZILCH, NADA when it came to jurisdiction over matters dealing with Socialist Security.  So, I like a lot of people found a good use for those forms.

There is difference between control and regulation.  Control is shutting off a road.  Regulation is when you regulate the flow so that the traffic moves on that road in an orderly fashion.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eminent Domain doesn't exist in the US? Again border patrol agents have asked for it. Not sure why your or my opinion overrides their respective opinions as they are on the frontlines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tradition in the US is a bit different than most countries. Here we place a primacy on individual rights. Instead of asking why the will of individual property owners should override that of the border patrol, we first as the converse - why should the will of the border patrol override that of individual property owners?
> 
> Your use of the term "frontlines" suggests you buy into the war justification, which I find ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except they are on the frontlines. They have guns, they have taken casualties and the people trying to cross illegally are often brutalized by coyotes and drug cartel members. The wall IMO is necessary. You are of course free to disagree, it is a free country. And they are SMEs. If a doctor told you that you needed surgery would you dismiss his opinion because others disagree with it? He is the expert for a reason. Border Patrol agents are experts in border security and they are pleading for a wall. You show a lot of hubris ignoring their please. Unfortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier?  Years ago I worked in a warehouse.  The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.
> 
> The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.
> 
> We are NOT talking border security with the wall.  What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships.  You'd be better served with some regulation.  No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #1) I had a similar situation and the owner did put in AC
> #2) This is not a runny a nose, this is a constant bleed.
> #3) I disagree this is mutual beneficial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't seem to understand that's what ports of entry are for.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


No, I don't understand what the relevance of it is.  YOU don't know what the bottom line is as to what ports of entry are for... OR maybe you know, but are like Ray.


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> I may be playing the devil's advocate just to show you the flaws in your thinking process



Silly man, I'm an expert logician, used to teach it.  There are no flaws in my thought process since they are axiomatic tautologies.  You're not whipping anything but your own ego.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are lying.  It's ONE of *your *laundry list reasons for being for the wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCUSE ME for interjecting here, I see you are STILL arguing about the wall!  I honestly don't see what the debate is about:
> 
> Indigent Illegals crossing the southern borders in mass quantities?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This has a negative impact on our resources and wage earning potential for many americans competing in similar job markets that Mexicans do here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Putting up a complete, better wall would hugely impact their coming here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This country safer from potential terrorist intrusion with the wall?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Being for the wall?  Are you kidding me?  This is never about a wall, it is about national security and sovereignty.  If anyone says it is about protectionism, so what if it is? * LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me protectionism is bad and they are against it and I will ask them if they have a lock on their front door, if they lock their car, have a security light or security system?  *LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me they don't PROTECT what they have, and I'll call you a LIAR.
> 
> Being for the wall?   The issue here is BEING FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.  The wall makes us more secure with it than without it.  Anyone here arguing against national security is either a commie, an anti-American or has fruit loops for brains.
> 
> Better ways to do it?  BULL.
> 
> Cheaper ways to do it?  BULL?
> 
> Immoral?  Go fuck yourself.
> 
> Anyone who claims a wall is "immoral" against these mobs of dirty, stinking, diseased illegals but its not "immoral" for what blindly letting these people into the country is doing to us here, is a fucking idiot.  Maybe you don't see it where you live, but we are approaching 12 million of these people.  That's about 4% of the population.  Cut them off today and in another decade with their kids (all supported by low income government programs that come out of YOUR pocket, they'll be at 10%.
> 
> Like all things, you get what you fund.  We are funding a low income, low education, low skill, high dependence work force.   The exact OPPOSITE of what this country made itself great with.
> 
> Enough.  End it now.  Its the LAW.  Defend the borders.  I'm tired of hearing people argue against the most basic, fundamental responsibility of the federal government.  Trump:  tear the shit down until these motherfuckers in Congress say uncle!  It's go for broke right now and I say put the bastard democrats in prison if they continue to block what we put you in office to do.  If you don't like Trump and didn't put him in office, fine.  When you get YOUR guy in office, then it'll be your time to get YOUR agenda carried out.
> 
> But I really think democrats oppose the wall so much because THEY KNOW IT WILL WORK.  And they don't WANT it to work.  Democratic scum care less about Americans than they do every dirty wetback minority they can dig out from under a rock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what we heard 20 years when we started putting up real barriers.  And that's what we heard in 2006 when we replaced them with barriers 4 feet higher and that's what we're hearing now as we plan to replace them with barriers another 6 feet higher.
> 
> Do you realize Homeland Security is asking 40 billion dollars to secure our southern border. Last year deportations were 170,000.  The border patrol estimates that an equal number made it into the country.  That's 340,000 people that were either apprehended or made into the country.  That works out to about $108,000 per illegal immigrant.
> 
> Assuming the wall were 100% effective which of course it won't be then the cost for keeping that 170,000 a year out of the country would be about $216,000 a person.  Homeland Security estimated that the wall would reduce illegal immigration by 50% which brings the figure to $432,000 per person. This all assumes that we don't overrun the budget and the wall is effective as Homeland Security projects, and Democrats allow the project to reach completion.
Click to expand...



Your number are way off, just in Oct they apprehended 21,000 more than double that of last year.


.


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> When America mirrors Venezuela, you'll be as happy as a pig in slop.



DUDE.  You have a fucking disconnected with reality.  You need serious help.  Maybe Thorazine.  Were you even conscious the last few years of Obama's reign?  Another liberal who doesn't know what day of the week it is while telling everyone else how confused they are!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

toobfreak said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I may be playing the devil's advocate just to show you the flaws in your thinking process
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly man, I'm an expert logician, used to teach it.  There are no flaws in my thought process since they are axiomatic tautologies.  You're not whipping anything but your own ego.
Click to expand...


You could sue your brain for non-support and get a million dollar judgment.


----------



## OKTexas

sealybobo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...



Yep, given enough time and resources, but they remain and impediment to the progress of illegals.


.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

toobfreak said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> When America mirrors Venezuela, you'll be as happy as a pig in slop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DUDE.  You have a fucking disconnected with reality.  You need serious help.  Maybe Thorazine.  Were you even conscious the last few years of Obama's reign?  Another liberal who doesn't know what day of the week it is while telling everyone else how confused they are!
Click to expand...


The moment you called me a liberal is the instant you proved, beyond any question that you are a fake, phony, poseur trying to post here in order to have some relevance.  I've NEVER supported a liberal - not with my vote, not with proposed solutions, not in name, not in ideology.  

I would call you an idiot, but that would be an insult to the word.


----------



## dblack

OKTexas said:


> Why are you only concerned about border properties? The government uses imminent domain to take properties all the time. Where's your concern for the folks that lose land for a Post Office or other government functions?



I don't support eminent domain at all. But apparently "libertarians" like bripat9643 do. Whodathunkit?


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because we can't hold them all. You seem to think anyone who wants to should be able to move to America. That would be the end of America.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not.  We just need to have policies that are fairer and make sense.  Do we really think Ethiopians make such good citizens that they should be admitted in a year and Hondurans should have to wait 10 year or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we want either unless they have skills this country needs? Have you ever been to rural areas of Honduras?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but I've been to Guatemala. It's not about letting the in the people we need.  It's about changing the environment that sends tens of thousand of people to our border.  Instead of sending our military to the our border to sit on their ass and build housing for detainees, we need to clean out the Northern Triangle and stop sending money to these dictators that funnel it to cartels and gangs.  We need to increase the immigration limits on Central American countries by only few thousand so there is reasonable wait time.  That in itself will reduce the number heading toward our border.  By making life better in these countries we will not only reduce illegal immigration but also reduce drugs headed toward the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, we can't police or be the refuge for every country in the world and maintain our lifestyle and culture. We already have too much crime and poverty, there is no reason to import more. Past interventions have proved fruitless and now you want to throw good money after bad. I can't buy that, it's time to take care of Americans and if we need to use force to secure our country, so be it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you take a moment and kindly explain American culture to me?
Click to expand...



No, if you can't look around at the changes that have already occurred, that's your problem. BTW you asked me for a court case yesterday, I provided it and haven't acknowledged it.

.


----------



## Votto

Geaux4it said:


> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux



A better question would be, how is building a wall so wrong when it feels so right?


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are lying.  It's ONE of *your *laundry list reasons for being for the wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCUSE ME for interjecting here, I see you are STILL arguing about the wall!  I honestly don't see what the debate is about:
> 
> Indigent Illegals crossing the southern borders in mass quantities?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This has a negative impact on our resources and wage earning potential for many americans competing in similar job markets that Mexicans do here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Putting up a complete, better wall would hugely impact their coming here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This country safer from potential terrorist intrusion with the wall?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Being for the wall?  Are you kidding me?  This is never about a wall, it is about national security and sovereignty.  If anyone says it is about protectionism, so what if it is? * LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me protectionism is bad and they are against it and I will ask them if they have a lock on their front door, if they lock their car, have a security light or security system?  *LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me they don't PROTECT what they have, and I'll call you a LIAR.
> 
> Being for the wall?   The issue here is BEING FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.  The wall makes us more secure with it than without it.  Anyone here arguing against national security is either a commie, an anti-American or has fruit loops for brains.
> 
> Better ways to do it?  BULL.
> 
> Cheaper ways to do it?  BULL?
> 
> Immoral?  Go fuck yourself.
> 
> Anyone who claims a wall is "immoral" against these mobs of dirty, stinking, diseased illegals but its not "immoral" for what blindly letting these people into the country is doing to us here, is a fucking idiot.  Maybe you don't see it where you live, but we are approaching 12 million of these people.  That's about 4% of the population.  Cut them off today and in another decade with their kids (all supported by low income government programs that come out of YOUR pocket, they'll be at 10%.
> 
> Like all things, you get what you fund.  We are funding a low income, low education, low skill, high dependence work force.   The exact OPPOSITE of what this country made itself great with.
> 
> Enough.  End it now.  Its the LAW.  Defend the borders.  I'm tired of hearing people argue against the most basic, fundamental responsibility of the federal government.  Trump:  tear the shit down until these motherfuckers in Congress say uncle!  It's go for broke right now and I say put the bastard democrats in prison if they continue to block what we put you in office to do.  If you don't like Trump and didn't put him in office, fine.  When you get YOUR guy in office, then it'll be your time to get YOUR agenda carried out.
> 
> But I really think democrats oppose the wall so much because THEY KNOW IT WILL WORK.  And they don't WANT it to work.  Democratic scum care less about Americans than they do every dirty wetback minority they can dig out from under a rock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone ever tell you that you are freaking HILARIOUS?  Yours was the funniest freaking post I've seen since I've been on this board.  Thank you for starting my day off with a laugh.  Now down to business:
> 
> 1) I am not arguing with ANYONE about your silly wall
> 
> 2)  This is NOT a debate forum, so we are not debating anything
> 
> 3)  Just because you make a bold assertion and put it in big blue letters will not make it come true
> 
> 4) * EVERY non - partisan* study I have read contradicts what the white supremacists are feeding Congress.  NOW, let me show you how this works:
> 
> "Despite all this, illegal immigration’s *overall impact on the US economy is small.* Low-skilled native workers who compete with unauthorized immigrants are the clearest losers. US employers, on the other hand, gain from lower labor costs and the ability to use their land, capital, and technology more productively. The stakes are highest for the unauthorized immigrants themselves, who see very substantial income gains after migrating. If we exclude these immigrants from the calculus, however (as domestic policymakers are naturally inclined to do), the small net gain that remains after subtracting US workers’ losses from US employers’ gains is tiny. *And if we account for the small fiscal burden that unauthorized immigrants impose, the overall economic benefit is close enough to zero to be essentially a wash*"
> 
> file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/Hanson-Dec09%20(3).pdf
> 
> (I had to copy and paste that link so you will have to do likewise to read it)
> 
> See the documentation in quotation marks and a citing source?  Notice how the study figures in not only the *cost*, but the* contribution* of the foreigner as well?  When you do that, you get a different economic picture.
> 
> You want people to take sides and if they don't agree with you  and then you use mob rule to ridicule and harass them?  That's your strategy? No wonder public opinion is swinging left.
> 
> 5)  The goalposts are once again being moved.  As soon as I answer one objection, you build the wall guys conjure up another.  My current discussion is that Ray has a totally different argument - and at least his argument is half ass honest.  Yours is *absolute stupidity*.
> 
> This is NOT an issue about National Security because the American people are *WILLINGLY* doing business with the foreigners.   There is no threat of war and they are not taking any more than we are willing to give
> 
> 6)  Just because you can deny what I'm saying will NEVER disprove it
> 
> 7)  You can go fuck yourself too.  I'd prefer to have said that in person
> 
> 8)  I've never weighed in on the morality of your silly wall so you had to create a straw man there in order to buffer the ass kicking you're taking here
> 
> 9)  Your dumbassery is really showing.  THREE times in this thread I have told you I'm not on the left; that I voted for Trump.  So, lying won't give much credence to your B.S.
> 
> 10)  Finally, all of this "wall" business was the talking points of the left BEFORE it was right wing fodder.  You should know the history of the arguments you're making.
> 
> It's damn foolish to trash the Constitution, take a dump on your unalienable Rights, and deliberately attempt to make America a third world dictatorship on the basis of lies.  Last night I heard the president of Egypt say that we are the world's strongest military power and it was our responsibility to help fight tyranny.  I don't know if I agree with his proposition; however, it is the epitome of idiocy to try and duplicate the ways of people who are inferior to you.
> 
> A better use of our money and time is to help other nations become like us so they don't feel a need to be at war with each other and not have the requisite knowledge to build a constitutional Republic with the potential of being financially strong and humane toward others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a live link:  https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/Hanson-Dec09.pdf
> 
> And pardon me if I disregard information provided by a left wing one worlder think tank.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well champ, the joke is now on you.  That was a link used by a pro-wall supporter in a debate with someone on another board.  I chose to read it.
> 
> Thank you for being dishonest about it.  It's going to make it easier to prove that build the wall guy is not the beaming paragon of virtue he thinks he is.  left wing one worlder think tank... LMAO.
Click to expand...



Did you bother to look at the other projects Hanson is involved in? His bias is obvious like most left wing academics. The stagnant numbers he used are totally outdated, they haven't changed in almost 15 years. Anyone who believes there are only 12 million illegals in this country are delusional, real numbers are most likely 4 times that, or higher.

.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are lying.  It's ONE of *your *laundry list reasons for being for the wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCUSE ME for interjecting here, I see you are STILL arguing about the wall!  I honestly don't see what the debate is about:
> 
> Indigent Illegals crossing the southern borders in mass quantities?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This has a negative impact on our resources and wage earning potential for many americans competing in similar job markets that Mexicans do here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Putting up a complete, better wall would hugely impact their coming here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This country safer from potential terrorist intrusion with the wall?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Being for the wall?  Are you kidding me?  This is never about a wall, it is about national security and sovereignty.  If anyone says it is about protectionism, so what if it is? * LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me protectionism is bad and they are against it and I will ask them if they have a lock on their front door, if they lock their car, have a security light or security system?  *LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me they don't PROTECT what they have, and I'll call you a LIAR.
> 
> Being for the wall?   The issue here is BEING FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.  The wall makes us more secure with it than without it.  Anyone here arguing against national security is either a commie, an anti-American or has fruit loops for brains.
> 
> Better ways to do it?  BULL.
> 
> Cheaper ways to do it?  BULL?
> 
> Immoral?  Go fuck yourself.
> 
> Anyone who claims a wall is "immoral" against these mobs of dirty, stinking, diseased illegals but its not "immoral" for what blindly letting these people into the country is doing to us here, is a fucking idiot.  Maybe you don't see it where you live, but we are approaching 12 million of these people.  That's about 4% of the population.  Cut them off today and in another decade with their kids (all supported by low income government programs that come out of YOUR pocket, they'll be at 10%.
> 
> Like all things, you get what you fund.  We are funding a low income, low education, low skill, high dependence work force.   The exact OPPOSITE of what this country made itself great with.
> 
> Enough.  End it now.  Its the LAW.  Defend the borders.  I'm tired of hearing people argue against the most basic, fundamental responsibility of the federal government.  Trump:  tear the shit down until these motherfuckers in Congress say uncle!  It's go for broke right now and I say put the bastard democrats in prison if they continue to block what we put you in office to do.  If you don't like Trump and didn't put him in office, fine.  When you get YOUR guy in office, then it'll be your time to get YOUR agenda carried out.
> 
> But I really think democrats oppose the wall so much because THEY KNOW IT WILL WORK.  And they don't WANT it to work.  Democratic scum care less about Americans than they do every dirty wetback minority they can dig out from under a rock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone ever tell you that you are freaking HILARIOUS?  Yours was the funniest freaking post I've seen since I've been on this board.  Thank you for starting my day off with a laugh.  Now down to business:
> 
> 1) I am not arguing with ANYONE about your silly wall
> 
> 2)  This is NOT a debate forum, so we are not debating anything
> 
> 3)  Just because you make a bold assertion and put it in big blue letters will not make it come true
> 
> 4) * EVERY non - partisan* study I have read contradicts what the white supremacists are feeding Congress.  NOW, let me show you how this works:
> 
> "Despite all this, illegal immigration’s *overall impact on the US economy is small.* Low-skilled native workers who compete with unauthorized immigrants are the clearest losers. US employers, on the other hand, gain from lower labor costs and the ability to use their land, capital, and technology more productively. The stakes are highest for the unauthorized immigrants themselves, who see very substantial income gains after migrating. If we exclude these immigrants from the calculus, however (as domestic policymakers are naturally inclined to do), the small net gain that remains after subtracting US workers’ losses from US employers’ gains is tiny. *And if we account for the small fiscal burden that unauthorized immigrants impose, the overall economic benefit is close enough to zero to be essentially a wash*"
> 
> file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/Hanson-Dec09%20(3).pdf
> 
> (I had to copy and paste that link so you will have to do likewise to read it)
> 
> See the documentation in quotation marks and a citing source?  Notice how the study figures in not only the *cost*, but the* contribution* of the foreigner as well?  When you do that, you get a different economic picture.
> 
> You want people to take sides and if they don't agree with you  and then you use mob rule to ridicule and harass them?  That's your strategy? No wonder public opinion is swinging left.
> 
> 5)  The goalposts are once again being moved.  As soon as I answer one objection, you build the wall guys conjure up another.  My current discussion is that Ray has a totally different argument - and at least his argument is half ass honest.  Yours is *absolute stupidity*.
> 
> This is NOT an issue about National Security because the American people are *WILLINGLY* doing business with the foreigners.   There is no threat of war and they are not taking any more than we are willing to give
> 
> 6)  Just because you can deny what I'm saying will NEVER disprove it
> 
> 7)  You can go fuck yourself too.  I'd prefer to have said that in person
> 
> 8)  I've never weighed in on the morality of your silly wall so you had to create a straw man there in order to buffer the ass kicking you're taking here
> 
> 9)  Your dumbassery is really showing.  THREE times in this thread I have told you I'm not on the left; that I voted for Trump.  So, lying won't give much credence to your B.S.
> 
> 10)  Finally, all of this "wall" business was the talking points of the left BEFORE it was right wing fodder.  You should know the history of the arguments you're making.
> 
> It's damn foolish to trash the Constitution, take a dump on your unalienable Rights, and deliberately attempt to make America a third world dictatorship on the basis of lies.  Last night I heard the president of Egypt say that we are the world's strongest military power and it was our responsibility to help fight tyranny.  I don't know if I agree with his proposition; however, it is the epitome of idiocy to try and duplicate the ways of people who are inferior to you.
> 
> A better use of our money and time is to help other nations become like us so they don't feel a need to be at war with each other and not have the requisite knowledge to build a constitutional Republic with the potential of being financially strong and humane toward others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are lying.  It's ONE of *your *laundry list reasons for being for the wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> EXCUSE ME for interjecting here, I see you are STILL arguing about the wall!  I honestly don't see what the debate is about:
> 
> Indigent Illegals crossing the southern borders in mass quantities?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This has a negative impact on our resources and wage earning potential for many americans competing in similar job markets that Mexicans do here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Putting up a complete, better wall would hugely impact their coming here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This country safer from potential terrorist intrusion with the wall?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Being for the wall?  Are you kidding me?  This is never about a wall, it is about national security and sovereignty.  If anyone says it is about protectionism, so what if it is? * LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me protectionism is bad and they are against it and I will ask them if they have a lock on their front door, if they lock their car, have a security light or security system?  *LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me they don't PROTECT what they have, and I'll call you a LIAR.
> 
> Being for the wall?   The issue here is BEING FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.  The wall makes us more secure with it than without it.  Anyone here arguing against national security is either a commie, an anti-American or has fruit loops for brains.
> 
> Better ways to do it?  BULL.
> 
> Cheaper ways to do it?  BULL?
> 
> Immoral?  Go fuck yourself.
> 
> Anyone who claims a wall is "immoral" against these mobs of dirty, stinking, diseased illegals but its not "immoral" for what blindly letting these people into the country is doing to us here, is a fucking idiot.  Maybe you don't see it where you live, but we are approaching 12 million of these people.  That's about 4% of the population.  Cut them off today and in another decade with their kids (all supported by low income government programs that come out of YOUR pocket, they'll be at 10%.
> 
> Like all things, you get what you fund.  We are funding a low income, low education, low skill, high dependence work force.   The exact OPPOSITE of what this country made itself great with.
> 
> Enough.  End it now.  Its the LAW.  Defend the borders.  I'm tired of hearing people argue against the most basic, fundamental responsibility of the federal government.  Trump:  tear the shit down until these motherfuckers in Congress say uncle!  It's go for broke right now and I say put the bastard democrats in prison if they continue to block what we put you in office to do.  If you don't like Trump and didn't put him in office, fine.  When you get YOUR guy in office, then it'll be your time to get YOUR agenda carried out.
> 
> But I really think democrats oppose the wall so much because THEY KNOW IT WILL WORK.  And they don't WANT it to work.  Democratic scum care less about Americans than they do every dirty wetback minority they can dig out from under a rock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone ever tell you that you are freaking HILARIOUS?  Yours was the funniest freaking post I've seen since I've been on this board.  Thank you for starting my day off with a laugh.  Now down to business:
> 
> 1) I am not arguing with ANYONE about your silly wall
> 
> 2)  This is NOT a debate forum, so we are not debating anything
> 
> 3)  Just because you make a bold assertion and put it in big blue letters will not make it come true
> 
> 4) * EVERY non - partisan* study I have read contradicts what the white supremacists are feeding Congress.  NOW, let me show you how this works:
> 
> "Despite all this, illegal immigration’s *overall impact on the US economy is small.* Low-skilled native workers who compete with unauthorized immigrants are the clearest losers. US employers, on the other hand, gain from lower labor costs and the ability to use their land, capital, and technology more productively. The stakes are highest for the unauthorized immigrants themselves, who see very substantial income gains after migrating. If we exclude these immigrants from the calculus, however (as domestic policymakers are naturally inclined to do), the small net gain that remains after subtracting US workers’ losses from US employers’ gains is tiny. *And if we account for the small fiscal burden that unauthorized immigrants impose, the overall economic benefit is close enough to zero to be essentially a wash*"
> 
> file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/Hanson-Dec09%20(3).pdf
> 
> (I had to copy and paste that link so you will have to do likewise to read it)
> 
> See the documentation in quotation marks and a citing source?  Notice how the study figures in not only the *cost*, but the* contribution* of the foreigner as well?  When you do that, you get a different economic picture.
> 
> You want people to take sides and if they don't agree with you  and then you use mob rule to ridicule and harass them?  That's your strategy? No wonder public opinion is swinging left.
> 
> 5)  The goalposts are once again being moved.  As soon as I answer one objection, you build the wall guys conjure up another.  My current discussion is that Ray has a totally different argument - and at least his argument is half ass honest.  Yours is *absolute stupidity*.
> 
> This is NOT an issue about National Security because the American people are *WILLINGLY* doing business with the foreigners.   There is no threat of war and they are not taking any more than we are willing to give
> 
> 6)  Just because you can deny what I'm saying will NEVER disprove it
> 
> 7)  You can go fuck yourself too.  I'd prefer to have said that in person
> 
> 8)  I've never weighed in on the morality of your silly wall so you had to create a straw man there in order to buffer the ass kicking you're taking here
> 
> 9)  Your dumbassery is really showing.  THREE times in this thread I have told you I'm not on the left; that I voted for Trump.  So, lying won't give much credence to your B.S.
> 
> 10)  Finally, all of this "wall" business was the talking points of the left BEFORE it was right wing fodder.  You should know the history of the arguments you're making.
> 
> It's damn foolish to trash the Constitution, take a dump on your unalienable Rights, and deliberately attempt to make America a third world dictatorship on the basis of lies.  Last night I heard the president of Egypt say that we are the world's strongest military power and it was our responsibility to help fight tyranny.  I don't know if I agree with his proposition; however, it is the epitome of idiocy to try and duplicate the ways of people who are inferior to you.
> 
> A better use of our money and time is to help other nations become like us so they don't feel a need to be at war with each other and not have the requisite knowledge to build a constitutional Republic with the potential of being financially strong and humane toward others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not my responsibility to pay to make them become like us.  It is their problem.  Their country.  And yheir responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will either be a leader of a follower.  You choose to be a follower.  When America mirrors Venezuela, you'll be as happy as a pig in slop.
Click to expand...

How the hell is that......Border Security is part of the responsibilities of the Gov't under the Constitution..........Enumerated powers..........it is not the elephant in the room..............Mandatory spending is..........not discretionary.  Health Care, Pensions........are the part that is bankrupting us...........not to mention the Trillions spent in Wars.

You are either for the Laws in this country or you are not.  Making excuses DOESN'T EXCUSE you for pushing for violating our laws.  For at least 3 decades Americans have demanded  that this gets fixed.  Falling on the Career politicians who have refused to do it.  They respect our laws here or they can LEAVE.

To me.........adding teeth to the laws against businesses who hire them would fix a lot of it.  Adding to the 1986 law that would force a verification system that would avoid the problems with the fake Id's being used now.  And sending to jail businesses who knowingly hire them.

I'm against you..............your remarks are for open borders..........While you say you don't care one way or another.......your words say as much.


----------



## sealybobo

danielpalos said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism is worthless if we need a wall.
Click to expand...

It’s just another ism.

But just like it’s not fair china manipulates it’s currency and pays workers $1 a day, Mexico doesn’t pay its masses well. They workers have yet to rise up. Too much corruption.

So it’s not fair American blue collar workers have to compete with Mexicans who will live ten in an apartment and work for half what the American will work.

It’s undermining the middle class. 

Only a well regulated capitalism by people who represent we the people is a good ism. Every country protects its vital industries so why do you think America didn’t? Because we had the highest paid workers in the world. The unions. Republicans wanted to send all those union jobs overseas. Break the union and reneg on pensions.


----------



## sealybobo

I’ll say this. America is waiting for the workers around the world to start making more money so it’s not worth going to China or Mexico because you’ll have to deal with the Chinese workers unions. But China won’t allow that


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tradition in the US is a bit different than most countries. Here we place a primacy on individual rights. Instead of asking why the will of individual property owners should override that of the border patrol, we first as the converse - why should the will of the border patrol override that of individual property owners?
> 
> Your use of the term "frontlines" suggests you buy into the war justification, which I find ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except they are on the frontlines. They have guns, they have taken casualties and the people trying to cross illegally are often brutalized by coyotes and drug cartel members. The wall IMO is necessary. You are of course free to disagree, it is a free country. And they are SMEs. If a doctor told you that you needed surgery would you dismiss his opinion because others disagree with it? He is the expert for a reason. Border Patrol agents are experts in border security and they are pleading for a wall. You show a lot of hubris ignoring their please. Unfortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier?  Years ago I worked in a warehouse.  The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.
> 
> The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.
> 
> We are NOT talking border security with the wall.  What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships.  You'd be better served with some regulation.  No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #1) I had a similar situation and the owner did put in AC
> #2) This is not a runny a nose, this is a constant bleed.
> #3) I disagree this is mutual beneficial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't seem to understand that's what ports of entry are for.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't understand what the relevance of it is.  YOU don't know what the bottom line is as to what ports of entry are for... OR maybe you know, but are like Ray.
Click to expand...



Mutually beneficial cross border relationships are required by law to be conducted through the ports of entry. A wall won't change that.

.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except they are on the frontlines. They have guns, they have taken casualties and the people trying to cross illegally are often brutalized by coyotes and drug cartel members. The wall IMO is necessary. You are of course free to disagree, it is a free country. And they are SMEs. If a doctor told you that you needed surgery would you dismiss his opinion because others disagree with it? He is the expert for a reason. Border Patrol agents are experts in border security and they are pleading for a wall. You show a lot of hubris ignoring their please. Unfortunate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier?  Years ago I worked in a warehouse.  The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.
> 
> The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.
> 
> We are NOT talking border security with the wall.  What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships.  You'd be better served with some regulation.  No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We tried laws, we tried regulation, we tried more border patrol agents, and these people still come here against our wishes.  Now we need more barriers to stop them from getting in.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have *NEVER* tried regulation.  You are operating on laws that are in excess of FIFTY years old and don't even apply to the situation.
> 
> The fact that you don't understand we are NOT going to keep people out discredits anything you say on this board.  Whether we like it or not, wall or no wall, they will come.  BTW, in view of what I just told you, there is a question you should ask in light of my response.  Surely, you are not so much of a dullard that you don't know what that question is.
> 
> If that seems unfair to you, it's the treatment I got from your side.  Then, again, you have only assumed things; you never ASK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1986 regulation was tried to deny their ability to work here.  Penalized businesses for hiring them.  The I-9 form.  They skirted this law by ignoring forged ids.  A network was set up to give fake ids to illegals.  When caught workers get deported and come right back
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't regulation, but unconstitutional control.  Here is what is wrong with what happened there:
> 
> The IRS send out a form with an OMB number on it (that's the Office of Management and Budget.)  That form told employers by what authority the government was "requiring" compliance.
> 
> The IRS had exactly ZERO, ZILCH, NADA when it came to jurisdiction over matters dealing with Socialist Security.  So, I like a lot of people found a good use for those forms.
> 
> There is difference between control and regulation.  Control is shutting off a road.  Regulation is when you regulate the flow so that the traffic moves on that road in an orderly fashion.
Click to expand...

The law was to force businesses to require id's for verification to work here.  The  Forgery network gave them id's and SSN's...........that system failed us........not the intent.  The intent was to verify their LEGAL right to work here.  Whether E-Verify will fix that is not quite known.   That or something like that could very well fix that problem.  When they can't work they will self deport.  

OR PEOPLE LIKE YOU  would have to SPONSOR THEM..........follow the law instead of making excuses.......and fix the problem once and for all.

Your little cute version doesn't change that one iota.........Americans want it fixed........by all means available..........The wall and better border security is part of that equation.............whether you agree is immaterial on that issue.


----------



## Cosmos

Timmy said:


> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .



That's an extremely stupid position, especially if it's money you're worried about.  Personnel are always the most expensive component to any project.  And not one of those things are an actual barrier.  We need to barrier to deter and prevent the sort of border confrontations we saw with the caravan.  If you think we should be protecting our borders with tear gas grenades and troops, you're absolutely nuts.  And it will only be a matter of time before there's an armed confrontation with casualties.  Democrats are immoral for encouraging illegal immigration with their sanctuary and soft border policies.  Wise up.


----------



## sealybobo

OKTexas said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, given enough time and resources, but they remain and impediment to the progress of illegals.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Not enough to be worth $5 bill. You won’t watch the wall after you build it so it will eventually become a huge mistake.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> It has been explained to you in great detail how the wall has unintended consequences. Yet you choose to deny the realities of our times. For you, the wall is a religion. As you've stated, "you just want them (sic) gone. As this thread progresses, it will be interesting to see how little value your fellow build the wall supporters feel about your attitude toward Freeom and Liberty... ESPECIALLY if they have children who may have live in the aftermath of what you hope to create.


----------



## Cosmos

sealybobo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


This is one of the dumbest things I've seen yet with regard to the border wall.  When they begin attacking us with tanks, artillery, and aircraft you might have a point.


----------



## dblack

Votto said:


> A better question would be, how is building a wall so wrong when it feels so right?



That's a great question actually. I think it's like a lot of things that feel 'so right', but really aren't - or at least have dangerous costs associated. Drug addiction is a good example. People know, rationally that what they're doing is bad, for them and for others, but it feels so right, and the allure is so strong that all reason and perspective is lost.


----------



## sealybobo

Cosmos said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is one of the dumbest things I've seen yet with regard to the border wall.  When they begin attacking us with tanks, artillery, and aircraft you might have a point.
Click to expand...

Who’s attacking us? What?


----------



## sealybobo

dblack said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> A better question would be, how is building a wall so wrong when it feels so right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a great question actually. I think it's like a lot of things that feel 'so right', but really aren't - or at least have dangerous costs associated. Drug addiction is a good example. People know, rationally that what they're doing is bad, for them and for others, but it feels so right, and the allure is so strong that all reason and perspective is lost.
Click to expand...

How many Americans self medicate?

Remember when rush said drug addicts should be executed? Then it was found that he was hooked on oxy cotton. Fucking hypocrites.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your New York Times (what else) article:
> 
> _*Officials at Customs and Border Protection called the report inaccurate, saying it confused how agents’ feedback about security vulnerabilities is used to develop programs to counter threats.*_
> 
> This issue in March is in sharp contrast to this article in the Washington Times a month later
> 
> Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the term strategic locations.  Funny how a border wall changed to a 1000 mile wall, to a wall in strategic locations to a border barrier/border fence which is currently 212 miles long, 112 miles of it replaces a border barrier built in 2006.  Unable to get a single dollar to build the great wall Trump promised on the campaign trail, he has now settled on a new strategy: repairing and upgrading the existing fence and calling that his “wall.”   Is that what you guys voted for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your saying he shouldn't compromise he should build a 2,000 mile wall or he didn't deserve to be elected by we who elected him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying he should have told the truth to his supporters, that what was needed was a border barrier in selected locations which is what he is trying to get congress to approve.  He never should have accused Mexicans of being rapist and murders.  He should never have said he will make Mexico pay for the wall. He just made it that much more difficult getting his border wall approved by congress.  Any other republican candidate would have had  the 5 billion dollars approved now.  Instead we have a standoff between congress and the administration that could last for months hurting millions of Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only reason Trump is asking for a barrier in certain places is because he’s being forced to settle.  If you brag to your family and friends that you’re going to buy a $35,000 car, but the bank only approved a loan for $20,000, you have to settle for what the bank approved.   I’m sure if he could get it, we would have a 40 billion dollar wall.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That really doesn't make much sense when we're talking about a barrier wall.  Suppose the farmer needs to fence his property to keep critters away from his crop and the bank says we will give you enough to fence 10% of your property.  So the farmer builds the fence and watches the critters go around the fence and enter fields in the 90% that is not fence.
> 
> The only thing that makes sense is to secure approval for the whole project before starting.  If you can't do that, then don't start the project.
> 
> Suppose congress had offered the president only 10% of the money to build the Panama Canal with no guarantee that more would come and the opposition party promising to stop all funding.
Click to expand...


An animal may get around a farmers fence if it's only 10% of his farm, but not when it's 100 miles long.  

This "all or nothing" deal just doesn't fly.  Every mile of wall is a help to our border agents be it ten miles or 1000 miles.  You yourself made a claim they will just look for easier places to get in. Well............isn't that a help?  If we have agents knowing where those places are, they can concentrate their efforts at those points.  

If Trump gives up on the wall, we will have the same problems we have now, had last year, had ten years ago.  It's time to work on bringing these problems to a halt.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about a highway, how about oil lines, how about a prison or government garage?
> 
> Imagine how this country would be if we allowed private property owners to stop national progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you arguing for a kind of unlimited eminent domain?
Click to expand...


No, just eminent domain to advance our national interests.  Where would we be today without all our highways, major roadways and bridges, pipelines that transport oil, water and sewer treatment plants?


----------



## OKTexas

dblack said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you only concerned about border properties? The government uses imminent domain to take properties all the time. Where's your concern for the folks that lose land for a Post Office or other government functions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support eminent domain at all. But apparently "libertarians" like bripat9643 do. Whodathunkit?
Click to expand...



That could make our roads look awfully funny.

.


----------



## Cosmos

sealybobo said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is one of the dumbest things I've seen yet with regard to the border wall.  When they begin attacking us with tanks, artillery, and aircraft you might have a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who’s attacking us? What?
Click to expand...


Must be the spiders that live in your empty head.  Hey stupid, it was your strawman, not mine.


----------



## Geaux4it

I have a message for all these illegal invaders

-Geaux


----------



## sealybobo

Cosmos said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is one of the dumbest things I've seen yet with regard to the border wall.  When they begin attacking us with tanks, artillery, and aircraft you might have a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who’s attacking us? What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must be the spiders that live in your empty head.  Hey stupid, it was your strawman, not mine.
Click to expand...

I am willing to eithe4 challenge or agree with your position on this subject but I don’t even know what it is.


----------



## Markle

Flopper said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look to the facts from a study, on the cost burdens surrounding illegal immigrants.
> 
> “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion.”
> 
> 
> 
> So let's fix that. And let's do it without indulging the shackles of big government.
> 
> The problems we have are the welfare state and birth-right citizenship. Neither of those requires the Berlin wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China / Hong Kong (early 1960s) - 32 km
> Botswana / Zimbabwe 2003 - 500 km
> Bulgaria / Turkey 2014 - 30 km
> Chinese / Korean border fence (under construction) - 1,416 km
> Macedonia / Greece barrier  2015 - 30 km
> India / Myanmar barrier (under construction) - 1,624 km
> 
> Just the facts, and this is to name but a few. However, we are called to follow after other nations on how government faces health care?  Yet a wall is immoral and racist, despite other nations around the globe seeing fit to do so against illegal immigration.
> 
> Explain that one to me.  Anyone?
> 
> Even Harry Reid saw the burden of illegals on our nation, and that was 1993.  Look, liberals lost the cost argument on illegal immigration and now they are to lose on the nation’s border barrier argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The studies of immigration, legal or illegal seem to always focuses 1st generation immigrants since they differ the most from the general population. Second generation immigrants are much closer to the general population.  For example, in 2008 2nd generation immigrants earned and average of $42,297, 32% higher than their parents.  There educational level was higher than national average.  Their use of social programs like their parents was less than than than the national average and their violent crime rate was well below the national average.
> 
> Third generation immigrants are statistically about the same as the general population since most American identify themselves as third generation immigrants.  For Hispanic immigrants only 7% of third generation consider themselves Hispanic, Africans 13%, and Asians 15%.
> Majority of Americans Identify Themselves as Third Generation Americans
Click to expand...


All four of my grandparents were immigrants around the turn of the last century.  All came from Norway or Denmark.  One grandfather worked on then bought farm North of Chicago.  The other, had a fourth-grade education, probably equal to a master's degree today.  His first job was driving a horse-drawn milk wagon in Chicago.  Over time, he acquired several apartment buildings in Chicago, his wife never worked outside the home.

Both grandfathers provided for their wives before they died.  My mother's mother always thought the government was crazy when she started getting survivor benefits when my grandfather passed.


----------



## sealybobo

Geaux4it said:


> I have a message for all these illegal invaders
> 
> -Geaux


Soon watch the corporatist side of your party will start asking for more legal immigrants to replace all the baby boomers who are retiring.

Well I agree with you. I’d like to see our economy and population shrink. Poor people who have 2 to 5 kids need to start having 1-2 kids. The planet can’t take their reproduction and consumption of natural resources.

Look population 1900 America and see how many more there are today 

Corporations will hate this. They will lose money but ultimately we can’t keep doubling the population


----------



## Geaux4it

sealybobo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a message for all these illegal invaders
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soon watch the corporatist side of your party will start asking for more legal immigrants to replace all the baby boomers who are retiring.
> 
> Well I agree with you. I’d like to see our economy and population shrink. Poor people who have 2 to 5 kids need to start having 1-2 kids. The planet can’t take their reproduction and consumption of natural resources.
> 
> Look population 1900 America and see how many more there are today
> 
> Corporations will hate this. They will lose money but ultimately we can’t keep doubling the population
Click to expand...

What is my party exactlly?

-Geaux


----------



## sealybobo

Geaux4it said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a message for all these illegal invaders
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soon watch the corporatist side of your party will start asking for more legal immigrants to replace all the baby boomers who are retiring.
> 
> Well I agree with you. I’d like to see our economy and population shrink. Poor people who have 2 to 5 kids need to start having 1-2 kids. The planet can’t take their reproduction and consumption of natural resources.
> 
> Look population 1900 America and see how many more there are today
> 
> Corporations will hate this. They will lose money but ultimately we can’t keep doubling the population
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is my party exactlly?
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

Trump republican?


----------



## Geaux4it

sealybobo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a message for all these illegal invaders
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soon watch the corporatist side of your party will start asking for more legal immigrants to replace all the baby boomers who are retiring.
> 
> Well I agree with you. I’d like to see our economy and population shrink. Poor people who have 2 to 5 kids need to start having 1-2 kids. The planet can’t take their reproduction and consumption of natural resources.
> 
> Look population 1900 America and see how many more there are today
> 
> Corporations will hate this. They will lose money but ultimately we can’t keep doubling the population
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is my party exactlly?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump republican?
Click to expand...

In name only. Neither POTUS nor I are Republican

-Geaux


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a message for all these illegal invaders
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soon watch the corporatist side of your party will start asking for more legal immigrants to replace all the baby boomers who are retiring.
> 
> Well I agree with you. I’d like to see our economy and population shrink. Poor people who have 2 to 5 kids need to start having 1-2 kids. The planet can’t take their reproduction and consumption of natural resources.
> 
> Look population 1900 America and see how many more there are today
> 
> Corporations will hate this. They will lose money but ultimately we can’t keep doubling the population
Click to expand...


Not to worry.  Automation is taking American jobs away by the millions.  We lost way more jobs due to automation than outsourcing.  Pretty soon it will be to the point of very few blue collar jobs left.


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a message for all these illegal invaders
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soon watch the corporatist side of your party will start asking for more legal immigrants to replace all the baby boomers who are retiring.
> 
> Well I agree with you. I’d like to see our economy and population shrink. Poor people who have 2 to 5 kids need to start having 1-2 kids. The planet can’t take their reproduction and consumption of natural resources.
> 
> Look population 1900 America and see how many more there are today
> 
> Corporations will hate this. They will lose money but ultimately we can’t keep doubling the population
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to worry.  Automation is taking American jobs away by the millions.  We lost way more jobs due to automation than outsourcing.  Pretty soon it will be to the point of very few blue collar jobs left.
Click to expand...

So don’t you think the people who live in poverty right now should cut down on the number of kids they are having?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a message for all these illegal invaders
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soon watch the corporatist side of your party will start asking for more legal immigrants to replace all the baby boomers who are retiring.
> 
> Well I agree with you. I’d like to see our economy and population shrink. Poor people who have 2 to 5 kids need to start having 1-2 kids. The planet can’t take their reproduction and consumption of natural resources.
> 
> Look population 1900 America and see how many more there are today
> 
> Corporations will hate this. They will lose money but ultimately we can’t keep doubling the population
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to worry.  Automation is taking American jobs away by the millions.  We lost way more jobs due to automation than outsourcing.  Pretty soon it will be to the point of very few blue collar jobs left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So don’t you think the people who live in poverty right now should cut down on the number of kids they are having?
Click to expand...


Of course I agree with that.  In fact in the past, I have suggested that women get fixed first before they get one dime on any social program.  After all, the apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree.  How can we ever solve poverty if we encourage people to make more children that are likely to be poor?


----------



## dblack

OKTexas said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you only concerned about border properties? The government uses imminent domain to take properties all the time. Where's your concern for the folks that lose land for a Post Office or other government functions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support eminent domain at all. But apparently "libertarians" like bripat9643 do. Whodathunkit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That could make our roads look awfully funny.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Believe it or not, problems like that can be resolved without resorting to violence.


----------



## OKTexas

dblack said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you only concerned about border properties? The government uses imminent domain to take properties all the time. Where's your concern for the folks that lose land for a Post Office or other government functions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support eminent domain at all. But apparently "libertarians" like bripat9643 do. Whodathunkit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That could make our roads look awfully funny.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessarily. Believe it or not, problems like that can be resolved without resorting to violence.
Click to expand...



Care to elaborate?

.


----------



## dblack

OKTexas said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you only concerned about border properties? The government uses imminent domain to take properties all the time. Where's your concern for the folks that lose land for a Post Office or other government functions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support eminent domain at all. But apparently "libertarians" like bripat9643 do. Whodathunkit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That could make our roads look awfully funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessarily. Believe it or not, problems like that can be resolved without resorting to violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that people are resourceful. State coercion isn't the only way to organize large scale projects.


----------



## Nova78

sealybobo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a message for all these illegal invaders
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soon watch the corporatist side of your party will start asking for more legal immigrants to replace all the baby boomers who are retiring.
> 
> Well I agree with you. I’d like to see our economy and population shrink. Poor people who have 2 to 5 kids need to start having 1-2 kids. The planet can’t take their reproduction and consumption of natural resources.
> 
> Look population 1900 America and see how many more there are today
> 
> Corporations will hate this. They will lose money but ultimately we can’t keep doubling the population
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to worry.  Automation is taking American jobs away by the millions.  We lost way more jobs due to automation than outsourcing.  Pretty soon it will be to the point of very few blue collar jobs left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So don’t you think the people who live in poverty right now should cut down on the number of kids they are having?
Click to expand...


I will chime in, yes .


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, given enough time and resources, but they remain and impediment to the progress of illegals.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not enough to be worth $5 bill. You won’t watch the wall after you build it so it will eventually become a huge mistake.
Click to expand...

What you mean is that Dims won't provide the funding to have it guarded.  However, an unguarded wall will still work 1000 times better than an unguarded nothing.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> A better question would be, how is building a wall so wrong when it feels so right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a great question actually. I think it's like a lot of things that feel 'so right', but really aren't - or at least have dangerous costs associated. Drug addiction is a good example. People know, rationally that what they're doing is bad, for them and for others, but it feels so right, and the allure is so strong that all reason and perspective is lost.
Click to expand...

What are the "dangerous costs" of The Wall?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not.  We just need to have policies that are fairer and make sense.  Do we really think Ethiopians make such good citizens that they should be admitted in a year and Hondurans should have to wait 10 year or more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we want either unless they have skills this country needs? Have you ever been to rural areas of Honduras?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but I've been to Guatemala. It's not about letting the in the people we need.  It's about changing the environment that sends tens of thousand of people to our border.  Instead of sending our military to the our border to sit on their ass and build housing for detainees, we need to clean out the Northern Triangle and stop sending money to these dictators that funnel it to cartels and gangs.  We need to increase the immigration limits on Central American countries by only few thousand so there is reasonable wait time.  That in itself will reduce the number heading toward our border.  By making life better in these countries we will not only reduce illegal immigration but also reduce drugs headed toward the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, we can't police or be the refuge for every country in the world and maintain our lifestyle and culture. We already have too much crime and poverty, there is no reason to import more. Past interventions have proved fruitless and now you want to throw good money after bad. I can't buy that, it's time to take care of Americans and if we need to use force to secure our country, so be it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you take a moment and kindly explain American culture to me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, if you can't look around at the changes that have already occurred, that's your problem. BTW you asked me for a court case yesterday, I provided it and haven't acknowledged it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You have to bear in mind that I'm on here supposedly "debating" at least six different people.  What court case did you cite that you think means what?  I do 80 wpm and can barely keep up.  I miss a few posts.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Votto said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A better question would be, how is building a wall so wrong when it feels so right?
Click to expand...


You mean, like extramarital sex?


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we want either unless they have skills this country needs? Have you ever been to rural areas of Honduras?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> No, but I've been to Guatemala. It's not about letting the in the people we need.  It's about changing the environment that sends tens of thousand of people to our border.  Instead of sending our military to the our border to sit on their ass and build housing for detainees, we need to clean out the Northern Triangle and stop sending money to these dictators that funnel it to cartels and gangs.  We need to increase the immigration limits on Central American countries by only few thousand so there is reasonable wait time.  That in itself will reduce the number heading toward our border.  By making life better in these countries we will not only reduce illegal immigration but also reduce drugs headed toward the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, we can't police or be the refuge for every country in the world and maintain our lifestyle and culture. We already have too much crime and poverty, there is no reason to import more. Past interventions have proved fruitless and now you want to throw good money after bad. I can't buy that, it's time to take care of Americans and if we need to use force to secure our country, so be it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you take a moment and kindly explain American culture to me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, if you can't look around at the changes that have already occurred, that's your problem. BTW you asked me for a court case yesterday, I provided it and haven't acknowledged it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to bear in mind that I'm on here supposedly "debating" at least six different people.  What court case did you cite that you think means what?  I do 80 wpm and can barely keep up.  I miss a few posts.
Click to expand...

you against the world, think maybe it's just you that is wrong?


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a message for all these illegal invaders
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soon watch the corporatist side of your party will start asking for more legal immigrants to replace all the baby boomers who are retiring.
> 
> Well I agree with you. I’d like to see our economy and population shrink. Poor people who have 2 to 5 kids need to start having 1-2 kids. The planet can’t take their reproduction and consumption of natural resources.
> 
> Look population 1900 America and see how many more there are today
> 
> Corporations will hate this. They will lose money but ultimately we can’t keep doubling the population
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to worry.  Automation is taking American jobs away by the millions.  We lost way more jobs due to automation than outsourcing.  Pretty soon it will be to the point of very few blue collar jobs left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So don’t you think the people who live in poverty right now should cut down on the number of kids they are having?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I agree with that.  In fact in the past, I have suggested that women get fixed first before they get one dime on any social program.  After all, the apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree.  How can we ever solve poverty if we encourage people to make more children that are likely to be poor?
Click to expand...

Watch people on both sides would tell us it’s immoral for us to suggest they get fixed. Blacks would claim eugenics.

Nonsense. 

I wouldn’t make them until after their second child. They can have foodstamps for two but that’s it. So you don’t have to get fixed if we are just feeding one but when you ask for food for two kids then you have to show you hav3 fixed yourself before you get food for the second kid.

Also no more social security at 67 for people who took welfare for 18 years. They have to pay the social security administration back before they start receiving payments. So someone’s retirement might be 72 or 70 rather than 67.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are lying.  It's ONE of *your *laundry list reasons for being for the wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCUSE ME for interjecting here, I see you are STILL arguing about the wall!  I honestly don't see what the debate is about:
> 
> Indigent Illegals crossing the southern borders in mass quantities?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This has a negative impact on our resources and wage earning potential for many americans competing in similar job markets that Mexicans do here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Putting up a complete, better wall would hugely impact their coming here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This country safer from potential terrorist intrusion with the wall?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Being for the wall?  Are you kidding me?  This is never about a wall, it is about national security and sovereignty.  If anyone says it is about protectionism, so what if it is? * LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me protectionism is bad and they are against it and I will ask them if they have a lock on their front door, if they lock their car, have a security light or security system?  *LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me they don't PROTECT what they have, and I'll call you a LIAR.
> 
> Being for the wall?   The issue here is BEING FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.  The wall makes us more secure with it than without it.  Anyone here arguing against national security is either a commie, an anti-American or has fruit loops for brains.
> 
> Better ways to do it?  BULL.
> 
> Cheaper ways to do it?  BULL?
> 
> Immoral?  Go fuck yourself.
> 
> Anyone who claims a wall is "immoral" against these mobs of dirty, stinking, diseased illegals but its not "immoral" for what blindly letting these people into the country is doing to us here, is a fucking idiot.  Maybe you don't see it where you live, but we are approaching 12 million of these people.  That's about 4% of the population.  Cut them off today and in another decade with their kids (all supported by low income government programs that come out of YOUR pocket, they'll be at 10%.
> 
> Like all things, you get what you fund.  We are funding a low income, low education, low skill, high dependence work force.   The exact OPPOSITE of what this country made itself great with.
> 
> Enough.  End it now.  Its the LAW.  Defend the borders.  I'm tired of hearing people argue against the most basic, fundamental responsibility of the federal government.  Trump:  tear the shit down until these motherfuckers in Congress say uncle!  It's go for broke right now and I say put the bastard democrats in prison if they continue to block what we put you in office to do.  If you don't like Trump and didn't put him in office, fine.  When you get YOUR guy in office, then it'll be your time to get YOUR agenda carried out.
> 
> But I really think democrats oppose the wall so much because THEY KNOW IT WILL WORK.  And they don't WANT it to work.  Democratic scum care less about Americans than they do every dirty wetback minority they can dig out from under a rock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone ever tell you that you are freaking HILARIOUS?  Yours was the funniest freaking post I've seen since I've been on this board.  Thank you for starting my day off with a laugh.  Now down to business:
> 
> 1) I am not arguing with ANYONE about your silly wall
> 
> 2)  This is NOT a debate forum, so we are not debating anything
> 
> 3)  Just because you make a bold assertion and put it in big blue letters will not make it come true
> 
> 4) * EVERY non - partisan* study I have read contradicts what the white supremacists are feeding Congress.  NOW, let me show you how this works:
> 
> "Despite all this, illegal immigration’s *overall impact on the US economy is small.* Low-skilled native workers who compete with unauthorized immigrants are the clearest losers. US employers, on the other hand, gain from lower labor costs and the ability to use their land, capital, and technology more productively. The stakes are highest for the unauthorized immigrants themselves, who see very substantial income gains after migrating. If we exclude these immigrants from the calculus, however (as domestic policymakers are naturally inclined to do), the small net gain that remains after subtracting US workers’ losses from US employers’ gains is tiny. *And if we account for the small fiscal burden that unauthorized immigrants impose, the overall economic benefit is close enough to zero to be essentially a wash*"
> 
> file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/Hanson-Dec09%20(3).pdf
> 
> (I had to copy and paste that link so you will have to do likewise to read it)
> 
> See the documentation in quotation marks and a citing source?  Notice how the study figures in not only the *cost*, but the* contribution* of the foreigner as well?  When you do that, you get a different economic picture.
> 
> You want people to take sides and if they don't agree with you  and then you use mob rule to ridicule and harass them?  That's your strategy? No wonder public opinion is swinging left.
> 
> 5)  The goalposts are once again being moved.  As soon as I answer one objection, you build the wall guys conjure up another.  My current discussion is that Ray has a totally different argument - and at least his argument is half ass honest.  Yours is *absolute stupidity*.
> 
> This is NOT an issue about National Security because the American people are *WILLINGLY* doing business with the foreigners.   There is no threat of war and they are not taking any more than we are willing to give
> 
> 6)  Just because you can deny what I'm saying will NEVER disprove it
> 
> 7)  You can go fuck yourself too.  I'd prefer to have said that in person
> 
> 8)  I've never weighed in on the morality of your silly wall so you had to create a straw man there in order to buffer the ass kicking you're taking here
> 
> 9)  Your dumbassery is really showing.  THREE times in this thread I have told you I'm not on the left; that I voted for Trump.  So, lying won't give much credence to your B.S.
> 
> 10)  Finally, all of this "wall" business was the talking points of the left BEFORE it was right wing fodder.  You should know the history of the arguments you're making.
> 
> It's damn foolish to trash the Constitution, take a dump on your unalienable Rights, and deliberately attempt to make America a third world dictatorship on the basis of lies.  Last night I heard the president of Egypt say that we are the world's strongest military power and it was our responsibility to help fight tyranny.  I don't know if I agree with his proposition; however, it is the epitome of idiocy to try and duplicate the ways of people who are inferior to you.
> 
> A better use of our money and time is to help other nations become like us so they don't feel a need to be at war with each other and not have the requisite knowledge to build a constitutional Republic with the potential of being financially strong and humane toward others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a live link:  https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/Hanson-Dec09.pdf
> 
> And pardon me if I disregard information provided by a left wing one worlder think tank.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well champ, the joke is now on you.  That was a link used by a pro-wall supporter in a debate with someone on another board.  I chose to read it.
> 
> Thank you for being dishonest about it.  It's going to make it easier to prove that build the wall guy is not the beaming paragon of virtue he thinks he is.  left wing one worlder think tank... LMAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you bother to look at the other projects Hanson is involved in? His bias is obvious like most left wing academics. The stagnant numbers he used are totally outdated, they haven't changed in almost 15 years. Anyone who believes there are only 12 million illegals in this country are delusional, real numbers are most likely 4 times that, or higher.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Yeah, yeah, yeah... they are whatever number the build the wall kind of guys want them to be.  I'll keep you in mind with that post in the future.

Another study was done before that one.  It was done by non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.  Their conclusion?

"Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1), that impact is most likely modest."

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf

Yep.  All those estimates are old; don't reflect the changes over the last decade, despite the fact that, without a wall, the economy is booming.  Any attack is as good as another.  You just cannot accept the facts.  The right wing groups do not consider the contributions versus the costs.  

As stupid as the American people are, a LOT of them know there are two sides of the accounting ledger and understand that you like omitting the side that don't favor your fudged figures.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier?  Years ago I worked in a warehouse.  The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.
> 
> The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.
> 
> We are NOT talking border security with the wall.  What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships.  You'd be better served with some regulation.  No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We tried laws, we tried regulation, we tried more border patrol agents, and these people still come here against our wishes.  Now we need more barriers to stop them from getting in.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have *NEVER* tried regulation.  You are operating on laws that are in excess of FIFTY years old and don't even apply to the situation.
> 
> The fact that you don't understand we are NOT going to keep people out discredits anything you say on this board.  Whether we like it or not, wall or no wall, they will come.  BTW, in view of what I just told you, there is a question you should ask in light of my response.  Surely, you are not so much of a dullard that you don't know what that question is.
> 
> If that seems unfair to you, it's the treatment I got from your side.  Then, again, you have only assumed things; you never ASK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1986 regulation was tried to deny their ability to work here.  Penalized businesses for hiring them.  The I-9 form.  They skirted this law by ignoring forged ids.  A network was set up to give fake ids to illegals.  When caught workers get deported and come right back
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't regulation, but unconstitutional control.  Here is what is wrong with what happened there:
> 
> The IRS send out a form with an OMB number on it (that's the Office of Management and Budget.)  That form told employers by what authority the government was "requiring" compliance.
> 
> The IRS had exactly ZERO, ZILCH, NADA when it came to jurisdiction over matters dealing with Socialist Security.  So, I like a lot of people found a good use for those forms.
> 
> There is difference between control and regulation.  Control is shutting off a road.  Regulation is when you regulate the flow so that the traffic moves on that road in an orderly fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law was to force businesses to require id's for verification to work here.  The  Forgery network gave them id's and SSN's...........that system failed us........not the intent.  The intent was to verify their LEGAL right to work here.  Whether E-Verify will fix that is not quite known.   That or something like that could very well fix that problem.  When they can't work they will self deport.
> 
> OR PEOPLE LIKE YOU  would have to SPONSOR THEM..........follow the law instead of making excuses.......and fix the problem once and for all.
> 
> Your little cute version doesn't change that one iota.........Americans want it fixed........by all means available..........The wall and better border security is part of that equation.............whether you agree is immaterial on that issue.
Click to expand...


The majority of people disagree with your proposition.  If you were following this thread, I've already stated that BEFORE the build the wall guys got involved, the issues were well under control - presuming that most of the pretexts being used are the REAL reason some of you are into wall worship.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been explained to you in great detail how the wall has unintended consequences. Yet you choose to deny the realities of our times. For you, the wall is a religion. As you've stated, "you just want them (sic) gone. As this thread progresses, it will be interesting to see how little value your fellow build the wall supporters feel about your attitude toward Freeom and Liberty... ESPECIALLY if they have children who may have live in the aftermath of what you hope to create.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 238920
Click to expand...


Great deflection, but here is my assessment about you (since that's all you got of all the discussion we've had)

1)  Ray is agnostic, atheist, or something *other than* Christian.  The dead giveaway is when people insist on using the word inalienable over unalienable.  They have been interpreted differently by our courts.  Inalienable rights are those which can be aliened IF YOU CONSENT.

Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.)  Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you.  I'm not saying that is good or bad.  It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma:  they are equally yoked with the unbelieving

2)  It is no secret that Ray would forfeit ANY AND ALL Liberties, Rights, and blessings for a wall

3)  In Ray's world he honestly believes he can keep people out.  This has NOTHING to do with any legal or moral argument for or against immigration.  It is a pipe dream that could not be accomplished even when Jesus was walking this earth (references supplied in earlier posts)

4) Ray will use information in order to achieve his goal: keeping people from south of the border out.  Oh he might play word games / semantics about a phony legal v. illegal nature, but his posts testify against the smoke and mirrors.  He refuses to ask me one question as he prefers to present the pretext as a fact rather than ask me a simple question that he's danced around

5)  Ray says he would like to preserve our culture.  Albeit unpopular, our culture consists of a people that built a country on the twin pillars of race and religion.  Ray rejects the religion, but lives under the delusion we can use a wall to force people out and reclaim the racial part of our heritage without the other part of our culture that made us great (i.e. a belief, as a nation, in God.)

Nothing more can come of any further debate / discussion with Ray.  Anything he and I say to each other does not change where he stands.  And I came on this thread looking for the REAL reason people worship the wall.  Ray's logic does not make me want to trade off Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been explained to you in great detail how the wall has unintended consequences. Yet you choose to deny the realities of our times. For you, the wall is a religion. As you've stated, "you just want them (sic) gone. As this thread progresses, it will be interesting to see how little value your fellow build the wall supporters feel about your attitude toward Freeom and Liberty... ESPECIALLY if they have children who may have live in the aftermath of what you hope to create.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 238920
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great deflection, but here is my assessment about you (since that's all you got of all the discussion we've had)
> 
> 1)  Ray is agnostic, atheist, or something *other than* Christian.  The dead giveaway is when people insist on using the word inalienable over unalienable.  They have been interpreted differently by our courts.  Inalienable rights are those which can be aliened IF YOU CONSENT.
> 
> Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.)  Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you.  I'm not saying that is good or bad.  It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma:  they are equally yoked with the unbelieving
> 
> 2)  It is no secret that Ray would forfeit ANY AND ALL Liberties, Rights, and blessings for a wall
> 
> 3)  In Ray's world he honestly believes he can keep people out.  This has NOTHING to do with any legal or moral argument for or against immigration.  It is a pipe dream that could not be accomplished even when Jesus was walking this earth (references supplied in earlier posts)
> 
> 4) Ray will use information in order to achieve his goal: keeping people from south of the border out.  Oh he might play word games / semantics about a phony legal v. illegal nature, but his posts testify against the smoke and mirrors.  He refuses to ask me one question as he prefers to present the pretext as a fact rather than ask me a simple question that he's danced around
> 
> 5)  Ray says he would like to preserve our culture.  Albeit unpopular, our culture consists of a people that built a country on the twin pillars of race and religion.  Ray rejects the religion, but lives under the delusion we can use a wall to force people out and reclaim the racial part of our heritage without the other part of our culture that made us great (i.e.a belief, as a nation, in God.)
> 
> Nothing more can come of any further debate / discussion.  Anything he and I say to each other does not change where he stands.  And I came on this thread looking for the REAL reason people worship the wall.  Ray's logic does not make me want to trade off Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.
Click to expand...

No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but I've been to Guatemala. It's not about letting the in the people we need.  It's about changing the environment that sends tens of thousand of people to our border.  Instead of sending our military to the our border to sit on their ass and build housing for detainees, we need to clean out the Northern Triangle and stop sending money to these dictators that funnel it to cartels and gangs.  We need to increase the immigration limits on Central American countries by only few thousand so there is reasonable wait time.  That in itself will reduce the number heading toward our border.  By making life better in these countries we will not only reduce illegal immigration but also reduce drugs headed toward the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, we can't police or be the refuge for every country in the world and maintain our lifestyle and culture. We already have too much crime and poverty, there is no reason to import more. Past interventions have proved fruitless and now you want to throw good money after bad. I can't buy that, it's time to take care of Americans and if we need to use force to secure our country, so be it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you take a moment and kindly explain American culture to me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, if you can't look around at the changes that have already occurred, that's your problem. BTW you asked me for a court case yesterday, I provided it and haven't acknowledged it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to bear in mind that I'm on here supposedly "debating" at least six different people.  What court case did you cite that you think means what?  I do 80 wpm and can barely keep up.  I miss a few posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you against the world, think maybe it's just you that is wrong?
Click to expand...


WTH are you talking about?  I am not debating or arguing with anyone on this thread.  I have not taken a position other than stating the obvious:  a wall will not solve any issues that the build the wall guys have put on the table.  I'm asking questions and simply trying to figure out what is REALLY going on.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been explained to you in great detail how the wall has unintended consequences. Yet you choose to deny the realities of our times. For you, the wall is a religion. As you've stated, "you just want them (sic) gone. As this thread progresses, it will be interesting to see how little value your fellow build the wall supporters feel about your attitude toward Freeom and Liberty... ESPECIALLY if they have children who may have live in the aftermath of what you hope to create.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 238920
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great deflection, but here is my assessment about you (since that's all you got of all the discussion we've had)
> 
> 1)  Ray is agnostic, atheist, or something *other than* Christian.  The dead giveaway is when people insist on using the word inalienable over unalienable.  They have been interpreted differently by our courts.  Inalienable rights are those which can be aliened IF YOU CONSENT.
> 
> Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.)  Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you.  I'm not saying that is good or bad.  It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma:  they are equally yoked with the unbelieving
> 
> 2)  It is no secret that Ray would forfeit ANY AND ALL Liberties, Rights, and blessings for a wall
> 
> 3)  In Ray's world he honestly believes he can keep people out.  This has NOTHING to do with any legal or moral argument for or against immigration.  It is a pipe dream that could not be accomplished even when Jesus was walking this earth (references supplied in earlier posts)
> 
> 4) Ray will use information in order to achieve his goal: keeping people from south of the border out.  Oh he might play word games / semantics about a phony legal v. illegal nature, but his posts testify against the smoke and mirrors.  He refuses to ask me one question as he prefers to present the pretext as a fact rather than ask me a simple question that he's danced around
> 
> 5)  Ray says he would like to preserve our culture.  Albeit unpopular, our culture consists of a people that built a country on the twin pillars of race and religion.  Ray rejects the religion, but lives under the delusion we can use a wall to force people out and reclaim the racial part of our heritage without the other part of our culture that made us great (i.e. a belief, as a nation, in God.)
> 
> Nothing more can come of any further debate / discussion with Ray.  Anything he and I say to each other does not change where he stands.  And I came on this thread looking for the REAL reason people worship the wall.  Ray's logic does not make me want to trade off Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.
Click to expand...


Suggestion:  Keep your day job.  You'd make a terrible detective.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> We tried laws, we tried regulation, we tried more border patrol agents, and these people still come here against our wishes.  Now we need more barriers to stop them from getting in.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have *NEVER* tried regulation.  You are operating on laws that are in excess of FIFTY years old and don't even apply to the situation.
> 
> The fact that you don't understand we are NOT going to keep people out discredits anything you say on this board.  Whether we like it or not, wall or no wall, they will come.  BTW, in view of what I just told you, there is a question you should ask in light of my response.  Surely, you are not so much of a dullard that you don't know what that question is.
> 
> If that seems unfair to you, it's the treatment I got from your side.  Then, again, you have only assumed things; you never ASK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1986 regulation was tried to deny their ability to work here.  Penalized businesses for hiring them.  The I-9 form.  They skirted this law by ignoring forged ids.  A network was set up to give fake ids to illegals.  When caught workers get deported and come right back
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't regulation, but unconstitutional control.  Here is what is wrong with what happened there:
> 
> The IRS send out a form with an OMB number on it (that's the Office of Management and Budget.)  That form told employers by what authority the government was "requiring" compliance.
> 
> The IRS had exactly ZERO, ZILCH, NADA when it came to jurisdiction over matters dealing with Socialist Security.  So, I like a lot of people found a good use for those forms.
> 
> There is difference between control and regulation.  Control is shutting off a road.  Regulation is when you regulate the flow so that the traffic moves on that road in an orderly fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law was to force businesses to require id's for verification to work here.  The  Forgery network gave them id's and SSN's...........that system failed us........not the intent.  The intent was to verify their LEGAL right to work here.  Whether E-Verify will fix that is not quite known.   That or something like that could very well fix that problem.  When they can't work they will self deport.
> 
> OR PEOPLE LIKE YOU  would have to SPONSOR THEM..........follow the law instead of making excuses.......and fix the problem once and for all.
> 
> Your little cute version doesn't change that one iota.........Americans want it fixed........by all means available..........The wall and better border security is part of that equation.............whether you agree is immaterial on that issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The majority of people disagree with your proposition.  If you were following this thread, I've already stated that BEFORE the build the wall guys got involved, the issues were well under control - presuming that most of the pretexts being used are the REAL reason some of you are into wall worship.
Click to expand...

It was not in control.  Under Obama it was catch and release and you know it.  They don't show up for court cases.......They always talked tough on immigration but it was a joke.  Under the Dreamers and DACA large numbers came here to exploit it under Obama.  Using the loop holes in the system, just as they are now with recent court rulings FORCING ICE to release them again.  Main reason is the Flores loop holes on 20 day holds and the families can't be separated.  ICE doesn't have the facilities to hold all the families nor the courts to  get them proceeded in under 20 days.   Thus they are doing Catch and Release again.

That is NOT SECURING THE BORDER, and CERTAINLY NOT under control.  Those loop holes need to be closed and the proposals sent to Congress and the President by the CBP to better do their jobs.  Those proposed contracts are reasonable.

One area of concern is communication problems in the open desert for CBP agents.  Needing more communication towers.

Under control...........that is a joke............it isn't under control at all.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, we can't police or be the refuge for every country in the world and maintain our lifestyle and culture. We already have too much crime and poverty, there is no reason to import more. Past interventions have proved fruitless and now you want to throw good money after bad. I can't buy that, it's time to take care of Americans and if we need to use force to secure our country, so be it.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you take a moment and kindly explain American culture to me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, if you can't look around at the changes that have already occurred, that's your problem. BTW you asked me for a court case yesterday, I provided it and haven't acknowledged it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to bear in mind that I'm on here supposedly "debating" at least six different people.  What court case did you cite that you think means what?  I do 80 wpm and can barely keep up.  I miss a few posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you against the world, think maybe it's just you that is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTH are you talking about?  I am not debating or arguing with anyone on this thread.  I have not taken a position other than stating the obvious:  a wall will not solve any issues that the build the wall guys have put on the table.  I'm asking questions and simply trying to figure out what is REALLY going on.
Click to expand...

That is an opinion and I disagree.......It is needed according to the CBP and they have been asking for improvements for over a decade.......The project in San Diego has been requested for at least a decade........Which needed Pedestrian bridges and walks as it is a POE.  

They say where their is better infrastructure it works.....Should I listen to you or them.  I choose them.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a message for all these illegal invaders
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soon watch the corporatist side of your party will start asking for more legal immigrants to replace all the baby boomers who are retiring.
> 
> Well I agree with you. I’d like to see our economy and population shrink. Poor people who have 2 to 5 kids need to start having 1-2 kids. The planet can’t take their reproduction and consumption of natural resources.
> 
> Look population 1900 America and see how many more there are today
> 
> Corporations will hate this. They will lose money but ultimately we can’t keep doubling the population
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to worry.  Automation is taking American jobs away by the millions.  We lost way more jobs due to automation than outsourcing.  Pretty soon it will be to the point of very few blue collar jobs left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So don’t you think the people who live in poverty right now should cut down on the number of kids they are having?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I agree with that.  In fact in the past, I have suggested that women get fixed first before they get one dime on any social program.  After all, the apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree.  How can we ever solve poverty if we encourage people to make more children that are likely to be poor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Watch people on both sides would tell us it’s immoral for us to suggest they get fixed. Blacks would claim eugenics.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> I wouldn’t make them until after their second child. They can have foodstamps for two but that’s it. So you don’t have to get fixed if we are just feeding one but when you ask for food for two kids then you have to show you hav3 fixed yourself before you get food for the second kid.
> 
> Also no more social security at 67 for people who took welfare for 18 years. They have to pay the social security administration back before they start receiving payments. So someone’s retirement might be 72 or 70 rather than 67.
Click to expand...


I look at it this way:  Responsible people wouldn't mind being fixed if they had no choice but to go on some sort of assistance.  What kills me is when I go to the grocery store, see some fat lady with four kids, and then whipping out food stamps for $300.00 of groceries.  

Some of these people have children exclusively to get more government goodies.  Afterwards they are trapped.  If they later decide to go out and work, anything they earn comes out of their stipend.  So it makes no sense to work. 

It's called rewarding failure and penalizing success.  Working people have to limit their family size to accommodate their income.  I have several family members and friends that told me they'd love to have more children, it's just they couldn't afford it.  In the meantime, Welfare Wilma has three, four, and five kids because she gets us to pay for them. 

If there were such things as aliens from another planet, and they were to study our society, the first question they'd probably ask is why are we breeding unproductive people and limiting our breed on productive people?  It makes absolutely no sense from a logic perspective.  Wouldn't it be more beneficial to society if we did the exact opposite?  Furthermore, why are the productive people paying for the unproductive people to breed more unproductive people?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been explained to you in great detail how the wall has unintended consequences. Yet you choose to deny the realities of our times. For you, the wall is a religion. As you've stated, "you just want them (sic) gone. As this thread progresses, it will be interesting to see how little value your fellow build the wall supporters feel about your attitude toward Freeom and Liberty... ESPECIALLY if they have children who may have live in the aftermath of what you hope to create.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 238920
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great deflection, but here is my assessment about you (since that's all you got of all the discussion we've had)
> 
> 1)  Ray is agnostic, atheist, or something *other than* Christian.  The dead giveaway is when people insist on using the word inalienable over unalienable.  They have been interpreted differently by our courts.  Inalienable rights are those which can be aliened IF YOU CONSENT.
> 
> Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.)  Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you.  I'm not saying that is good or bad.  It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma:  they are equally yoked with the unbelieving
> 
> 2)  It is no secret that Ray would forfeit ANY AND ALL Liberties, Rights, and blessings for a wall
> 
> 3)  In Ray's world he honestly believes he can keep people out.  This has NOTHING to do with any legal or moral argument for or against immigration.  It is a pipe dream that could not be accomplished even when Jesus was walking this earth (references supplied in earlier posts)
> 
> 4) Ray will use information in order to achieve his goal: keeping people from south of the border out.  Oh he might play word games / semantics about a phony legal v. illegal nature, but his posts testify against the smoke and mirrors.  He refuses to ask me one question as he prefers to present the pretext as a fact rather than ask me a simple question that he's danced around
> 
> 5)  Ray says he would like to preserve our culture.  Albeit unpopular, our culture consists of a people that built a country on the twin pillars of race and religion.  Ray rejects the religion, but lives under the delusion we can use a wall to force people out and reclaim the racial part of our heritage without the other part of our culture that made us great (i.e.a belief, as a nation, in God.)
> 
> Nothing more can come of any further debate / discussion.  Anything he and I say to each other does not change where he stands.  And I came on this thread looking for the REAL reason people worship the wall.  Ray's logic does not make me want to trade off Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.
Click to expand...


I'm not trying to be the bad guy, but that outlook is socialist.  Rush Limbaugh said:

"If you want a “living wage,” if you don’t like what fast food restaurants pay, then do something else. It’s just that simple. Go to a trade school. Go to another business. Start your own business. Maybe the work that you are capable of isn’t yet worth $15 an hour at a fast-food restaurant. Maybe the consumer doesn’t want to pay $10 for a Big Mac so that people working at McDonald’s make $15 an hour. It’s not just a one-way strata.

You don’t just sit there and double what the employees at McDonald’s make and keep the prices the same. Now, you may think this is obvious, folks, and you may think, “Come on, Rush,” you’d be amazed at how many people do not understand the push-pull in economics. You’d be amazed at the number of people who have taken economics courses who think that the truth about headaches is that the boss is a cheap skinflint and wants his employees to starve and wants to screw his customers."

Minimum Wage: How Much is Too Much?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been explained to you in great detail how the wall has unintended consequences. Yet you choose to deny the realities of our times. For you, the wall is a religion. As you've stated, "you just want them (sic) gone. As this thread progresses, it will be interesting to see how little value your fellow build the wall supporters feel about your attitude toward Freeom and Liberty... ESPECIALLY if they have children who may have live in the aftermath of what you hope to create.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 238920
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great deflection, but here is my assessment about you (since that's all you got of all the discussion we've had)
> 
> 1)  Ray is agnostic, atheist, or something *other than* Christian.  The dead giveaway is when people insist on using the word inalienable over unalienable.  They have been interpreted differently by our courts.  Inalienable rights are those which can be aliened IF YOU CONSENT.
> 
> Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.)  Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you.  I'm not saying that is good or bad.  It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma:  they are equally yoked with the unbelieving
> 
> 2)  It is no secret that Ray would forfeit ANY AND ALL Liberties, Rights, and blessings for a wall
> 
> 3)  In Ray's world he honestly believes he can keep people out.  This has NOTHING to do with any legal or moral argument for or against immigration.  It is a pipe dream that could not be accomplished even when Jesus was walking this earth (references supplied in earlier posts)
> 
> 4) Ray will use information in order to achieve his goal: keeping people from south of the border out.  Oh he might play word games / semantics about a phony legal v. illegal nature, but his posts testify against the smoke and mirrors.  He refuses to ask me one question as he prefers to present the pretext as a fact rather than ask me a simple question that he's danced around
> 
> 5)  Ray says he would like to preserve our culture.  Albeit unpopular, our culture consists of a people that built a country on the twin pillars of race and religion.  Ray rejects the religion, but lives under the delusion we can use a wall to force people out and reclaim the racial part of our heritage without the other part of our culture that made us great (i.e. a belief, as a nation, in God.)
> 
> Nothing more can come of any further debate / discussion with Ray.  Anything he and I say to each other does not change where he stands.  And I came on this thread looking for the REAL reason people worship the wall.  Ray's logic does not make me want to trade off Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suggestion:  Keep your day job.  You'd make a terrible detective.
Click to expand...


You didn't take us through any process to deny the findings.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you. I'm not saying that is good or bad. It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma: they are equally yoked with the unbelieving


That is projection.  You can be a Christian and a Nationalist at the same time.  You can't let everyone in the numbers are too great............It HURTS THIS COUNTRY.  You don't destroy yourself to save them.  That is just plain stupid.  We have safety nets and they use them.   Costs the Feds and States more money.  That is Reality. 

They need to fix the problems in their own countries.........and stop running from it.  They do that then perhaps they will no longer run.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, we can't police or be the refuge for every country in the world and maintain our lifestyle and culture. We already have too much crime and poverty, there is no reason to import more. Past interventions have proved fruitless and now you want to throw good money after bad. I can't buy that, it's time to take care of Americans and if we need to use force to secure our country, so be it.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you take a moment and kindly explain American culture to me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, if you can't look around at the changes that have already occurred, that's your problem. BTW you asked me for a court case yesterday, I provided it and haven't acknowledged it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to bear in mind that I'm on here supposedly "debating" at least six different people.  What court case did you cite that you think means what?  I do 80 wpm and can barely keep up.  I miss a few posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you against the world, think maybe it's just you that is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTH are you talking about?  I am not debating or arguing with anyone on this thread.  I have not taken a position other than stating the obvious:  a wall will not solve any issues that the build the wall guys have put on the table.  I'm asking questions and simply trying to figure out what is REALLY going on.
Click to expand...

That is a position. You don't want the wall built because you think it won't work. It depends on what you intend to accomplish. To keep out the riff raff it will work. To put a big hurdle in drug imports it would work.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been explained to you in great detail how the wall has unintended consequences. Yet you choose to deny the realities of our times. For you, the wall is a religion. As you've stated, "you just want them (sic) gone. As this thread progresses, it will be interesting to see how little value your fellow build the wall supporters feel about your attitude toward Freeom and Liberty... ESPECIALLY if they have children who may have live in the aftermath of what you hope to create.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 238920
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great deflection, but here is my assessment about you (since that's all you got of all the discussion we've had)
> 
> 1)  Ray is agnostic, atheist, or something *other than* Christian.  The dead giveaway is when people insist on using the word inalienable over unalienable.  They have been interpreted differently by our courts.  Inalienable rights are those which can be aliened IF YOU CONSENT.
> 
> Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.)  Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you.  I'm not saying that is good or bad.  It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma:  they are equally yoked with the unbelieving
> 
> 2)  It is no secret that Ray would forfeit ANY AND ALL Liberties, Rights, and blessings for a wall
> 
> 3)  In Ray's world he honestly believes he can keep people out.  This has NOTHING to do with any legal or moral argument for or against immigration.  It is a pipe dream that could not be accomplished even when Jesus was walking this earth (references supplied in earlier posts)
> 
> 4) Ray will use information in order to achieve his goal: keeping people from south of the border out.  Oh he might play word games / semantics about a phony legal v. illegal nature, but his posts testify against the smoke and mirrors.  He refuses to ask me one question as he prefers to present the pretext as a fact rather than ask me a simple question that he's danced around
> 
> 5)  Ray says he would like to preserve our culture.  Albeit unpopular, our culture consists of a people that built a country on the twin pillars of race and religion.  Ray rejects the religion, but lives under the delusion we can use a wall to force people out and reclaim the racial part of our heritage without the other part of our culture that made us great (i.e.a belief, as a nation, in God.)
> 
> Nothing more can come of any further debate / discussion.  Anything he and I say to each other does not change where he stands.  And I came on this thread looking for the REAL reason people worship the wall.  Ray's logic does not make me want to trade off Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to be the bad guy, but that outlook is socialist.  Rush Limbaugh said:
> 
> "If you want a “living wage,” if you don’t like what fast food restaurants pay, then do something else. It’s just that simple. Go to a trade school. Go to another business. Start your own business. Maybe the work that you are capable of isn’t yet worth $15 an hour at a fast-food restaurant. Maybe the consumer doesn’t want to pay $10 for a Big Mac so that people working at McDonald’s make $15 an hour. It’s not just a one-way strata.
> 
> You don’t just sit there and double what the employees at McDonald’s make and keep the prices the same. Now, you may think this is obvious, folks, and you may think, “Come on, Rush,” you’d be amazed at how many people do not understand the push-pull in economics. You’d be amazed at the number of people who have taken economics courses who think that the truth about headaches is that the boss is a cheap skinflint and wants his employees to starve and wants to screw his customers."
> 
> Minimum Wage: How Much is Too Much?
Click to expand...

I don't work for McDonalds.
I'm as much a Conservative as Trump is and that would be not very much at all. Common sense for the working man he is and so am I.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been explained to you in great detail how the wall has unintended consequences. Yet you choose to deny the realities of our times. For you, the wall is a religion. As you've stated, "you just want them (sic) gone. As this thread progresses, it will be interesting to see how little value your fellow build the wall supporters feel about your attitude toward Freeom and Liberty... ESPECIALLY if they have children who may have live in the aftermath of what you hope to create.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 238920
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great deflection, but here is my assessment about you (since that's all you got of all the discussion we've had)
> 
> 1)  Ray is agnostic, atheist, or something *other than* Christian.  The dead giveaway is when people insist on using the word inalienable over unalienable.  They have been interpreted differently by our courts.  Inalienable rights are those which can be aliened IF YOU CONSENT.
> 
> Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.)  Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you.  I'm not saying that is good or bad.  It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma:  they are equally yoked with the unbelieving
> 
> 2)  It is no secret that Ray would forfeit ANY AND ALL Liberties, Rights, and blessings for a wall
> 
> 3)  In Ray's world he honestly believes he can keep people out.  This has NOTHING to do with any legal or moral argument for or against immigration.  It is a pipe dream that could not be accomplished even when Jesus was walking this earth (references supplied in earlier posts)
> 
> 4) Ray will use information in order to achieve his goal: keeping people from south of the border out.  Oh he might play word games / semantics about a phony legal v. illegal nature, but his posts testify against the smoke and mirrors.  He refuses to ask me one question as he prefers to present the pretext as a fact rather than ask me a simple question that he's danced around
> 
> 5)  Ray says he would like to preserve our culture.  Albeit unpopular, our culture consists of a people that built a country on the twin pillars of race and religion.  Ray rejects the religion, but lives under the delusion we can use a wall to force people out and reclaim the racial part of our heritage without the other part of our culture that made us great (i.e.a belief, as a nation, in God.)
> 
> Nothing more can come of any further debate / discussion.  Anything he and I say to each other does not change where he stands.  And I came on this thread looking for the REAL reason people worship the wall.  Ray's logic does not make me want to trade off Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to be the bad guy, but that outlook is socialist.  Rush Limbaugh said:
> 
> "If you want a “living wage,” if you don’t like what fast food restaurants pay, then do something else. It’s just that simple. Go to a trade school. Go to another business. Start your own business. Maybe the work that you are capable of isn’t yet worth $15 an hour at a fast-food restaurant. Maybe the consumer doesn’t want to pay $10 for a Big Mac so that people working at McDonald’s make $15 an hour. It’s not just a one-way strata.
> 
> You don’t just sit there and double what the employees at McDonald’s make and keep the prices the same. Now, you may think this is obvious, folks, and you may think, “Come on, Rush,” you’d be amazed at how many people do not understand the push-pull in economics. You’d be amazed at the number of people who have taken economics courses who think that the truth about headaches is that the boss is a cheap skinflint and wants his employees to starve and wants to screw his customers."
> 
> Minimum Wage: How Much is Too Much?
Click to expand...

That argument is deflection.  This issue is not about minimum wage at McDonalds.

In regards to wages in the Trades......Craftsman.....skilled workers......it has had an effect to lower wages.  I've seen them bus in 3 bus loads of illegals to Construction jobs for a fraction of paying skilled workers.  Lowering the pay for the others.  In the insulation trade wages dropped because of this.  Just as Scaffold building........witch used to be higher paying jobs.

A guy working for us went to Kentucky a little while back as a Supervisor.  When he got there he was give a crew of Guatamalins.......Illegals.......they couldn't speak English......only had one translator......he had to use sign language to get them to do the work..........and they weren't skilled.......He quit and came back as it was useless.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have *NEVER* tried regulation.  You are operating on laws that are in excess of FIFTY years old and don't even apply to the situation.
> 
> The fact that you don't understand we are NOT going to keep people out discredits anything you say on this board.  Whether we like it or not, wall or no wall, they will come.  BTW, in view of what I just told you, there is a question you should ask in light of my response.  Surely, you are not so much of a dullard that you don't know what that question is.
> 
> If that seems unfair to you, it's the treatment I got from your side.  Then, again, you have only assumed things; you never ASK.
> 
> 
> 
> 1986 regulation was tried to deny their ability to work here.  Penalized businesses for hiring them.  The I-9 form.  They skirted this law by ignoring forged ids.  A network was set up to give fake ids to illegals.  When caught workers get deported and come right back
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't regulation, but unconstitutional control.  Here is what is wrong with what happened there:
> 
> The IRS send out a form with an OMB number on it (that's the Office of Management and Budget.)  That form told employers by what authority the government was "requiring" compliance.
> 
> The IRS had exactly ZERO, ZILCH, NADA when it came to jurisdiction over matters dealing with Socialist Security.  So, I like a lot of people found a good use for those forms.
> 
> There is difference between control and regulation.  Control is shutting off a road.  Regulation is when you regulate the flow so that the traffic moves on that road in an orderly fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law was to force businesses to require id's for verification to work here.  The  Forgery network gave them id's and SSN's...........that system failed us........not the intent.  The intent was to verify their LEGAL right to work here.  Whether E-Verify will fix that is not quite known.   That or something like that could very well fix that problem.  When they can't work they will self deport.
> 
> OR PEOPLE LIKE YOU  would have to SPONSOR THEM..........follow the law instead of making excuses.......and fix the problem once and for all.
> 
> Your little cute version doesn't change that one iota.........Americans want it fixed........by all means available..........The wall and better border security is part of that equation.............whether you agree is immaterial on that issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The majority of people disagree with your proposition.  If you were following this thread, I've already stated that BEFORE the build the wall guys got involved, the issues were well under control - presuming that most of the pretexts being used are the REAL reason some of you are into wall worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was not in control.  Under Obama it was catch and release and you know it.  They don't show up for court cases.......They always talked tough on immigration but it was a joke.  Under the Dreamers and DACA large numbers came here to exploit it under Obama.  Using the loop holes in the system, just as they are now with recent court rulings FORCING ICE to release them again.  Main reason is the Flores loop holes on 20 day holds and the families can't be separated.  ICE doesn't have the facilities to hold all the families nor the courts to  get them proceeded in under 20 days.   Thus they are doing Catch and Release again.
> 
> That is NOT SECURING THE BORDER, and CERTAINLY NOT under control.  Those loop holes need to be closed and the proposals sent to Congress and the President by the CBP to better do their jobs.  Those proposed contracts are reasonable.
> 
> One area of concern is communication problems in the open desert for CBP agents.  Needing more communication towers.
> 
> Under control...........that is a joke............it isn't under control at all.
Click to expand...



We're talking about two separate and distinct things.  If the build the wall guys could pull their heads out of their ass, read my posts and quit trying to cull them to prop up some idiotic theory that I'm a liberal, you might begin to understand a few things:

The wall, immigration, etc. are symptoms of a broader root cause to America's downfall.  In the 1970s through early 2000s constitutionalists were working on a host of legal and political issues - even making headway on most of them.  

Had the constitutionalists and patriots not been funneled off by this Hegelian nightmare that has caused wall worship, many of the symptoms you guys complain about would have disappeared.  

Had you backed them, the fight would be OVER today.  We would be living under a form of government closer to what the founder envisioned and this back and forth B.S. would not be necessary.

I'm sick of this dumbassery where the build the wall guys accuse everyone who dismissed their proposed solutions as being heretics (those "open border" people.)  How childish can you get!  I didn't vote for Obama and they'd ban me here if I told you what I thought about the ... can't say anything that would be acceptable here.

The build the wall guys set the constitutionalist and patriot efforts back fifty years, taking major wins (politically and legally) with them and replacing them with socialist solutions.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you take a moment and kindly explain American culture to me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, if you can't look around at the changes that have already occurred, that's your problem. BTW you asked me for a court case yesterday, I provided it and haven't acknowledged it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to bear in mind that I'm on here supposedly "debating" at least six different people.  What court case did you cite that you think means what?  I do 80 wpm and can barely keep up.  I miss a few posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you against the world, think maybe it's just you that is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTH are you talking about?  I am not debating or arguing with anyone on this thread.  I have not taken a position other than stating the obvious:  a wall will not solve any issues that the build the wall guys have put on the table.  I'm asking questions and simply trying to figure out what is REALLY going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is an opinion and I disagree.......It is needed according to the CBP and they have been asking for improvements for over a decade.......The project in San Diego has been requested for at least a decade........Which needed Pedestrian bridges and walks as it is a POE.
> 
> They say where their is better infrastructure it works.....Should I listen to you or them.  I choose them.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what you just said.  Was it even relevant to what we're discussing?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you. I'm not saying that is good or bad. It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma: they are equally yoked with the unbelieving
> 
> 
> 
> That is projection.  You can be a Christian and a Nationalist at the same time.  You can't let everyone in the numbers are too great............It HURTS THIS COUNTRY.  You don't destroy yourself to save them.  That is just plain stupid.  We have safety nets and they use them.   Costs the Feds and States more money.  That is Reality.
> 
> They need to fix the problems in their own countries.........and stop running from it.  They do that then perhaps they will no longer run.
Click to expand...


One has to ask, what would these people do if there were no United States of America to run to?  Let's say history was changed, and our land was no different than any of these other S/CA countries.  WTF would they do? 

Sometimes people won't take action to better themselves unless they are forced to.  It's like an alcoholic.  They need to hit the bottom of the barrel before they decided to do something about their plight.  However if an alcoholic has ample money supply to continue their habit, they will continue drinking.  My neighbor is a good example of that.  The guy is my age, never had an apartment or home his entire life.  Lives with his mother, and because he conned the government into giving him disability, he's drunk 24/7. 

As for my religion, I really don't have any.  However I was born into a Catholic home, attended Catholic primary school, and even served as an altar boy for a year or two.  What I do remember about my NT teaching is that Jesus didn't tell people follow him by getting government to take their money and provide, but do it individually.  You don't follow Jesus by taking other people's money and property, and giving it away.  That's not charity, that's theft.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1986 regulation was tried to deny their ability to work here.  Penalized businesses for hiring them.  The I-9 form.  They skirted this law by ignoring forged ids.  A network was set up to give fake ids to illegals.  When caught workers get deported and come right back
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't regulation, but unconstitutional control.  Here is what is wrong with what happened there:
> 
> The IRS send out a form with an OMB number on it (that's the Office of Management and Budget.)  That form told employers by what authority the government was "requiring" compliance.
> 
> The IRS had exactly ZERO, ZILCH, NADA when it came to jurisdiction over matters dealing with Socialist Security.  So, I like a lot of people found a good use for those forms.
> 
> There is difference between control and regulation.  Control is shutting off a road.  Regulation is when you regulate the flow so that the traffic moves on that road in an orderly fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law was to force businesses to require id's for verification to work here.  The  Forgery network gave them id's and SSN's...........that system failed us........not the intent.  The intent was to verify their LEGAL right to work here.  Whether E-Verify will fix that is not quite known.   That or something like that could very well fix that problem.  When they can't work they will self deport.
> 
> OR PEOPLE LIKE YOU  would have to SPONSOR THEM..........follow the law instead of making excuses.......and fix the problem once and for all.
> 
> Your little cute version doesn't change that one iota.........Americans want it fixed........by all means available..........The wall and better border security is part of that equation.............whether you agree is immaterial on that issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The majority of people disagree with your proposition.  If you were following this thread, I've already stated that BEFORE the build the wall guys got involved, the issues were well under control - presuming that most of the pretexts being used are the REAL reason some of you are into wall worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was not in control.  Under Obama it was catch and release and you know it.  They don't show up for court cases.......They always talked tough on immigration but it was a joke.  Under the Dreamers and DACA large numbers came here to exploit it under Obama.  Using the loop holes in the system, just as they are now with recent court rulings FORCING ICE to release them again.  Main reason is the Flores loop holes on 20 day holds and the families can't be separated.  ICE doesn't have the facilities to hold all the families nor the courts to  get them proceeded in under 20 days.   Thus they are doing Catch and Release again.
> 
> That is NOT SECURING THE BORDER, and CERTAINLY NOT under control.  Those loop holes need to be closed and the proposals sent to Congress and the President by the CBP to better do their jobs.  Those proposed contracts are reasonable.
> 
> One area of concern is communication problems in the open desert for CBP agents.  Needing more communication towers.
> 
> Under control...........that is a joke............it isn't under control at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about two separate and distinct things.  If the build the wall guys could pull their heads out of their ass, read my posts and quit trying to cull them to prop up some idiotic theory that I'm a liberal, you might begin to understand a few things:
> 
> The wall, immigration, etc. are symptoms of a broader root cause to America's downfall.  In the 1970s through early 2000s constitutionalists were working on a host of legal and political issues - even making headway on most of them.
> 
> Had the constitutionalists and patriots not been funneled off by this Hegelian nightmare that has caused wall worship, many of the symptoms you guys complain about would have disappeared.
> 
> Had you backed them, the fight would be OVER today.  We would be living under a form of government closer to what the founder envisioned and this back and forth B.S. would not be necessary.
> 
> I'm sick of this dumbassery where the build the wall guys accuse everyone who dismissed their proposed solutions as being heretics (those "open border" people.)  How childish can you get!  I didn't vote for Obama and they'd ban me here if I told you what I thought about the ... can't say anything that would be acceptable here.
> 
> The build the wall guys set the constitutionalist and patriot efforts back fifty years, taking major wins (politically and legally) with them and replacing them with socialist solutions.
Click to expand...

You sound like a Libertarian who believes in Darwinism and that everyone should be cut throat in job seeking and taking to the point that those that aren't willing to work for slave wages end up dead.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1986 regulation was tried to deny their ability to work here.  Penalized businesses for hiring them.  The I-9 form.  They skirted this law by ignoring forged ids.  A network was set up to give fake ids to illegals.  When caught workers get deported and come right back
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't regulation, but unconstitutional control.  Here is what is wrong with what happened there:
> 
> The IRS send out a form with an OMB number on it (that's the Office of Management and Budget.)  That form told employers by what authority the government was "requiring" compliance.
> 
> The IRS had exactly ZERO, ZILCH, NADA when it came to jurisdiction over matters dealing with Socialist Security.  So, I like a lot of people found a good use for those forms.
> 
> There is difference between control and regulation.  Control is shutting off a road.  Regulation is when you regulate the flow so that the traffic moves on that road in an orderly fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law was to force businesses to require id's for verification to work here.  The  Forgery network gave them id's and SSN's...........that system failed us........not the intent.  The intent was to verify their LEGAL right to work here.  Whether E-Verify will fix that is not quite known.   That or something like that could very well fix that problem.  When they can't work they will self deport.
> 
> OR PEOPLE LIKE YOU  would have to SPONSOR THEM..........follow the law instead of making excuses.......and fix the problem once and for all.
> 
> Your little cute version doesn't change that one iota.........Americans want it fixed........by all means available..........The wall and better border security is part of that equation.............whether you agree is immaterial on that issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The majority of people disagree with your proposition.  If you were following this thread, I've already stated that BEFORE the build the wall guys got involved, the issues were well under control - presuming that most of the pretexts being used are the REAL reason some of you are into wall worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was not in control.  Under Obama it was catch and release and you know it.  They don't show up for court cases.......They always talked tough on immigration but it was a joke.  Under the Dreamers and DACA large numbers came here to exploit it under Obama.  Using the loop holes in the system, just as they are now with recent court rulings FORCING ICE to release them again.  Main reason is the Flores loop holes on 20 day holds and the families can't be separated.  ICE doesn't have the facilities to hold all the families nor the courts to  get them proceeded in under 20 days.   Thus they are doing Catch and Release again.
> 
> That is NOT SECURING THE BORDER, and CERTAINLY NOT under control.  Those loop holes need to be closed and the proposals sent to Congress and the President by the CBP to better do their jobs.  Those proposed contracts are reasonable.
> 
> One area of concern is communication problems in the open desert for CBP agents.  Needing more communication towers.
> 
> Under control...........that is a joke............it isn't under control at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about two separate and distinct things.  If the build the wall guys could pull their heads out of their ass, read my posts and quit trying to cull them to prop up some idiotic theory that I'm a liberal, you might begin to understand a few things:
> 
> The wall, immigration, etc. are symptoms of a broader root cause to America's downfall.  In the 1970s through early 2000s constitutionalists were working on a host of legal and political issues - even making headway on most of them.
> 
> Had the constitutionalists and patriots not been funneled off by this Hegelian nightmare that has caused wall worship, many of the symptoms you guys complain about would have disappeared.
> 
> Had you backed them, the fight would be OVER today.  We would be living under a form of government closer to what the founder envisioned and this back and forth B.S. would not be necessary.
> 
> I'm sick of this dumbassery where the build the wall guys accuse everyone who dismissed their proposed solutions as being heretics (those "open border" people.)  How childish can you get!  I didn't vote for Obama and they'd ban me here if I told you what I thought about the ... can't say anything that would be acceptable here.
> 
> The build the wall guys set the constitutionalist and patriot efforts back fifty years, taking major wins (politically and legally) with them and replacing them with socialist solutions.
Click to expand...

You equate me with the left...............I understand the Founding Fathers and their intent well.........Well versed in the Federalist papers.  Enumerated powers and State's rights are fundamental principles that have been lost.  Most of that is Social programs dating all the way back to FDR...........They made promises they could never honor.  That is why we are not in this mess...........Not a wall or border Security. 

This task was under the Enumerated powers of the Gov't whether you like it or not.  The Federal Gov't is responsible for the security of this nation PERIOD.  No amount of words you say to me will change that opinion.  You say it will not work.......I say you are WRONG.   That and add in the laws I stated and it will stem the flow of illegals in this country and bring back the rule of law under a Republic as intended.................The braking of our immigration laws by foreigners is NOT IN OUR BEST INTEREST..........There are LEGAL ways to come in and that is how it needs to be done.

You are either supportive of our laws under a Republic or you are not.  They are breaking the law by coming here illegally and you............by your own admission are breaking the law hiring them.

If you don't like the laws..........then change them.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you. I'm not saying that is good or bad. It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma: they are equally yoked with the unbelieving
> 
> 
> 
> That is projection.  You can be a Christian and a Nationalist at the same time.  You can't let everyone in the numbers are too great............It HURTS THIS COUNTRY.  You don't destroy yourself to save them.  That is just plain stupid.  We have safety nets and they use them.   Costs the Feds and States more money.  That is Reality.
> 
> They need to fix the problems in their own countries.........and stop running from it.  They do that then perhaps they will no longer run.
Click to expand...


You can be a Christian and a Nationalist at the same time - I agree.

What you *absolutely cannot do *is preach inalienable rights to a Christian since Christians, like the founders, rely on UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.  Please don't make me go hunting for what Ray said with regards to his defense of this.  

Ray, in his roundabout way, insists on using the term inalienable rights so as to justify taking Rights away from people.  It has absolutely NO basis in Christianity.

Not even the left is arguing some idiotic position of letting just anyone into the country as you imply.  You build the wall guys are stuck in your own stupidity on that one.  Just because someone comes here does not mean they are going to stay here; does not mean they need to qualify for the benefits and privileges of citizenship... and if the build the wall guys had stayed the Hell out of this until they had the facts, there would not be MILLIONS of new citizens made possible by their stubborn defense of the illegally ratified 14th Amendment (and HELL NO we won't debate that on this thread.)  I have an open challenge on a more level playing field for the first build the wall advocate that is serious.


----------



## OKTexas

dblack said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you only concerned about border properties? The government uses imminent domain to take properties all the time. Where's your concern for the folks that lose land for a Post Office or other government functions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support eminent domain at all. But apparently "libertarians" like bripat9643 do. Whodathunkit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That could make our roads look awfully funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessarily. Believe it or not, problems like that can be resolved without resorting to violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Care to elaborate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm just saying that people are resourceful. State coercion isn't the only way to organize large scale projects.
Click to expand...



But it is the most efficient and cost effective, especially for long term planning.

.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you. I'm not saying that is good or bad. It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma: they are equally yoked with the unbelieving
> 
> 
> 
> That is projection.  You can be a Christian and a Nationalist at the same time.  You can't let everyone in the numbers are too great............It HURTS THIS COUNTRY.  You don't destroy yourself to save them.  That is just plain stupid.  We have safety nets and they use them.   Costs the Feds and States more money.  That is Reality.
> 
> They need to fix the problems in their own countries.........and stop running from it.  They do that then perhaps they will no longer run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can be a Christian and a Nationalist at the same time - I agree.
> 
> What you *absolutely cannot do *is preach inalienable rights to a Christian since Christians, like the founders, rely on UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.  Please don't make me go hunting for what Ray said with regards to his defense of this.
> 
> Ray, in his roundabout way, insists on using the term inalienable rights so as to justify taking Rights away from people.  It has absolutely NO basis in Christianity.
> 
> Not even the left is arguing some idiotic position of letting just anyone into the country as you imply.  You build the wall guys are stuck in your own stupidity on that one.  Just because someone comes here does not mean they are going to stay here; does not mean they need to qualify for the benefits and privileges of citizenship... and if the build the wall guys had stayed the Hell out of this until they had the facts, there would not be MILLIONS of new citizens made possible by their stubborn defense of the illegally ratified 14th Amendment (and HELL NO we won't debate that on this thread.)  I have an open challenge on a more level playing field for the first build the wall advocate that is serious.
Click to expand...

You need to understand the difference between Citizen versus non citizen and get back to me.  You are stuck on that word............You don't destroy your own country to help others..........and we are headed down that path. 

You challenge Religion to JUSTIFY LAWLESSNESS against those breaking our laws coming here.  Do it legally or don't do it at all...........Doing it legally will not stop Farm labor.  The Dept of Labor has a program for that and businesses have a responsibility to FOLLOW OUR LAWS..............Not abuse them.  It is NOT RIGHT that some follow the laws and get screwed on competition because those not following the law get away with it.

Equal justice and application of the law............versus your continued rants on how to justify BREAKING THE LAW.

We are a NATION OF LAWS or nothing.  That is the principle of the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you take a moment and kindly explain American culture to me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, if you can't look around at the changes that have already occurred, that's your problem. BTW you asked me for a court case yesterday, I provided it and haven't acknowledged it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to bear in mind that I'm on here supposedly "debating" at least six different people.  What court case did you cite that you think means what?  I do 80 wpm and can barely keep up.  I miss a few posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you against the world, think maybe it's just you that is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTH are you talking about?  I am not debating or arguing with anyone on this thread.  I have not taken a position other than stating the obvious:  a wall will not solve any issues that the build the wall guys have put on the table.  I'm asking questions and simply trying to figure out what is REALLY going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a position. You don't want the wall built because you think it won't work. It depends on what you intend to accomplish. To keep out the riff raff it will work. To put a big hurdle in drug imports it would work.
Click to expand...


Do you have a mental problem?  I've stated my reasons for not wanting a wall.  I know damn well it will not work because, and let's make this big and bold for you:

*AMERICA IS NOT MEXICO, CANADA OR CHINA.  WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH THE ISRAELIS.  WE ARE NOT TRYING TO PROTECT OR PRESERVE THE POSTERITY OF THE FOUNDERS.  AS A RESULT YOU BUILD THE WALL PEOPLE ARE APPLYING A SOLUTION THAT DOES NOT APPLY - AND I HAVE PROVEN UNEQUIVOCALLY, WALLS OVER TIME DO NOT WORK.  I'M COMMITTED TO A PRACTICAL, HONEST AND PERMANENT SOLUTION*.

If you would read posts # 3475 and # 3476 you can see my REAL objections to what you are proposing.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> Not even the left is arguing some idiotic position of letting just anyone into the country as you imply.


Hogwash..........Their actions show their true intentions...............There using immigration for votes over history show how they LIE their butts off on this subject.  They talk big and do nothing because they DO NOT WANT IT FIXED.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't regulation, but unconstitutional control.  Here is what is wrong with what happened there:
> 
> The IRS send out a form with an OMB number on it (that's the Office of Management and Budget.)  That form told employers by what authority the government was "requiring" compliance.
> 
> The IRS had exactly ZERO, ZILCH, NADA when it came to jurisdiction over matters dealing with Socialist Security.  So, I like a lot of people found a good use for those forms.
> 
> There is difference between control and regulation.  Control is shutting off a road.  Regulation is when you regulate the flow so that the traffic moves on that road in an orderly fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> The law was to force businesses to require id's for verification to work here.  The  Forgery network gave them id's and SSN's...........that system failed us........not the intent.  The intent was to verify their LEGAL right to work here.  Whether E-Verify will fix that is not quite known.   That or something like that could very well fix that problem.  When they can't work they will self deport.
> 
> OR PEOPLE LIKE YOU  would have to SPONSOR THEM..........follow the law instead of making excuses.......and fix the problem once and for all.
> 
> Your little cute version doesn't change that one iota.........Americans want it fixed........by all means available..........The wall and better border security is part of that equation.............whether you agree is immaterial on that issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The majority of people disagree with your proposition.  If you were following this thread, I've already stated that BEFORE the build the wall guys got involved, the issues were well under control - presuming that most of the pretexts being used are the REAL reason some of you are into wall worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was not in control.  Under Obama it was catch and release and you know it.  They don't show up for court cases.......They always talked tough on immigration but it was a joke.  Under the Dreamers and DACA large numbers came here to exploit it under Obama.  Using the loop holes in the system, just as they are now with recent court rulings FORCING ICE to release them again.  Main reason is the Flores loop holes on 20 day holds and the families can't be separated.  ICE doesn't have the facilities to hold all the families nor the courts to  get them proceeded in under 20 days.   Thus they are doing Catch and Release again.
> 
> That is NOT SECURING THE BORDER, and CERTAINLY NOT under control.  Those loop holes need to be closed and the proposals sent to Congress and the President by the CBP to better do their jobs.  Those proposed contracts are reasonable.
> 
> One area of concern is communication problems in the open desert for CBP agents.  Needing more communication towers.
> 
> Under control...........that is a joke............it isn't under control at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about two separate and distinct things.  If the build the wall guys could pull their heads out of their ass, read my posts and quit trying to cull them to prop up some idiotic theory that I'm a liberal, you might begin to understand a few things:
> 
> The wall, immigration, etc. are symptoms of a broader root cause to America's downfall.  In the 1970s through early 2000s constitutionalists were working on a host of legal and political issues - even making headway on most of them.
> 
> Had the constitutionalists and patriots not been funneled off by this Hegelian nightmare that has caused wall worship, many of the symptoms you guys complain about would have disappeared.
> 
> Had you backed them, the fight would be OVER today.  We would be living under a form of government closer to what the founder envisioned and this back and forth B.S. would not be necessary.
> 
> I'm sick of this dumbassery where the build the wall guys accuse everyone who dismissed their proposed solutions as being heretics (those "open border" people.)  How childish can you get!  I didn't vote for Obama and they'd ban me here if I told you what I thought about the ... can't say anything that would be acceptable here.
> 
> The build the wall guys set the constitutionalist and patriot efforts back fifty years, taking major wins (politically and legally) with them and replacing them with socialist solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You equate me with the left...............I understand the Founding Fathers and their intent well.........Well versed in the Federalist papers.  Enumerated powers and State's rights are fundamental principles that have been lost.  Most of that is Social programs dating all the way back to FDR...........They made promises they could never honor.  That is why we are not in this mess...........Not a wall or border Security.
> 
> This task was under the Enumerated powers of the Gov't whether you like it or not.  The Federal Gov't is responsible for the security of this nation PERIOD.  No amount of words you say to me will change that opinion.  You say it will not work.......I say you are WRONG.   That and add in the laws I stated and it will stem the flow of illegals in this country and bring back the rule of law under a Republic as intended.................The braking of our immigration laws by foreigners is NOT IN OUR BEST INTEREST..........There are LEGAL ways to come in and that is how it needs to be done.
> 
> You are either supportive of our laws under a Republic or you are not.  They are breaking the law by coming here illegally and you............by your own admission are breaking the law hiring them.
> 
> If you don't like the laws..........then change them.
Click to expand...


You just showed me a level of ignorance that makes me want to scream at you.  Read post # 2806 and see if you can figure it out.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law was to force businesses to require id's for verification to work here.  The  Forgery network gave them id's and SSN's...........that system failed us........not the intent.  The intent was to verify their LEGAL right to work here.  Whether E-Verify will fix that is not quite known.   That or something like that could very well fix that problem.  When they can't work they will self deport.
> 
> OR PEOPLE LIKE YOU  would have to SPONSOR THEM..........follow the law instead of making excuses.......and fix the problem once and for all.
> 
> Your little cute version doesn't change that one iota.........Americans want it fixed........by all means available..........The wall and better border security is part of that equation.............whether you agree is immaterial on that issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of people disagree with your proposition.  If you were following this thread, I've already stated that BEFORE the build the wall guys got involved, the issues were well under control - presuming that most of the pretexts being used are the REAL reason some of you are into wall worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was not in control.  Under Obama it was catch and release and you know it.  They don't show up for court cases.......They always talked tough on immigration but it was a joke.  Under the Dreamers and DACA large numbers came here to exploit it under Obama.  Using the loop holes in the system, just as they are now with recent court rulings FORCING ICE to release them again.  Main reason is the Flores loop holes on 20 day holds and the families can't be separated.  ICE doesn't have the facilities to hold all the families nor the courts to  get them proceeded in under 20 days.   Thus they are doing Catch and Release again.
> 
> That is NOT SECURING THE BORDER, and CERTAINLY NOT under control.  Those loop holes need to be closed and the proposals sent to Congress and the President by the CBP to better do their jobs.  Those proposed contracts are reasonable.
> 
> One area of concern is communication problems in the open desert for CBP agents.  Needing more communication towers.
> 
> Under control...........that is a joke............it isn't under control at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about two separate and distinct things.  If the build the wall guys could pull their heads out of their ass, read my posts and quit trying to cull them to prop up some idiotic theory that I'm a liberal, you might begin to understand a few things:
> 
> The wall, immigration, etc. are symptoms of a broader root cause to America's downfall.  In the 1970s through early 2000s constitutionalists were working on a host of legal and political issues - even making headway on most of them.
> 
> Had the constitutionalists and patriots not been funneled off by this Hegelian nightmare that has caused wall worship, many of the symptoms you guys complain about would have disappeared.
> 
> Had you backed them, the fight would be OVER today.  We would be living under a form of government closer to what the founder envisioned and this back and forth B.S. would not be necessary.
> 
> I'm sick of this dumbassery where the build the wall guys accuse everyone who dismissed their proposed solutions as being heretics (those "open border" people.)  How childish can you get!  I didn't vote for Obama and they'd ban me here if I told you what I thought about the ... can't say anything that would be acceptable here.
> 
> The build the wall guys set the constitutionalist and patriot efforts back fifty years, taking major wins (politically and legally) with them and replacing them with socialist solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You equate me with the left...............I understand the Founding Fathers and their intent well.........Well versed in the Federalist papers.  Enumerated powers and State's rights are fundamental principles that have been lost.  Most of that is Social programs dating all the way back to FDR...........They made promises they could never honor.  That is why we are not in this mess...........Not a wall or border Security.
> 
> This task was under the Enumerated powers of the Gov't whether you like it or not.  The Federal Gov't is responsible for the security of this nation PERIOD.  No amount of words you say to me will change that opinion.  You say it will not work.......I say you are WRONG.   That and add in the laws I stated and it will stem the flow of illegals in this country and bring back the rule of law under a Republic as intended.................The braking of our immigration laws by foreigners is NOT IN OUR BEST INTEREST..........There are LEGAL ways to come in and that is how it needs to be done.
> 
> You are either supportive of our laws under a Republic or you are not.  They are breaking the law by coming here illegally and you............by your own admission are breaking the law hiring them.
> 
> If you don't like the laws..........then change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just showed me a level of ignorance that makes me want to scream at you.  Read post # 2806 and see if you can figure it out.
Click to expand...

I read that post after you asked me the first time.  I've seen what the CBP is asking for.............I've read about the mistakes of our past.........and understand the situation far better than you THINK you know............Just because you have an opinion doesn't make it more valuable than mine.  Walls with the sensors to apprehend illegals is part of that system.  It also helps them stem the flow of drugs.   Do that and add in what I stated and we can restore Law and Order to this nation.

You are pushing LAWLESSNESS HERE.  Then play the Moral card to justify it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been explained to you in great detail how the wall has unintended consequences. Yet you choose to deny the realities of our times. For you, the wall is a religion. As you've stated, "you just want them (sic) gone. As this thread progresses, it will be interesting to see how little value your fellow build the wall supporters feel about your attitude toward Freeom and Liberty... ESPECIALLY if they have children who may have live in the aftermath of what you hope to create.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 238920
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great deflection, but here is my assessment about you (since that's all you got of all the discussion we've had)
> 
> 1)  Ray is agnostic, atheist, or something *other than* Christian.  The dead giveaway is when people insist on using the word inalienable over unalienable.  They have been interpreted differently by our courts.  Inalienable rights are those which can be aliened IF YOU CONSENT.
> 
> Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.)  Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you.  I'm not saying that is good or bad.  It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma:  they are equally yoked with the unbelieving
> 
> 2)  It is no secret that Ray would forfeit ANY AND ALL Liberties, Rights, and blessings for a wall
> 
> 3)  In Ray's world he honestly believes he can keep people out.  This has NOTHING to do with any legal or moral argument for or against immigration.  It is a pipe dream that could not be accomplished even when Jesus was walking this earth (references supplied in earlier posts)
> 
> 4) Ray will use information in order to achieve his goal: keeping people from south of the border out.  Oh he might play word games / semantics about a phony legal v. illegal nature, but his posts testify against the smoke and mirrors.  He refuses to ask me one question as he prefers to present the pretext as a fact rather than ask me a simple question that he's danced around
> 
> 5)  Ray says he would like to preserve our culture.  Albeit unpopular, our culture consists of a people that built a country on the twin pillars of race and religion.  Ray rejects the religion, but lives under the delusion we can use a wall to force people out and reclaim the racial part of our heritage without the other part of our culture that made us great (i.e.a belief, as a nation, in God.)
> 
> Nothing more can come of any further debate / discussion.  Anything he and I say to each other does not change where he stands.  And I came on this thread looking for the REAL reason people worship the wall.  Ray's logic does not make me want to trade off Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to be the bad guy, but that outlook is socialist.  Rush Limbaugh said:
> 
> "If you want a “living wage,” if you don’t like what fast food restaurants pay, then do something else. It’s just that simple. Go to a trade school. Go to another business. Start your own business. Maybe the work that you are capable of isn’t yet worth $15 an hour at a fast-food restaurant. Maybe the consumer doesn’t want to pay $10 for a Big Mac so that people working at McDonald’s make $15 an hour. It’s not just a one-way strata.
> 
> You don’t just sit there and double what the employees at McDonald’s make and keep the prices the same. Now, you may think this is obvious, folks, and you may think, “Come on, Rush,” you’d be amazed at how many people do not understand the push-pull in economics. You’d be amazed at the number of people who have taken economics courses who think that the truth about headaches is that the boss is a cheap skinflint and wants his employees to starve and wants to screw his customers."
> 
> Minimum Wage: How Much is Too Much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't work for McDonalds.
> I'm as much a Conservative as Trump is and that would be not very much at all. Common sense for the working man he is and so am I.
Click to expand...


Trump is NOT a conservative; he despises the Constitution; he thinks he's God and you would follow him into Hell.  He just slapped "conservatives"  with a bitch slap so hard that he's about to nullify that Constitution.  

The minimum wage debate sparked the living wage debate and when Rush isn't evangelizing for Reverend Trump, he's cutting that living wage argument into shreds.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of people disagree with your proposition.  If you were following this thread, I've already stated that BEFORE the build the wall guys got involved, the issues were well under control - presuming that most of the pretexts being used are the REAL reason some of you are into wall worship.
> 
> 
> 
> It was not in control.  Under Obama it was catch and release and you know it.  They don't show up for court cases.......They always talked tough on immigration but it was a joke.  Under the Dreamers and DACA large numbers came here to exploit it under Obama.  Using the loop holes in the system, just as they are now with recent court rulings FORCING ICE to release them again.  Main reason is the Flores loop holes on 20 day holds and the families can't be separated.  ICE doesn't have the facilities to hold all the families nor the courts to  get them proceeded in under 20 days.   Thus they are doing Catch and Release again.
> 
> That is NOT SECURING THE BORDER, and CERTAINLY NOT under control.  Those loop holes need to be closed and the proposals sent to Congress and the President by the CBP to better do their jobs.  Those proposed contracts are reasonable.
> 
> One area of concern is communication problems in the open desert for CBP agents.  Needing more communication towers.
> 
> Under control...........that is a joke............it isn't under control at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about two separate and distinct things.  If the build the wall guys could pull their heads out of their ass, read my posts and quit trying to cull them to prop up some idiotic theory that I'm a liberal, you might begin to understand a few things:
> 
> The wall, immigration, etc. are symptoms of a broader root cause to America's downfall.  In the 1970s through early 2000s constitutionalists were working on a host of legal and political issues - even making headway on most of them.
> 
> Had the constitutionalists and patriots not been funneled off by this Hegelian nightmare that has caused wall worship, many of the symptoms you guys complain about would have disappeared.
> 
> Had you backed them, the fight would be OVER today.  We would be living under a form of government closer to what the founder envisioned and this back and forth B.S. would not be necessary.
> 
> I'm sick of this dumbassery where the build the wall guys accuse everyone who dismissed their proposed solutions as being heretics (those "open border" people.)  How childish can you get!  I didn't vote for Obama and they'd ban me here if I told you what I thought about the ... can't say anything that would be acceptable here.
> 
> The build the wall guys set the constitutionalist and patriot efforts back fifty years, taking major wins (politically and legally) with them and replacing them with socialist solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You equate me with the left...............I understand the Founding Fathers and their intent well.........Well versed in the Federalist papers.  Enumerated powers and State's rights are fundamental principles that have been lost.  Most of that is Social programs dating all the way back to FDR...........They made promises they could never honor.  That is why we are not in this mess...........Not a wall or border Security.
> 
> This task was under the Enumerated powers of the Gov't whether you like it or not.  The Federal Gov't is responsible for the security of this nation PERIOD.  No amount of words you say to me will change that opinion.  You say it will not work.......I say you are WRONG.   That and add in the laws I stated and it will stem the flow of illegals in this country and bring back the rule of law under a Republic as intended.................The braking of our immigration laws by foreigners is NOT IN OUR BEST INTEREST..........There are LEGAL ways to come in and that is how it needs to be done.
> 
> You are either supportive of our laws under a Republic or you are not.  They are breaking the law by coming here illegally and you............by your own admission are breaking the law hiring them.
> 
> If you don't like the laws..........then change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just showed me a level of ignorance that makes me want to scream at you.  Read post # 2806 and see if you can figure it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read that post after you asked me the first time.  I've seen what the CBP is asking for.............I've read about the mistakes of our past.........and understand the situation far better than you THINK you know............Just because you have an opinion doesn't make it more valuable than mine.  Walls with the sensors to apprehend illegals is part of that system.  It also helps them stem the flow of drugs.   Do that and add in what I stated and we can restore Law and Order to this nation.
> 
> You are pushing LAWLESSNESS HERE.  Then play the Moral card to justify it.
Click to expand...


The quoted post don't have squat to do with the CBP or anything near that.  You're posting so much and throwing so much stuff at me that you can't keep up with it.

Hell, brother, I got half a dozen wall religionists dogging me and keep up better than you.

Where do you get your unalienable Rights from?  What is post # 2806 about?


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> EXCUSE ME for interjecting here, I see you are STILL arguing about the wall!  I honestly don't see what the debate is about:
> 
> Indigent Illegals crossing the southern borders in mass quantities?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This has a negative impact on our resources and wage earning potential for many americans competing in similar job markets that Mexicans do here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Putting up a complete, better wall would hugely impact their coming here?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> This country safer from potential terrorist intrusion with the wall?  *THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.*
> 
> Being for the wall?  Are you kidding me?  This is never about a wall, it is about national security and sovereignty.  If anyone says it is about protectionism, so what if it is? * LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me protectionism is bad and they are against it and I will ask them if they have a lock on their front door, if they lock their car, have a security light or security system?  *LET ONE PERSON HERE* tell me they don't PROTECT what they have, and I'll call you a LIAR.
> 
> Being for the wall?   The issue here is BEING FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.  The wall makes us more secure with it than without it.  Anyone here arguing against national security is either a commie, an anti-American or has fruit loops for brains.
> 
> Better ways to do it?  BULL.
> 
> Cheaper ways to do it?  BULL?
> 
> Immoral?  Go fuck yourself.
> 
> Anyone who claims a wall is "immoral" against these mobs of dirty, stinking, diseased illegals but its not "immoral" for what blindly letting these people into the country is doing to us here, is a fucking idiot.  Maybe you don't see it where you live, but we are approaching 12 million of these people.  That's about 4% of the population.  Cut them off today and in another decade with their kids (all supported by low income government programs that come out of YOUR pocket, they'll be at 10%.
> 
> Like all things, you get what you fund.  We are funding a low income, low education, low skill, high dependence work force.   The exact OPPOSITE of what this country made itself great with.
> 
> Enough.  End it now.  Its the LAW.  Defend the borders.  I'm tired of hearing people argue against the most basic, fundamental responsibility of the federal government.  Trump:  tear the shit down until these motherfuckers in Congress say uncle!  It's go for broke right now and I say put the bastard democrats in prison if they continue to block what we put you in office to do.  If you don't like Trump and didn't put him in office, fine.  When you get YOUR guy in office, then it'll be your time to get YOUR agenda carried out.
> 
> But I really think democrats oppose the wall so much because THEY KNOW IT WILL WORK.  And they don't WANT it to work.  Democratic scum care less about Americans than they do every dirty wetback minority they can dig out from under a rock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did anyone ever tell you that you are freaking HILARIOUS?  Yours was the funniest freaking post I've seen since I've been on this board.  Thank you for starting my day off with a laugh.  Now down to business:
> 
> 1) I am not arguing with ANYONE about your silly wall
> 
> 2)  This is NOT a debate forum, so we are not debating anything
> 
> 3)  Just because you make a bold assertion and put it in big blue letters will not make it come true
> 
> 4) * EVERY non - partisan* study I have read contradicts what the white supremacists are feeding Congress.  NOW, let me show you how this works:
> 
> "Despite all this, illegal immigration’s *overall impact on the US economy is small.* Low-skilled native workers who compete with unauthorized immigrants are the clearest losers. US employers, on the other hand, gain from lower labor costs and the ability to use their land, capital, and technology more productively. The stakes are highest for the unauthorized immigrants themselves, who see very substantial income gains after migrating. If we exclude these immigrants from the calculus, however (as domestic policymakers are naturally inclined to do), the small net gain that remains after subtracting US workers’ losses from US employers’ gains is tiny. *And if we account for the small fiscal burden that unauthorized immigrants impose, the overall economic benefit is close enough to zero to be essentially a wash*"
> 
> file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/Hanson-Dec09%20(3).pdf
> 
> (I had to copy and paste that link so you will have to do likewise to read it)
> 
> See the documentation in quotation marks and a citing source?  Notice how the study figures in not only the *cost*, but the* contribution* of the foreigner as well?  When you do that, you get a different economic picture.
> 
> You want people to take sides and if they don't agree with you  and then you use mob rule to ridicule and harass them?  That's your strategy? No wonder public opinion is swinging left.
> 
> 5)  The goalposts are once again being moved.  As soon as I answer one objection, you build the wall guys conjure up another.  My current discussion is that Ray has a totally different argument - and at least his argument is half ass honest.  Yours is *absolute stupidity*.
> 
> This is NOT an issue about National Security because the American people are *WILLINGLY* doing business with the foreigners.   There is no threat of war and they are not taking any more than we are willing to give
> 
> 6)  Just because you can deny what I'm saying will NEVER disprove it
> 
> 7)  You can go fuck yourself too.  I'd prefer to have said that in person
> 
> 8)  I've never weighed in on the morality of your silly wall so you had to create a straw man there in order to buffer the ass kicking you're taking here
> 
> 9)  Your dumbassery is really showing.  THREE times in this thread I have told you I'm not on the left; that I voted for Trump.  So, lying won't give much credence to your B.S.
> 
> 10)  Finally, all of this "wall" business was the talking points of the left BEFORE it was right wing fodder.  You should know the history of the arguments you're making.
> 
> It's damn foolish to trash the Constitution, take a dump on your unalienable Rights, and deliberately attempt to make America a third world dictatorship on the basis of lies.  Last night I heard the president of Egypt say that we are the world's strongest military power and it was our responsibility to help fight tyranny.  I don't know if I agree with his proposition; however, it is the epitome of idiocy to try and duplicate the ways of people who are inferior to you.
> 
> A better use of our money and time is to help other nations become like us so they don't feel a need to be at war with each other and not have the requisite knowledge to build a constitutional Republic with the potential of being financially strong and humane toward others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a live link:  https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/Hanson-Dec09.pdf
> 
> And pardon me if I disregard information provided by a left wing one worlder think tank.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well champ, the joke is now on you.  That was a link used by a pro-wall supporter in a debate with someone on another board.  I chose to read it.
> 
> Thank you for being dishonest about it.  It's going to make it easier to prove that build the wall guy is not the beaming paragon of virtue he thinks he is.  left wing one worlder think tank... LMAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you bother to look at the other projects Hanson is involved in? His bias is obvious like most left wing academics. The stagnant numbers he used are totally outdated, they haven't changed in almost 15 years. Anyone who believes there are only 12 million illegals in this country are delusional, real numbers are most likely 4 times that, or higher.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, yeah... they are whatever number the build the wall kind of guys want them to be.  I'll keep you in mind with that post in the future.
> 
> Another study was done before that one.  It was done by non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.  Their conclusion?
> 
> "Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1), that impact is most likely modest."
> 
> https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
> 
> Yep.  All those estimates are old; don't reflect the changes over the last decade, despite the fact that, without a wall, the economy is booming.  Any attack is as good as another.  You just cannot accept the facts.  The right wing groups do not consider the contributions versus the costs.
> 
> As stupid as the American people are, a LOT of them know there are two sides of the accounting ledger and understand that you like omitting the side that don't favor your fudged figures.
Click to expand...



Contributions vs costs, consider this, estimates are that illegals costs us in excess of 100 billion a year in direct costs. Then you can consider the indirect costs. Wage suppression, estimated by the US Civil Rights commission to be between 99-100 billion a year. Then you have displacement of other minorities. Compton CA was 98% black not too long ago, it is now 30% black. So I guess you could say an unsecure border is racist as hell. If you want to see the source of that, watch the first two segments of the Tucker Carlson show tonight. If you can't tune into the repeat you can get it on Utube. He interviewed not only the guy from the Civil Rights commission who provided those fact and other but another that provided some interesting facts.

.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not in control.  Under Obama it was catch and release and you know it.  They don't show up for court cases.......They always talked tough on immigration but it was a joke.  Under the Dreamers and DACA large numbers came here to exploit it under Obama.  Using the loop holes in the system, just as they are now with recent court rulings FORCING ICE to release them again.  Main reason is the Flores loop holes on 20 day holds and the families can't be separated.  ICE doesn't have the facilities to hold all the families nor the courts to  get them proceeded in under 20 days.   Thus they are doing Catch and Release again.
> 
> That is NOT SECURING THE BORDER, and CERTAINLY NOT under control.  Those loop holes need to be closed and the proposals sent to Congress and the President by the CBP to better do their jobs.  Those proposed contracts are reasonable.
> 
> One area of concern is communication problems in the open desert for CBP agents.  Needing more communication towers.
> 
> Under control...........that is a joke............it isn't under control at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about two separate and distinct things.  If the build the wall guys could pull their heads out of their ass, read my posts and quit trying to cull them to prop up some idiotic theory that I'm a liberal, you might begin to understand a few things:
> 
> The wall, immigration, etc. are symptoms of a broader root cause to America's downfall.  In the 1970s through early 2000s constitutionalists were working on a host of legal and political issues - even making headway on most of them.
> 
> Had the constitutionalists and patriots not been funneled off by this Hegelian nightmare that has caused wall worship, many of the symptoms you guys complain about would have disappeared.
> 
> Had you backed them, the fight would be OVER today.  We would be living under a form of government closer to what the founder envisioned and this back and forth B.S. would not be necessary.
> 
> I'm sick of this dumbassery where the build the wall guys accuse everyone who dismissed their proposed solutions as being heretics (those "open border" people.)  How childish can you get!  I didn't vote for Obama and they'd ban me here if I told you what I thought about the ... can't say anything that would be acceptable here.
> 
> The build the wall guys set the constitutionalist and patriot efforts back fifty years, taking major wins (politically and legally) with them and replacing them with socialist solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You equate me with the left...............I understand the Founding Fathers and their intent well.........Well versed in the Federalist papers.  Enumerated powers and State's rights are fundamental principles that have been lost.  Most of that is Social programs dating all the way back to FDR...........They made promises they could never honor.  That is why we are not in this mess...........Not a wall or border Security.
> 
> This task was under the Enumerated powers of the Gov't whether you like it or not.  The Federal Gov't is responsible for the security of this nation PERIOD.  No amount of words you say to me will change that opinion.  You say it will not work.......I say you are WRONG.   That and add in the laws I stated and it will stem the flow of illegals in this country and bring back the rule of law under a Republic as intended.................The braking of our immigration laws by foreigners is NOT IN OUR BEST INTEREST..........There are LEGAL ways to come in and that is how it needs to be done.
> 
> You are either supportive of our laws under a Republic or you are not.  They are breaking the law by coming here illegally and you............by your own admission are breaking the law hiring them.
> 
> If you don't like the laws..........then change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just showed me a level of ignorance that makes me want to scream at you.  Read post # 2806 and see if you can figure it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read that post after you asked me the first time.  I've seen what the CBP is asking for.............I've read about the mistakes of our past.........and understand the situation far better than you THINK you know............Just because you have an opinion doesn't make it more valuable than mine.  Walls with the sensors to apprehend illegals is part of that system.  It also helps them stem the flow of drugs.   Do that and add in what I stated and we can restore Law and Order to this nation.
> 
> You are pushing LAWLESSNESS HERE.  Then play the Moral card to justify it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The quoted post don't have squat to do with the CBP or anything near that.  You're posting so much and throwing so much stuff at me that you can't keep up with it.
> 
> Hell, brother, I got half a dozen wall religionists dogging me and keep up better than you.
Click to expand...

I have rattled your cage............and stated my opinion clearly.............and you are upset that your dogma isn't moving me.

I've read the history of this situation............I've lived it............I've seen the attempts to fix it which have failed........and called you out on some of it.  Like you said they hadn't tried to fix it other ways without a wall..........Reagan did try to do that.  Then you said no he didn't............that was his intent..............and had the verification system worked............well it could have absolutely worked...............but they found away around it and fixed nothing.

Your statements are for open borders............you will state otherwise............because you say you had it fixed if we would listen.......No SPECIFICS................You need to give those specifics and not religious quotes to take them all in.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did anyone ever tell you that you are freaking HILARIOUS?  Yours was the funniest freaking post I've seen since I've been on this board.  Thank you for starting my day off with a laugh.  Now down to business:
> 
> 1) I am not arguing with ANYONE about your silly wall
> 
> 2)  This is NOT a debate forum, so we are not debating anything
> 
> 3)  Just because you make a bold assertion and put it in big blue letters will not make it come true
> 
> 4) * EVERY non - partisan* study I have read contradicts what the white supremacists are feeding Congress.  NOW, let me show you how this works:
> 
> "Despite all this, illegal immigration’s *overall impact on the US economy is small.* Low-skilled native workers who compete with unauthorized immigrants are the clearest losers. US employers, on the other hand, gain from lower labor costs and the ability to use their land, capital, and technology more productively. The stakes are highest for the unauthorized immigrants themselves, who see very substantial income gains after migrating. If we exclude these immigrants from the calculus, however (as domestic policymakers are naturally inclined to do), the small net gain that remains after subtracting US workers’ losses from US employers’ gains is tiny. *And if we account for the small fiscal burden that unauthorized immigrants impose, the overall economic benefit is close enough to zero to be essentially a wash*"
> 
> file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/Hanson-Dec09%20(3).pdf
> 
> (I had to copy and paste that link so you will have to do likewise to read it)
> 
> See the documentation in quotation marks and a citing source?  Notice how the study figures in not only the *cost*, but the* contribution* of the foreigner as well?  When you do that, you get a different economic picture.
> 
> You want people to take sides and if they don't agree with you  and then you use mob rule to ridicule and harass them?  That's your strategy? No wonder public opinion is swinging left.
> 
> 5)  The goalposts are once again being moved.  As soon as I answer one objection, you build the wall guys conjure up another.  My current discussion is that Ray has a totally different argument - and at least his argument is half ass honest.  Yours is *absolute stupidity*.
> 
> This is NOT an issue about National Security because the American people are *WILLINGLY* doing business with the foreigners.   There is no threat of war and they are not taking any more than we are willing to give
> 
> 6)  Just because you can deny what I'm saying will NEVER disprove it
> 
> 7)  You can go fuck yourself too.  I'd prefer to have said that in person
> 
> 8)  I've never weighed in on the morality of your silly wall so you had to create a straw man there in order to buffer the ass kicking you're taking here
> 
> 9)  Your dumbassery is really showing.  THREE times in this thread I have told you I'm not on the left; that I voted for Trump.  So, lying won't give much credence to your B.S.
> 
> 10)  Finally, all of this "wall" business was the talking points of the left BEFORE it was right wing fodder.  You should know the history of the arguments you're making.
> 
> It's damn foolish to trash the Constitution, take a dump on your unalienable Rights, and deliberately attempt to make America a third world dictatorship on the basis of lies.  Last night I heard the president of Egypt say that we are the world's strongest military power and it was our responsibility to help fight tyranny.  I don't know if I agree with his proposition; however, it is the epitome of idiocy to try and duplicate the ways of people who are inferior to you.
> 
> A better use of our money and time is to help other nations become like us so they don't feel a need to be at war with each other and not have the requisite knowledge to build a constitutional Republic with the potential of being financially strong and humane toward others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a live link:  https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/Hanson-Dec09.pdf
> 
> And pardon me if I disregard information provided by a left wing one worlder think tank.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well champ, the joke is now on you.  That was a link used by a pro-wall supporter in a debate with someone on another board.  I chose to read it.
> 
> Thank you for being dishonest about it.  It's going to make it easier to prove that build the wall guy is not the beaming paragon of virtue he thinks he is.  left wing one worlder think tank... LMAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you bother to look at the other projects Hanson is involved in? His bias is obvious like most left wing academics. The stagnant numbers he used are totally outdated, they haven't changed in almost 15 years. Anyone who believes there are only 12 million illegals in this country are delusional, real numbers are most likely 4 times that, or higher.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, yeah... they are whatever number the build the wall kind of guys want them to be.  I'll keep you in mind with that post in the future.
> 
> Another study was done before that one.  It was done by non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.  Their conclusion?
> 
> "Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1), that impact is most likely modest."
> 
> https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
> 
> Yep.  All those estimates are old; don't reflect the changes over the last decade, despite the fact that, without a wall, the economy is booming.  Any attack is as good as another.  You just cannot accept the facts.  The right wing groups do not consider the contributions versus the costs.
> 
> As stupid as the American people are, a LOT of them know there are two sides of the accounting ledger and understand that you like omitting the side that don't favor your fudged figures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Contributions vs costs, consider this, estimates are that illegals costs us in excess of 100 billion a year in direct costs. Then you can consider the indirect costs. Wage suppression, estimated by the US Civil Rights commission to be between 99-100 billion a year. Then you have displacement of other minorities. Compton CA was 98% black not too long ago, it is now 30% black. So I guess you could say an unsecure border is racist as hell. If you want to see the source of that, watch the first two segments of the Tucker Carlson show tonight. If you can't tune into the repeat you can get it on Utube. He interviewed not only the guy from the Civil Rights commission who provided those fact and other but another that provided some interesting facts.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


All the "facts" change daily.  Your supposed facts change as often as the myriad of pretexts of why we're willing to spend $5 BILLION DOLLARS on a proposed solution that isn't even tailored to the perceived problem. 

For every study you can show me, I can come up with five, just as authoritative, that dismiss what you come up with.  None of it changes the truth.  I know you don't read the thread, I keep having to repeat myself.  I came here asking for answers.  My views can be found on posts # 2806, 3475, 3476 and 3613 among others (those are the most relevant.)

BTW, If I REALLY wanted to be for the undocumented, I could do a thesis on the indirect benefits the political propaganda prostitutes don't mention in favor of undocumented foreigners.


----------



## dblack

OKTexas said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just saying that people are resourceful. State coercion isn't the only way to organize large scale projects.
> 
> 
> 
> But it is the most efficient and cost effective, especially for long term planning.
Click to expand...


I don't agree. Coercion can be the most efficient way to get things done in the _short term_. But those who live by the sword, die by the sword, and mutual cooperation is more sustainable in the long term.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you. I'm not saying that is good or bad. It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma: they are equally yoked with the unbelieving
> 
> 
> 
> That is projection.  You can be a Christian and a Nationalist at the same time.  You can't let everyone in the numbers are too great............It HURTS THIS COUNTRY.  You don't destroy yourself to save them.  That is just plain stupid.  We have safety nets and they use them.   Costs the Feds and States more money.  That is Reality.
> 
> They need to fix the problems in their own countries.........and stop running from it.  They do that then perhaps they will no longer run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can be a Christian and a Nationalist at the same time - I agree.
> 
> What you *absolutely cannot do *is preach inalienable rights to a Christian since Christians, like the founders, rely on UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.  Please don't make me go hunting for what Ray said with regards to his defense of this.
> 
> Ray, in his roundabout way, insists on using the term inalienable rights so as to justify taking Rights away from people.  It has absolutely NO basis in Christianity.
> 
> Not even the left is arguing some idiotic position of letting just anyone into the country as you imply.  You build the wall guys are stuck in your own stupidity on that one.  Just because someone comes here does not mean they are going to stay here; does not mean they need to qualify for the benefits and privileges of citizenship... and if the build the wall guys had stayed the Hell out of this until they had the facts, there would not be MILLIONS of new citizens made possible by their stubborn defense of the illegally ratified 14th Amendment (and HELL NO we won't debate that on this thread.)  I have an open challenge on a more level playing field for the first build the wall advocate that is serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to understand the difference between Citizen versus non citizen and get back to me.  You are stuck on that word............You don't destroy your own country to help others..........and we are headed down that path.
> 
> You challenge Religion to JUSTIFY LAWLESSNESS against those breaking our laws coming here.  Do it legally or don't do it at all...........Doing it legally will not stop Farm labor.  The Dept of Labor has a program for that and businesses have a responsibility to FOLLOW OUR LAWS..............Not abuse them.  It is NOT RIGHT that some follow the laws and get screwed on competition because those not following the law get away with it.
> 
> Equal justice and application of the law............versus your continued rants on how to justify BREAKING THE LAW.
> 
> We are a NATION OF LAWS or nothing.  That is the principle of the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands.
Click to expand...


I do not challenge religion and you wallow in stupidity and ignorance because all the build the wall guys know how to do is attack people.  If you don't understand something, ASK.  ASK like I did with Ray... for over a hundred posts just to get him to answer my questions... and you guys are so insecure, you don't bother to ask me squat.  You just jump my ass because I don't bow down to your savior Donald Trump.  

I've not advocated people break ANY law.  That is a straight out LIE and you are beginning to convince me that you have NO rational ability to apply critical thinking skills.  You make excuses to assault the Constitution, subvert the laws, and take a giant dump on the principles upon which this nation was founded.  In the founders time you would have been labeled a traitor.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, if you can't look around at the changes that have already occurred, that's your problem. BTW you asked me for a court case yesterday, I provided it and haven't acknowledged it.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to bear in mind that I'm on here supposedly "debating" at least six different people.  What court case did you cite that you think means what?  I do 80 wpm and can barely keep up.  I miss a few posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you against the world, think maybe it's just you that is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTH are you talking about?  I am not debating or arguing with anyone on this thread.  I have not taken a position other than stating the obvious:  a wall will not solve any issues that the build the wall guys have put on the table.  I'm asking questions and simply trying to figure out what is REALLY going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a position. You don't want the wall built because you think it won't work. It depends on what you intend to accomplish. To keep out the riff raff it will work. To put a big hurdle in drug imports it would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a mental problem?  I've stated my reasons for not wanting a wall.  I know damn well it will not work because, and let's make this big and bold for you:
> 
> *AMERICA IS NOT MEXICO, CANADA OR CHINA.  WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH THE ISRAELIS.  WE ARE NOT TRYING TO PROTECT OR PRESERVE THE POSTERITY OF THE FOUNDERS.  AS A RESULT YOU BUILD THE WALL PEOPLE ARE APPLYING A SOLUTION THAT DOES NOT APPLY - AND I HAVE PROVEN UNEQUIVOCALLY, WALLS OVER TIME DO NOT WORK.  I'M COMMITTED TO A PRACTICAL, HONEST AND PERMANENT SOLUTION*.
> 
> If you would read posts # 3475 and # 3476 you can see my REAL objections to what you are proposing.
Click to expand...



The only way to get that is throw all the commies out of congress, they will never pass the necessary laws.

.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> ASK. ASK like I did with Ray... for over a hundred posts just to get him to answer my questions... and you guys are so insecure, you don't bother to ask me squat.



Speaking for myself (although I believe I speak for most) we have answered your questions repeatedly.  When you don't get the answer you approve of, you keep insisting we didn't answer your questions.


----------



## The Original Tree

All Great Empires and Civilizations have Walls and defenses on their borders.

The Chin Dynasty

The Roman Empire

Babylon

America

America’s wall used to be The Pacific and Atlantic.

We cannot rely on that anymore in The Transportation Age.

We need another physical barrier, A Wall System.

If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand history.




Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you. I'm not saying that is good or bad. It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma: they are equally yoked with the unbelieving
> 
> 
> 
> That is projection.  You can be a Christian and a Nationalist at the same time.  You can't let everyone in the numbers are too great............It HURTS THIS COUNTRY.  You don't destroy yourself to save them.  That is just plain stupid.  We have safety nets and they use them.   Costs the Feds and States more money.  That is Reality.
> 
> They need to fix the problems in their own countries.........and stop running from it.  They do that then perhaps they will no longer run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can be a Christian and a Nationalist at the same time - I agree.
> 
> What you *absolutely cannot do *is preach inalienable rights to a Christian since Christians, like the founders, rely on UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.  Please don't make me go hunting for what Ray said with regards to his defense of this.
> 
> Ray, in his roundabout way, insists on using the term inalienable rights so as to justify taking Rights away from people.  It has absolutely NO basis in Christianity.
> 
> Not even the left is arguing some idiotic position of letting just anyone into the country as you imply.  You build the wall guys are stuck in your own stupidity on that one.  Just because someone comes here does not mean they are going to stay here; does not mean they need to qualify for the benefits and privileges of citizenship... and if the build the wall guys had stayed the Hell out of this until they had the facts, there would not be MILLIONS of new citizens made possible by their stubborn defense of the illegally ratified 14th Amendment (and HELL NO we won't debate that on this thread.)  I have an open challenge on a more level playing field for the first build the wall advocate that is serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to understand the difference between Citizen versus non citizen and get back to me.  You are stuck on that word............You don't destroy your own country to help others..........and we are headed down that path.
> 
> You challenge Religion to JUSTIFY LAWLESSNESS against those breaking our laws coming here.  Do it legally or don't do it at all...........Doing it legally will not stop Farm labor.  The Dept of Labor has a program for that and businesses have a responsibility to FOLLOW OUR LAWS..............Not abuse them.  It is NOT RIGHT that some follow the laws and get screwed on competition because those not following the law get away with it.
> 
> Equal justice and application of the law............versus your continued rants on how to justify BREAKING THE LAW.
> 
> We are a NATION OF LAWS or nothing.  That is the principle of the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not challenge religion and you wallow in stupidity and ignorance because all the build the wall guys know how to do is attack people.  If you don't understand something, ASK.  ASK like I did with Ray... for over a hundred posts just to get him to answer my questions... and you guys are so insecure, you don't bother to ask me squat.  You just jump my ass because I don't bow down to your savior Donald Trump.
> 
> I've not advocated people break ANY law.  That is a straight out LIE and you are beginning to convince me that you have NO rational ability to apply critical thinking skills.  You make excuses to assault the Constitution, subvert the laws, and take a giant dump on the principles upon which this nation was founded.  In the founders time you would have been labeled a traitor.
Click to expand...


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to bear in mind that I'm on here supposedly "debating" at least six different people.  What court case did you cite that you think means what?  I do 80 wpm and can barely keep up.  I miss a few posts.
> 
> 
> 
> you against the world, think maybe it's just you that is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTH are you talking about?  I am not debating or arguing with anyone on this thread.  I have not taken a position other than stating the obvious:  a wall will not solve any issues that the build the wall guys have put on the table.  I'm asking questions and simply trying to figure out what is REALLY going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a position. You don't want the wall built because you think it won't work. It depends on what you intend to accomplish. To keep out the riff raff it will work. To put a big hurdle in drug imports it would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a mental problem?  I've stated my reasons for not wanting a wall.  I know damn well it will not work because, and let's make this big and bold for you:
> 
> *AMERICA IS NOT MEXICO, CANADA OR CHINA.  WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH THE ISRAELIS.  WE ARE NOT TRYING TO PROTECT OR PRESERVE THE POSTERITY OF THE FOUNDERS.  AS A RESULT YOU BUILD THE WALL PEOPLE ARE APPLYING A SOLUTION THAT DOES NOT APPLY - AND I HAVE PROVEN UNEQUIVOCALLY, WALLS OVER TIME DO NOT WORK.  I'M COMMITTED TO A PRACTICAL, HONEST AND PERMANENT SOLUTION*.
> 
> If you would read posts # 3475 and # 3476 you can see my REAL objections to what you are proposing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to get that is throw all the commies out of congress, they will never pass the necessary laws.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


We are required to exhaust all of our nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions.

In the process you cannot forfeit your Rights, give the enemies of America jurisdiction over you (though they will THINK they still have it.)

If I have to draw you a picture from that point, forward, you should step aside and let others handle it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

The Original Tree said:


> All Great Empires and Civilizations have Walls and defenses on their borders.
> 
> The Chin Dynasty
> 
> The Roman Empire
> 
> Babylon
> 
> America
> 
> America’s wall used to be The Pacific and Atlantic.
> 
> We cannot rely on that anymore in The Transportation Age.
> 
> We need another physical barrier, A Wall System.
> 
> If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you. I'm not saying that is good or bad. It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma: they are equally yoked with the unbelieving
> 
> 
> 
> That is projection.  You can be a Christian and a Nationalist at the same time.  You can't let everyone in the numbers are too great............It HURTS THIS COUNTRY.  You don't destroy yourself to save them.  That is just plain stupid.  We have safety nets and they use them.   Costs the Feds and States more money.  That is Reality.
> 
> They need to fix the problems in their own countries.........and stop running from it.  They do that then perhaps they will no longer run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can be a Christian and a Nationalist at the same time - I agree.
> 
> What you *absolutely cannot do *is preach inalienable rights to a Christian since Christians, like the founders, rely on UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.  Please don't make me go hunting for what Ray said with regards to his defense of this.
> 
> Ray, in his roundabout way, insists on using the term inalienable rights so as to justify taking Rights away from people.  It has absolutely NO basis in Christianity.
> 
> Not even the left is arguing some idiotic position of letting just anyone into the country as you imply.  You build the wall guys are stuck in your own stupidity on that one.  Just because someone comes here does not mean they are going to stay here; does not mean they need to qualify for the benefits and privileges of citizenship... and if the build the wall guys had stayed the Hell out of this until they had the facts, there would not be MILLIONS of new citizens made possible by their stubborn defense of the illegally ratified 14th Amendment (and HELL NO we won't debate that on this thread.)  I have an open challenge on a more level playing field for the first build the wall advocate that is serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to understand the difference between Citizen versus non citizen and get back to me.  You are stuck on that word............You don't destroy your own country to help others..........and we are headed down that path.
> 
> You challenge Religion to JUSTIFY LAWLESSNESS against those breaking our laws coming here.  Do it legally or don't do it at all...........Doing it legally will not stop Farm labor.  The Dept of Labor has a program for that and businesses have a responsibility to FOLLOW OUR LAWS..............Not abuse them.  It is NOT RIGHT that some follow the laws and get screwed on competition because those not following the law get away with it.
> 
> Equal justice and application of the law............versus your continued rants on how to justify BREAKING THE LAW.
> 
> We are a NATION OF LAWS or nothing.  That is the principle of the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not challenge religion and you wallow in stupidity and ignorance because all the build the wall guys know how to do is attack people.  If you don't understand something, ASK.  ASK like I did with Ray... for over a hundred posts just to get him to answer my questions... and you guys are so insecure, you don't bother to ask me squat.  You just jump my ass because I don't bow down to your savior Donald Trump.
> 
> I've not advocated people break ANY law.  That is a straight out LIE and you are beginning to convince me that you have NO rational ability to apply critical thinking skills.  You make excuses to assault the Constitution, subvert the laws, and take a giant dump on the principles upon which this nation was founded.  In the founders time you would have been labeled a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You're late to the party; I understand history quite well; you might want to get some of the facts before you start trying to claim any titles:

See posts 2806, 3475, 3476 and 3613 for starters.  Then get back to me.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a live link:  https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/Hanson-Dec09.pdf
> 
> And pardon me if I disregard information provided by a left wing one worlder think tank.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well champ, the joke is now on you.  That was a link used by a pro-wall supporter in a debate with someone on another board.  I chose to read it.
> 
> Thank you for being dishonest about it.  It's going to make it easier to prove that build the wall guy is not the beaming paragon of virtue he thinks he is.  left wing one worlder think tank... LMAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you bother to look at the other projects Hanson is involved in? His bias is obvious like most left wing academics. The stagnant numbers he used are totally outdated, they haven't changed in almost 15 years. Anyone who believes there are only 12 million illegals in this country are delusional, real numbers are most likely 4 times that, or higher.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, yeah... they are whatever number the build the wall kind of guys want them to be.  I'll keep you in mind with that post in the future.
> 
> Another study was done before that one.  It was done by non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.  Their conclusion?
> 
> "Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1), that impact is most likely modest."
> 
> https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
> 
> Yep.  All those estimates are old; don't reflect the changes over the last decade, despite the fact that, without a wall, the economy is booming.  Any attack is as good as another.  You just cannot accept the facts.  The right wing groups do not consider the contributions versus the costs.
> 
> As stupid as the American people are, a LOT of them know there are two sides of the accounting ledger and understand that you like omitting the side that don't favor your fudged figures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Contributions vs costs, consider this, estimates are that illegals costs us in excess of 100 billion a year in direct costs. Then you can consider the indirect costs. Wage suppression, estimated by the US Civil Rights commission to be between 99-100 billion a year. Then you have displacement of other minorities. Compton CA was 98% black not too long ago, it is now 30% black. So I guess you could say an unsecure border is racist as hell. If you want to see the source of that, watch the first two segments of the Tucker Carlson show tonight. If you can't tune into the repeat you can get it on Utube. He interviewed not only the guy from the Civil Rights commission who provided those fact and other but another that provided some interesting facts.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the "facts" change daily.  Your supposed facts change as often as the myriad of pretexts of why we're willing to spend $5 BILLION DOLLARS on a proposed solution that isn't even tailored to the perceived problem.
> 
> For every study you can show me, I can come up with five, just as authoritative, that dismiss what you come up with.  None of it changes the truth.  I know you don't read the thread, I keep having to repeat myself.  I came here asking for answers.  My views can be found on posts # 2806, 3475, 3476 and 3613 among others (those are the most relevant.)
> 
> BTW, If I REALLY wanted to be for the undocumented, I could do a thesis on the indirect benefits the political propaganda prostitutes don't mention in favor of undocumented foreigners.
Click to expand...



I just remembered who the other guy that was on Tuckers show, he was a guy Trump fired, the former Chief of the Border patrol. He disagrees with you and says walls, where implemented, work.

And yes it will be tailored to the border patrols needs, technology along most of the border and walls where needed. And you can brush aside all the facts you want, it just makes you look small when you refuse to recognize the current request is less than 1/40th our annual costs for illegals.

.


----------



## OKTexas

dblack said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just saying that people are resourceful. State coercion isn't the only way to organize large scale projects.
> 
> 
> 
> But it is the most efficient and cost effective, especially for long term planning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree. Coercion can be the most efficient way to get things done in the _short term_. But those who live by the sword, die by the sword, and mutual cooperation is more sustainable in the long term.
Click to expand...



BS you can't get 10 people to agree what to have for breakfast, much less thousands on where to build a road.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well champ, the joke is now on you.  That was a link used by a pro-wall supporter in a debate with someone on another board.  I chose to read it.
> 
> Thank you for being dishonest about it.  It's going to make it easier to prove that build the wall guy is not the beaming paragon of virtue he thinks he is.  left wing one worlder think tank... LMAO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you bother to look at the other projects Hanson is involved in? His bias is obvious like most left wing academics. The stagnant numbers he used are totally outdated, they haven't changed in almost 15 years. Anyone who believes there are only 12 million illegals in this country are delusional, real numbers are most likely 4 times that, or higher.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, yeah... they are whatever number the build the wall kind of guys want them to be.  I'll keep you in mind with that post in the future.
> 
> Another study was done before that one.  It was done by non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.  Their conclusion?
> 
> "Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1), that impact is most likely modest."
> 
> https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
> 
> Yep.  All those estimates are old; don't reflect the changes over the last decade, despite the fact that, without a wall, the economy is booming.  Any attack is as good as another.  You just cannot accept the facts.  The right wing groups do not consider the contributions versus the costs.
> 
> As stupid as the American people are, a LOT of them know there are two sides of the accounting ledger and understand that you like omitting the side that don't favor your fudged figures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Contributions vs costs, consider this, estimates are that illegals costs us in excess of 100 billion a year in direct costs. Then you can consider the indirect costs. Wage suppression, estimated by the US Civil Rights commission to be between 99-100 billion a year. Then you have displacement of other minorities. Compton CA was 98% black not too long ago, it is now 30% black. So I guess you could say an unsecure border is racist as hell. If you want to see the source of that, watch the first two segments of the Tucker Carlson show tonight. If you can't tune into the repeat you can get it on Utube. He interviewed not only the guy from the Civil Rights commission who provided those fact and other but another that provided some interesting facts.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the "facts" change daily.  Your supposed facts change as often as the myriad of pretexts of why we're willing to spend $5 BILLION DOLLARS on a proposed solution that isn't even tailored to the perceived problem.
> 
> For every study you can show me, I can come up with five, just as authoritative, that dismiss what you come up with.  None of it changes the truth.  I know you don't read the thread, I keep having to repeat myself.  I came here asking for answers.  My views can be found on posts # 2806, 3475, 3476 and 3613 among others (those are the most relevant.)
> 
> BTW, If I REALLY wanted to be for the undocumented, I could do a thesis on the indirect benefits the political propaganda prostitutes don't mention in favor of undocumented foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just remembered who the other guy that was no Tuckers show, he was a guy Trump fired, the former Chief of the Border patrol. He disagrees with you and says walls, where implemented, work.
> 
> And yes it will be tailored to the border patrols needs, technology along most of the border and walls where needed. And you can brush aside all the facts you want, it just makes you look small when you refuse to recognize the current request is less than 1/40th our annual costs for illegals.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


More fudged figures.  OMG.  I already presented two non-partisan studies.  Wasn't it you who challenged one of them as being biased ?  And I got that study that disagrees with you from someone arguing YOUR points.  The bottom line, all B.S. aside, when both sides of the accounting ledger are counted, "it's a wash."  That was the term used in several studies over the years.  Those are the studies Congress sees.

So are we arguing walls OR costs?  Do we have to rehash this crap every 50 or so posts?  Save your pecking.  Asked and answered in posts 2806, 3475, 3476 and 3613.  

This shotgun approach to whatever in the Hell it is you do, is hilarious.  Come up with something that has not been responded to.  Can you answer any of my questions?

Where do your unalienable Rights come from?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ASK. ASK like I did with Ray... for over a hundred posts just to get him to answer my questions... and you guys are so insecure, you don't bother to ask me squat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking for myself (although I believe I speak for most) we have answered your questions repeatedly.  When you don't get the answer you approve of, you keep insisting we didn't answer your questions.
Click to expand...


I got YOUR answer.  I summarized it and now I'm asking others for their view to see if they are really as misguided as you.  Thank you for your input.  I made no value judgment on it; I only stated where you and I are disconnected.  

Notice that when someone else criticized me, they said one could be a Christian and a Nationalist.  I agreed.  Let me go one better since all you mind readers THINK you know me so well.  You know me so good, YOU come to conclusions and haven't the IQ to ASK before slinging skeet.

I don't think you can be a Christian in the U.S. *without* being a Nationalist.  At the same time, you *cannot* be a constitutionalist and a patriot without acknowledging unalienable Rights.  You and I know, for a fact what the word is in the Declaration of Independence and you and I realize the two words have been interpreted differently in law.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you bother to look at the other projects Hanson is involved in? His bias is obvious like most left wing academics. The stagnant numbers he used are totally outdated, they haven't changed in almost 15 years. Anyone who believes there are only 12 million illegals in this country are delusional, real numbers are most likely 4 times that, or higher.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, yeah... they are whatever number the build the wall kind of guys want them to be.  I'll keep you in mind with that post in the future.
> 
> Another study was done before that one.  It was done by non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.  Their conclusion?
> 
> "Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1), that impact is most likely modest."
> 
> https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
> 
> Yep.  All those estimates are old; don't reflect the changes over the last decade, despite the fact that, without a wall, the economy is booming.  Any attack is as good as another.  You just cannot accept the facts.  The right wing groups do not consider the contributions versus the costs.
> 
> As stupid as the American people are, a LOT of them know there are two sides of the accounting ledger and understand that you like omitting the side that don't favor your fudged figures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Contributions vs costs, consider this, estimates are that illegals costs us in excess of 100 billion a year in direct costs. Then you can consider the indirect costs. Wage suppression, estimated by the US Civil Rights commission to be between 99-100 billion a year. Then you have displacement of other minorities. Compton CA was 98% black not too long ago, it is now 30% black. So I guess you could say an unsecure border is racist as hell. If you want to see the source of that, watch the first two segments of the Tucker Carlson show tonight. If you can't tune into the repeat you can get it on Utube. He interviewed not only the guy from the Civil Rights commission who provided those fact and other but another that provided some interesting facts.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the "facts" change daily.  Your supposed facts change as often as the myriad of pretexts of why we're willing to spend $5 BILLION DOLLARS on a proposed solution that isn't even tailored to the perceived problem.
> 
> For every study you can show me, I can come up with five, just as authoritative, that dismiss what you come up with.  None of it changes the truth.  I know you don't read the thread, I keep having to repeat myself.  I came here asking for answers.  My views can be found on posts # 2806, 3475, 3476 and 3613 among others (those are the most relevant.)
> 
> BTW, If I REALLY wanted to be for the undocumented, I could do a thesis on the indirect benefits the political propaganda prostitutes don't mention in favor of undocumented foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just remembered who the other guy that was no Tuckers show, he was a guy Trump fired, the former Chief of the Border patrol. He disagrees with you and says walls, where implemented, work.
> 
> And yes it will be tailored to the border patrols needs, technology along most of the border and walls where needed. And you can brush aside all the facts you want, it just makes you look small when you refuse to recognize the current request is less than 1/40th our annual costs for illegals.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More fudged figures.  OMG.  I already presented two non-partisan studies.  Wasn't it you who challenged one of them as being biased ?  And I got that study that disagrees with you from someone arguing YOUR points.  The bottom line, all B.S. aside, when both sides of the accounting ledger are counted, "it's a wash."  That was the term used in several studies over the years.  Those are the studies Congress sees.
> 
> So are we arguing walls OR costs?  Do we have to rehash this crap every 50 or so posts?  Save your pecking.  Asked and answered in posts 2806, 3475, 3476 and 3613.
> 
> This shotgun approach to whatever in the Hell it is you do, is hilarious.  Come up with something that has not been responded to.  Can you answer any of my questions?
> 
> Where do your unalienable Rights come from?
Click to expand...



I cited sources, all you have is your spew.,prove them wrong. And I'm citing monetary and human costs to justify the wall. And my rights are irrelevant to this discussion unless I'm killed or injured by an illegal alien tomorrow, they have deprived 10s of thousands of American their rights.

.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ASK. ASK like I did with Ray... for over a hundred posts just to get him to answer my questions... and you guys are so insecure, you don't bother to ask me squat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking for myself (although I believe I speak for most) we have answered your questions repeatedly.  When you don't get the answer you approve of, you keep insisting we didn't answer your questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got YOUR answer.  I summarized it and now I'm asking others for their view to see if they are really as misguided as you.  Thank you for your input.  I made no value judgment on it; I only stated where you and I are disconnected.
> 
> Notice that when someone else criticized me, they said one could be a Christian and a Nationalist.  I agreed.  Let me go one better since all you mind readers THINK you know me so well.  You know me so good, YOU come to conclusions and haven't the IQ to ASK before slinging skeet.
> 
> I don't think you can be a Christian in the U.S. *without* being a Nationalist.  At the same time, you *cannot* be a constitutionalist and a patriot without acknowledging unalienable Rights.  You and I know, for a fact what the word is in the Declaration of Independence and you and I realize the two words have been interpreted differently in law.
Click to expand...


Let's put that baby to bed right now: 

*Unalienable / Inalienable*

_*The question is often asked, "Is the word in the Declaration of Independence unalienable or is it inalienable?"

The final version of the Declaration uses the word "unalienable." Some earlier drafts used the word "inalienable," which is the term our modern dictionaries prefer. The two words mean precisely the same thing.*_

The Declaration of Independence: Unalienable / Inalinable


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, yeah... they are whatever number the build the wall kind of guys want them to be.  I'll keep you in mind with that post in the future.
> 
> Another study was done before that one.  It was done by non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.  Their conclusion?
> 
> "Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1), that impact is most likely modest."
> 
> https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
> 
> Yep.  All those estimates are old; don't reflect the changes over the last decade, despite the fact that, without a wall, the economy is booming.  Any attack is as good as another.  You just cannot accept the facts.  The right wing groups do not consider the contributions versus the costs.
> 
> As stupid as the American people are, a LOT of them know there are two sides of the accounting ledger and understand that you like omitting the side that don't favor your fudged figures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contributions vs costs, consider this, estimates are that illegals costs us in excess of 100 billion a year in direct costs. Then you can consider the indirect costs. Wage suppression, estimated by the US Civil Rights commission to be between 99-100 billion a year. Then you have displacement of other minorities. Compton CA was 98% black not too long ago, it is now 30% black. So I guess you could say an unsecure border is racist as hell. If you want to see the source of that, watch the first two segments of the Tucker Carlson show tonight. If you can't tune into the repeat you can get it on Utube. He interviewed not only the guy from the Civil Rights commission who provided those fact and other but another that provided some interesting facts.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the "facts" change daily.  Your supposed facts change as often as the myriad of pretexts of why we're willing to spend $5 BILLION DOLLARS on a proposed solution that isn't even tailored to the perceived problem.
> 
> For every study you can show me, I can come up with five, just as authoritative, that dismiss what you come up with.  None of it changes the truth.  I know you don't read the thread, I keep having to repeat myself.  I came here asking for answers.  My views can be found on posts # 2806, 3475, 3476 and 3613 among others (those are the most relevant.)
> 
> BTW, If I REALLY wanted to be for the undocumented, I could do a thesis on the indirect benefits the political propaganda prostitutes don't mention in favor of undocumented foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just remembered who the other guy that was no Tuckers show, he was a guy Trump fired, the former Chief of the Border patrol. He disagrees with you and says walls, where implemented, work.
> 
> And yes it will be tailored to the border patrols needs, technology along most of the border and walls where needed. And you can brush aside all the facts you want, it just makes you look small when you refuse to recognize the current request is less than 1/40th our annual costs for illegals.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More fudged figures.  OMG.  I already presented two non-partisan studies.  Wasn't it you who challenged one of them as being biased ?  And I got that study that disagrees with you from someone arguing YOUR points.  The bottom line, all B.S. aside, when both sides of the accounting ledger are counted, "it's a wash."  That was the term used in several studies over the years.  Those are the studies Congress sees.
> 
> So are we arguing walls OR costs?  Do we have to rehash this crap every 50 or so posts?  Save your pecking.  Asked and answered in posts 2806, 3475, 3476 and 3613.
> 
> This shotgun approach to whatever in the Hell it is you do, is hilarious.  Come up with something that has not been responded to.  Can you answer any of my questions?
> 
> Where do your unalienable Rights come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I cited sources, all you have is your spew.,prove them wrong. And I'm citing monetary and human costs to justify the wall. And my rights are irrelevant to this discussion unless I'm killed or injured by an illegal alien tomorrow, they have deprived 10s of thousands of American their rights.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Maybe you should have reread that post before making it.  Let me put this to you another way:

You can cite all the monetary costs you want.  THAT, sir, is *THE DISCONNECT*.Why are foreigners in the United States working?  Foreigners come here because it's profitable.  Your lobbying efforts DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT *BOTH SIDES* OF THE ACCOUNTING LEDGER.

That is how you're being proven wrong.  You have to look at the contributions foreigners make in order to understand the whole picture.  When this is done, from a financial perspective, the foreigners ARE profitable.  That is why Bill O'Reilly hired them; it's why Donald Trump uses them.  

If you were not such a wall cultist, you would be able to understand that I'm taking this abuse and staying in this discussion because *I AM FIGHTING WITH MY VERY LIFE FOR YOUR RIGHTS*.  I am fighting for YOUR Rights.  You are trying to win a war predicated on propaganda, denying the REAL reason foreigners come here, with the false expectation you can keep them out, and without a real understanding of what and why the current immigration laws exist.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ASK. ASK like I did with Ray... for over a hundred posts just to get him to answer my questions... and you guys are so insecure, you don't bother to ask me squat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking for myself (although I believe I speak for most) we have answered your questions repeatedly.  When you don't get the answer you approve of, you keep insisting we didn't answer your questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got YOUR answer.  I summarized it and now I'm asking others for their view to see if they are really as misguided as you.  Thank you for your input.  I made no value judgment on it; I only stated where you and I are disconnected.
> 
> Notice that when someone else criticized me, they said one could be a Christian and a Nationalist.  I agreed.  Let me go one better since all you mind readers THINK you know me so well.  You know me so good, YOU come to conclusions and haven't the IQ to ASK before slinging skeet.
> 
> I don't think you can be a Christian in the U.S. *without* being a Nationalist.  At the same time, you *cannot* be a constitutionalist and a patriot without acknowledging unalienable Rights.  You and I know, for a fact what the word is in the Declaration of Independence and you and I realize the two words have been interpreted differently in law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's put that baby to bed right now:
> 
> *Unalienable / Inalienable*
> 
> _*The question is often asked, "Is the word in the Declaration of Independence unalienable or is it inalienable?"
> 
> The final version of the Declaration uses the word "unalienable." Some earlier drafts used the word "inalienable," which is the term our modern dictionaries prefer. The two words mean precisely the same thing.*_
> 
> The Declaration of Independence: Unalienable / Inalinable
Click to expand...


Okay, let us put it to bed.

"*At first glance the two terms seem pretty much synonymous.  However, while the word “inalienable” is “not subject to alienation,” the word “unalienable” is “incapable of being aliened”.*  I believe the distinction between these two terms is this:

“Unalienable” is “*incapable” of being aliened by anyone, including the man who holds something “unalienable”*.  Thus, it is impossible for any individual to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of an “unalienable Right”. * it is impossible for you to take one of my “unalienable rights”*.  *It is likewise impossible for me to even voluntarily surrender, sell or transfer one of my “unalienable rights”*.  Once I have something “unalienable,” it’s impossible for me to get rid of it.  It would be easier to give up the color of my eyes or my heart than to give up that which is “unalienable”.

*That which is “inalienable,” on the other hand, is merely “not subject to alienation”*.  _Black’s_ 2nd does not declare that it’s absolutely impossible for that which is “inalienable” to be sold, transferred or assigned.  Instead, I believe that “inalienable” merely means that “inalienable rights” are not subject to “alienation” by others.  That is, no one can compel me to sell, abandon or transfer any of my “inalienable” rights.  I am not “subject” to compelled “alienation” by others.

*But that leaves open the question of whether I may am entitled to voluntarily and unilaterally sell, transfer, abandon or otherwise surrender that which is “inalienable”*.  Thus, while it is impossible for me to abandon, or for government to take, my “unalienable rights,” it is possible for me to voluntarily waive my “inalienable” rights.  I strongly suspect that our gov-co presumes that our rights are at best “inalienable,” and that since we have not expressly claimed them, we could have and therefore must have waived them."

“Unalienable” vs. “Inalienable”

"There is significant evidence that inalienable “. . . is defined as incapable of being surrendered or transferred; at least without one’s consent.” [Morrison v. State, 252 S.W.2d 97, 101 (Mo. Ct. App. 1952)]. This means that an inalienable right is a right that is incapable of being surrendered unless one consents. This is very Hobbesian. Keep this in mind.

There is significant evidence that unalienable means exactly the same thing *with one caveat, a caveat which changes the whole picture.* A number of people turn to Black’s Law 6th Edition but lets start with the Virginia Declaration of Rights (June 12, 1776). George Mason wrote:

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, *they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity*; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
_..
.Unalienable Vs Inalienable - Tea Party Tribune

._Despite the fact that at the time of the Declaration unalienable rights were considered to be for white men only, the word, unalienable, refers to rights inherent to all humans, no matter gender or race. I find it interesting how the word unalienable is rarely used anymore and how modern versions of the Declaration now use the word inalienable. Even President Obama uses the word inalienable. What’s up with that?

...[Morrison v. State, 252 S.W.2d 97, 101, 1952] In this decision, the Missouri Court of Appeals defined inalienable rights as those rights incapable of being surrendered or transferred; at least *without one’s consent*."

Unalienable not Inalienable rights in the Declaration of I | National Myth

Please read that above link as it will refute Ray's entire argument.

Only socialists and Democrats defend the use of the word inalienable.

Notice that the above is the words of people on the right: Tea Party and right wing scholars.  I am not, in any way, changing their words nor their intent. 

 Ray presumes that since I'm questioning the *talking points* of the build the wall guys, I must be a liberal and a heretic to the build the wall people.  Once you closely examine WHO is promoting the build the wall idea, you begin to see why it is necessary to question the REAL costs of the wall - AND THOSE ARE NOT ECONOMIC COSTS.  Your Liberty - even your life is in danger due to the unintended consequences of following this build the wall strategy. Ray is pro big government - a government that, once that damn wall is built, can never be challenged or resisted.  And none of you seem to even want to know how the liberals can twist the laws to commit genocide against us.  

The one question that Ray dares not ask me reveals either his complete ignorance of this subject OR what he believes in (or maybe both.)  He clearly is not a Christian, constitutionalist OR a patriot at this time.
...


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tradition in the US is a bit different than most countries. Here we place a primacy on individual rights. Instead of asking why the will of individual property owners should override that of the border patrol, we first as the converse - why should the will of the border patrol override that of individual property owners?
> 
> Your use of the term "frontlines" suggests you buy into the war justification, which I find ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except they are on the frontlines. They have guns, they have taken casualties and the people trying to cross illegally are often brutalized by coyotes and drug cartel members. The wall IMO is necessary. You are of course free to disagree, it is a free country. And they are SMEs. If a doctor told you that you needed surgery would you dismiss his opinion because others disagree with it? He is the expert for a reason. Border Patrol agents are experts in border security and they are pleading for a wall. You show a lot of hubris ignoring their please. Unfortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier?  Years ago I worked in a warehouse.  The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.
> 
> The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.
> 
> We are NOT talking border security with the wall.  What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships.  You'd be better served with some regulation.  No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #1) I had a similar situation and the owner did put in AC
> #2) This is not a runny a nose, this is a constant bleed.
> #3) I disagree this is mutual beneficial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't seem to understand that's what ports of entry are for.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't understand what the relevance of it is.  YOU don't know what the bottom line is as to what ports of entry are for... OR maybe you know, but are like Ray.
Click to expand...


Very argumentative you are. Listen to counterpoints you don’t. Necessary border security is. Bad open borders are.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except they are on the frontlines. They have guns, they have taken casualties and the people trying to cross illegally are often brutalized by coyotes and drug cartel members. The wall IMO is necessary. You are of course free to disagree, it is a free country. And they are SMEs. If a doctor told you that you needed surgery would you dismiss his opinion because others disagree with it? He is the expert for a reason. Border Patrol agents are experts in border security and they are pleading for a wall. You show a lot of hubris ignoring their please. Unfortunate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier?  Years ago I worked in a warehouse.  The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.
> 
> The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.
> 
> We are NOT talking border security with the wall.  What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships.  You'd be better served with some regulation.  No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #1) I had a similar situation and the owner did put in AC
> #2) This is not a runny a nose, this is a constant bleed.
> #3) I disagree this is mutual beneficial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't seem to understand that's what ports of entry are for.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't understand what the relevance of it is.  YOU don't know what the bottom line is as to what ports of entry are for... OR maybe you know, but are like Ray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very argumentative you are. Listen to counterpoints you don’t. Necessary border security is. Bad open borders are.
Click to expand...


You need some new material.  Reread this thread.  I did not become "argumentative" for the first 200 posts that I was involved in it. My first 75 posts were in search of the *REAL reasons* people wanted the wall.  When my patriotism was questioned by Ray, I told him game on.  You need to STFU and read the thread before climbing my back with false allegations.  We'll get along better if you read the whole story first.  National Security is NOT one of the reasons cited in my first inquiries.  It's just now being interjected because Trump alleges it.  WTH, dude, you need government to save you from yourself?

See these exapmles:  posts 2806, 3475, 3476, 3613, 3669 and 3731.  Read those and then join the conversation.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier?  Years ago I worked in a warehouse.  The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.
> 
> The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.
> 
> We are NOT talking border security with the wall.  What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships.  You'd be better served with some regulation.  No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #1) I had a similar situation and the owner did put in AC
> #2) This is not a runny a nose, this is a constant bleed.
> #3) I disagree this is mutual beneficial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't seem to understand that's what ports of entry are for.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't understand what the relevance of it is.  YOU don't know what the bottom line is as to what ports of entry are for... OR maybe you know, but are like Ray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very argumentative you are. Listen to counterpoints you don’t. Necessary border security is. Bad open borders are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need some new material.  Reread this thread.  I did not become "argumentative" for the first 200 posts that I was involved in it. My first 75 posts were in search of the *REAL reasons* people wanted the wall.  When my patriotism was questioned by Ray, I told him game on.  You need to STFU and read the thread before climbing my back with false allegations.  We'll get along better if you read the whole story first.  National Security is NOT one of the reasons cited in my first inquiries.  It's just now being interjected because Trump alleges it.  WTH, dude, you need government to save you from yourself?
> 
> See these exapmles:  posts 2806, 3475, 3476, 3613, 3669 and 3731.  Read those and then join the conversation.
Click to expand...


Telling me to STFU is funny. Keyboard warriors amuse me. Long your posts are. Incoherent and wordy to boot.


----------



## danielpalos

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should look at post # 3731 and access the link I left there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No thank you. I will stand by my beliefs that we need stronger border security. As a child of legal immigrants and first generation American, I am extremly anti illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigotry is not a virtue.  Your beliefs have been supplanted by facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you facts that you conveniently ignored.
> 
> Let me ask you this even though I know you'll divert and won't answer.
> 
> You can buy a house for $500k it may be a great house, it may be average but needs some work or it may be a complete money pit. You don't know. Would you still buy the house? Of course not. So then why would you want people sneaking in here when you don't know who they are? Doesn't make any logical sense. This is not bigotry. Don't use Leftist tactics on me. I am a Jew. I know bigotry. I live it almost daily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, this is no diversionary tactic.  It's plain and it's simple.  Either people have a Right to Liberty or they do not.  As long as people are engaging in the free enterprise system, I do not think of them as "sneaking" in.  Had you actually READ this thread, you would know exactly what I think.  That way, you would not have to make ridiculous assumptions and then pretend to ask me a question based upon a hypothetical straw man.  So, do this, read post # 2806.  That should tell you my feelings toward immigration laws in general.  Then read these posts:
> 
> 3475, 3476, 3613, 3669, and 3731.  It does little for me to keep repeating the same points over and over every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We need to document and understand who the people who come in here are. Ever see the gates at an airport? You are just trolling now.
Click to expand...

we have a naturalization clause not an immigration clause.


----------



## danielpalos

sealybobo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism is worthless if we need a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s just another ism.
> 
> But just like it’s not fair china manipulates it’s currency and pays workers $1 a day, Mexico doesn’t pay its masses well. They workers have yet to rise up. Too much corruption.
> 
> So it’s not fair American blue collar workers have to compete with Mexicans who will live ten in an apartment and work for half what the American will work.
> 
> It’s undermining the middle class.
> 
> Only a well regulated capitalism by people who represent we the people is a good ism. Every country protects its vital industries so why do you think America didn’t? Because we had the highest paid workers in the world. The unions. Republicans wanted to send all those union jobs overseas. Break the union and reneg on pensions.
Click to expand...

we don't have an express wall building power or an immigration clause.  if you don't care about capitalism you will have to care about the law.


----------



## Geaux4it

Those who argue anything other than its the votes they seek, and the transformation of America so to resemble Mexico and South America are being dishonest

-Geaux


----------



## danielpalos

Geaux4it said:


> Those who argue anything other than its the votes they seek, and the transformation of America so to resemble Mexico and South America are being dishonest
> 
> -Geaux


lol.  only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.


----------



## dblack

When we finally flip to socialism, the wall will come in handy for sure.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

danielpalos said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> A- Cost prohibitive
> B- Won't work
> C- It's racist
> D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
> E- None of the Above
> 
> The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes
> 
> You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours
> 
> There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism is worthless if we need a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s just another ism.
> 
> But just like it’s not fair china manipulates it’s currency and pays workers $1 a day, Mexico doesn’t pay its masses well. They workers have yet to rise up. Too much corruption.
> 
> So it’s not fair American blue collar workers have to compete with Mexicans who will live ten in an apartment and work for half what the American will work.
> 
> It’s undermining the middle class.
> 
> Only a well regulated capitalism by people who represent we the people is a good ism. Every country protects its vital industries so why do you think America didn’t? Because we had the highest paid workers in the world. The unions. Republicans wanted to send all those union jobs overseas. Break the union and reneg on pensions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't have an express wall building power or an immigration clause.  if you don't care about capitalism you will have to care about the law.
Click to expand...


Yes we do.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who argue anything other than its the votes they seek, and the transformation of America so to resemble Mexico and South America are being dishonest
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
Click to expand...

You still trying to get the rest of your family in? They can mow my lawn with their teeth like the fucking goats that they are.


----------



## dblack

danielpalos said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who argue anything other than its the votes they seek, and the transformation of America so to resemble Mexico and South America are being dishonest
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
Click to expand...


Only lousy stoners waste a buzz arguing politics online.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

danielpalos said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who argue anything other than its the votes they seek, and the transformation of America so to resemble Mexico and South America are being dishonest
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
Click to expand...


If you hate this country so much feel free to move.


----------



## danielpalos

dblack said:


> When we finally flip to socialism, the wall will come in handy for sure.


the right wing is all about national socialism not national capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who argue anything other than its the votes they seek, and the transformation of America so to resemble Mexico and South America are being dishonest
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still trying to get the rest of your family in? They can mow my lawn with their teeth like the fucking goats that they are.
Click to expand...

ad hominems and other fallacies is all the right wing has.


----------



## danielpalos

dblack said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who argue anything other than its the votes they seek, and the transformation of America so to resemble Mexico and South America are being dishonest
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only lousy stoners waste a buzz arguing politics online.
Click to expand...

i smoke two joints, and then smoke two more, merely to have high hopes and pipe dreams the right wing will have more than fallacy and other forms of right wing fantasy.


----------



## danielpalos

AzogtheDefiler said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who argue anything other than its the votes they seek, and the transformation of America so to resemble Mexico and South America are being dishonest
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you hate this country so much feel free to move.
Click to expand...

lousy capitalist lose money for our country; feel free to leave and lose money for some other country, right winger.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

danielpalos said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who argue anything other than its the votes they seek, and the transformation of America so to resemble Mexico and South America are being dishonest
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you hate this country so much feel free to move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lousy capitalist lose money for our country; feel free to leave and lose money for some other country, right winger.
Click to expand...


Capitalists pay the taxes, politicians spend em. Not sure how "capitalists lose money". Time to put daniel the illegal on ignore.


----------



## danielpalos

AzogtheDefiler said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who argue anything other than its the votes they seek, and the transformation of America so to resemble Mexico and South America are being dishonest
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you hate this country so much feel free to move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lousy capitalist lose money for our country; feel free to leave and lose money for some other country, right winger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capitalists pay the taxes, politicians spend em. Not sure how "capitalists lose money". Time to put daniel the illegal on ignore.
Click to expand...

lousy capitalists lose money on border policy and claim they are not for national socialism.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> #1) I had a similar situation and the owner did put in AC
> #2) This is not a runny a nose, this is a constant bleed.
> #3) I disagree this is mutual beneficial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't seem to understand that's what ports of entry are for.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't understand what the relevance of it is.  YOU don't know what the bottom line is as to what ports of entry are for... OR maybe you know, but are like Ray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very argumentative you are. Listen to counterpoints you don’t. Necessary border security is. Bad open borders are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need some new material.  Reread this thread.  I did not become "argumentative" for the first 200 posts that I was involved in it. My first 75 posts were in search of the *REAL reasons* people wanted the wall.  When my patriotism was questioned by Ray, I told him game on.  You need to STFU and read the thread before climbing my back with false allegations.  We'll get along better if you read the whole story first.  National Security is NOT one of the reasons cited in my first inquiries.  It's just now being interjected because Trump alleges it.  WTH, dude, you need government to save you from yourself?
> 
> See these exapmles:  posts 2806, 3475, 3476, 3613, 3669 and 3731.  Read those and then join the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Telling me to STFU is funny. Keyboard warriors amuse me. Long your posts are. Incoherent and wordy to boot.
Click to expand...


Incoherent because you cannot read; long because those who are so desperate for a wall keep rehashing the same points and keep making the same false allegations.  Again, dude, honesty is the enemy of those who worship the wall.  Go to post  # 2806.  Work your way back and tell me of a long post I made BEFORE that.

All I did was ask questions.  Me a keyboard warrior?  I'd rather meet people face to face.  I can go back to asking questions the moment the guys who think they can read minds and have all the answers will provide them without their phony bravado.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who argue anything other than its the votes they seek, and the transformation of America so to resemble Mexico and South America are being dishonest
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you hate this country so much feel free to move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lousy capitalist lose money for our country; feel free to leave and lose money for some other country, right winger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capitalists pay the taxes, politicians spend em. Not sure how "capitalists lose money". Time to put daniel the illegal on ignore.
Click to expand...


The religion of the build the wall guys won't let you do it.  danielpalos proves that even a broken clock has he potential to be right twice a day.  There is more to the story than he's telling on this issue, but since most of you are making the same points (even after they've been refuted) danielpalos is regurgitating his point that has some semblance of truth behind it.

Don't bother accusing me of being the same as danielpalos.  On things like gun Rights he and I are* not *on the same page, *not* in the same book, *not* in the same universe.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't seem to understand that's what ports of entry are for.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't understand what the relevance of it is.  YOU don't know what the bottom line is as to what ports of entry are for... OR maybe you know, but are like Ray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very argumentative you are. Listen to counterpoints you don’t. Necessary border security is. Bad open borders are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need some new material.  Reread this thread.  I did not become "argumentative" for the first 200 posts that I was involved in it. My first 75 posts were in search of the *REAL reasons* people wanted the wall.  When my patriotism was questioned by Ray, I told him game on.  You need to STFU and read the thread before climbing my back with false allegations.  We'll get along better if you read the whole story first.  National Security is NOT one of the reasons cited in my first inquiries.  It's just now being interjected because Trump alleges it.  WTH, dude, you need government to save you from yourself?
> 
> See these exapmles:  posts 2806, 3475, 3476, 3613, 3669 and 3731.  Read those and then join the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Telling me to STFU is funny. Keyboard warriors amuse me. Long your posts are. Incoherent and wordy to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incoherent because you cannot read; long because those who are so desperate for a wall keep rehashing the same points and keep making the same false allegations.  Again, dude, honesty is the enemy of those who worship the wall.  Go to post  # 2806.  Work your way back and tell me of a long post I made BEFORE that.
> 
> All I did was ask questions.  Me a keyboard warrior?  I'd rather meet people face to face.  I can go back to asking questions the moment the guys who think they can read minds and have all the answers will provide them without their phony bravado.
Click to expand...



President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”

Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."

President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't understand what the relevance of it is.  YOU don't know what the bottom line is as to what ports of entry are for... OR maybe you know, but are like Ray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very argumentative you are. Listen to counterpoints you don’t. Necessary border security is. Bad open borders are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need some new material.  Reread this thread.  I did not become "argumentative" for the first 200 posts that I was involved in it. My first 75 posts were in search of the *REAL reasons* people wanted the wall.  When my patriotism was questioned by Ray, I told him game on.  You need to STFU and read the thread before climbing my back with false allegations.  We'll get along better if you read the whole story first.  National Security is NOT one of the reasons cited in my first inquiries.  It's just now being interjected because Trump alleges it.  WTH, dude, you need government to save you from yourself?
> 
> See these exapmles:  posts 2806, 3475, 3476, 3613, 3669 and 3731.  Read those and then join the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Telling me to STFU is funny. Keyboard warriors amuse me. Long your posts are. Incoherent and wordy to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incoherent because you cannot read; long because those who are so desperate for a wall keep rehashing the same points and keep making the same false allegations.  Again, dude, honesty is the enemy of those who worship the wall.  Go to post  # 2806.  Work your way back and tell me of a long post I made BEFORE that.
> 
> All I did was ask questions.  Me a keyboard warrior?  I'd rather meet people face to face.  I can go back to asking questions the moment the guys who think they can read minds and have all the answers will provide them without their phony bravado.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
Click to expand...


*You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.

The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?


----------



## sealybobo

danielpalos said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who argue anything other than its the votes they seek, and the transformation of America so to resemble Mexico and South America are being dishonest
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
Click to expand...


You think it's ok that illegals come here and work illegally?  

Why do you think hiring non Americans is illegal?

The reason why thirty years ago United Farm Workers' Union (UFW) founder César Chávez fought against illegal immigration, and the UFW turned in illegals during his tenure as president, was because Chávez, like progressives since the 1870s, understood the simple reality that labor rises and falls in price as a function of availability.

As Wikipedia notes: "In 1969, Chávez and members of the UFW marched through the Imperial and Coachella Valley to the border of Mexico to protest growers' use of illegal aliens as temporary replacement workers during a strike. Joining him on the march were both the Reverend Ralph Abernathy and U.S. Senator Walter Mondale. Chávez and the UFW would often report suspected illegal aliens who served as temporary replacement workers as well as who refused to unionize to the INS."

Working Americans have always known this simple equation: More workers, lower wages. Fewer workers, higher wages.

Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very argumentative you are. Listen to counterpoints you don’t. Necessary border security is. Bad open borders are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need some new material.  Reread this thread.  I did not become "argumentative" for the first 200 posts that I was involved in it. My first 75 posts were in search of the *REAL reasons* people wanted the wall.  When my patriotism was questioned by Ray, I told him game on.  You need to STFU and read the thread before climbing my back with false allegations.  We'll get along better if you read the whole story first.  National Security is NOT one of the reasons cited in my first inquiries.  It's just now being interjected because Trump alleges it.  WTH, dude, you need government to save you from yourself?
> 
> See these exapmles:  posts 2806, 3475, 3476, 3613, 3669 and 3731.  Read those and then join the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Telling me to STFU is funny. Keyboard warriors amuse me. Long your posts are. Incoherent and wordy to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incoherent because you cannot read; long because those who are so desperate for a wall keep rehashing the same points and keep making the same false allegations.  Again, dude, honesty is the enemy of those who worship the wall.  Go to post  # 2806.  Work your way back and tell me of a long post I made BEFORE that.
> 
> All I did was ask questions.  Me a keyboard warrior?  I'd rather meet people face to face.  I can go back to asking questions the moment the guys who think they can read minds and have all the answers will provide them without their phony bravado.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
Click to expand...


My only point is that border patrol agents want it and they are on the frontlines. I would think we would and should be willing to support them. That is all.


----------



## sealybobo

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very argumentative you are. Listen to counterpoints you don’t. Necessary border security is. Bad open borders are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need some new material.  Reread this thread.  I did not become "argumentative" for the first 200 posts that I was involved in it. My first 75 posts were in search of the *REAL reasons* people wanted the wall.  When my patriotism was questioned by Ray, I told him game on.  You need to STFU and read the thread before climbing my back with false allegations.  We'll get along better if you read the whole story first.  National Security is NOT one of the reasons cited in my first inquiries.  It's just now being interjected because Trump alleges it.  WTH, dude, you need government to save you from yourself?
> 
> See these exapmles:  posts 2806, 3475, 3476, 3613, 3669 and 3731.  Read those and then join the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Telling me to STFU is funny. Keyboard warriors amuse me. Long your posts are. Incoherent and wordy to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incoherent because you cannot read; long because those who are so desperate for a wall keep rehashing the same points and keep making the same false allegations.  Again, dude, honesty is the enemy of those who worship the wall.  Go to post  # 2806.  Work your way back and tell me of a long post I made BEFORE that.
> 
> All I did was ask questions.  Me a keyboard warrior?  I'd rather meet people face to face.  I can go back to asking questions the moment the guys who think they can read minds and have all the answers will provide them without their phony bravado.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
Click to expand...

It's true.  In the 2000's us liberals were against illegal immigrants while 75% of the Republican party was arguing they were just here doing jobs Americans won't do.  That's a lie.

Do a little math. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are 7.6 million unemployed Americans right now. Another 1.5 million Americans are no longer counted because they've become "long term" or "discouraged" unemployed workers. And although various groups have different ways of measuring it, most agree that at least another five to ten million Americans are either working part-time when they want to work full-time, or are "underemployed," doing jobs below their level of training, education, or experience. That's between eight and twenty million un- and under-employed Americans, many unable to find above-poverty-level work.

At the same time, there are between seven and fifteen million working illegal immigrants diluting our labor pool.

If illegal immigrants could no longer work, unions would flourish, the minimum wage would rise, and oligarchic nations to our south would have to confront and fix their corrupt ways.

Between the Reagan years - when there were only around 1 to 2 million illegal aliens in our workforce - and today, we've gone from about 25 percent of our private workforce being unionized to around seven percent. Much of this is the direct result - as César Chávez predicted - of illegal immigrants competing directly with unionized and legal labor. Although it's most obvious in the construction trades over the past 30 years, it's hit all sectors of our economy.


----------



## sealybobo

But if illegal immigrants won't pick our produce or bus our tables won't our prices go up? This was the argument cons were making in the 2000's.  "Do you want to pay an extra $10,000 for your next house?") The answer is simple: Yes.

But wages would also go up, and even faster than housing or food prices. And CEO salaries, and corporate profits, might moderate back to the levels they were during the "golden age of the American middle class" between the 1940s and Reagan's declaration of war on the middle class in the 1980s.

We saw exactly this scenario played out in the US fifty years ago, when unions helped regulate entry into the workforce, 35 percent of American workers had a union job, and 70 percent of Americans could raise a family on a single, 40-hour-week paycheck. All working Americans would gladly pay a bit more for their food if their paychecks were both significantly higher and more secure. (This would even allow for an increase in the minimum wage - as it did from the 1930s to the 1980s.)


----------



## sealybobo

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need some new material.  Reread this thread.  I did not become "argumentative" for the first 200 posts that I was involved in it. My first 75 posts were in search of the *REAL reasons* people wanted the wall.  When my patriotism was questioned by Ray, I told him game on.  You need to STFU and read the thread before climbing my back with false allegations.  We'll get along better if you read the whole story first.  National Security is NOT one of the reasons cited in my first inquiries.  It's just now being interjected because Trump alleges it.  WTH, dude, you need government to save you from yourself?
> 
> See these exapmles:  posts 2806, 3475, 3476, 3613, 3669 and 3731.  Read those and then join the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Telling me to STFU is funny. Keyboard warriors amuse me. Long your posts are. Incoherent and wordy to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incoherent because you cannot read; long because those who are so desperate for a wall keep rehashing the same points and keep making the same false allegations.  Again, dude, honesty is the enemy of those who worship the wall.  Go to post  # 2806.  Work your way back and tell me of a long post I made BEFORE that.
> 
> All I did was ask questions.  Me a keyboard warrior?  I'd rather meet people face to face.  I can go back to asking questions the moment the guys who think they can read minds and have all the answers will provide them without their phony bravado.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My only point is that border patrol agents want it and they are on the frontlines. I would think we would and should be willing to support them. That is all.
Click to expand...

What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)

The report was based on internal Customs and Border Protection documents from the 2017 fiscal year. It concluded that less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggestions to secure the Southwest border mentioned the need for a wall.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

sealybobo said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Telling me to STFU is funny. Keyboard warriors amuse me. Long your posts are. Incoherent and wordy to boot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incoherent because you cannot read; long because those who are so desperate for a wall keep rehashing the same points and keep making the same false allegations.  Again, dude, honesty is the enemy of those who worship the wall.  Go to post  # 2806.  Work your way back and tell me of a long post I made BEFORE that.
> 
> All I did was ask questions.  Me a keyboard warrior?  I'd rather meet people face to face.  I can go back to asking questions the moment the guys who think they can read minds and have all the answers will provide them without their phony bravado.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My only point is that border patrol agents want it and they are on the frontlines. I would think we would and should be willing to support them. That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> The report was based on internal Customs and Border Protection documents from the 2017 fiscal year. It concluded that less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggestions to secure the Southwest border mentioned the need for a wall.
Click to expand...


I've seen other reports that contradict and I actually saw them on TV stating they want a WALL!!!!

*In four Customs and Border Protection sectors where physical barriers have been expanded — El Paso, Yuma, Tucson, and San Diego — illegal traffic has dropped by at least 90%.*

_*Dems pre-Trump:*

-Hillary: Supported border wall
-Obama: More border security, illegals must speak English, go to back of line
-Schumer: Border walls work
-Reid: Offering benefits to illegals = insane
-Feinstein: US can't be Mexico's welfare
-Clinton: Illegal immigration is wrong_
*
*


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who argue anything other than its the votes they seek, and the transformation of America so to resemble Mexico and South America are being dishonest
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still trying to get the rest of your family in? They can mow my lawn with their teeth like the fucking goats that they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ad hominems and other fallacies is all the right wing has.
Click to expand...

No, we also have the USA.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need some new material.  Reread this thread.  I did not become "argumentative" for the first 200 posts that I was involved in it. My first 75 posts were in search of the *REAL reasons* people wanted the wall.  When my patriotism was questioned by Ray, I told him game on.  You need to STFU and read the thread before climbing my back with false allegations.  We'll get along better if you read the whole story first.  National Security is NOT one of the reasons cited in my first inquiries.  It's just now being interjected because Trump alleges it.  WTH, dude, you need government to save you from yourself?
> 
> See these exapmles:  posts 2806, 3475, 3476, 3613, 3669 and 3731.  Read those and then join the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Telling me to STFU is funny. Keyboard warriors amuse me. Long your posts are. Incoherent and wordy to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incoherent because you cannot read; long because those who are so desperate for a wall keep rehashing the same points and keep making the same false allegations.  Again, dude, honesty is the enemy of those who worship the wall.  Go to post  # 2806.  Work your way back and tell me of a long post I made BEFORE that.
> 
> All I did was ask questions.  Me a keyboard warrior?  I'd rather meet people face to face.  I can go back to asking questions the moment the guys who think they can read minds and have all the answers will provide them without their phony bravado.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My only point is that border patrol agents want it and they are on the frontlines. I would think we would and should be willing to support them. That is all.
Click to expand...


And my point is (and I've been forced to state and defend my own positions) is that my Liberty supersedes what government workers want.  The cops want to be able to search your home without a warrant; prosecutors want to try cases on the basis of perjured testimony where they force people to plead guilty or face a longer sentence; a lot of people in society want to infringe on your Right to keep and bear Arms.  

Most guys here dodge, duck, play semantics, and lie about what it is they REALLY want.  If someone is trying to sell you something, you should ask questions about it.  When they then accuse you of being a heretic for questioning the infallibility of Donald Trump and the wall worship deal, then you have *NOT *thought this through.  If / when those who want a wall level with me, I'll tell them where I stand.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

sealybobo said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need some new material.  Reread this thread.  I did not become "argumentative" for the first 200 posts that I was involved in it. My first 75 posts were in search of the *REAL reasons* people wanted the wall.  When my patriotism was questioned by Ray, I told him game on.  You need to STFU and read the thread before climbing my back with false allegations.  We'll get along better if you read the whole story first.  National Security is NOT one of the reasons cited in my first inquiries.  It's just now being interjected because Trump alleges it.  WTH, dude, you need government to save you from yourself?
> 
> See these exapmles:  posts 2806, 3475, 3476, 3613, 3669 and 3731.  Read those and then join the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Telling me to STFU is funny. Keyboard warriors amuse me. Long your posts are. Incoherent and wordy to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incoherent because you cannot read; long because those who are so desperate for a wall keep rehashing the same points and keep making the same false allegations.  Again, dude, honesty is the enemy of those who worship the wall.  Go to post  # 2806.  Work your way back and tell me of a long post I made BEFORE that.
> 
> All I did was ask questions.  Me a keyboard warrior?  I'd rather meet people face to face.  I can go back to asking questions the moment the guys who think they can read minds and have all the answers will provide them without their phony bravado.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's true.  In the 2000's us liberals were against illegal immigrants while 75% of the Republican party was arguing they were just here doing jobs Americans won't do.  That's a lie.
> 
> Do a little math. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are 7.6 million unemployed Americans right now. Another 1.5 million Americans are no longer counted because they've become "long term" or "discouraged" unemployed workers. And although various groups have different ways of measuring it, most agree that at least another five to ten million Americans are either working part-time when they want to work full-time, or are "underemployed," doing jobs below their level of training, education, or experience. That's between eight and twenty million un- and under-employed Americans, many unable to find above-poverty-level work.
> 
> At the same time, there are between seven and fifteen million working illegal immigrants diluting our labor pool.
> 
> If illegal immigrants could no longer work, unions would flourish, the minimum wage would rise, and oligarchic nations to our south would have to confront and fix their corrupt ways.
> 
> Between the Reagan years - when there were only around 1 to 2 million illegal aliens in our workforce - and today, we've gone from about 25 percent of our private workforce being unionized to around seven percent. Much of this is the direct result - as César Chávez predicted - of illegal immigrants competing directly with unionized and legal labor. Although it's most obvious in the construction trades over the past 30 years, it's hit all sectors of our economy.
Click to expand...


My math is simple:

I run ads on Craigslist, in community papers and list with the Dept. of Labor.  People don't even show up for an interview.

I could give you the *REAL* reason this happens, but it would take more than twenty words and you would not admit it.  I can show you a hundred people today under 40 that have never worked a job and they won't.  Most of it is the fault of people who back bad legislation because you're wholly uninformed.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Telling me to STFU is funny. Keyboard warriors amuse me. Long your posts are. Incoherent and wordy to boot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incoherent because you cannot read; long because those who are so desperate for a wall keep rehashing the same points and keep making the same false allegations.  Again, dude, honesty is the enemy of those who worship the wall.  Go to post  # 2806.  Work your way back and tell me of a long post I made BEFORE that.
> 
> All I did was ask questions.  Me a keyboard warrior?  I'd rather meet people face to face.  I can go back to asking questions the moment the guys who think they can read minds and have all the answers will provide them without their phony bravado.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My only point is that border patrol agents want it and they are on the frontlines. I would think we would and should be willing to support them. That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And my point is (and I've been forced to state and defend my own positions) is that my Liberty supersedes what government workers want.  The cops want to be able to search your home without a warrant; prosecutors want to try cases on the basis of perjured testimony where they force people to plead guilty or face a longer sentence; a lot of people in society want to infringe on your Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Most guys here dodge, duck, play semantics, and lie about what it is they REALLY want.  If someone is trying to sell you something, you should ask questions about it.  When they then accuse you of being a heretic for questioning the infallibility of Donald Trump and the wall worship deal, then you have *NOT *thought this through.  If / when those who want a wall level with me, I'll tell them where I stand.
Click to expand...


Border Patrol agents aren't stopping you from doing anything they are stopping those who are not citizens and want to enter the country illegally. You never answered how it infringes on your liberty. Cops don't want to search homes illegally, fallacy. Prosecutors do not want to try people illegally. Another fallacy. You are at least consistent.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incoherent because you cannot read; long because those who are so desperate for a wall keep rehashing the same points and keep making the same false allegations.  Again, dude, honesty is the enemy of those who worship the wall.  Go to post  # 2806.  Work your way back and tell me of a long post I made BEFORE that.
> 
> All I did was ask questions.  Me a keyboard warrior?  I'd rather meet people face to face.  I can go back to asking questions the moment the guys who think they can read minds and have all the answers will provide them without their phony bravado.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My only point is that border patrol agents want it and they are on the frontlines. I would think we would and should be willing to support them. That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> The report was based on internal Customs and Border Protection documents from the 2017 fiscal year. It concluded that less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggestions to secure the Southwest border mentioned the need for a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen other reports that contradict and I actually saw them on TV stating they want a WALL!!!!
> 
> *In four Customs and Border Protection sectors where physical barriers have been expanded — El Paso, Yuma, Tucson, and San Diego — illegal traffic has dropped by at least 90%.*
> 
> _*Dems pre-Trump:*
> 
> -Hillary: Supported border wall
> -Obama: More border security, illegals must speak English, go to back of line
> -Schumer: Border walls work
> -Reid: Offering benefits to illegals = insane
> -Feinstein: US can't be Mexico's welfare
> -Clinton: Illegal immigration is wrong_
Click to expand...



You see what the MSM wants you to see.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Telling me to STFU is funny. Keyboard warriors amuse me. Long your posts are. Incoherent and wordy to boot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incoherent because you cannot read; long because those who are so desperate for a wall keep rehashing the same points and keep making the same false allegations.  Again, dude, honesty is the enemy of those who worship the wall.  Go to post  # 2806.  Work your way back and tell me of a long post I made BEFORE that.
> 
> All I did was ask questions.  Me a keyboard warrior?  I'd rather meet people face to face.  I can go back to asking questions the moment the guys who think they can read minds and have all the answers will provide them without their phony bravado.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's true.  In the 2000's us liberals were against illegal immigrants while 75% of the Republican party was arguing they were just here doing jobs Americans won't do.  That's a lie.
> 
> Do a little math. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are 7.6 million unemployed Americans right now. Another 1.5 million Americans are no longer counted because they've become "long term" or "discouraged" unemployed workers. And although various groups have different ways of measuring it, most agree that at least another five to ten million Americans are either working part-time when they want to work full-time, or are "underemployed," doing jobs below their level of training, education, or experience. That's between eight and twenty million un- and under-employed Americans, many unable to find above-poverty-level work.
> 
> At the same time, there are between seven and fifteen million working illegal immigrants diluting our labor pool.
> 
> If illegal immigrants could no longer work, unions would flourish, the minimum wage would rise, and oligarchic nations to our south would have to confront and fix their corrupt ways.
> 
> Between the Reagan years - when there were only around 1 to 2 million illegal aliens in our workforce - and today, we've gone from about 25 percent of our private workforce being unionized to around seven percent. Much of this is the direct result - as César Chávez predicted - of illegal immigrants competing directly with unionized and legal labor. Although it's most obvious in the construction trades over the past 30 years, it's hit all sectors of our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My math is simple:
> 
> I run ads on Craigslist, in community papers and list with the Dept. of Labor.  People don't even show up for an interview.
> 
> I could give you the *REAL* reason this happens, but it would take more than twenty words and you would not admit it.  I can show you a hundred people today under 40 that have never worked a job and they won't.  Most of it is the fault of people who back bad legislation because you're wholly uninformed.
Click to expand...


Pay more. Supply/Demand economics. What is the job?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My only point is that border patrol agents want it and they are on the frontlines. I would think we would and should be willing to support them. That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> The report was based on internal Customs and Border Protection documents from the 2017 fiscal year. It concluded that less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggestions to secure the Southwest border mentioned the need for a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen other reports that contradict and I actually saw them on TV stating they want a WALL!!!!
> 
> *In four Customs and Border Protection sectors where physical barriers have been expanded — El Paso, Yuma, Tucson, and San Diego — illegal traffic has dropped by at least 90%.*
> 
> _*Dems pre-Trump:*
> 
> -Hillary: Supported border wall
> -Obama: More border security, illegals must speak English, go to back of line
> -Schumer: Border walls work
> -Reid: Offering benefits to illegals = insane
> -Feinstein: US can't be Mexico's welfare
> -Clinton: Illegal immigration is wrong_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You see what the MSM wants you to see.
Click to expand...



So you think those persons were actors? LOL 

Don't follow your train of thought.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incoherent because you cannot read; long because those who are so desperate for a wall keep rehashing the same points and keep making the same false allegations.  Again, dude, honesty is the enemy of those who worship the wall.  Go to post  # 2806.  Work your way back and tell me of a long post I made BEFORE that.
> 
> All I did was ask questions.  Me a keyboard warrior?  I'd rather meet people face to face.  I can go back to asking questions the moment the guys who think they can read minds and have all the answers will provide them without their phony bravado.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My only point is that border patrol agents want it and they are on the frontlines. I would think we would and should be willing to support them. That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And my point is (and I've been forced to state and defend my own positions) is that my Liberty supersedes what government workers want.  The cops want to be able to search your home without a warrant; prosecutors want to try cases on the basis of perjured testimony where they force people to plead guilty or face a longer sentence; a lot of people in society want to infringe on your Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Most guys here dodge, duck, play semantics, and lie about what it is they REALLY want.  If someone is trying to sell you something, you should ask questions about it.  When they then accuse you of being a heretic for questioning the infallibility of Donald Trump and the wall worship deal, then you have *NOT *thought this through.  If / when those who want a wall level with me, I'll tell them where I stand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents aren't stopping you from doing anything they are stopping those who are not citizens and want to enter the country illegally. You never answered how it infringes on your liberty. Cops don't want to search homes illegally, fallacy. Prosecutors do not want to try people illegally. Another fallacy. You are at least consistent.
Click to expand...


You've got to be kidding.  I've answered this stuff in excess of TWENTY TIMES!  WTH?  Did you try READING this thread?

Pal, I've tried very hard not to call people names despite the abuse that's been hurled at me, but you're an outright idiot if you honestly believe that prosecutors don't want to try people illegally.  I personally witnessed a case wherein the prosecutor LIED to the jury, got to threaten potential witnesses with jail time if they did not commit perjury and corroborate the "state's version of events."  In addition, they were allowed to use hearsay.  Adding insult to injury, there was never an investigation into the case, the accused first time of ever seeing the officer making the accusation was when they went to court.  Other than an alleged victim that was threatened by the prosecutor, there were no witnesses, no investigation, no evidence, and no reason for the defendant to even be in court.

Come up with something relevant already.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incoherent because you cannot read; long because those who are so desperate for a wall keep rehashing the same points and keep making the same false allegations.  Again, dude, honesty is the enemy of those who worship the wall.  Go to post  # 2806.  Work your way back and tell me of a long post I made BEFORE that.
> 
> All I did was ask questions.  Me a keyboard warrior?  I'd rather meet people face to face.  I can go back to asking questions the moment the guys who think they can read minds and have all the answers will provide them without their phony bravado.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's true.  In the 2000's us liberals were against illegal immigrants while 75% of the Republican party was arguing they were just here doing jobs Americans won't do.  That's a lie.
> 
> Do a little math. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are 7.6 million unemployed Americans right now. Another 1.5 million Americans are no longer counted because they've become "long term" or "discouraged" unemployed workers. And although various groups have different ways of measuring it, most agree that at least another five to ten million Americans are either working part-time when they want to work full-time, or are "underemployed," doing jobs below their level of training, education, or experience. That's between eight and twenty million un- and under-employed Americans, many unable to find above-poverty-level work.
> 
> At the same time, there are between seven and fifteen million working illegal immigrants diluting our labor pool.
> 
> If illegal immigrants could no longer work, unions would flourish, the minimum wage would rise, and oligarchic nations to our south would have to confront and fix their corrupt ways.
> 
> Between the Reagan years - when there were only around 1 to 2 million illegal aliens in our workforce - and today, we've gone from about 25 percent of our private workforce being unionized to around seven percent. Much of this is the direct result - as César Chávez predicted - of illegal immigrants competing directly with unionized and legal labor. Although it's most obvious in the construction trades over the past 30 years, it's hit all sectors of our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My math is simple:
> 
> I run ads on Craigslist, in community papers and list with the Dept. of Labor.  People don't even show up for an interview.
> 
> I could give you the *REAL* reason this happens, but it would take more than twenty words and you would not admit it.  I can show you a hundred people today under 40 that have never worked a job and they won't.  Most of it is the fault of people who back bad legislation because you're wholly uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pay more. Supply/Demand economics. What is the job?
Click to expand...


I'm a minister with a jobs program.  We have temp, temp to perm and permanent jobs in many fields from laborers to farm workers and from warehouse workers to construction / handymen positions.

Whites will not work the jobs.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My only point is that border patrol agents want it and they are on the frontlines. I would think we would and should be willing to support them. That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And my point is (and I've been forced to state and defend my own positions) is that my Liberty supersedes what government workers want.  The cops want to be able to search your home without a warrant; prosecutors want to try cases on the basis of perjured testimony where they force people to plead guilty or face a longer sentence; a lot of people in society want to infringe on your Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Most guys here dodge, duck, play semantics, and lie about what it is they REALLY want.  If someone is trying to sell you something, you should ask questions about it.  When they then accuse you of being a heretic for questioning the infallibility of Donald Trump and the wall worship deal, then you have *NOT *thought this through.  If / when those who want a wall level with me, I'll tell them where I stand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents aren't stopping you from doing anything they are stopping those who are not citizens and want to enter the country illegally. You never answered how it infringes on your liberty. Cops don't want to search homes illegally, fallacy. Prosecutors do not want to try people illegally. Another fallacy. You are at least consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've got to be kidding.  I've answered this stuff in excess of TWENTY TIMES!  WTH?  Did you try READING this thread?
> 
> Pal, I've tried very hard not to call people names despite the abuse that's been hurled at me, but you're an outright idiot if you honestly believe that prosecutors don't want to try people illegally.  I personally witnessed a case wherein the prosecutor LIED to the jury, got to threaten potential witnesses with jail time if they did not commit perjury and corroborate the "state's version of events."  In addition, they were allowed to use hearsay.  Adding insult to injury, there was never an investigation into the case, the accused first time of ever seeing the officer making the accusation was when they went to court.  Other than an alleged victim that was threatened by the prosecutor, there were no witnesses, no investigation, no evidence, and no reason for the defendant to even be in court.
> 
> Come up with something relevant already.
Click to expand...



#1) Some prosecutors may but most do not. Your example doesn't mean all do it. 
#2) Two of my life long friends are police officers. They go by the book and get abused daily. I respect them wholeheartedly.
#3) You're a keyboard warrior. I laugh at your expense. Wash your mouth out with soap. Face to face you would not call people idiots don't do it here.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's true.  In the 2000's us liberals were against illegal immigrants while 75% of the Republican party was arguing they were just here doing jobs Americans won't do.  That's a lie.
> 
> Do a little math. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are 7.6 million unemployed Americans right now. Another 1.5 million Americans are no longer counted because they've become "long term" or "discouraged" unemployed workers. And although various groups have different ways of measuring it, most agree that at least another five to ten million Americans are either working part-time when they want to work full-time, or are "underemployed," doing jobs below their level of training, education, or experience. That's between eight and twenty million un- and under-employed Americans, many unable to find above-poverty-level work.
> 
> At the same time, there are between seven and fifteen million working illegal immigrants diluting our labor pool.
> 
> If illegal immigrants could no longer work, unions would flourish, the minimum wage would rise, and oligarchic nations to our south would have to confront and fix their corrupt ways.
> 
> Between the Reagan years - when there were only around 1 to 2 million illegal aliens in our workforce - and today, we've gone from about 25 percent of our private workforce being unionized to around seven percent. Much of this is the direct result - as César Chávez predicted - of illegal immigrants competing directly with unionized and legal labor. Although it's most obvious in the construction trades over the past 30 years, it's hit all sectors of our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My math is simple:
> 
> I run ads on Craigslist, in community papers and list with the Dept. of Labor.  People don't even show up for an interview.
> 
> I could give you the *REAL* reason this happens, but it would take more than twenty words and you would not admit it.  I can show you a hundred people today under 40 that have never worked a job and they won't.  Most of it is the fault of people who back bad legislation because you're wholly uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pay more. Supply/Demand economics. What is the job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a minister with a jobs program.  We have temp, temp to perm and permanent jobs in many fields from laborers to farm workers and from warehouse workers to construction / handymen positions.
> 
> Whites will not work the jobs.
Click to expand...


Another blanket statement. Racist statement to boot. Wow.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only point is that border patrol agents want it and they are on the frontlines. I would think we would and should be willing to support them. That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> The report was based on internal Customs and Border Protection documents from the 2017 fiscal year. It concluded that less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggestions to secure the Southwest border mentioned the need for a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen other reports that contradict and I actually saw them on TV stating they want a WALL!!!!
> 
> *In four Customs and Border Protection sectors where physical barriers have been expanded — El Paso, Yuma, Tucson, and San Diego — illegal traffic has dropped by at least 90%.*
> 
> _*Dems pre-Trump:*
> 
> -Hillary: Supported border wall
> -Obama: More border security, illegals must speak English, go to back of line
> -Schumer: Border walls work
> -Reid: Offering benefits to illegals = insane
> -Feinstein: US can't be Mexico's welfare
> -Clinton: Illegal immigration is wrong_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You see what the MSM wants you to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you think those persons were actors? LOL
> 
> Don't follow your train of thought.
Click to expand...


Did I say they were actors?  I went to a political rally once.  It was right wing.  The reporter said approximately 120 people attended.  My friends and I walked through the crowd and passed out 780 flyers.  Okay some people got more than one, but they didn't get six or more flyers each.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only point is that border patrol agents want it and they are on the frontlines. I would think we would and should be willing to support them. That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And my point is (and I've been forced to state and defend my own positions) is that my Liberty supersedes what government workers want.  The cops want to be able to search your home without a warrant; prosecutors want to try cases on the basis of perjured testimony where they force people to plead guilty or face a longer sentence; a lot of people in society want to infringe on your Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Most guys here dodge, duck, play semantics, and lie about what it is they REALLY want.  If someone is trying to sell you something, you should ask questions about it.  When they then accuse you of being a heretic for questioning the infallibility of Donald Trump and the wall worship deal, then you have *NOT *thought this through.  If / when those who want a wall level with me, I'll tell them where I stand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents aren't stopping you from doing anything they are stopping those who are not citizens and want to enter the country illegally. You never answered how it infringes on your liberty. Cops don't want to search homes illegally, fallacy. Prosecutors do not want to try people illegally. Another fallacy. You are at least consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've got to be kidding.  I've answered this stuff in excess of TWENTY TIMES!  WTH?  Did you try READING this thread?
> 
> Pal, I've tried very hard not to call people names despite the abuse that's been hurled at me, but you're an outright idiot if you honestly believe that prosecutors don't want to try people illegally.  I personally witnessed a case wherein the prosecutor LIED to the jury, got to threaten potential witnesses with jail time if they did not commit perjury and corroborate the "state's version of events."  In addition, they were allowed to use hearsay.  Adding insult to injury, there was never an investigation into the case, the accused first time of ever seeing the officer making the accusation was when they went to court.  Other than an alleged victim that was threatened by the prosecutor, there were no witnesses, no investigation, no evidence, and no reason for the defendant to even be in court.
> 
> Come up with something relevant already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> #1) Some prosecutors may but most do not. Your example doesn't mean all do it.
> #2) Two of my life long friends are police officers. They go by the book and get abused daily. I respect them wholeheartedly.
> #3) You're a keyboard warrior. I laugh at your expense. Wash your mouth out with soap. Face to face you would not call people idiots don't do it here.
Click to expand...


Well, you wound up exposing yourself.  Keyboard warrior?  It's a fact I'll never see you in person.  Here's your invitation - come here and spend a week with me.  If you still think I'm lying, I'll sell everything I have and join your wall worship.  Spend a week here, look me in the eyes and spew that crap.  If you have any modicum of honesty or decency, you can't do it.

I wish to God it were not true, but it is.

I'm calling your bluff - right here and right now.  I'm going back to work for the moment and let you see if you can get the courage to see which of us is right.


----------



## Flopper

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's true.  In the 2000's us liberals were against illegal immigrants while 75% of the Republican party was arguing they were just here doing jobs Americans won't do.  That's a lie.
> 
> Do a little math. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are 7.6 million unemployed Americans right now. Another 1.5 million Americans are no longer counted because they've become "long term" or "discouraged" unemployed workers. And although various groups have different ways of measuring it, most agree that at least another five to ten million Americans are either working part-time when they want to work full-time, or are "underemployed," doing jobs below their level of training, education, or experience. That's between eight and twenty million un- and under-employed Americans, many unable to find above-poverty-level work.
> 
> At the same time, there are between seven and fifteen million working illegal immigrants diluting our labor pool.
> 
> If illegal immigrants could no longer work, unions would flourish, the minimum wage would rise, and oligarchic nations to our south would have to confront and fix their corrupt ways.
> 
> Between the Reagan years - when there were only around 1 to 2 million illegal aliens in our workforce - and today, we've gone from about 25 percent of our private workforce being unionized to around seven percent. Much of this is the direct result - as César Chávez predicted - of illegal immigrants competing directly with unionized and legal labor. Although it's most obvious in the construction trades over the past 30 years, it's hit all sectors of our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My math is simple:
> 
> I run ads on Craigslist, in community papers and list with the Dept. of Labor.  People don't even show up for an interview.
> 
> I could give you the *REAL* reason this happens, but it would take more than twenty words and you would not admit it.  I can show you a hundred people today under 40 that have never worked a job and they won't.  Most of it is the fault of people who back bad legislation because you're wholly uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pay more. Supply/Demand economics. What is the job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a minister with a jobs program.  We have temp, temp to perm and permanent jobs in many fields from laborers to farm workers and from warehouse workers to construction / handymen positions.
> 
> Whites will not work the jobs.
Click to expand...


Both parties have flip flopped on immigration depending on the issue. Dems supported 2006 fence act. Republicans opposed Clinton efforts to limit hiring illegals. Reagan supported amnesty for undocumented immigrants. 

Operation Wetback in the 50s was initiated at the request of the Mexican government and was supported by both parties


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, if you can't look around at the changes that have already occurred, that's your problem. BTW you asked me for a court case yesterday, I provided it and haven't acknowledged it.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to bear in mind that I'm on here supposedly "debating" at least six different people.  What court case did you cite that you think means what?  I do 80 wpm and can barely keep up.  I miss a few posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you against the world, think maybe it's just you that is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTH are you talking about?  I am not debating or arguing with anyone on this thread.  I have not taken a position other than stating the obvious:  a wall will not solve any issues that the build the wall guys have put on the table.  I'm asking questions and simply trying to figure out what is REALLY going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a position. You don't want the wall built because you think it won't work. It depends on what you intend to accomplish. To keep out the riff raff it will work. To put a big hurdle in drug imports it would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a mental problem?  I've stated my reasons for not wanting a wall.  I know damn well it will not work because, and let's make this big and bold for you:
> 
> *AMERICA IS NOT MEXICO, CANADA OR CHINA.  WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH THE ISRAELIS.  WE ARE NOT TRYING TO PROTECT OR PRESERVE THE POSTERITY OF THE FOUNDERS.  AS A RESULT YOU BUILD THE WALL PEOPLE ARE APPLYING A SOLUTION THAT DOES NOT APPLY - AND I HAVE PROVEN UNEQUIVOCALLY, WALLS OVER TIME DO NOT WORK.  I'M COMMITTED TO A PRACTICAL, HONEST AND PERMANENT SOLUTION*.
> 
> If you would read posts # 3475 and # 3476 you can see my REAL objections to what you are proposing.
Click to expand...

Walls keep out the riff raff. Walls do work.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 238920
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great deflection, but here is my assessment about you (since that's all you got of all the discussion we've had)
> 
> 1)  Ray is agnostic, atheist, or something *other than* Christian.  The dead giveaway is when people insist on using the word inalienable over unalienable.  They have been interpreted differently by our courts.  Inalienable rights are those which can be aliened IF YOU CONSENT.
> 
> Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.)  Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you.  I'm not saying that is good or bad.  It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma:  they are equally yoked with the unbelieving
> 
> 2)  It is no secret that Ray would forfeit ANY AND ALL Liberties, Rights, and blessings for a wall
> 
> 3)  In Ray's world he honestly believes he can keep people out.  This has NOTHING to do with any legal or moral argument for or against immigration.  It is a pipe dream that could not be accomplished even when Jesus was walking this earth (references supplied in earlier posts)
> 
> 4) Ray will use information in order to achieve his goal: keeping people from south of the border out.  Oh he might play word games / semantics about a phony legal v. illegal nature, but his posts testify against the smoke and mirrors.  He refuses to ask me one question as he prefers to present the pretext as a fact rather than ask me a simple question that he's danced around
> 
> 5)  Ray says he would like to preserve our culture.  Albeit unpopular, our culture consists of a people that built a country on the twin pillars of race and religion.  Ray rejects the religion, but lives under the delusion we can use a wall to force people out and reclaim the racial part of our heritage without the other part of our culture that made us great (i.e.a belief, as a nation, in God.)
> 
> Nothing more can come of any further debate / discussion.  Anything he and I say to each other does not change where he stands.  And I came on this thread looking for the REAL reason people worship the wall.  Ray's logic does not make me want to trade off Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to be the bad guy, but that outlook is socialist.  Rush Limbaugh said:
> 
> "If you want a “living wage,” if you don’t like what fast food restaurants pay, then do something else. It’s just that simple. Go to a trade school. Go to another business. Start your own business. Maybe the work that you are capable of isn’t yet worth $15 an hour at a fast-food restaurant. Maybe the consumer doesn’t want to pay $10 for a Big Mac so that people working at McDonald’s make $15 an hour. It’s not just a one-way strata.
> 
> You don’t just sit there and double what the employees at McDonald’s make and keep the prices the same. Now, you may think this is obvious, folks, and you may think, “Come on, Rush,” you’d be amazed at how many people do not understand the push-pull in economics. You’d be amazed at the number of people who have taken economics courses who think that the truth about headaches is that the boss is a cheap skinflint and wants his employees to starve and wants to screw his customers."
> 
> Minimum Wage: How Much is Too Much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't work for McDonalds.
> I'm as much a Conservative as Trump is and that would be not very much at all. Common sense for the working man he is and so am I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is NOT a conservative; he despises the Constitution; he thinks he's God and you would follow him into Hell.  He just slapped "conservatives"  with a bitch slap so hard that he's about to nullify that Constitution.
> 
> The minimum wage debate sparked the living wage debate and when Rush isn't evangelizing for Reverend Trump, he's cutting that living wage argument into shreds.
Click to expand...

He's not about to nullify the Constitution.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that everybody wants things to make their job easier?  Years ago I worked in a warehouse.  The workers said they needed air conditioning in order to be as productive as management wanted.
> 
> The problem was putting AC in a warehouse would not work and it would have the energy bill sucking up a significant portion of the company's profits.
> 
> We are NOT talking border security with the wall.  What you're talking about is an attempt to stop American citizens and the people from south of the border from engaging in mutually beneficial relationships.  You'd be better served with some regulation.  No surgeon ever recommended surgery for a runny nose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #1) I had a similar situation and the owner did put in AC
> #2) This is not a runny a nose, this is a constant bleed.
> #3) I disagree this is mutual beneficial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't seem to understand that's what ports of entry are for.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't understand what the relevance of it is.  YOU don't know what the bottom line is as to what ports of entry are for... OR maybe you know, but are like Ray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very argumentative you are. Listen to counterpoints you don’t. Necessary border security is. Bad open borders are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need some new material.  Reread this thread.  I did not become "argumentative" for the first 200 posts that I was involved in it. My first 75 posts were in search of the *REAL reasons* people wanted the wall.  When my patriotism was questioned by Ray, I told him game on.  You need to STFU and read the thread before climbing my back with false allegations.  We'll get along better if you read the whole story first.  National Security is NOT one of the reasons cited in my first inquiries.  It's just now being interjected because Trump alleges it.  WTH, dude, you need government to save you from yourself?
> 
> See these exapmles:  posts 2806, 3475, 3476, 3613, 3669 and 3731.  Read those and then join the conversation.
Click to expand...

The real reason we want the wall is to keep out the trash. You've been answered multiple times.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's true.  In the 2000's us liberals were against illegal immigrants while 75% of the Republican party was arguing they were just here doing jobs Americans won't do.  That's a lie.
> 
> Do a little math. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are 7.6 million unemployed Americans right now. Another 1.5 million Americans are no longer counted because they've become "long term" or "discouraged" unemployed workers. And although various groups have different ways of measuring it, most agree that at least another five to ten million Americans are either working part-time when they want to work full-time, or are "underemployed," doing jobs below their level of training, education, or experience. That's between eight and twenty million un- and under-employed Americans, many unable to find above-poverty-level work.
> 
> At the same time, there are between seven and fifteen million working illegal immigrants diluting our labor pool.
> 
> If illegal immigrants could no longer work, unions would flourish, the minimum wage would rise, and oligarchic nations to our south would have to confront and fix their corrupt ways.
> 
> Between the Reagan years - when there were only around 1 to 2 million illegal aliens in our workforce - and today, we've gone from about 25 percent of our private workforce being unionized to around seven percent. Much of this is the direct result - as César Chávez predicted - of illegal immigrants competing directly with unionized and legal labor. Although it's most obvious in the construction trades over the past 30 years, it's hit all sectors of our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My math is simple:
> 
> I run ads on Craigslist, in community papers and list with the Dept. of Labor.  People don't even show up for an interview.
> 
> I could give you the *REAL* reason this happens, but it would take more than twenty words and you would not admit it.  I can show you a hundred people today under 40 that have never worked a job and they won't.  Most of it is the fault of people who back bad legislation because you're wholly uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pay more. Supply/Demand economics. What is the job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a minister with a jobs program.  We have temp, temp to perm and permanent jobs in many fields from laborers to farm workers and from warehouse workers to construction / handymen positions.
> 
> Whites will not work the jobs.
Click to expand...

They don't pay enough to work them.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Telling me to STFU is funny. Keyboard warriors amuse me. Long your posts are. Incoherent and wordy to boot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incoherent because you cannot read; long because those who are so desperate for a wall keep rehashing the same points and keep making the same false allegations.  Again, dude, honesty is the enemy of those who worship the wall.  Go to post  # 2806.  Work your way back and tell me of a long post I made BEFORE that.
> 
> All I did was ask questions.  Me a keyboard warrior?  I'd rather meet people face to face.  I can go back to asking questions the moment the guys who think they can read minds and have all the answers will provide them without their phony bravado.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My only point is that border patrol agents want it and they are on the frontlines. I would think we would and should be willing to support them. That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> The report was based on internal Customs and Border Protection documents from the 2017 fiscal year. It concluded that less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggestions to secure the Southwest border mentioned the need for a wall.
Click to expand...


Flopper posted that already and it’s been debunked.  


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

AzogtheDefiler said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who argue anything other than its the votes they seek, and the transformation of America so to resemble Mexico and South America are being dishonest
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you hate this country so much feel free to move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lousy capitalist lose money for our country; feel free to leave and lose money for some other country, right winger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capitalists pay the taxes, politicians spend em. Not sure how "capitalists lose money". Time to put daniel the illegal on ignore.
Click to expand...


Did that six months ago.  Saves me a ton of time on USMB.  


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's true.  In the 2000's us liberals were against illegal immigrants while 75% of the Republican party was arguing they were just here doing jobs Americans won't do.  That's a lie.
> 
> Do a little math. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are 7.6 million unemployed Americans right now. Another 1.5 million Americans are no longer counted because they've become "long term" or "discouraged" unemployed workers. And although various groups have different ways of measuring it, most agree that at least another five to ten million Americans are either working part-time when they want to work full-time, or are "underemployed," doing jobs below their level of training, education, or experience. That's between eight and twenty million un- and under-employed Americans, many unable to find above-poverty-level work.
> 
> At the same time, there are between seven and fifteen million working illegal immigrants diluting our labor pool.
> 
> If illegal immigrants could no longer work, unions would flourish, the minimum wage would rise, and oligarchic nations to our south would have to confront and fix their corrupt ways.
> 
> Between the Reagan years - when there were only around 1 to 2 million illegal aliens in our workforce - and today, we've gone from about 25 percent of our private workforce being unionized to around seven percent. Much of this is the direct result - as César Chávez predicted - of illegal immigrants competing directly with unionized and legal labor. Although it's most obvious in the construction trades over the past 30 years, it's hit all sectors of our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My math is simple:
> 
> I run ads on Craigslist, in community papers and list with the Dept. of Labor.  People don't even show up for an interview.
> 
> I could give you the *REAL* reason this happens, but it would take more than twenty words and you would not admit it.  I can show you a hundred people today under 40 that have never worked a job and they won't.  Most of it is the fault of people who back bad legislation because you're wholly uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pay more. Supply/Demand economics. What is the job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a minister with a jobs program.  We have temp, temp to perm and permanent jobs in many fields from laborers to farm workers and from warehouse workers to construction / handymen positions.
> 
> Whites will not work the jobs.
Click to expand...


They do in MA


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> My only point is that border patrol agents want it and they are on the frontlines. I would think we would and should be willing to support them. That is all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And my point is (and I've been forced to state and defend my own positions) is that my Liberty supersedes what government workers want.  The cops want to be able to search your home without a warrant; prosecutors want to try cases on the basis of perjured testimony where they force people to plead guilty or face a longer sentence; a lot of people in society want to infringe on your Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Most guys here dodge, duck, play semantics, and lie about what it is they REALLY want.  If someone is trying to sell you something, you should ask questions about it.  When they then accuse you of being a heretic for questioning the infallibility of Donald Trump and the wall worship deal, then you have *NOT *thought this through.  If / when those who want a wall level with me, I'll tell them where I stand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents aren't stopping you from doing anything they are stopping those who are not citizens and want to enter the country illegally. You never answered how it infringes on your liberty. Cops don't want to search homes illegally, fallacy. Prosecutors do not want to try people illegally. Another fallacy. You are at least consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've got to be kidding.  I've answered this stuff in excess of TWENTY TIMES!  WTH?  Did you try READING this thread?
> 
> Pal, I've tried very hard not to call people names despite the abuse that's been hurled at me, but you're an outright idiot if you honestly believe that prosecutors don't want to try people illegally.  I personally witnessed a case wherein the prosecutor LIED to the jury, got to threaten potential witnesses with jail time if they did not commit perjury and corroborate the "state's version of events."  In addition, they were allowed to use hearsay.  Adding insult to injury, there was never an investigation into the case, the accused first time of ever seeing the officer making the accusation was when they went to court.  Other than an alleged victim that was threatened by the prosecutor, there were no witnesses, no investigation, no evidence, and no reason for the defendant to even be in court.
> 
> Come up with something relevant already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> #1) Some prosecutors may but most do not. Your example doesn't mean all do it.
> #2) Two of my life long friends are police officers. They go by the book and get abused daily. I respect them wholeheartedly.
> #3) You're a keyboard warrior. I laugh at your expense. Wash your mouth out with soap. Face to face you would not call people idiots don't do it here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you wound up exposing yourself.  Keyboard warrior?  It's a fact I'll never see you in person.  Here's your invitation - come here and spend a week with me.  If you still think I'm lying, I'll sell everything I have and join your wall worship.  Spend a week here, look me in the eyes and spew that crap.  If you have any modicum of honesty or decency, you can't do it.
> 
> I wish to God it were not true, but it is.
> 
> I'm calling your bluff - right here and right now.  I'm going back to work for the moment and let you see if you can get the courage to see which of us is right.
Click to expand...


Where is here? So you want me to take a week off from work and my family to prove a point? Seriously?


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who argue anything other than its the votes they seek, and the transformation of America so to resemble Mexico and South America are being dishonest
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still trying to get the rest of your family in? They can mow my lawn with their teeth like the fucking goats that they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ad hominems and other fallacies is all the right wing has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we also have the USA.
Click to expand...

true Gamorans and true Sodomites make better citizens than false Christians.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who argue anything other than its the votes they seek, and the transformation of America so to resemble Mexico and South America are being dishonest
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still trying to get the rest of your family in? They can mow my lawn with their teeth like the fucking goats that they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ad hominems and other fallacies is all the right wing has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we also have the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> true Gamorans and true Sodomites make better citizens than false Christians.
Click to expand...

I'm not Christian. Now go assfuck another donkey, you know you want to.


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> 
> 
> You still trying to get the rest of your family in? They can mow my lawn with their teeth like the fucking goats that they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ad hominems and other fallacies is all the right wing has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we also have the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> true Gamorans and true Sodomites make better citizens than false Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not Christian. Now go assfuck another donkey, you know you want to.
Click to expand...

you have no truth value; who cares what you think if you have no witnesses.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very argumentative you are. Listen to counterpoints you don’t. Necessary border security is. Bad open borders are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need some new material.  Reread this thread.  I did not become "argumentative" for the first 200 posts that I was involved in it. My first 75 posts were in search of the *REAL reasons* people wanted the wall.  When my patriotism was questioned by Ray, I told him game on.  You need to STFU and read the thread before climbing my back with false allegations.  We'll get along better if you read the whole story first.  National Security is NOT one of the reasons cited in my first inquiries.  It's just now being interjected because Trump alleges it.  WTH, dude, you need government to save you from yourself?
> 
> See these exapmles:  posts 2806, 3475, 3476, 3613, 3669 and 3731.  Read those and then join the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Telling me to STFU is funny. Keyboard warriors amuse me. Long your posts are. Incoherent and wordy to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incoherent because you cannot read; long because those who are so desperate for a wall keep rehashing the same points and keep making the same false allegations.  Again, dude, honesty is the enemy of those who worship the wall.  Go to post  # 2806.  Work your way back and tell me of a long post I made BEFORE that.
> 
> All I did was ask questions.  Me a keyboard warrior?  I'd rather meet people face to face.  I can go back to asking questions the moment the guys who think they can read minds and have all the answers will provide them without their phony bravado.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
Click to expand...

To some its political.  To some its not.

It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.

Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.

20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still trying to get the rest of your family in? They can mow my lawn with their teeth like the fucking goats that they are.
> 
> 
> 
> ad hominems and other fallacies is all the right wing has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we also have the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> true Gamorans and true Sodomites make better citizens than false Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not Christian. Now go assfuck another donkey, you know you want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no truth value; who cares what you think if you have no witnesses.
Click to expand...

Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?


----------



## sealybobo

AzogtheDefiler said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incoherent because you cannot read; long because those who are so desperate for a wall keep rehashing the same points and keep making the same false allegations.  Again, dude, honesty is the enemy of those who worship the wall.  Go to post  # 2806.  Work your way back and tell me of a long post I made BEFORE that.
> 
> All I did was ask questions.  Me a keyboard warrior?  I'd rather meet people face to face.  I can go back to asking questions the moment the guys who think they can read minds and have all the answers will provide them without their phony bravado.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My only point is that border patrol agents want it and they are on the frontlines. I would think we would and should be willing to support them. That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> The report was based on internal Customs and Border Protection documents from the 2017 fiscal year. It concluded that less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggestions to secure the Southwest border mentioned the need for a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen other reports that contradict and I actually saw them on TV stating they want a WALL!!!!
> 
> *In four Customs and Border Protection sectors where physical barriers have been expanded — El Paso, Yuma, Tucson, and San Diego — illegal traffic has dropped by at least 90%.*
> 
> _*Dems pre-Trump:*
> 
> -Hillary: Supported border wall
> -Obama: More border security, illegals must speak English, go to back of line
> -Schumer: Border walls work
> -Reid: Offering benefits to illegals = insane
> -Feinstein: US can't be Mexico's welfare
> -Clinton: Illegal immigration is wrong_
Click to expand...

I support border security.  A wall is a waste of money.  But watching the border is important.  You can watch the border with or without a wall.  And when you eventually stop watching the border without a wall then you don't feel stupid for building an unnecessary wall that was a huge waste of time and money and now has so many holes in it that it looks like swiss cheese.


----------



## eagle1462010

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ad hominems and other fallacies is all the right wing has.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we also have the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> true Gamorans and true Sodomites make better citizens than false Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not Christian. Now go assfuck another donkey, you know you want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no truth value; who cares what you think if you have no witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
Click to expand...

They come here uninvited.  Then DEMAND entry.  They are not citizens of this country and have no right to demand anything.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to bear in mind that I'm on here supposedly "debating" at least six different people.  What court case did you cite that you think means what?  I do 80 wpm and can barely keep up.  I miss a few posts.
> 
> 
> 
> you against the world, think maybe it's just you that is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTH are you talking about?  I am not debating or arguing with anyone on this thread.  I have not taken a position other than stating the obvious:  a wall will not solve any issues that the build the wall guys have put on the table.  I'm asking questions and simply trying to figure out what is REALLY going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a position. You don't want the wall built because you think it won't work. It depends on what you intend to accomplish. To keep out the riff raff it will work. To put a big hurdle in drug imports it would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a mental problem?  I've stated my reasons for not wanting a wall.  I know damn well it will not work because, and let's make this big and bold for you:
> 
> *AMERICA IS NOT MEXICO, CANADA OR CHINA.  WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH THE ISRAELIS.  WE ARE NOT TRYING TO PROTECT OR PRESERVE THE POSTERITY OF THE FOUNDERS.  AS A RESULT YOU BUILD THE WALL PEOPLE ARE APPLYING A SOLUTION THAT DOES NOT APPLY - AND I HAVE PROVEN UNEQUIVOCALLY, WALLS OVER TIME DO NOT WORK.  I'M COMMITTED TO A PRACTICAL, HONEST AND PERMANENT SOLUTION*.
> 
> If you would read posts # 3475 and # 3476 you can see my REAL objections to what you are proposing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Walls keep out the riff raff. Walls do work.
Click to expand...


As a matter of fact, they* do not*.  See posts # 3475 and 3476 on this thread.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Flopper said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> 
> 
> It's true.  In the 2000's us liberals were against illegal immigrants while 75% of the Republican party was arguing they were just here doing jobs Americans won't do.  That's a lie.
> 
> Do a little math. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are 7.6 million unemployed Americans right now. Another 1.5 million Americans are no longer counted because they've become "long term" or "discouraged" unemployed workers. And although various groups have different ways of measuring it, most agree that at least another five to ten million Americans are either working part-time when they want to work full-time, or are "underemployed," doing jobs below their level of training, education, or experience. That's between eight and twenty million un- and under-employed Americans, many unable to find above-poverty-level work.
> 
> At the same time, there are between seven and fifteen million working illegal immigrants diluting our labor pool.
> 
> If illegal immigrants could no longer work, unions would flourish, the minimum wage would rise, and oligarchic nations to our south would have to confront and fix their corrupt ways.
> 
> Between the Reagan years - when there were only around 1 to 2 million illegal aliens in our workforce - and today, we've gone from about 25 percent of our private workforce being unionized to around seven percent. Much of this is the direct result - as César Chávez predicted - of illegal immigrants competing directly with unionized and legal labor. Although it's most obvious in the construction trades over the past 30 years, it's hit all sectors of our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My math is simple:
> 
> I run ads on Craigslist, in community papers and list with the Dept. of Labor.  People don't even show up for an interview.
> 
> I could give you the *REAL* reason this happens, but it would take more than twenty words and you would not admit it.  I can show you a hundred people today under 40 that have never worked a job and they won't.  Most of it is the fault of people who back bad legislation because you're wholly uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pay more. Supply/Demand economics. What is the job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a minister with a jobs program.  We have temp, temp to perm and permanent jobs in many fields from laborers to farm workers and from warehouse workers to construction / handymen positions.
> 
> Whites will not work the jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both parties have flip flopped on immigration depending on the issue. Dems supported 2006 fence act. Republicans opposed Clinton efforts to limit hiring illegals. Reagan supported amnesty for undocumented immigrants.
> 
> Operation Wetback in the 50s was initiated at the request of the Mexican government and was supported by both parties
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Yeah and Ceasear


Flopper said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> 
> 
> It's true.  In the 2000's us liberals were against illegal immigrants while 75% of the Republican party was arguing they were just here doing jobs Americans won't do.  That's a lie.
> 
> Do a little math. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are 7.6 million unemployed Americans right now. Another 1.5 million Americans are no longer counted because they've become "long term" or "discouraged" unemployed workers. And although various groups have different ways of measuring it, most agree that at least another five to ten million Americans are either working part-time when they want to work full-time, or are "underemployed," doing jobs below their level of training, education, or experience. That's between eight and twenty million un- and under-employed Americans, many unable to find above-poverty-level work.
> 
> At the same time, there are between seven and fifteen million working illegal immigrants diluting our labor pool.
> 
> If illegal immigrants could no longer work, unions would flourish, the minimum wage would rise, and oligarchic nations to our south would have to confront and fix their corrupt ways.
> 
> Between the Reagan years - when there were only around 1 to 2 million illegal aliens in our workforce - and today, we've gone from about 25 percent of our private workforce being unionized to around seven percent. Much of this is the direct result - as César Chávez predicted - of illegal immigrants competing directly with unionized and legal labor. Although it's most obvious in the construction trades over the past 30 years, it's hit all sectors of our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My math is simple:
> 
> I run ads on Craigslist, in community papers and list with the Dept. of Labor.  People don't even show up for an interview.
> 
> I could give you the *REAL* reason this happens, but it would take more than twenty words and you would not admit it.  I can show you a hundred people today under 40 that have never worked a job and they won't.  Most of it is the fault of people who back bad legislation because you're wholly uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pay more. Supply/Demand economics. What is the job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a minister with a jobs program.  We have temp, temp to perm and permanent jobs in many fields from laborers to farm workers and from warehouse workers to construction / handymen positions.
> 
> Whites will not work the jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both parties have flip flopped on immigration depending on the issue. Dems supported 2006 fence act. Republicans opposed Clinton efforts to limit hiring illegals. Reagan supported amnesty for undocumented immigrants.
> 
> Operation Wetback in the 50s was initiated at the request of the Mexican government and was supported by both parties
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


"As a senator, Barack Obama made a call in 2008 for a national holiday in 
Cesar  Chavez's honor, saying: "Chavez left a legacy as an educator, environmentalist, and a civil rights leader. And his cause lives on. As farm workers and laborers across America continue to struggle for fair treatment and fair wages, we find strength in what Cesar Chavez accomplished so many years ago. And we should honor him for what he's taught us about making America a stronger, more just, and more prosperous nation. That's why I support the call to make Cesar Chavez's birthday a national holiday. It's time to recognize the contributions of this American icon to the ongoing efforts to perfect our union." (Senator Barack Obama March 31, 2008.)"

Cesar Chavez Day - Wikipedia

The more you study history, the more you can tie the wall worship to liberalism.  

Also bear in mind that not only did Mexico want Operation Wetback, once we deported all those people, our unemployment rate DOUBLED in less than five years.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great deflection, but here is my assessment about you (since that's all you got of all the discussion we've had)
> 
> 1)  Ray is agnostic, atheist, or something *other than* Christian.  The dead giveaway is when people insist on using the word inalienable over unalienable.  They have been interpreted differently by our courts.  Inalienable rights are those which can be aliened IF YOU CONSENT.
> 
> Unalienable Rights are bestowed by a Creator, (your God, whomever you deem that to be.)  Atheists believe that, at the end of the day, Rights are merely something other men give you.  I'm not saying that is good or bad.  It's just that Ray is not a Christian so the build the wall guys who choose to accept his arguments have a dilemma:  they are equally yoked with the unbelieving
> 
> 2)  It is no secret that Ray would forfeit ANY AND ALL Liberties, Rights, and blessings for a wall
> 
> 3)  In Ray's world he honestly believes he can keep people out.  This has NOTHING to do with any legal or moral argument for or against immigration.  It is a pipe dream that could not be accomplished even when Jesus was walking this earth (references supplied in earlier posts)
> 
> 4) Ray will use information in order to achieve his goal: keeping people from south of the border out.  Oh he might play word games / semantics about a phony legal v. illegal nature, but his posts testify against the smoke and mirrors.  He refuses to ask me one question as he prefers to present the pretext as a fact rather than ask me a simple question that he's danced around
> 
> 5)  Ray says he would like to preserve our culture.  Albeit unpopular, our culture consists of a people that built a country on the twin pillars of race and religion.  Ray rejects the religion, but lives under the delusion we can use a wall to force people out and reclaim the racial part of our heritage without the other part of our culture that made us great (i.e.a belief, as a nation, in God.)
> 
> Nothing more can come of any further debate / discussion.  Anything he and I say to each other does not change where he stands.  And I came on this thread looking for the REAL reason people worship the wall.  Ray's logic does not make me want to trade off Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.
> 
> 
> 
> No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to be the bad guy, but that outlook is socialist.  Rush Limbaugh said:
> 
> "If you want a “living wage,” if you don’t like what fast food restaurants pay, then do something else. It’s just that simple. Go to a trade school. Go to another business. Start your own business. Maybe the work that you are capable of isn’t yet worth $15 an hour at a fast-food restaurant. Maybe the consumer doesn’t want to pay $10 for a Big Mac so that people working at McDonald’s make $15 an hour. It’s not just a one-way strata.
> 
> You don’t just sit there and double what the employees at McDonald’s make and keep the prices the same. Now, you may think this is obvious, folks, and you may think, “Come on, Rush,” you’d be amazed at how many people do not understand the push-pull in economics. You’d be amazed at the number of people who have taken economics courses who think that the truth about headaches is that the boss is a cheap skinflint and wants his employees to starve and wants to screw his customers."
> 
> Minimum Wage: How Much is Too Much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't work for McDonalds.
> I'm as much a Conservative as Trump is and that would be not very much at all. Common sense for the working man he is and so am I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is NOT a conservative; he despises the Constitution; he thinks he's God and you would follow him into Hell.  He just slapped "conservatives"  with a bitch slap so hard that he's about to nullify that Constitution.
> 
> The minimum wage debate sparked the living wage debate and when Rush isn't evangelizing for Reverend Trump, he's cutting that living wage argument into shreds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's not about to nullify the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Let's see how many unalienable Rights you have left once he's through.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> #1) I had a similar situation and the owner did put in AC
> #2) This is not a runny a nose, this is a constant bleed.
> #3) I disagree this is mutual beneficial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't seem to understand that's what ports of entry are for.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't understand what the relevance of it is.  YOU don't know what the bottom line is as to what ports of entry are for... OR maybe you know, but are like Ray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very argumentative you are. Listen to counterpoints you don’t. Necessary border security is. Bad open borders are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need some new material.  Reread this thread.  I did not become "argumentative" for the first 200 posts that I was involved in it. My first 75 posts were in search of the *REAL reasons* people wanted the wall.  When my patriotism was questioned by Ray, I told him game on.  You need to STFU and read the thread before climbing my back with false allegations.  We'll get along better if you read the whole story first.  National Security is NOT one of the reasons cited in my first inquiries.  It's just now being interjected because Trump alleges it.  WTH, dude, you need government to save you from yourself?
> 
> See these exapmles:  posts 2806, 3475, 3476, 3613, 3669 and 3731.  Read those and then join the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The real reason we want the wall is to keep out the trash. You've been answered multiple times.
Click to expand...


So, you think the Hispanics are trash?  So, you'll say that isn't racist because the social engineers do not recognize a Hispanic race?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> 
> 
> It's true.  In the 2000's us liberals were against illegal immigrants while 75% of the Republican party was arguing they were just here doing jobs Americans won't do.  That's a lie.
> 
> Do a little math. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are 7.6 million unemployed Americans right now. Another 1.5 million Americans are no longer counted because they've become "long term" or "discouraged" unemployed workers. And although various groups have different ways of measuring it, most agree that at least another five to ten million Americans are either working part-time when they want to work full-time, or are "underemployed," doing jobs below their level of training, education, or experience. That's between eight and twenty million un- and under-employed Americans, many unable to find above-poverty-level work.
> 
> At the same time, there are between seven and fifteen million working illegal immigrants diluting our labor pool.
> 
> If illegal immigrants could no longer work, unions would flourish, the minimum wage would rise, and oligarchic nations to our south would have to confront and fix their corrupt ways.
> 
> Between the Reagan years - when there were only around 1 to 2 million illegal aliens in our workforce - and today, we've gone from about 25 percent of our private workforce being unionized to around seven percent. Much of this is the direct result - as César Chávez predicted - of illegal immigrants competing directly with unionized and legal labor. Although it's most obvious in the construction trades over the past 30 years, it's hit all sectors of our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My math is simple:
> 
> I run ads on Craigslist, in community papers and list with the Dept. of Labor.  People don't even show up for an interview.
> 
> I could give you the *REAL* reason this happens, but it would take more than twenty words and you would not admit it.  I can show you a hundred people today under 40 that have never worked a job and they won't.  Most of it is the fault of people who back bad legislation because you're wholly uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pay more. Supply/Demand economics. What is the job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a minister with a jobs program.  We have temp, temp to perm and permanent jobs in many fields from laborers to farm workers and from warehouse workers to construction / handymen positions.
> 
> Whites will not work the jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't pay enough to work them.
Click to expand...


The people who expect a surgeon's wages aren't worth that for a skill set they can learn in six months.  Sorry, dude.  You are advocating socialism again.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

sealybobo said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My only point is that border patrol agents want it and they are on the frontlines. I would think we would and should be willing to support them. That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> The report was based on internal Customs and Border Protection documents from the 2017 fiscal year. It concluded that less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggestions to secure the Southwest border mentioned the need for a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen other reports that contradict and I actually saw them on TV stating they want a WALL!!!!
> 
> *In four Customs and Border Protection sectors where physical barriers have been expanded — El Paso, Yuma, Tucson, and San Diego — illegal traffic has dropped by at least 90%.*
> 
> _*Dems pre-Trump:*
> 
> -Hillary: Supported border wall
> -Obama: More border security, illegals must speak English, go to back of line
> -Schumer: Border walls work
> -Reid: Offering benefits to illegals = insane
> -Feinstein: US can't be Mexico's welfare
> -Clinton: Illegal immigration is wrong_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I support border security.  A wall is a waste of money.  But watching the border is important.  You can watch the border with or without a wall.  And when you eventually stop watching the border without a wall then you don't feel stupid for building an unnecessary wall that was a huge waste of time and money and now has so many holes in it that it looks like swiss cheese.
Click to expand...


Neither you nor I are experts. Border Patrol agents are and they have asked for a wall.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Contributions vs costs, consider this, estimates are that illegals costs us in excess of 100 billion a year in direct costs. Then you can consider the indirect costs. Wage suppression, estimated by the US Civil Rights commission to be between 99-100 billion a year. Then you have displacement of other minorities. Compton CA was 98% black not too long ago, it is now 30% black. So I guess you could say an unsecure border is racist as hell. If you want to see the source of that, watch the first two segments of the Tucker Carlson show tonight. If you can't tune into the repeat you can get it on Utube. He interviewed not only the guy from the Civil Rights commission who provided those fact and other but another that provided some interesting facts.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the "facts" change daily.  Your supposed facts change as often as the myriad of pretexts of why we're willing to spend $5 BILLION DOLLARS on a proposed solution that isn't even tailored to the perceived problem.
> 
> For every study you can show me, I can come up with five, just as authoritative, that dismiss what you come up with.  None of it changes the truth.  I know you don't read the thread, I keep having to repeat myself.  I came here asking for answers.  My views can be found on posts # 2806, 3475, 3476 and 3613 among others (those are the most relevant.)
> 
> BTW, If I REALLY wanted to be for the undocumented, I could do a thesis on the indirect benefits the political propaganda prostitutes don't mention in favor of undocumented foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just remembered who the other guy that was no Tuckers show, he was a guy Trump fired, the former Chief of the Border patrol. He disagrees with you and says walls, where implemented, work.
> 
> And yes it will be tailored to the border patrols needs, technology along most of the border and walls where needed. And you can brush aside all the facts you want, it just makes you look small when you refuse to recognize the current request is less than 1/40th our annual costs for illegals.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More fudged figures.  OMG.  I already presented two non-partisan studies.  Wasn't it you who challenged one of them as being biased ?  And I got that study that disagrees with you from someone arguing YOUR points.  The bottom line, all B.S. aside, when both sides of the accounting ledger are counted, "it's a wash."  That was the term used in several studies over the years.  Those are the studies Congress sees.
> 
> So are we arguing walls OR costs?  Do we have to rehash this crap every 50 or so posts?  Save your pecking.  Asked and answered in posts 2806, 3475, 3476 and 3613.
> 
> This shotgun approach to whatever in the Hell it is you do, is hilarious.  Come up with something that has not been responded to.  Can you answer any of my questions?
> 
> Where do your unalienable Rights come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I cited sources, all you have is your spew.,prove them wrong. And I'm citing monetary and human costs to justify the wall. And my rights are irrelevant to this discussion unless I'm killed or injured by an illegal alien tomorrow, they have deprived 10s of thousands of American their rights.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should have reread that post before making it.  Let me put this to you another way:
> 
> You can cite all the monetary costs you want.  THAT, sir, is *THE DISCONNECT*.Why are foreigners in the United States working?  Foreigners come here because it's profitable.  Your lobbying efforts DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT *BOTH SIDES* OF THE ACCOUNTING LEDGER.
> 
> That is how you're being proven wrong.  You have to look at the contributions foreigners make in order to understand the whole picture.  When this is done, from a financial perspective, the foreigners ARE profitable.  That is why Bill O'Reilly hired them; it's why Donald Trump uses them.
> 
> If you were not such a wall cultist, you would be able to understand that I'm taking this abuse and staying in this discussion because *I AM FIGHTING WITH MY VERY LIFE FOR YOUR RIGHTS*.  I am fighting for YOUR Rights.  You are trying to win a war predicated on propaganda, denying the REAL reason foreigners come here, with the false expectation you can keep them out, and without a real understanding of what and why the current immigration laws exist.
Click to expand...



Well child if you have been paying attention you'd know I'm all for jailing people that employ illegal aliens, the supposed charities that are helping fund them and provide lawyers to go south of the border to coach them on what to say and help them get settled once they're here. Anyone who harbors or enables illegal aliens should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Also you have yet to explain how the current walls that cover about 1/3rd of the southern border has effected my or anyone else's rights. Or why adding an additional 10% would suddenly cause them to do so.

If you have something to say, lay it out in plain language, with credible links, I'm not concerned with your feelings.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> 
> 
> It's true.  In the 2000's us liberals were against illegal immigrants while 75% of the Republican party was arguing they were just here doing jobs Americans won't do.  That's a lie.
> 
> Do a little math. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are 7.6 million unemployed Americans right now. Another 1.5 million Americans are no longer counted because they've become "long term" or "discouraged" unemployed workers. And although various groups have different ways of measuring it, most agree that at least another five to ten million Americans are either working part-time when they want to work full-time, or are "underemployed," doing jobs below their level of training, education, or experience. That's between eight and twenty million un- and under-employed Americans, many unable to find above-poverty-level work.
> 
> At the same time, there are between seven and fifteen million working illegal immigrants diluting our labor pool.
> 
> If illegal immigrants could no longer work, unions would flourish, the minimum wage would rise, and oligarchic nations to our south would have to confront and fix their corrupt ways.
> 
> Between the Reagan years - when there were only around 1 to 2 million illegal aliens in our workforce - and today, we've gone from about 25 percent of our private workforce being unionized to around seven percent. Much of this is the direct result - as César Chávez predicted - of illegal immigrants competing directly with unionized and legal labor. Although it's most obvious in the construction trades over the past 30 years, it's hit all sectors of our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My math is simple:
> 
> I run ads on Craigslist, in community papers and list with the Dept. of Labor.  People don't even show up for an interview.
> 
> I could give you the *REAL* reason this happens, but it would take more than twenty words and you would not admit it.  I can show you a hundred people today under 40 that have never worked a job and they won't.  Most of it is the fault of people who back bad legislation because you're wholly uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pay more. Supply/Demand economics. What is the job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a minister with a jobs program.  We have temp, temp to perm and permanent jobs in many fields from laborers to farm workers and from warehouse workers to construction / handymen positions.
> 
> Whites will not work the jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do in MA
Click to expand...


So, you are immune to this?

White Opioid Users Most Likely to Turn to Heroin | Promises New Jersey


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> And my point is (and I've been forced to state and defend my own positions) is that my Liberty supersedes what government workers want.  The cops want to be able to search your home without a warrant; prosecutors want to try cases on the basis of perjured testimony where they force people to plead guilty or face a longer sentence; a lot of people in society want to infringe on your Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Most guys here dodge, duck, play semantics, and lie about what it is they REALLY want.  If someone is trying to sell you something, you should ask questions about it.  When they then accuse you of being a heretic for questioning the infallibility of Donald Trump and the wall worship deal, then you have *NOT *thought this through.  If / when those who want a wall level with me, I'll tell them where I stand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Border Patrol agents aren't stopping you from doing anything they are stopping those who are not citizens and want to enter the country illegally. You never answered how it infringes on your liberty. Cops don't want to search homes illegally, fallacy. Prosecutors do not want to try people illegally. Another fallacy. You are at least consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've got to be kidding.  I've answered this stuff in excess of TWENTY TIMES!  WTH?  Did you try READING this thread?
> 
> Pal, I've tried very hard not to call people names despite the abuse that's been hurled at me, but you're an outright idiot if you honestly believe that prosecutors don't want to try people illegally.  I personally witnessed a case wherein the prosecutor LIED to the jury, got to threaten potential witnesses with jail time if they did not commit perjury and corroborate the "state's version of events."  In addition, they were allowed to use hearsay.  Adding insult to injury, there was never an investigation into the case, the accused first time of ever seeing the officer making the accusation was when they went to court.  Other than an alleged victim that was threatened by the prosecutor, there were no witnesses, no investigation, no evidence, and no reason for the defendant to even be in court.
> 
> Come up with something relevant already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> #1) Some prosecutors may but most do not. Your example doesn't mean all do it.
> #2) Two of my life long friends are police officers. They go by the book and get abused daily. I respect them wholeheartedly.
> #3) You're a keyboard warrior. I laugh at your expense. Wash your mouth out with soap. Face to face you would not call people idiots don't do it here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you wound up exposing yourself.  Keyboard warrior?  It's a fact I'll never see you in person.  Here's your invitation - come here and spend a week with me.  If you still think I'm lying, I'll sell everything I have and join your wall worship.  Spend a week here, look me in the eyes and spew that crap.  If you have any modicum of honesty or decency, you can't do it.
> 
> I wish to God it were not true, but it is.
> 
> I'm calling your bluff - right here and right now.  I'm going back to work for the moment and let you see if you can get the courage to see which of us is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is here? So you want me to take a week off from work and my family to prove a point? Seriously?
Click to expand...


Seriously.  You have the time.  You're on here bitching every day, all day.  You can't be spending too much time with your family.  The wall has consumed you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need some new material.  Reread this thread.  I did not become "argumentative" for the first 200 posts that I was involved in it. My first 75 posts were in search of the *REAL reasons* people wanted the wall.  When my patriotism was questioned by Ray, I told him game on.  You need to STFU and read the thread before climbing my back with false allegations.  We'll get along better if you read the whole story first.  National Security is NOT one of the reasons cited in my first inquiries.  It's just now being interjected because Trump alleges it.  WTH, dude, you need government to save you from yourself?
> 
> See these exapmles:  posts 2806, 3475, 3476, 3613, 3669 and 3731.  Read those and then join the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Telling me to STFU is funny. Keyboard warriors amuse me. Long your posts are. Incoherent and wordy to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incoherent because you cannot read; long because those who are so desperate for a wall keep rehashing the same points and keep making the same false allegations.  Again, dude, honesty is the enemy of those who worship the wall.  Go to post  # 2806.  Work your way back and tell me of a long post I made BEFORE that.
> 
> All I did was ask questions.  Me a keyboard warrior?  I'd rather meet people face to face.  I can go back to asking questions the moment the guys who think they can read minds and have all the answers will provide them without their phony bravado.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
Click to expand...


Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:

If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> you against the world, think maybe it's just you that is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTH are you talking about?  I am not debating or arguing with anyone on this thread.  I have not taken a position other than stating the obvious:  a wall will not solve any issues that the build the wall guys have put on the table.  I'm asking questions and simply trying to figure out what is REALLY going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a position. You don't want the wall built because you think it won't work. It depends on what you intend to accomplish. To keep out the riff raff it will work. To put a big hurdle in drug imports it would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a mental problem?  I've stated my reasons for not wanting a wall.  I know damn well it will not work because, and let's make this big and bold for you:
> 
> *AMERICA IS NOT MEXICO, CANADA OR CHINA.  WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH THE ISRAELIS.  WE ARE NOT TRYING TO PROTECT OR PRESERVE THE POSTERITY OF THE FOUNDERS.  AS A RESULT YOU BUILD THE WALL PEOPLE ARE APPLYING A SOLUTION THAT DOES NOT APPLY - AND I HAVE PROVEN UNEQUIVOCALLY, WALLS OVER TIME DO NOT WORK.  I'M COMMITTED TO A PRACTICAL, HONEST AND PERMANENT SOLUTION*.
> 
> If you would read posts # 3475 and # 3476 you can see my REAL objections to what you are proposing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Walls keep out the riff raff. Walls do work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, they* do not*.  See posts # 3475 and 3476 on this thread.
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact they do. See Israel, Prison, etc. Fuck your posts.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to be the bad guy, but that outlook is socialist.  Rush Limbaugh said:
> 
> "If you want a “living wage,” if you don’t like what fast food restaurants pay, then do something else. It’s just that simple. Go to a trade school. Go to another business. Start your own business. Maybe the work that you are capable of isn’t yet worth $15 an hour at a fast-food restaurant. Maybe the consumer doesn’t want to pay $10 for a Big Mac so that people working at McDonald’s make $15 an hour. It’s not just a one-way strata.
> 
> You don’t just sit there and double what the employees at McDonald’s make and keep the prices the same. Now, you may think this is obvious, folks, and you may think, “Come on, Rush,” you’d be amazed at how many people do not understand the push-pull in economics. You’d be amazed at the number of people who have taken economics courses who think that the truth about headaches is that the boss is a cheap skinflint and wants his employees to starve and wants to screw his customers."
> 
> Minimum Wage: How Much is Too Much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't work for McDonalds.
> I'm as much a Conservative as Trump is and that would be not very much at all. Common sense for the working man he is and so am I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is NOT a conservative; he despises the Constitution; he thinks he's God and you would follow him into Hell.  He just slapped "conservatives"  with a bitch slap so hard that he's about to nullify that Constitution.
> 
> The minimum wage debate sparked the living wage debate and when Rush isn't evangelizing for Reverend Trump, he's cutting that living wage argument into shreds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's not about to nullify the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see how many unalienable Rights you have left once he's through.
Click to expand...

now you are scaremongering. Keeping non-citizens out will not change the laws for citizens.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's true.  In the 2000's us liberals were against illegal immigrants while 75% of the Republican party was arguing they were just here doing jobs Americans won't do.  That's a lie.
> 
> Do a little math. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are 7.6 million unemployed Americans right now. Another 1.5 million Americans are no longer counted because they've become "long term" or "discouraged" unemployed workers. And although various groups have different ways of measuring it, most agree that at least another five to ten million Americans are either working part-time when they want to work full-time, or are "underemployed," doing jobs below their level of training, education, or experience. That's between eight and twenty million un- and under-employed Americans, many unable to find above-poverty-level work.
> 
> At the same time, there are between seven and fifteen million working illegal immigrants diluting our labor pool.
> 
> If illegal immigrants could no longer work, unions would flourish, the minimum wage would rise, and oligarchic nations to our south would have to confront and fix their corrupt ways.
> 
> Between the Reagan years - when there were only around 1 to 2 million illegal aliens in our workforce - and today, we've gone from about 25 percent of our private workforce being unionized to around seven percent. Much of this is the direct result - as César Chávez predicted - of illegal immigrants competing directly with unionized and legal labor. Although it's most obvious in the construction trades over the past 30 years, it's hit all sectors of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My math is simple:
> 
> I run ads on Craigslist, in community papers and list with the Dept. of Labor.  People don't even show up for an interview.
> 
> I could give you the *REAL* reason this happens, but it would take more than twenty words and you would not admit it.  I can show you a hundred people today under 40 that have never worked a job and they won't.  Most of it is the fault of people who back bad legislation because you're wholly uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pay more. Supply/Demand economics. What is the job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a minister with a jobs program.  We have temp, temp to perm and permanent jobs in many fields from laborers to farm workers and from warehouse workers to construction / handymen positions.
> 
> Whites will not work the jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't pay enough to work them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people who expect a surgeon's wages aren't worth that for a skill set they can learn in six months.  Sorry, dude.  You are advocating socialism again.
Click to expand...

Red Herring, your the one who stated I expected surgeon wages, not I.


----------



## toobfreak

Geaux4it said:


> *Why is Building the Wall Wrong? *




The answer is really simple.  If the wall were really WRONG, then the Democrats would have already DONE IT.  

They were actually FOR IT until the GOP and especially Trump made it a campaign issue.

The fact that they are DEAD SET against it now proves once and for all it is RIGHT.

And the way many come on here with the most specious reasoning that it is a 
WASTE OF MONEY
WON'T WORK,
IMMORAL, etc., 

just goes to prove it.

When Nancy Pelosi leaves her freeking gate open and front door wide open with a big sign on the house:  OPEN HOUSE!, and lets strangers walk into her house taking whatever they want of hers as the MORAL thing to do, then I'll believe the idiot trash talking Left.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Telling me to STFU is funny. Keyboard warriors amuse me. Long your posts are. Incoherent and wordy to boot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incoherent because you cannot read; long because those who are so desperate for a wall keep rehashing the same points and keep making the same false allegations.  Again, dude, honesty is the enemy of those who worship the wall.  Go to post  # 2806.  Work your way back and tell me of a long post I made BEFORE that.
> 
> All I did was ask questions.  Me a keyboard warrior?  I'd rather meet people face to face.  I can go back to asking questions the moment the guys who think they can read minds and have all the answers will provide them without their phony bravado.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
Click to expand...

You are out ofbounds.  Flagged for unsportsman Like conduct.

I never said i was going to kill them.  Place that attitude towards those that said it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we also have the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> true Gamorans and true Sodomites make better citizens than false Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not Christian. Now go assfuck another donkey, you know you want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no truth value; who cares what you think if you have no witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They come here uninvited.  Then DEMAND entry.  They are not citizens of this country and have no right to demand anything.
Click to expand...


You are wrong.  Foreigners come here because they ARE invited.  A LOT of your American brethren are hiring them, renting to them, buying from them,. selling to them.  We're not at war with them.  As a matter of FACT, the welcome mat (the Statue of Liberty) has this on the base of the statue:
_"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
_
We are not in a war with them and if they get anything from the government, it is by way of politicians YOU elected.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very argumentative you are. Listen to counterpoints you don’t. Necessary border security is. Bad open borders are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need some new material.  Reread this thread.  I did not become "argumentative" for the first 200 posts that I was involved in it. My first 75 posts were in search of the *REAL reasons* people wanted the wall.  When my patriotism was questioned by Ray, I told him game on.  You need to STFU and read the thread before climbing my back with false allegations.  We'll get along better if you read the whole story first.  National Security is NOT one of the reasons cited in my first inquiries.  It's just now being interjected because Trump alleges it.  WTH, dude, you need government to save you from yourself?
> 
> See these exapmles:  posts 2806, 3475, 3476, 3613, 3669 and 3731.  Read those and then join the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Telling me to STFU is funny. Keyboard warriors amuse me. Long your posts are. Incoherent and wordy to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incoherent because you cannot read; long because those who are so desperate for a wall keep rehashing the same points and keep making the same false allegations.  Again, dude, honesty is the enemy of those who worship the wall.  Go to post  # 2806.  Work your way back and tell me of a long post I made BEFORE that.
> 
> All I did was ask questions.  Me a keyboard warrior?  I'd rather meet people face to face.  I can go back to asking questions the moment the guys who think they can read minds and have all the answers will provide them without their phony bravado.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
Click to expand...



Commiecrats always talk a good game, but do very little. They've never intended to follow though on their rhetoric. It was always been about getting power, then sitting on their hands.

.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> true Gamorans and true Sodomites make better citizens than false Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not Christian. Now go assfuck another donkey, you know you want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no truth value; who cares what you think if you have no witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They come here uninvited.  Then DEMAND entry.  They are not citizens of this country and have no right to demand anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong.  Foreigners come here because they ARE invited.  A LOT of your American brethren are hiring them, renting to them, buying from them,. selling to them.  We're not at war with them.  As a matter of FACT, the welcome mat (the Statue of Liberty) has this on the base of the statue:
> _"Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> _
> We are not in a war with them and if they get anything from the government, it is by way of politicians YOU elected.
Click to expand...

Hiring them is against the law.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only point is that border patrol agents want it and they are on the frontlines. I would think we would and should be willing to support them. That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> The report was based on internal Customs and Border Protection documents from the 2017 fiscal year. It concluded that less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggestions to secure the Southwest border mentioned the need for a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen other reports that contradict and I actually saw them on TV stating they want a WALL!!!!
> 
> *In four Customs and Border Protection sectors where physical barriers have been expanded — El Paso, Yuma, Tucson, and San Diego — illegal traffic has dropped by at least 90%.*
> 
> _*Dems pre-Trump:*
> 
> -Hillary: Supported border wall
> -Obama: More border security, illegals must speak English, go to back of line
> -Schumer: Border walls work
> -Reid: Offering benefits to illegals = insane
> -Feinstein: US can't be Mexico's welfare
> -Clinton: Illegal immigration is wrong_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I support border security.  A wall is a waste of money.  But watching the border is important.  You can watch the border with or without a wall.  And when you eventually stop watching the border without a wall then you don't feel stupid for building an unnecessary wall that was a huge waste of time and money and now has so many holes in it that it looks like swiss cheese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither you nor I are experts. Border Patrol agents are and they have asked for a wall.
Click to expand...


Head honchos with the LEOs have said if you turn in your weapons, they can enforce laws easier.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Telling me to STFU is funny. Keyboard warriors amuse me. Long your posts are. Incoherent and wordy to boot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incoherent because you cannot read; long because those who are so desperate for a wall keep rehashing the same points and keep making the same false allegations.  Again, dude, honesty is the enemy of those who worship the wall.  Go to post  # 2806.  Work your way back and tell me of a long post I made BEFORE that.
> 
> All I did was ask questions.  Me a keyboard warrior?  I'd rather meet people face to face.  I can go back to asking questions the moment the guys who think they can read minds and have all the answers will provide them without their phony bravado.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
Click to expand...

You ignored what I previously wrote. i'll write it again.
parents try to build, for their children, a better life so that their children don't have to go through the same trials and tribulations that they themselves had to. Over the course of generations it has gone from us fighting the British, living in log cabins and only eating what we kill, to what we have now. We earned the right to live this way because our ancestors did it for us. These illegals haven't. We can't allow them to flood our borders and ruin our lifestyle by sucking on Governmental teat, and working for substandard wages that won't allow us to maintain our current lifestyles. They need to put out the blood, sweat, and bullets to fix their own damn countries like we fixed ours. It isn't up to us to do it for them.


----------



## Slyhunter

toobfreak said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why is Building the Wall Wrong? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is really simple.  If the wall were really WRONG, then the Democrats would have already DONE IT.
> 
> They were actually FOR IT until the GOP and especially Trump made it a campaign issue.
> 
> The fact that they are DEAD SET against it now proves once and for all it is RIGHT.
> 
> And the way many come on here with the most specious reasoning that it is a
> WASTE OF MONEY
> WON'T WORK,
> IMMORAL, etc.,
> 
> just goes to prove it.
> 
> When Nancy Pelosi leaves her freeking gate open and front door wide open with a big sign on the house:  OPEN HOUSE!, and lets strangers walk into her house taking whatever they want of hers as the MORAL thing to do, then I'll believe the idiot trash talking Left.
Click to expand...

I think Porter is one of them Russians working for the Democrats.


----------



## eagle1462010

Slyhunter said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why is Building the Wall Wrong? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is really simple.  If the wall were really WRONG, then the Democrats would have already DONE IT.
> 
> They were actually FOR IT until the GOP and especially Trump made it a campaign issue.
> 
> The fact that they are DEAD SET against it now proves once and for all it is RIGHT.
> 
> And the way many come on here with the most specious reasoning that it is a
> WASTE OF MONEY
> WON'T WORK,
> IMMORAL, etc.,
> 
> just goes to prove it.
> 
> When Nancy Pelosi leaves her freeking gate open and front door wide open with a big sign on the house:  OPEN HOUSE!, and lets strangers walk into her house taking whatever they want of hers as the MORAL thing to do, then I'll believe the idiot trash talking Left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think Porter is one of them Russians working for the Democrats.
Click to expand...

Hes not a U.S citizen.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the "facts" change daily.  Your supposed facts change as often as the myriad of pretexts of why we're willing to spend $5 BILLION DOLLARS on a proposed solution that isn't even tailored to the perceived problem.
> 
> For every study you can show me, I can come up with five, just as authoritative, that dismiss what you come up with.  None of it changes the truth.  I know you don't read the thread, I keep having to repeat myself.  I came here asking for answers.  My views can be found on posts # 2806, 3475, 3476 and 3613 among others (those are the most relevant.)
> 
> BTW, If I REALLY wanted to be for the undocumented, I could do a thesis on the indirect benefits the political propaganda prostitutes don't mention in favor of undocumented foreigners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just remembered who the other guy that was no Tuckers show, he was a guy Trump fired, the former Chief of the Border patrol. He disagrees with you and says walls, where implemented, work.
> 
> And yes it will be tailored to the border patrols needs, technology along most of the border and walls where needed. And you can brush aside all the facts you want, it just makes you look small when you refuse to recognize the current request is less than 1/40th our annual costs for illegals.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More fudged figures.  OMG.  I already presented two non-partisan studies.  Wasn't it you who challenged one of them as being biased ?  And I got that study that disagrees with you from someone arguing YOUR points.  The bottom line, all B.S. aside, when both sides of the accounting ledger are counted, "it's a wash."  That was the term used in several studies over the years.  Those are the studies Congress sees.
> 
> So are we arguing walls OR costs?  Do we have to rehash this crap every 50 or so posts?  Save your pecking.  Asked and answered in posts 2806, 3475, 3476 and 3613.
> 
> This shotgun approach to whatever in the Hell it is you do, is hilarious.  Come up with something that has not been responded to.  Can you answer any of my questions?
> 
> Where do your unalienable Rights come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I cited sources, all you have is your spew.,prove them wrong. And I'm citing monetary and human costs to justify the wall. And my rights are irrelevant to this discussion unless I'm killed or injured by an illegal alien tomorrow, they have deprived 10s of thousands of American their rights.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should have reread that post before making it.  Let me put this to you another way:
> 
> You can cite all the monetary costs you want.  THAT, sir, is *THE DISCONNECT*.Why are foreigners in the United States working?  Foreigners come here because it's profitable.  Your lobbying efforts DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT *BOTH SIDES* OF THE ACCOUNTING LEDGER.
> 
> That is how you're being proven wrong.  You have to look at the contributions foreigners make in order to understand the whole picture.  When this is done, from a financial perspective, the foreigners ARE profitable.  That is why Bill O'Reilly hired them; it's why Donald Trump uses them.
> 
> If you were not such a wall cultist, you would be able to understand that I'm taking this abuse and staying in this discussion because *I AM FIGHTING WITH MY VERY LIFE FOR YOUR RIGHTS*.  I am fighting for YOUR Rights.  You are trying to win a war predicated on propaganda, denying the REAL reason foreigners come here, with the false expectation you can keep them out, and without a real understanding of what and why the current immigration laws exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well child if you have been paying attention you'd know I'm all for jailing people that employ illegal aliens, the supposed charities that are helping fund them and provide lawyers to go south of the border to coach them on what to say and help them get settled once they're here. Anyone who harbors or enables illegal aliens should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
> 
> Also you have yet to explain how the current walls that cover about 1/3rd of the southern border has effected my or anyone else's rights. Or why adding an additional 10% would suddenly cause them to do so.
> 
> If you have something to say, lay it out in plain language, with credible links, I'm not concerned with your feelings.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


How many times is it required of me to lay out the links?  Damn, son, I've done it at least half a dozen times, complete with irrefutable links.  Tell you what - if you will keep a list of the links and present them from here on out, I will redo my work for at least the SEVENTH time and then you promise to NEVER ask me that question and when someone from your side does challenge me, YOU post the post numbers.  Deal?

You're dangerous.  You would jail people for controlling their own property?  And you dare call others commiecrats???  WTH?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why is Building the Wall Wrong? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is really simple.  If the wall were really WRONG, then the Democrats would have already DONE IT.
> 
> They were actually FOR IT until the GOP and especially Trump made it a campaign issue.
> 
> The fact that they are DEAD SET against it now proves once and for all it is RIGHT.
> 
> And the way many come on here with the most specious reasoning that it is a
> WASTE OF MONEY
> WON'T WORK,
> IMMORAL, etc.,
> 
> just goes to prove it.
> 
> When Nancy Pelosi leaves her freeking gate open and front door wide open with a big sign on the house:  OPEN HOUSE!, and lets strangers walk into her house taking whatever they want of hers as the MORAL thing to do, then I'll believe the idiot trash talking Left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think Porter is one of them Russians working for the Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hes not a U.S citizen.
Click to expand...


We know you are no patriot.  I am not a part of your Socialist States of Amerika.


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> I've done it at least half a dozen times, complete with irrefutable links.



Where'd you get those, Port, from www.irrefutablelinks.com?  I could use me some of those.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incoherent because you cannot read; long because those who are so desperate for a wall keep rehashing the same points and keep making the same false allegations.  Again, dude, honesty is the enemy of those who worship the wall.  Go to post  # 2806.  Work your way back and tell me of a long post I made BEFORE that.
> 
> All I did was ask questions.  Me a keyboard warrior?  I'd rather meet people face to face.  I can go back to asking questions the moment the guys who think they can read minds and have all the answers will provide them without their phony bravado.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are out ofbounds.  Flagged for unsportsman Like conduct.
> 
> I never said i was going to kill them.  Place that attitude towards those that said it.
Click to expand...


It's out of bounds?  Your argument is that they are trash and have no Rights. They aren't even human beings.  Read the thread.  Prove it. How in the Hell is that "out of bounds?"  I'd say you got checkmated.

Just because you hate people and think we're going to become lily white does not mean that YOU are not out of bounds either.  I'm just as sick of you as you are of me.  You know FULL WELL that those from south of the border have a Right to Life.  It is an unalienable Right - as is Liberty.  Explained the immigration law to you in post # 2086.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why is Building the Wall Wrong? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is really simple.  If the wall were really WRONG, then the Democrats would have already DONE IT.
> 
> They were actually FOR IT until the GOP and especially Trump made it a campaign issue.
> 
> The fact that they are DEAD SET against it now proves once and for all it is RIGHT.
> 
> And the way many come on here with the most specious reasoning that it is a
> WASTE OF MONEY
> WON'T WORK,
> IMMORAL, etc.,
> 
> just goes to prove it.
> 
> When Nancy Pelosi leaves her freeking gate open and front door wide open with a big sign on the house:  OPEN HOUSE!, and lets strangers walk into her house taking whatever they want of hers as the MORAL thing to do, then I'll believe the idiot trash talking Left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think Porter is one of them Russians working for the Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hes not a U.S citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know you are no patriot.  I am not a part of your Socialist States of Amerika.
Click to expand...

So where the hell are you from and why are you so concerned eith this issue??


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are out ofbounds.  Flagged for unsportsman Like conduct.
> 
> I never said i was going to kill them.  Place that attitude towards those that said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's out of bounds?  Your argument is that they are trash and have no Rights. They aren't even human beings.  Read the thread.  Prove it. How in the Hell is that "out of bounds?"  I'd say you got checkmated.
> 
> Just because you hate people and think we're going to become lily white does not mean that YOU are not out of bounds either.  I'm just as sick of you as you are of me.  You know FULL WELL that those from south of the border have a Right to Life.  It is an unalienable Right - as is Liberty.  Explained the immigration law to you in post # 2086.
Click to expand...

I never fucking said that moron.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTH are you talking about?  I am not debating or arguing with anyone on this thread.  I have not taken a position other than stating the obvious:  a wall will not solve any issues that the build the wall guys have put on the table.  I'm asking questions and simply trying to figure out what is REALLY going on.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a position. You don't want the wall built because you think it won't work. It depends on what you intend to accomplish. To keep out the riff raff it will work. To put a big hurdle in drug imports it would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a mental problem?  I've stated my reasons for not wanting a wall.  I know damn well it will not work because, and let's make this big and bold for you:
> 
> *AMERICA IS NOT MEXICO, CANADA OR CHINA.  WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH THE ISRAELIS.  WE ARE NOT TRYING TO PROTECT OR PRESERVE THE POSTERITY OF THE FOUNDERS.  AS A RESULT YOU BUILD THE WALL PEOPLE ARE APPLYING A SOLUTION THAT DOES NOT APPLY - AND I HAVE PROVEN UNEQUIVOCALLY, WALLS OVER TIME DO NOT WORK.  I'M COMMITTED TO A PRACTICAL, HONEST AND PERMANENT SOLUTION*.
> 
> If you would read posts # 3475 and # 3476 you can see my REAL objections to what you are proposing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Walls keep out the riff raff. Walls do work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, they* do not*.  See posts # 3475 and 3476 on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As a matter of fact they do. See Israel, Prison, etc. Fuck your posts.
Click to expand...



As a matter of* fact*. you are wrong.  Fuck you?  That's what you got?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to be the bad guy, but that outlook is socialist.  Rush Limbaugh said:
> 
> "If you want a “living wage,” if you don’t like what fast food restaurants pay, then do something else. It’s just that simple. Go to a trade school. Go to another business. Start your own business. Maybe the work that you are capable of isn’t yet worth $15 an hour at a fast-food restaurant. Maybe the consumer doesn’t want to pay $10 for a Big Mac so that people working at McDonald’s make $15 an hour. It’s not just a one-way strata.
> 
> You don’t just sit there and double what the employees at McDonald’s make and keep the prices the same. Now, you may think this is obvious, folks, and you may think, “Come on, Rush,” you’d be amazed at how many people do not understand the push-pull in economics. You’d be amazed at the number of people who have taken economics courses who think that the truth about headaches is that the boss is a cheap skinflint and wants his employees to starve and wants to screw his customers."
> 
> Minimum Wage: How Much is Too Much?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't work for McDonalds.
> I'm as much a Conservative as Trump is and that would be not very much at all. Common sense for the working man he is and so am I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is NOT a conservative; he despises the Constitution; he thinks he's God and you would follow him into Hell.  He just slapped "conservatives"  with a bitch slap so hard that he's about to nullify that Constitution.
> 
> The minimum wage debate sparked the living wage debate and when Rush isn't evangelizing for Reverend Trump, he's cutting that living wage argument into shreds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's not about to nullify the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see how many unalienable Rights you have left once he's through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> now you are scaremongering. Keeping non-citizens out will not change the laws for citizens.
Click to expand...


Every action you take has an impact on someone else.  Eric Erickson made that very point today on the radio - redstate.com


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not Christian. Now go assfuck another donkey, you know you want to.
> 
> 
> 
> you have no truth value; who cares what you think if you have no witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They come here uninvited.  Then DEMAND entry.  They are not citizens of this country and have no right to demand anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong.  Foreigners come here because they ARE invited.  A LOT of your American brethren are hiring them, renting to them, buying from them,. selling to them.  We're not at war with them.  As a matter of FACT, the welcome mat (the Statue of Liberty) has this on the base of the statue:
> _"Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> _
> We are not in a war with them and if they get anything from the government, it is by way of politicians YOU elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hiring them is against the law.
Click to expand...


But the law is unconstitutional and is without any relevance - Said so in post # 2086.  It's why they have a Hell of a time enforcing it.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are out ofbounds.  Flagged for unsportsman Like conduct.
> 
> I never said i was going to kill them.  Place that attitude towards those that said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's out of bounds?  Your argument is that they are trash and have no Rights. They aren't even human beings.  Read the thread.  Prove it. How in the Hell is that "out of bounds?"  I'd say you got checkmated.
> 
> Just because you hate people and think we're going to become lily white does not mean that YOU are not out of bounds either.  I'm just as sick of you as you are of me.  You know FULL WELL that those from south of the border have a Right to Life.  It is an unalienable Right - as is Liberty.  Explained the immigration law to you in post # 2086.
Click to expand...

They need to fix their own country. They don't have a right to ruin what we have by flooding our borders and coming here. We built this country not them.


----------



## otto105

Because it fundamentally changes America from being a beacon of Freedom for the world to a country that aspires to be a gated community.


----------



## Slyhunter

otto105 said:


> Because it fundamentally changes America from being a beacon of Freedom for the world to a country that aspires to be a gated community.


I don't see the problem.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no truth value; who cares what you think if you have no witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They come here uninvited.  Then DEMAND entry.  They are not citizens of this country and have no right to demand anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong.  Foreigners come here because they ARE invited.  A LOT of your American brethren are hiring them, renting to them, buying from them,. selling to them.  We're not at war with them.  As a matter of FACT, the welcome mat (the Statue of Liberty) has this on the base of the statue:
> _"Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> _
> We are not in a war with them and if they get anything from the government, it is by way of politicians YOU elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hiring them is against the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the law is unconstitutional and is without any relevance - Said so in post # 2086.  It's why they have a Hell of a time enforcing it.
Click to expand...

Its not unconstitutional under the law.  They went around it by forging ids.  Businesses go we didnt know and the workers get deported when caught.  No real teeth because of no good verification in place.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incoherent because you cannot read; long because those who are so desperate for a wall keep rehashing the same points and keep making the same false allegations.  Again, dude, honesty is the enemy of those who worship the wall.  Go to post  # 2806.  Work your way back and tell me of a long post I made BEFORE that.
> 
> All I did was ask questions.  Me a keyboard warrior?  I'd rather meet people face to face.  I can go back to asking questions the moment the guys who think they can read minds and have all the answers will provide them without their phony bravado.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignored what I previously wrote. i'll write it again.
> parents try to build, for their children, a better life so that their children don't have to go through the same trials and tribulations that they themselves had to. Over the course of generations it has gone from us fighting the British, living in log cabins and only eating what we kill, to what we have now. We earned the right to live this way because our ancestors did it for us. These illegals haven't. We can't allow them to flood our borders and ruin our lifestyle by sucking on Governmental teat, and working for substandard wages that won't allow us to maintain our current lifestyles. They need to put out the blood, sweat, and bullets to fix their own damn countries like we fixed ours. It isn't up to us to do it for them.
Click to expand...


That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:

In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.

Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD

The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street

Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.  

Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?

Let me put this into perspective:

America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.  

Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.

Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.

Can we get any more screwed up?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> 
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are out ofbounds.  Flagged for unsportsman Like conduct.
> 
> I never said i was going to kill them.  Place that attitude towards those that said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's out of bounds?  Your argument is that they are trash and have no Rights. They aren't even human beings.  Read the thread.  Prove it. How in the Hell is that "out of bounds?"  I'd say you got checkmated.
> 
> Just because you hate people and think we're going to become lily white does not mean that YOU are not out of bounds either.  I'm just as sick of you as you are of me.  You know FULL WELL that those from south of the border have a Right to Life.  It is an unalienable Right - as is Liberty.  Explained the immigration law to you in post # 2086.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never fucking said that moron.
Click to expand...


Did I say you specifically said it OR have I not made my point clear to you?  I'm not here to sell you any point of view.  I'm trying to find the consensus.  If you interfere and want to debate me when I don't want to debate (this IS a discussion forum), then it is only logical to say, birds of a feather flock together.  So, instead of seeing how many posts you can make, make your point and move on.  I'm debating roughly eight people at a time and am NOT going to continue answering the same questions over and over.  Read the freaking thread and quit posting so much if you want answers.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignored what I previously wrote. i'll write it again.
> parents try to build, for their children, a better life so that their children don't have to go through the same trials and tribulations that they themselves had to. Over the course of generations it has gone from us fighting the British, living in log cabins and only eating what we kill, to what we have now. We earned the right to live this way because our ancestors did it for us. These illegals haven't. We can't allow them to flood our borders and ruin our lifestyle by sucking on Governmental teat, and working for substandard wages that won't allow us to maintain our current lifestyles. They need to put out the blood, sweat, and bullets to fix their own damn countries like we fixed ours. It isn't up to us to do it for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:
> 
> In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.
> 
> Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD
> 
> The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street
> 
> Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.
> 
> Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?
> 
> Let me put this into perspective:
> 
> America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.
> 
> Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.
> 
> Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.
> 
> Can we get any more screwed up?
Click to expand...

I raised my kids as i see fit.  The only issue is the stupity in schools .  Where disipline is out the door.  When grew up, if i did wrong they paddled my butt, and i got it again when i got home.  And i desrved it.

Now they are worried about being sued  and trying to teach or kids Morality.  That isnt their place.

You are dancing here.  Where are you from.  You screwed up earlier and let that out in a post.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are out ofbounds.  Flagged for unsportsman Like conduct.
> 
> I never said i was going to kill them.  Place that attitude towards those that said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's out of bounds?  Your argument is that they are trash and have no Rights. They aren't even human beings.  Read the thread.  Prove it. How in the Hell is that "out of bounds?"  I'd say you got checkmated.
> 
> Just because you hate people and think we're going to become lily white does not mean that YOU are not out of bounds either.  I'm just as sick of you as you are of me.  You know FULL WELL that those from south of the border have a Right to Life.  It is an unalienable Right - as is Liberty.  Explained the immigration law to you in post # 2086.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never fucking said that moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say you specifically said it OR have I not made my point clear to you?  I'm not here to sell you any point of view.  I'm trying to find the consensus.  If you interfere and want to debate me when I don't want to debate (this IS a discussion forum), then it is only logical to say, birds of a feather flock together.  So, instead of seeing how many posts you can make, make your point and move on.  I'm debating roughly eight people at a time and am NOT going to continue answering the same questions over and over.  Read the freaking thread and quit posting so much if you want answers.
Click to expand...

You threw that shit at me.  I didnt say that and called you out on it.  You lump together shit that wasnt my view point.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignored what I previously wrote. i'll write it again.
> parents try to build, for their children, a better life so that their children don't have to go through the same trials and tribulations that they themselves had to. Over the course of generations it has gone from us fighting the British, living in log cabins and only eating what we kill, to what we have now. We earned the right to live this way because our ancestors did it for us. These illegals haven't. We can't allow them to flood our borders and ruin our lifestyle by sucking on Governmental teat, and working for substandard wages that won't allow us to maintain our current lifestyles. They need to put out the blood, sweat, and bullets to fix their own damn countries like we fixed ours. It isn't up to us to do it for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:
> 
> In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.
> 
> Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD
> 
> The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street
> 
> Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.
> 
> Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?
> 
> Let me put this into perspective:
> 
> America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.
> 
> Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.
> 
> Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.
> 
> Can we get any more screwed up?
Click to expand...


Find the post where I said they were trash. That is an outright lie.


----------



## otto105

Slyhunter said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it fundamentally changes America from being a beacon of Freedom for the world to a country that aspires to be a gated community.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the problem.
Click to expand...


Sure, you think that your behind the gate.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's true.  In the 2000's us liberals were against illegal immigrants while 75% of the Republican party was arguing they were just here doing jobs Americans won't do.  That's a lie.
> 
> Do a little math. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are 7.6 million unemployed Americans right now. Another 1.5 million Americans are no longer counted because they've become "long term" or "discouraged" unemployed workers. And although various groups have different ways of measuring it, most agree that at least another five to ten million Americans are either working part-time when they want to work full-time, or are "underemployed," doing jobs below their level of training, education, or experience. That's between eight and twenty million un- and under-employed Americans, many unable to find above-poverty-level work.
> 
> At the same time, there are between seven and fifteen million working illegal immigrants diluting our labor pool.
> 
> If illegal immigrants could no longer work, unions would flourish, the minimum wage would rise, and oligarchic nations to our south would have to confront and fix their corrupt ways.
> 
> Between the Reagan years - when there were only around 1 to 2 million illegal aliens in our workforce - and today, we've gone from about 25 percent of our private workforce being unionized to around seven percent. Much of this is the direct result - as César Chávez predicted - of illegal immigrants competing directly with unionized and legal labor. Although it's most obvious in the construction trades over the past 30 years, it's hit all sectors of our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My math is simple:
> 
> I run ads on Craigslist, in community papers and list with the Dept. of Labor.  People don't even show up for an interview.
> 
> I could give you the *REAL* reason this happens, but it would take more than twenty words and you would not admit it.  I can show you a hundred people today under 40 that have never worked a job and they won't.  Most of it is the fault of people who back bad legislation because you're wholly uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pay more. Supply/Demand economics. What is the job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a minister with a jobs program.  We have temp, temp to perm and permanent jobs in many fields from laborers to farm workers and from warehouse workers to construction / handymen positions.
> 
> Whites will not work the jobs.
Click to expand...



Your anecdotal stories don't hold true across the country, I have 5 guys numbers, all white, all citizens, I can call for handyman work, brush clearing and other things. I have 5 acres and the forest is constantly trying to reclaim cleared areas.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why is Building the Wall Wrong? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is really simple.  If the wall were really WRONG, then the Democrats would have already DONE IT.
> 
> They were actually FOR IT until the GOP and especially Trump made it a campaign issue.
> 
> The fact that they are DEAD SET against it now proves once and for all it is RIGHT.
> 
> And the way many come on here with the most specious reasoning that it is a
> WASTE OF MONEY
> WON'T WORK,
> IMMORAL, etc.,
> 
> just goes to prove it.
> 
> When Nancy Pelosi leaves her freeking gate open and front door wide open with a big sign on the house:  OPEN HOUSE!, and lets strangers walk into her house taking whatever they want of hers as the MORAL thing to do, then I'll believe the idiot trash talking Left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think Porter is one of them Russians working for the Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hes not a U.S citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know you are no patriot.  I am not a part of your Socialist States of Amerika.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where the hell are you from and why are you so concerned eith this issue??
Click to expand...


I'm from the United States and I am concerned because I watched the build the wall guys *destroy* all the gains made by patriots and constitutionalists over the past 30 years.  All the build the wall guys offer are socialist solutions without any idea of how it ultimately impacts our Freedom and Liberty.  

*EVERY* time you turn around, they invoke the morally and financially corrupt policies of third world countries and people at war.  I set the tone, not follow the failures.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> 
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are out ofbounds.  Flagged for unsportsman Like conduct.
> 
> I never said i was going to kill them.  Place that attitude towards those that said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's out of bounds?  Your argument is that they are trash and have no Rights. They aren't even human beings.  Read the thread.  Prove it. How in the Hell is that "out of bounds?"  I'd say you got checkmated.
> 
> Just because you hate people and think we're going to become lily white does not mean that YOU are not out of bounds either.  I'm just as sick of you as you are of me.  You know FULL WELL that those from south of the border have a Right to Life.  It is an unalienable Right - as is Liberty.  Explained the immigration law to you in post # 2086.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They need to fix their own country. They don't have a right to ruin what we have by flooding our borders and coming here. We built this country not them.
Click to expand...


Free enterprise.  You're letting your country go to shit and they are filling the void.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are out ofbounds.  Flagged for unsportsman Like conduct.
> 
> I never said i was going to kill them.  Place that attitude towards those that said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's out of bounds?  Your argument is that they are trash and have no Rights. They aren't even human beings.  Read the thread.  Prove it. How in the Hell is that "out of bounds?"  I'd say you got checkmated.
> 
> Just because you hate people and think we're going to become lily white does not mean that YOU are not out of bounds either.  I'm just as sick of you as you are of me.  You know FULL WELL that those from south of the border have a Right to Life.  It is an unalienable Right - as is Liberty.  Explained the immigration law to you in post # 2086.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They need to fix their own country. They don't have a right to ruin what we have by flooding our borders and coming here. We built this country not them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free enterprise.  You're letting your country go to shit and they are filling the void.
Click to expand...


All they have to do is enter legally.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is really simple.  If the wall were really WRONG, then the Democrats would have already DONE IT.
> 
> They were actually FOR IT until the GOP and especially Trump made it a campaign issue.
> 
> The fact that they are DEAD SET against it now proves once and for all it is RIGHT.
> 
> And the way many come on here with the most specious reasoning that it is a
> WASTE OF MONEY
> WON'T WORK,
> IMMORAL, etc.,
> 
> just goes to prove it.
> 
> When Nancy Pelosi leaves her freeking gate open and front door wide open with a big sign on the house:  OPEN HOUSE!, and lets strangers walk into her house taking whatever they want of hers as the MORAL thing to do, then I'll believe the idiot trash talking Left.
> 
> 
> 
> I think Porter is one of them Russians working for the Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hes not a U.S citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know you are no patriot.  I am not a part of your Socialist States of Amerika.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where the hell are you from and why are you so concerned eith this issue??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm from the United States and I am concerned because I watched the build the wall guys *destroy* all the gains made by patriots and constitutionalists over the past 30 years.  All the build the wall guys offer are socialist solutions without any idea of how it ultimately impacts our Freedom and Liberty.
> 
> *EVERY* time you turn around, they invoke the morally and financially corrupt policies of third world countries and people at war.  I set the tone, not follow the failures.
Click to expand...

Thats idiotic.  The Fence didnt secure the border.  And a wall doesnt abuse your constitutional rights.  Uless you are from South of the border and are pushing for Open borders, which you are in this thread.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> 
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignored what I previously wrote. i'll write it again.
> parents try to build, for their children, a better life so that their children don't have to go through the same trials and tribulations that they themselves had to. Over the course of generations it has gone from us fighting the British, living in log cabins and only eating what we kill, to what we have now. We earned the right to live this way because our ancestors did it for us. These illegals haven't. We can't allow them to flood our borders and ruin our lifestyle by sucking on Governmental teat, and working for substandard wages that won't allow us to maintain our current lifestyles. They need to put out the blood, sweat, and bullets to fix their own damn countries like we fixed ours. It isn't up to us to do it for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:
> 
> In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.
> 
> Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD
> 
> The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street
> 
> Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.
> 
> Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?
> 
> Let me put this into perspective:
> 
> America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.
> 
> Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.
> 
> Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.
> 
> Can we get any more screwed up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I raised my kids as i see fit.  The only issue is the stupity in schools .  Where disipline is out the door.  When grew up, if i did wrong they paddled my butt, and i got it again when i got home.  And i desrved it.
> 
> Now they are worried about being sued  and trying to teach or kids Morality.  That isnt their place.
> 
> You are dancing here.  Where are you from.  You screwed up earlier and let that out in a post.
Click to expand...


Are you doing bad drugs?  You're worried so much about me you can't focus on the issue.  One minute I'm being accused of "dancing" and the next people are backpedaling because even though they don't like me, they understand I'm direct and consistent.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignored what I previously wrote. i'll write it again.
> parents try to build, for their children, a better life so that their children don't have to go through the same trials and tribulations that they themselves had to. Over the course of generations it has gone from us fighting the British, living in log cabins and only eating what we kill, to what we have now. We earned the right to live this way because our ancestors did it for us. These illegals haven't. We can't allow them to flood our borders and ruin our lifestyle by sucking on Governmental teat, and working for substandard wages that won't allow us to maintain our current lifestyles. They need to put out the blood, sweat, and bullets to fix their own damn countries like we fixed ours. It isn't up to us to do it for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:
> 
> In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.
> 
> Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD
> 
> The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street
> 
> Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.
> 
> Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?
> 
> Let me put this into perspective:
> 
> America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.
> 
> Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.
> 
> Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.
> 
> Can we get any more screwed up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I raised my kids as i see fit.  The only issue is the stupity in schools .  Where disipline is out the door.  When grew up, if i did wrong they paddled my butt, and i got it again when i got home.  And i desrved it.
> 
> Now they are worried about being sued  and trying to teach or kids Morality.  That isnt their place.
> 
> You are dancing here.  Where are you from.  You screwed up earlier and let that out in a post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you doing bad drugs?  You're worried so much about me you can't focus on the issue.  One minute I'm being accused of "dancing" and the next people are backpedaling because even though they don't like me, they understand I'm direct and consistent.
Click to expand...


You are also a liar. Is that not a sin?


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignored what I previously wrote. i'll write it again.
> parents try to build, for their children, a better life so that their children don't have to go through the same trials and tribulations that they themselves had to. Over the course of generations it has gone from us fighting the British, living in log cabins and only eating what we kill, to what we have now. We earned the right to live this way because our ancestors did it for us. These illegals haven't. We can't allow them to flood our borders and ruin our lifestyle by sucking on Governmental teat, and working for substandard wages that won't allow us to maintain our current lifestyles. They need to put out the blood, sweat, and bullets to fix their own damn countries like we fixed ours. It isn't up to us to do it for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:
> 
> In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.
> 
> Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD
> 
> The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street
> 
> Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.
> 
> Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?
> 
> Let me put this into perspective:
> 
> America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.
> 
> Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.
> 
> Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.
> 
> Can we get any more screwed up?
Click to expand...

So fucking what. The country is as we made it and we don't need illegals coming here and ruining it for us. No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Porter is one of them Russians working for the Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> Hes not a U.S citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know you are no patriot.  I am not a part of your Socialist States of Amerika.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where the hell are you from and why are you so concerned eith this issue??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm from the United States and I am concerned because I watched the build the wall guys *destroy* all the gains made by patriots and constitutionalists over the past 30 years.  All the build the wall guys offer are socialist solutions without any idea of how it ultimately impacts our Freedom and Liberty.
> 
> *EVERY* time you turn around, they invoke the morally and financially corrupt policies of third world countries and people at war.  I set the tone, not follow the failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats idiotic.  The Fence didnt secure the border.  And a wall doesnt abuse your constitutional rights.  Uless you are from South of the border and are pushing for Open borders, which you are in this thread.
Click to expand...


You are a liar with NO understanding.  I'm asking questions.  Instead of people being direct and honest, they expect me to fight eight of you at a time.  You're cowards because you think if you can post enough B.S. it will hide the truth.


----------



## OKTexas

Flopper said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> 
> 
> It's true.  In the 2000's us liberals were against illegal immigrants while 75% of the Republican party was arguing they were just here doing jobs Americans won't do.  That's a lie.
> 
> Do a little math. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are 7.6 million unemployed Americans right now. Another 1.5 million Americans are no longer counted because they've become "long term" or "discouraged" unemployed workers. And although various groups have different ways of measuring it, most agree that at least another five to ten million Americans are either working part-time when they want to work full-time, or are "underemployed," doing jobs below their level of training, education, or experience. That's between eight and twenty million un- and under-employed Americans, many unable to find above-poverty-level work.
> 
> At the same time, there are between seven and fifteen million working illegal immigrants diluting our labor pool.
> 
> If illegal immigrants could no longer work, unions would flourish, the minimum wage would rise, and oligarchic nations to our south would have to confront and fix their corrupt ways.
> 
> Between the Reagan years - when there were only around 1 to 2 million illegal aliens in our workforce - and today, we've gone from about 25 percent of our private workforce being unionized to around seven percent. Much of this is the direct result - as César Chávez predicted - of illegal immigrants competing directly with unionized and legal labor. Although it's most obvious in the construction trades over the past 30 years, it's hit all sectors of our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My math is simple:
> 
> I run ads on Craigslist, in community papers and list with the Dept. of Labor.  People don't even show up for an interview.
> 
> I could give you the *REAL* reason this happens, but it would take more than twenty words and you would not admit it.  I can show you a hundred people today under 40 that have never worked a job and they won't.  Most of it is the fault of people who back bad legislation because you're wholly uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pay more. Supply/Demand economics. What is the job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a minister with a jobs program.  We have temp, temp to perm and permanent jobs in many fields from laborers to farm workers and from warehouse workers to construction / handymen positions.
> 
> Whites will not work the jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both parties have flip flopped on immigration depending on the issue. Dems supported 2006 fence act. Republicans opposed Clinton efforts to limit hiring illegals. Reagan supported amnesty for undocumented immigrants.
> 
> Operation Wetback in the 50s was initiated at the request of the Mexican government and was supported by both parties
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



Reagan supported amnesty to get border security, we got the amnesty, but no security. The commiecrats LIED again.

.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are out ofbounds.  Flagged for unsportsman Like conduct.
> 
> I never said i was going to kill them.  Place that attitude towards those that said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's out of bounds?  Your argument is that they are trash and have no Rights. They aren't even human beings.  Read the thread.  Prove it. How in the Hell is that "out of bounds?"  I'd say you got checkmated.
> 
> Just because you hate people and think we're going to become lily white does not mean that YOU are not out of bounds either.  I'm just as sick of you as you are of me.  You know FULL WELL that those from south of the border have a Right to Life.  It is an unalienable Right - as is Liberty.  Explained the immigration law to you in post # 2086.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never fucking said that moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say you specifically said it OR have I not made my point clear to you?  I'm not here to sell you any point of view.  I'm trying to find the consensus.  If you interfere and want to debate me when I don't want to debate (this IS a discussion forum), then it is only logical to say, birds of a feather flock together.  So, instead of seeing how many posts you can make, make your point and move on.  I'm debating roughly eight people at a time and am NOT going to continue answering the same questions over and over.  Read the freaking thread and quit posting so much if you want answers.
Click to expand...

I'm in 15 different threads and you're having trouble dealing with just one.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignored what I previously wrote. i'll write it again.
> parents try to build, for their children, a better life so that their children don't have to go through the same trials and tribulations that they themselves had to. Over the course of generations it has gone from us fighting the British, living in log cabins and only eating what we kill, to what we have now. We earned the right to live this way because our ancestors did it for us. These illegals haven't. We can't allow them to flood our borders and ruin our lifestyle by sucking on Governmental teat, and working for substandard wages that won't allow us to maintain our current lifestyles. They need to put out the blood, sweat, and bullets to fix their own damn countries like we fixed ours. It isn't up to us to do it for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:
> 
> In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.
> 
> Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD
> 
> The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street
> 
> Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.
> 
> Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?
> 
> Let me put this into perspective:
> 
> America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.
> 
> Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.
> 
> Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.
> 
> Can we get any more screwed up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I raised my kids as i see fit.  The only issue is the stupity in schools .  Where disipline is out the door.  When grew up, if i did wrong they paddled my butt, and i got it again when i got home.  And i desrved it.
> 
> Now they are worried about being sued  and trying to teach or kids Morality.  That isnt their place.
> 
> You are dancing here.  Where are you from.  You screwed up earlier and let that out in a post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you doing bad drugs?  You're worried so much about me you can't focus on the issue.  One minute I'm being accused of "dancing" and the next people are backpedaling because even though they don't like me, they understand I'm direct and consistent.
Click to expand...

You accused me of wanting to kill them and you pissed me off.  My opinions dont end where yours begin.

I think you are a fraud now..


----------



## dblack

Slyhunter said:


> So fucking what. The country is as we made it and we don't need illegals coming here and ruining it for us. No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.



More living wage nonsense. Trumpsters are socialists - no way around it.


----------



## Slyhunter

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> You are out ofbounds.  Flagged for unsportsman Like conduct.
> 
> I never said i was going to kill them.  Place that attitude towards those that said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's out of bounds?  Your argument is that they are trash and have no Rights. They aren't even human beings.  Read the thread.  Prove it. How in the Hell is that "out of bounds?"  I'd say you got checkmated.
> 
> Just because you hate people and think we're going to become lily white does not mean that YOU are not out of bounds either.  I'm just as sick of you as you are of me.  You know FULL WELL that those from south of the border have a Right to Life.  It is an unalienable Right - as is Liberty.  Explained the immigration law to you in post # 2086.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They need to fix their own country. They don't have a right to ruin what we have by flooding our borders and coming here. We built this country not them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free enterprise.  You're letting your country go to shit and they are filling the void.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All they have to do is enter legally.
Click to expand...

If that means they can't immigrate here because the line is too long then tough shit. We don't have room for all the worlds poor.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> You are out ofbounds.  Flagged for unsportsman Like conduct.
> 
> I never said i was going to kill them.  Place that attitude towards those that said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's out of bounds?  Your argument is that they are trash and have no Rights. They aren't even human beings.  Read the thread.  Prove it. How in the Hell is that "out of bounds?"  I'd say you got checkmated.
> 
> Just because you hate people and think we're going to become lily white does not mean that YOU are not out of bounds either.  I'm just as sick of you as you are of me.  You know FULL WELL that those from south of the border have a Right to Life.  It is an unalienable Right - as is Liberty.  Explained the immigration law to you in post # 2086.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never fucking said that moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say you specifically said it OR have I not made my point clear to you?  I'm not here to sell you any point of view.  I'm trying to find the consensus.  If you interfere and want to debate me when I don't want to debate (this IS a discussion forum), then it is only logical to say, birds of a feather flock together.  So, instead of seeing how many posts you can make, make your point and move on.  I'm debating roughly eight people at a time and am NOT going to continue answering the same questions over and over.  Read the freaking thread and quit posting so much if you want answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You threw that shit at me.  I didnt say that and called you out on it.  You lump together shit that wasnt my view point.
Click to expand...


That is the whole point of why I'm asking questions.  We'd get further along in this discussion if you cut the crap, answer my questions or ignore me.  I'm not selling you anything... open borders, racism, stupidity, or any of the other stuff on this board.  I'm asking questions.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> 
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignored what I previously wrote. i'll write it again.
> parents try to build, for their children, a better life so that their children don't have to go through the same trials and tribulations that they themselves had to. Over the course of generations it has gone from us fighting the British, living in log cabins and only eating what we kill, to what we have now. We earned the right to live this way because our ancestors did it for us. These illegals haven't. We can't allow them to flood our borders and ruin our lifestyle by sucking on Governmental teat, and working for substandard wages that won't allow us to maintain our current lifestyles. They need to put out the blood, sweat, and bullets to fix their own damn countries like we fixed ours. It isn't up to us to do it for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:
> 
> In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.
> 
> Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD
> 
> The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street
> 
> Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.
> 
> Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?
> 
> Let me put this into perspective:
> 
> America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.
> 
> Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.
> 
> Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.
> 
> Can we get any more screwed up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find the post where I said they were trash. That is an outright lie.
Click to expand...


You stand behind the crowd that DID say it.  I cannot "debate" as the delusional build the wall guys call it and be expected to say who said what when I'm trying to answer all of you at 80 wpm.  If you wanted an answer, you would limit the posts and give me time to find out who said exactly what.  All I can say is, you don't want the truth.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are out ofbounds.  Flagged for unsportsman Like conduct.
> 
> I never said i was going to kill them.  Place that attitude towards those that said it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's out of bounds?  Your argument is that they are trash and have no Rights. They aren't even human beings.  Read the thread.  Prove it. How in the Hell is that "out of bounds?"  I'd say you got checkmated.
> 
> Just because you hate people and think we're going to become lily white does not mean that YOU are not out of bounds either.  I'm just as sick of you as you are of me.  You know FULL WELL that those from south of the border have a Right to Life.  It is an unalienable Right - as is Liberty.  Explained the immigration law to you in post # 2086.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never fucking said that moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say you specifically said it OR have I not made my point clear to you?  I'm not here to sell you any point of view.  I'm trying to find the consensus.  If you interfere and want to debate me when I don't want to debate (this IS a discussion forum), then it is only logical to say, birds of a feather flock together.  So, instead of seeing how many posts you can make, make your point and move on.  I'm debating roughly eight people at a time and am NOT going to continue answering the same questions over and over.  Read the freaking thread and quit posting so much if you want answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You threw that shit at me.  I didnt say that and called you out on it.  You lump together shit that wasnt my view point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the whole point of why I'm asking questions.  We'd get further along in this discussion if you cut the crap, answer my questions or ignore me.  I'm not selling you anything... open borders, racism, stupidity, or any of the other stuff on this board.  I'm asking questions.
Click to expand...

You are Preaching your opininions and nothing else.  When we dont agree you get rattled.  Your problem not mine.  I stand by my opinion.  Which is obviously not yours .  So he it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> 
> 
> It's true.  In the 2000's us liberals were against illegal immigrants while 75% of the Republican party was arguing they were just here doing jobs Americans won't do.  That's a lie.
> 
> Do a little math. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are 7.6 million unemployed Americans right now. Another 1.5 million Americans are no longer counted because they've become "long term" or "discouraged" unemployed workers. And although various groups have different ways of measuring it, most agree that at least another five to ten million Americans are either working part-time when they want to work full-time, or are "underemployed," doing jobs below their level of training, education, or experience. That's between eight and twenty million un- and under-employed Americans, many unable to find above-poverty-level work.
> 
> At the same time, there are between seven and fifteen million working illegal immigrants diluting our labor pool.
> 
> If illegal immigrants could no longer work, unions would flourish, the minimum wage would rise, and oligarchic nations to our south would have to confront and fix their corrupt ways.
> 
> Between the Reagan years - when there were only around 1 to 2 million illegal aliens in our workforce - and today, we've gone from about 25 percent of our private workforce being unionized to around seven percent. Much of this is the direct result - as César Chávez predicted - of illegal immigrants competing directly with unionized and legal labor. Although it's most obvious in the construction trades over the past 30 years, it's hit all sectors of our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My math is simple:
> 
> I run ads on Craigslist, in community papers and list with the Dept. of Labor.  People don't even show up for an interview.
> 
> I could give you the *REAL* reason this happens, but it would take more than twenty words and you would not admit it.  I can show you a hundred people today under 40 that have never worked a job and they won't.  Most of it is the fault of people who back bad legislation because you're wholly uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pay more. Supply/Demand economics. What is the job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a minister with a jobs program.  We have temp, temp to perm and permanent jobs in many fields from laborers to farm workers and from warehouse workers to construction / handymen positions.
> 
> Whites will not work the jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your anecdotal stories don't hold true across the country, I have 5 guys numbers, all white, all citizens, I can call for handyman work, brush clearing and other things. I have 5 acres and the forest is constantly trying to reclaim cleared areas.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Anecdotal?  They do tv segments on it here.  It's statewide and we ran # 4 in the nation for the number of undocumented foreigners.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> You are out ofbounds.  Flagged for unsportsman Like conduct.
> 
> I never said i was going to kill them.  Place that attitude towards those that said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's out of bounds?  Your argument is that they are trash and have no Rights. They aren't even human beings.  Read the thread.  Prove it. How in the Hell is that "out of bounds?"  I'd say you got checkmated.
> 
> Just because you hate people and think we're going to become lily white does not mean that YOU are not out of bounds either.  I'm just as sick of you as you are of me.  You know FULL WELL that those from south of the border have a Right to Life.  It is an unalienable Right - as is Liberty.  Explained the immigration law to you in post # 2086.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They need to fix their own country. They don't have a right to ruin what we have by flooding our borders and coming here. We built this country not them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free enterprise.  You're letting your country go to shit and they are filling the void.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All they have to do is enter legally.
Click to expand...


No such thing exists because the feds never had control over the states.  Read the thread and keep up.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> You ignored what I previously wrote. i'll write it again.
> parents try to build, for their children, a better life so that their children don't have to go through the same trials and tribulations that they themselves had to. Over the course of generations it has gone from us fighting the British, living in log cabins and only eating what we kill, to what we have now. We earned the right to live this way because our ancestors did it for us. These illegals haven't. We can't allow them to flood our borders and ruin our lifestyle by sucking on Governmental teat, and working for substandard wages that won't allow us to maintain our current lifestyles. They need to put out the blood, sweat, and bullets to fix their own damn countries like we fixed ours. It isn't up to us to do it for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:
> 
> In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.
> 
> Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD
> 
> The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street
> 
> Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.
> 
> Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?
> 
> Let me put this into perspective:
> 
> America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.
> 
> Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.
> 
> Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.
> 
> Can we get any more screwed up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I raised my kids as i see fit.  The only issue is the stupity in schools .  Where disipline is out the door.  When grew up, if i did wrong they paddled my butt, and i got it again when i got home.  And i desrved it.
> 
> Now they are worried about being sued  and trying to teach or kids Morality.  That isnt their place.
> 
> You are dancing here.  Where are you from.  You screwed up earlier and let that out in a post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you doing bad drugs?  You're worried so much about me you can't focus on the issue.  One minute I'm being accused of "dancing" and the next people are backpedaling because even though they don't like me, they understand I'm direct and consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are also a liar. Is that not a sin?
Click to expand...


Just because you said it don't make it true.  What are you afraid of?  Why don't you quit posting for an hour, allow me to answer others and focus on who said what?  Are you afraid?  Everybody thinks they are due an answer, but nobody wants to give me an opportunity.  I'm not lying.  I'm trying to fight eight battles at the same time.  You couldn't do it snowflake.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> 
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignored what I previously wrote. i'll write it again.
> parents try to build, for their children, a better life so that their children don't have to go through the same trials and tribulations that they themselves had to. Over the course of generations it has gone from us fighting the British, living in log cabins and only eating what we kill, to what we have now. We earned the right to live this way because our ancestors did it for us. These illegals haven't. We can't allow them to flood our borders and ruin our lifestyle by sucking on Governmental teat, and working for substandard wages that won't allow us to maintain our current lifestyles. They need to put out the blood, sweat, and bullets to fix their own damn countries like we fixed ours. It isn't up to us to do it for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:
> 
> In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.
> 
> Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD
> 
> The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street
> 
> Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.
> 
> Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?
> 
> Let me put this into perspective:
> 
> America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.
> 
> Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.
> 
> Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.
> 
> Can we get any more screwed up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So fucking what. The country is as we made it and we don't need illegals coming here and ruining it for us. No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.
Click to expand...


Dude, I'm going to get my work done whether it whizzes people off or not.  Jobs are available.  There are enough jobs; been explained umpteen times to you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> You are out ofbounds.  Flagged for unsportsman Like conduct.
> 
> I never said i was going to kill them.  Place that attitude towards those that said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's out of bounds?  Your argument is that they are trash and have no Rights. They aren't even human beings.  Read the thread.  Prove it. How in the Hell is that "out of bounds?"  I'd say you got checkmated.
> 
> Just because you hate people and think we're going to become lily white does not mean that YOU are not out of bounds either.  I'm just as sick of you as you are of me.  You know FULL WELL that those from south of the border have a Right to Life.  It is an unalienable Right - as is Liberty.  Explained the immigration law to you in post # 2086.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never fucking said that moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say you specifically said it OR have I not made my point clear to you?  I'm not here to sell you any point of view.  I'm trying to find the consensus.  If you interfere and want to debate me when I don't want to debate (this IS a discussion forum), then it is only logical to say, birds of a feather flock together.  So, instead of seeing how many posts you can make, make your point and move on.  I'm debating roughly eight people at a time and am NOT going to continue answering the same questions over and over.  Read the freaking thread and quit posting so much if you want answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm in 15 different threads and you're having trouble dealing with just one.
Click to expand...


Are you being attacked to the point that, at 80 wpm, for every one post you respond to, another ten posts are created that are directed toward you?


----------



## otto105

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> 
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignored what I previously wrote. i'll write it again.
> parents try to build, for their children, a better life so that their children don't have to go through the same trials and tribulations that they themselves had to. Over the course of generations it has gone from us fighting the British, living in log cabins and only eating what we kill, to what we have now. We earned the right to live this way because our ancestors did it for us. These illegals haven't. We can't allow them to flood our borders and ruin our lifestyle by sucking on Governmental teat, and working for substandard wages that won't allow us to maintain our current lifestyles. They need to put out the blood, sweat, and bullets to fix their own damn countries like we fixed ours. It isn't up to us to do it for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:
> 
> In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.
> 
> Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD
> 
> The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street
> 
> Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.
> 
> Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?
> 
> Let me put this into perspective:
> 
> America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.
> 
> Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.
> 
> Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.
> 
> Can we get any more screwed up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So fucking what. The country is as we made it and we don't need illegals coming here and ruining it for us. No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.
Click to expand...



This country was made with immigration.

What you want is great white whale...er wall.


----------



## OKTexas

sealybobo said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My only point is that border patrol agents want it and they are on the frontlines. I would think we would and should be willing to support them. That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> The report was based on internal Customs and Border Protection documents from the 2017 fiscal year. It concluded that less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggestions to secure the Southwest border mentioned the need for a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen other reports that contradict and I actually saw them on TV stating they want a WALL!!!!
> 
> *In four Customs and Border Protection sectors where physical barriers have been expanded — El Paso, Yuma, Tucson, and San Diego — illegal traffic has dropped by at least 90%.*
> 
> _*Dems pre-Trump:*
> 
> -Hillary: Supported border wall
> -Obama: More border security, illegals must speak English, go to back of line
> -Schumer: Border walls work
> -Reid: Offering benefits to illegals = insane
> -Feinstein: US can't be Mexico's welfare
> -Clinton: Illegal immigration is wrong_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I support border security.  A wall is a waste of money.  But watching the border is important.  You can watch the border with or without a wall.  And when you eventually stop watching the border without a wall then you don't feel stupid for building an unnecessary wall that was a huge waste of time and money and now has so many holes in it that it looks like swiss cheese.
Click to expand...



Watching doesn't prevent 1 person from crossing, drones, sensors and other technology won't prevent 1 person from crossing. Then we have to spend nearly $12,000 for each one we catch to deport them. Walls where erected have proven effective.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's out of bounds?  Your argument is that they are trash and have no Rights. They aren't even human beings.  Read the thread.  Prove it. How in the Hell is that "out of bounds?"  I'd say you got checkmated.
> 
> Just because you hate people and think we're going to become lily white does not mean that YOU are not out of bounds either.  I'm just as sick of you as you are of me.  You know FULL WELL that those from south of the border have a Right to Life.  It is an unalienable Right - as is Liberty.  Explained the immigration law to you in post # 2086.
> 
> 
> 
> I never fucking said that moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say you specifically said it OR have I not made my point clear to you?  I'm not here to sell you any point of view.  I'm trying to find the consensus.  If you interfere and want to debate me when I don't want to debate (this IS a discussion forum), then it is only logical to say, birds of a feather flock together.  So, instead of seeing how many posts you can make, make your point and move on.  I'm debating roughly eight people at a time and am NOT going to continue answering the same questions over and over.  Read the freaking thread and quit posting so much if you want answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You threw that shit at me.  I didnt say that and called you out on it.  You lump together shit that wasnt my view point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the whole point of why I'm asking questions.  We'd get further along in this discussion if you cut the crap, answer my questions or ignore me.  I'm not selling you anything... open borders, racism, stupidity, or any of the other stuff on this board.  I'm asking questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are Preaching your opininions and nothing else.  When we dont agree you get rattled.  Your problem not mine.  I stand by my opinion.  Which is obviously not yours .  So he it.
Click to expand...


I'm here to ask questions.  I didn't want to give an opinion either way.  We'd both be happier if you would just quit asking me.  This is not about me.  It's about the OP.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignored what I previously wrote. i'll write it again.
> parents try to build, for their children, a better life so that their children don't have to go through the same trials and tribulations that they themselves had to. Over the course of generations it has gone from us fighting the British, living in log cabins and only eating what we kill, to what we have now. We earned the right to live this way because our ancestors did it for us. These illegals haven't. We can't allow them to flood our borders and ruin our lifestyle by sucking on Governmental teat, and working for substandard wages that won't allow us to maintain our current lifestyles. They need to put out the blood, sweat, and bullets to fix their own damn countries like we fixed ours. It isn't up to us to do it for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:
> 
> In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.
> 
> Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD
> 
> The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street
> 
> Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.
> 
> Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?
> 
> Let me put this into perspective:
> 
> America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.
> 
> Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.
> 
> Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.
> 
> Can we get any more screwed up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So fucking what. The country is as we made it and we don't need illegals coming here and ruining it for us. No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, I'm going to get my work done whether it whizzes people off or not.  Jobs are available.  There are enough jobs; been explained umpteen times to you.
Click to expand...

So this is your job and your work consist of posting lie's and convincing people that we don't need a wall?


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are out ofbounds.  Flagged for unsportsman Like conduct.
> 
> I never said i was going to kill them.  Place that attitude towards those that said it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's out of bounds?  Your argument is that they are trash and have no Rights. They aren't even human beings.  Read the thread.  Prove it. How in the Hell is that "out of bounds?"  I'd say you got checkmated.
> 
> Just because you hate people and think we're going to become lily white does not mean that YOU are not out of bounds either.  I'm just as sick of you as you are of me.  You know FULL WELL that those from south of the border have a Right to Life.  It is an unalienable Right - as is Liberty.  Explained the immigration law to you in post # 2086.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never fucking said that moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say you specifically said it OR have I not made my point clear to you?  I'm not here to sell you any point of view.  I'm trying to find the consensus.  If you interfere and want to debate me when I don't want to debate (this IS a discussion forum), then it is only logical to say, birds of a feather flock together.  So, instead of seeing how many posts you can make, make your point and move on.  I'm debating roughly eight people at a time and am NOT going to continue answering the same questions over and over.  Read the freaking thread and quit posting so much if you want answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm in 15 different threads and you're having trouble dealing with just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you being attacked to the point that, at 80 wpm, for every one post you respond to, another ten posts are created that are directed toward you?
Click to expand...

You worry about the current one and when finished move on to the next.
Maybe you should write fewer dissertations and just get to the point, you don't think the wall will prevent people from coming into our country and I think it will stop a lot of them.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> You ignored what I previously wrote. i'll write it again.
> parents try to build, for their children, a better life so that their children don't have to go through the same trials and tribulations that they themselves had to. Over the course of generations it has gone from us fighting the British, living in log cabins and only eating what we kill, to what we have now. We earned the right to live this way because our ancestors did it for us. These illegals haven't. We can't allow them to flood our borders and ruin our lifestyle by sucking on Governmental teat, and working for substandard wages that won't allow us to maintain our current lifestyles. They need to put out the blood, sweat, and bullets to fix their own damn countries like we fixed ours. It isn't up to us to do it for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:
> 
> In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.
> 
> Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD
> 
> The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street
> 
> Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.
> 
> Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?
> 
> Let me put this into perspective:
> 
> America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.
> 
> Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.
> 
> Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.
> 
> Can we get any more screwed up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I raised my kids as i see fit.  The only issue is the stupity in schools .  Where disipline is out the door.  When grew up, if i did wrong they paddled my butt, and i got it again when i got home.  And i desrved it.
> 
> Now they are worried about being sued  and trying to teach or kids Morality.  That isnt their place.
> 
> You are dancing here.  Where are you from.  You screwed up earlier and let that out in a post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you doing bad drugs?  You're worried so much about me you can't focus on the issue.  One minute I'm being accused of "dancing" and the next people are backpedaling because even though they don't like me, they understand I'm direct and consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You accused me of wanting to kill them and you pissed me off.  My opinions dont end where yours begin.
> 
> I think you are a fraud now..
Click to expand...


I'm a fraud for asking questions?  What does that make you?  I ask you for a few minutes so that I can answer everybody and give you the attention Ray wanted and all you can do is talk smack.  What are you afraid of?

I didn't accuse you of anything.  I asked you a couple of questions.


----------



## otto105

OKTexas said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only point is that border patrol agents want it and they are on the frontlines. I would think we would and should be willing to support them. That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> The report was based on internal Customs and Border Protection documents from the 2017 fiscal year. It concluded that less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggestions to secure the Southwest border mentioned the need for a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen other reports that contradict and I actually saw them on TV stating they want a WALL!!!!
> 
> *In four Customs and Border Protection sectors where physical barriers have been expanded — El Paso, Yuma, Tucson, and San Diego — illegal traffic has dropped by at least 90%.*
> 
> _*Dems pre-Trump:*
> 
> -Hillary: Supported border wall
> -Obama: More border security, illegals must speak English, go to back of line
> -Schumer: Border walls work
> -Reid: Offering benefits to illegals = insane
> -Feinstein: US can't be Mexico's welfare
> -Clinton: Illegal immigration is wrong_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I support border security.  A wall is a waste of money.  But watching the border is important.  You can watch the border with or without a wall.  And when you eventually stop watching the border without a wall then you don't feel stupid for building an unnecessary wall that was a huge waste of time and money and now has so many holes in it that it looks like swiss cheese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Watching doesn't prevent 1 person from crossing, drones, sensors and other technology won't prevent 1 person from crossing. Then we have to spend nearly $12,000 for each one we catch to deport them. Walls where erected have proven effective.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



If Atlas wouldn't hire them, we would not have you budget wall assholes spending money.


----------



## Slyhunter

otto105 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignored what I previously wrote. i'll write it again.
> parents try to build, for their children, a better life so that their children don't have to go through the same trials and tribulations that they themselves had to. Over the course of generations it has gone from us fighting the British, living in log cabins and only eating what we kill, to what we have now. We earned the right to live this way because our ancestors did it for us. These illegals haven't. We can't allow them to flood our borders and ruin our lifestyle by sucking on Governmental teat, and working for substandard wages that won't allow us to maintain our current lifestyles. They need to put out the blood, sweat, and bullets to fix their own damn countries like we fixed ours. It isn't up to us to do it for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:
> 
> In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.
> 
> Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD
> 
> The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street
> 
> Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.
> 
> Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?
> 
> Let me put this into perspective:
> 
> America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.
> 
> Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.
> 
> Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.
> 
> Can we get any more screwed up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So fucking what. The country is as we made it and we don't need illegals coming here and ruining it for us. No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This country was made with immigration.
> 
> What you what is great white whale...er wall.
Click to expand...

The needs of the past, when labor was a value, are not the needs of the present. Just because you've done things in the past doesn't mean you keep doing them that way when you no longer need to.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> You ignored what I previously wrote. i'll write it again.
> parents try to build, for their children, a better life so that their children don't have to go through the same trials and tribulations that they themselves had to. Over the course of generations it has gone from us fighting the British, living in log cabins and only eating what we kill, to what we have now. We earned the right to live this way because our ancestors did it for us. These illegals haven't. We can't allow them to flood our borders and ruin our lifestyle by sucking on Governmental teat, and working for substandard wages that won't allow us to maintain our current lifestyles. They need to put out the blood, sweat, and bullets to fix their own damn countries like we fixed ours. It isn't up to us to do it for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:
> 
> In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.
> 
> Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD
> 
> The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street
> 
> Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.
> 
> Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?
> 
> Let me put this into perspective:
> 
> America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.
> 
> Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.
> 
> Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.
> 
> Can we get any more screwed up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So fucking what. The country is as we made it and we don't need illegals coming here and ruining it for us. No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, I'm going to get my work done whether it whizzes people off or not.  Jobs are available.  There are enough jobs; been explained umpteen times to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So this is your job and your work consist of posting lie's and convincing people that we don't need a wall?
Click to expand...


You're an asshole.  I was asking questions.  I'm not here to convince anyone of anything.

Taking a break.  Slyhunter, you can have my time next and we'll ignore the trolls.  My open challenge is still available.  Answer you later.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignored what I previously wrote. i'll write it again.
> parents try to build, for their children, a better life so that their children don't have to go through the same trials and tribulations that they themselves had to. Over the course of generations it has gone from us fighting the British, living in log cabins and only eating what we kill, to what we have now. We earned the right to live this way because our ancestors did it for us. These illegals haven't. We can't allow them to flood our borders and ruin our lifestyle by sucking on Governmental teat, and working for substandard wages that won't allow us to maintain our current lifestyles. They need to put out the blood, sweat, and bullets to fix their own damn countries like we fixed ours. It isn't up to us to do it for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:
> 
> In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.
> 
> Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD
> 
> The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street
> 
> Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.
> 
> Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?
> 
> Let me put this into perspective:
> 
> America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.
> 
> Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.
> 
> Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.
> 
> Can we get any more screwed up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So fucking what. The country is as we made it and we don't need illegals coming here and ruining it for us. No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This country was made with immigration.
> 
> What you what is great white whale...er wall.
Click to expand...


At one time immigrants were a benefit to this country.  Today they are a liability costing us billions a year.  Others have made claim slaves built this country, but we don't bring back slavery for that reason.


----------



## otto105

Just how would this wall stop anything?

People don't have ladders?

People don't have shovels?

How would an airplane land with a wall on the runway?

How does a wall work on a pier?


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ignored what I previously wrote. i'll write it again.
> parents try to build, for their children, a better life so that their children don't have to go through the same trials and tribulations that they themselves had to. Over the course of generations it has gone from us fighting the British, living in log cabins and only eating what we kill, to what we have now. We earned the right to live this way because our ancestors did it for us. These illegals haven't. We can't allow them to flood our borders and ruin our lifestyle by sucking on Governmental teat, and working for substandard wages that won't allow us to maintain our current lifestyles. They need to put out the blood, sweat, and bullets to fix their own damn countries like we fixed ours. It isn't up to us to do it for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:
> 
> In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.
> 
> Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD
> 
> The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street
> 
> Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.
> 
> Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?
> 
> Let me put this into perspective:
> 
> America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.
> 
> Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.
> 
> Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.
> 
> Can we get any more screwed up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So fucking what. The country is as we made it and we don't need illegals coming here and ruining it for us. No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, I'm going to get my work done whether it whizzes people off or not.  Jobs are available.  There are enough jobs; been explained umpteen times to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So this is your job and your work consist of posting lie's and convincing people that we don't need a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an asshole.  I was asking questions.  I'm not here to convince anyone of anything.
Click to expand...

you were making dissertations and expecting people to actually read the entire thing even though they bore me to tears.
I'm in 15 different threads, two words with friends games, watching Fox news, and eating lunch. It's called multi-processing.


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> You ignored what I previously wrote. i'll write it again.
> parents try to build, for their children, a better life so that their children don't have to go through the same trials and tribulations that they themselves had to. Over the course of generations it has gone from us fighting the British, living in log cabins and only eating what we kill, to what we have now. We earned the right to live this way because our ancestors did it for us. These illegals haven't. We can't allow them to flood our borders and ruin our lifestyle by sucking on Governmental teat, and working for substandard wages that won't allow us to maintain our current lifestyles. They need to put out the blood, sweat, and bullets to fix their own damn countries like we fixed ours. It isn't up to us to do it for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:
> 
> In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.
> 
> Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD
> 
> The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street
> 
> Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.
> 
> Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?
> 
> Let me put this into perspective:
> 
> America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.
> 
> Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.
> 
> Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.
> 
> Can we get any more screwed up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So fucking what. The country is as we made it and we don't need illegals coming here and ruining it for us. No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This country was made with immigration.
> 
> What you what is great white whale...er wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At one time immigrants were a benefit to this country.  Today they are a liability costing us billions a year.  Others have made claim slaves built this country, but we don't bring back slavery for that reason.
Click to expand...



Did slaves or immgraint labor add to GDP or not?

Did they thru hard work build wealth for our country or not?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:
> 
> In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.
> 
> Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD
> 
> The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street
> 
> Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.
> 
> Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?
> 
> Let me put this into perspective:
> 
> America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.
> 
> Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.
> 
> Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.
> 
> Can we get any more screwed up?
> 
> 
> 
> So fucking what. The country is as we made it and we don't need illegals coming here and ruining it for us. No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, I'm going to get my work done whether it whizzes people off or not.  Jobs are available.  There are enough jobs; been explained umpteen times to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So this is your job and your work consist of posting lie's and convincing people that we don't need a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an asshole.  I was asking questions.  I'm not here to convince anyone of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you were making dissertations and expecting people to actually read the entire thing even though they bore me to tears.
> I'm in 15 different threads, two words with friends games, watching Fox news, and eating lunch. It's called multi-processing.
Click to expand...


No dumb ass, that would be multi tasking - a reveal that you aren't what you are selling yourself as.


----------



## Slyhunter

otto105 said:


> Just how would this wall stop anything?
> 
> People don't have ladders?
> 
> People don't have shovels?
> 
> How would an airplane land with a wall on the runway?
> 
> How does a wall work on a pier?


most of these illegals can't afford to buy food, they're not going to buy ladders. they are unfit and unhealthy and the harder we make it to get here the more likely they'll stay where they're at.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So fucking what. The country is as we made it and we don't need illegals coming here and ruining it for us. No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I'm going to get my work done whether it whizzes people off or not.  Jobs are available.  There are enough jobs; been explained umpteen times to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So this is your job and your work consist of posting lie's and convincing people that we don't need a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an asshole.  I was asking questions.  I'm not here to convince anyone of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you were making dissertations and expecting people to actually read the entire thing even though they bore me to tears.
> I'm in 15 different threads, two words with friends games, watching Fox news, and eating lunch. It's called multi-processing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dumb ass, that would be multi tasking - a reveal that you aren't what you are selling yourself as.
Click to expand...

I'm not selling myself as anything.


----------



## otto105

Slyhunter said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just how would this wall stop anything?
> 
> People don't have ladders?
> 
> People don't have shovels?
> 
> How would an airplane land with a wall on the runway?
> 
> How does a wall work on a pier?
> 
> 
> 
> most of these illegals can't afford to buy food, they're not going to buy ladders. they are unfit and unhealthy and the harder we make it to get here the more likely they'll stay where they're at.
Click to expand...



Just when do you get by sean handity talking points?


----------



## otto105

Has this thread addressed the level of illegal border crossing yet or not?


Do any of you deficit chickenhawks know if border crossings have increased or decreased in last 15-20 years?


Because if you advocate for a national emergency it can only be one way.


----------



## otto105

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I'm going to get my work done whether it whizzes people off or not.  Jobs are available.  There are enough jobs; been explained umpteen times to you.
> 
> 
> 
> So this is your job and your work consist of posting lie's and convincing people that we don't need a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an asshole.  I was asking questions.  I'm not here to convince anyone of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you were making dissertations and expecting people to actually read the entire thing even though they bore me to tears.
> I'm in 15 different threads, two words with friends games, watching Fox news, and eating lunch. It's called multi-processing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dumb ass, that would be multi tasking - a reveal that you aren't what you are selling yourself as.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not selling myself as anything.
Click to expand...


Your selling yourself as a guy who has a hard time determining non-fiction with ficton.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignored what I previously wrote. i'll write it again.
> parents try to build, for their children, a better life so that their children don't have to go through the same trials and tribulations that they themselves had to. Over the course of generations it has gone from us fighting the British, living in log cabins and only eating what we kill, to what we have now. We earned the right to live this way because our ancestors did it for us. These illegals haven't. We can't allow them to flood our borders and ruin our lifestyle by sucking on Governmental teat, and working for substandard wages that won't allow us to maintain our current lifestyles. They need to put out the blood, sweat, and bullets to fix their own damn countries like we fixed ours. It isn't up to us to do it for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:
> 
> In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.
> 
> Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD
> 
> The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street
> 
> Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.
> 
> Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?
> 
> Let me put this into perspective:
> 
> America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.
> 
> Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.
> 
> Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.
> 
> Can we get any more screwed up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find the post where I said they were trash. That is an outright lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You stand behind the crowd that DID say it.  I cannot "debate" as the delusional build the wall guys call it and be expected to say who said what when I'm trying to answer all of you at 80 wpm.  If you wanted an answer, you would limit the posts and give me time to find out who said exactly what.  All I can say is, you don't want the truth.
Click to expand...


So you lied. Thanks for clarifying. You sinned. To hell you go.


----------



## Slyhunter

otto105 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just how would this wall stop anything?
> 
> People don't have ladders?
> 
> People don't have shovels?
> 
> How would an airplane land with a wall on the runway?
> 
> How does a wall work on a pier?
> 
> 
> 
> most of these illegals can't afford to buy food, they're not going to buy ladders. they are unfit and unhealthy and the harder we make it to get here the more likely they'll stay where they're at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just when do you get by sean handity talking points?
Click to expand...

They're my talking points and they're true.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ignored what I previously wrote. i'll write it again.
> parents try to build, for their children, a better life so that their children don't have to go through the same trials and tribulations that they themselves had to. Over the course of generations it has gone from us fighting the British, living in log cabins and only eating what we kill, to what we have now. We earned the right to live this way because our ancestors did it for us. These illegals haven't. We can't allow them to flood our borders and ruin our lifestyle by sucking on Governmental teat, and working for substandard wages that won't allow us to maintain our current lifestyles. They need to put out the blood, sweat, and bullets to fix their own damn countries like we fixed ours. It isn't up to us to do it for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:
> 
> In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.
> 
> Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD
> 
> The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street
> 
> Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.
> 
> Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?
> 
> Let me put this into perspective:
> 
> America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.
> 
> Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.
> 
> Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.
> 
> Can we get any more screwed up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I raised my kids as i see fit.  The only issue is the stupity in schools .  Where disipline is out the door.  When grew up, if i did wrong they paddled my butt, and i got it again when i got home.  And i desrved it.
> 
> Now they are worried about being sued  and trying to teach or kids Morality.  That isnt their place.
> 
> You are dancing here.  Where are you from.  You screwed up earlier and let that out in a post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you doing bad drugs?  You're worried so much about me you can't focus on the issue.  One minute I'm being accused of "dancing" and the next people are backpedaling because even though they don't like me, they understand I'm direct and consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are also a liar. Is that not a sin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you said it don't make it true.  What are you afraid of?  Why don't you quit posting for an hour, allow me to answer others and focus on who said what?  Are you afraid?  Everybody thinks they are due an answer, but nobody wants to give me an opportunity.  I'm not lying.  I'm trying to fight eight battles at the same time.  You couldn't do it snowflake.
Click to expand...


Find where I said they were trash. All I said was let’s do what the border patrol agents recommend. Not once did I say anything negative about the people from Mexico. Sorry you lied. Liar.


----------



## Slyhunter

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:
> 
> In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.
> 
> Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD
> 
> The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street
> 
> Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.
> 
> Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?
> 
> Let me put this into perspective:
> 
> America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.
> 
> Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.
> 
> Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.
> 
> Can we get any more screwed up?
> 
> 
> 
> I raised my kids as i see fit.  The only issue is the stupity in schools .  Where disipline is out the door.  When grew up, if i did wrong they paddled my butt, and i got it again when i got home.  And i desrved it.
> 
> Now they are worried about being sued  and trying to teach or kids Morality.  That isnt their place.
> 
> You are dancing here.  Where are you from.  You screwed up earlier and let that out in a post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you doing bad drugs?  You're worried so much about me you can't focus on the issue.  One minute I'm being accused of "dancing" and the next people are backpedaling because even though they don't like me, they understand I'm direct and consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are also a liar. Is that not a sin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you said it don't make it true.  What are you afraid of?  Why don't you quit posting for an hour, allow me to answer others and focus on who said what?  Are you afraid?  Everybody thinks they are due an answer, but nobody wants to give me an opportunity.  I'm not lying.  I'm trying to fight eight battles at the same time.  You couldn't do it snowflake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find where I said they were trash. All I said was let’s do what the border patrol agents recommend. Not once did I say anything negative about the people from Mexico. Sorry you lied. Liar.
Click to expand...

I called them trash. he has trouble telling the difference between you and I. 
Not all of them are "riff raff" but the ones leaving their country to come here are the worst of the worse in poverty status. The rich ones aren't sneaking across the border.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Slyhunter said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I raised my kids as i see fit.  The only issue is the stupity in schools .  Where disipline is out the door.  When grew up, if i did wrong they paddled my butt, and i got it again when i got home.  And i desrved it.
> 
> Now they are worried about being sued  and trying to teach or kids Morality.  That isnt their place.
> 
> You are dancing here.  Where are you from.  You screwed up earlier and let that out in a post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you doing bad drugs?  You're worried so much about me you can't focus on the issue.  One minute I'm being accused of "dancing" and the next people are backpedaling because even though they don't like me, they understand I'm direct and consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are also a liar. Is that not a sin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you said it don't make it true.  What are you afraid of?  Why don't you quit posting for an hour, allow me to answer others and focus on who said what?  Are you afraid?  Everybody thinks they are due an answer, but nobody wants to give me an opportunity.  I'm not lying.  I'm trying to fight eight battles at the same time.  You couldn't do it snowflake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find where I said they were trash. All I said was let’s do what the border patrol agents recommend. Not once did I say anything negative about the people from Mexico. Sorry you lied. Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I called them trash. he has trouble telling the difference between you and I.
> Not all of them are "riff raff" but the ones leaving their country to come here are the worst of the worse in poverty status. The rich ones aren't sneaking across the border.
Click to expand...


Bingo. So either he made a mistake, which he should admit or he is a liar. Seems simple.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just remembered who the other guy that was no Tuckers show, he was a guy Trump fired, the former Chief of the Border patrol. He disagrees with you and says walls, where implemented, work.
> 
> And yes it will be tailored to the border patrols needs, technology along most of the border and walls where needed. And you can brush aside all the facts you want, it just makes you look small when you refuse to recognize the current request is less than 1/40th our annual costs for illegals.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More fudged figures.  OMG.  I already presented two non-partisan studies.  Wasn't it you who challenged one of them as being biased ?  And I got that study that disagrees with you from someone arguing YOUR points.  The bottom line, all B.S. aside, when both sides of the accounting ledger are counted, "it's a wash."  That was the term used in several studies over the years.  Those are the studies Congress sees.
> 
> So are we arguing walls OR costs?  Do we have to rehash this crap every 50 or so posts?  Save your pecking.  Asked and answered in posts 2806, 3475, 3476 and 3613.
> 
> This shotgun approach to whatever in the Hell it is you do, is hilarious.  Come up with something that has not been responded to.  Can you answer any of my questions?
> 
> Where do your unalienable Rights come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I cited sources, all you have is your spew.,prove them wrong. And I'm citing monetary and human costs to justify the wall. And my rights are irrelevant to this discussion unless I'm killed or injured by an illegal alien tomorrow, they have deprived 10s of thousands of American their rights.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should have reread that post before making it.  Let me put this to you another way:
> 
> You can cite all the monetary costs you want.  THAT, sir, is *THE DISCONNECT*.Why are foreigners in the United States working?  Foreigners come here because it's profitable.  Your lobbying efforts DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT *BOTH SIDES* OF THE ACCOUNTING LEDGER.
> 
> That is how you're being proven wrong.  You have to look at the contributions foreigners make in order to understand the whole picture.  When this is done, from a financial perspective, the foreigners ARE profitable.  That is why Bill O'Reilly hired them; it's why Donald Trump uses them.
> 
> If you were not such a wall cultist, you would be able to understand that I'm taking this abuse and staying in this discussion because *I AM FIGHTING WITH MY VERY LIFE FOR YOUR RIGHTS*.  I am fighting for YOUR Rights.  You are trying to win a war predicated on propaganda, denying the REAL reason foreigners come here, with the false expectation you can keep them out, and without a real understanding of what and why the current immigration laws exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well child if you have been paying attention you'd know I'm all for jailing people that employ illegal aliens, the supposed charities that are helping fund them and provide lawyers to go south of the border to coach them on what to say and help them get settled once they're here. Anyone who harbors or enables illegal aliens should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
> 
> Also you have yet to explain how the current walls that cover about 1/3rd of the southern border has effected my or anyone else's rights. Or why adding an additional 10% would suddenly cause them to do so.
> 
> If you have something to say, lay it out in plain language, with credible links, I'm not concerned with your feelings.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times is it required of me to lay out the links?  Damn, son, I've done it at least half a dozen times, complete with irrefutable links.  Tell you what - if you will keep a list of the links and present them from here on out, I will redo my work for at least the SEVENTH time and then you promise to NEVER ask me that question and when someone from your side does challenge me, YOU post the post numbers.  Deal?
> 
> You're dangerous.  You would jail people for controlling their own property?  And you dare call others commiecrats???  WTH?
Click to expand...



I would jail people for engaging in a criminal enterprise, laws prohibit people from hiring, transporting or harboring illegals in any manner. Lawyers who conspire with illegals to defraud the US should also be jailed. Roughly 9% of asylum claims are found to have merit, but they get through the initial screening because they are coached on what to say. 

Also the only link you've provided to me was from a left wing academic who ignored the direct and indirect costs of illegal aliens. Your taxes are higher, your auto insurance is higher, your health care is higher, your wages are lower and the list could go on and on and all can be, in part attributed to illegals aliens. It offsets, by far, anything they may contribute. I've already covered the human costs to our citizens, if Americans truly knew the over all costs of illegal aliens they would revolt and demand a stop to it.

.


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> I'm from the United States



DAMN!  Another failure of the state run education system.



> *destroy* all the gains made by patriots and constitutionalists
> without any idea of how it ultimately impacts our Freedom and Liberty
> they invoke the morally and financially corrupt policies of third world countries



Wow.  What a fucking crackpot.  You're not even worth refuting.

We just want the law enforced that immigrants coming here have to do it legally and through the proper channels.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no truth value; who cares what you think if you have no witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They come here uninvited.  Then DEMAND entry.  They are not citizens of this country and have no right to demand anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong.  Foreigners come here because they ARE invited.  A LOT of your American brethren are hiring them, renting to them, buying from them,. selling to them.  We're not at war with them.  As a matter of FACT, the welcome mat (the Statue of Liberty) has this on the base of the statue:
> _"Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> _
> We are not in a war with them and if they get anything from the government, it is by way of politicians YOU elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hiring them is against the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the law is unconstitutional and is without any relevance - Said so in post # 2086.  It's why they have a Hell of a time enforcing it.
Click to expand...



Post # 2086 isn't yours, care to try again?

.


----------



## OKTexas

otto105 said:


> Because it fundamentally changes America from being a beacon of Freedom for the world to a country that aspires to be a gated community.




Yep, a gated community that welcomes the worthy.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama: "Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”
> 
> Secretary Hillary Clinton: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders."
> 
> President Bill Clinton: "It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To some its political.  To some its not.
> 
> It is a barrier to impede illegals and drugs to make securing the border easier for CBP.
> 
> Politicians have grand standed for votes and not built effective barriers.  They refuse to fix the loop holes.  Those ideas are right to me.  They have been right to me for decades.
> 
> 20 to 25 billion will provide about 1000 miles total of wall.  In high traffic areas where they say they need them.  We should do as the professionals request tosupport them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignored what I previously wrote. i'll write it again.
> parents try to build, for their children, a better life so that their children don't have to go through the same trials and tribulations that they themselves had to. Over the course of generations it has gone from us fighting the British, living in log cabins and only eating what we kill, to what we have now. We earned the right to live this way because our ancestors did it for us. These illegals haven't. We can't allow them to flood our borders and ruin our lifestyle by sucking on Governmental teat, and working for substandard wages that won't allow us to maintain our current lifestyles. They need to put out the blood, sweat, and bullets to fix their own damn countries like we fixed ours. It isn't up to us to do it for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:
> 
> In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.
> 
> Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD
> 
> The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street
> 
> Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.
> 
> Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?
> 
> Let me put this into perspective:
> 
> America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.
> 
> Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.
> 
> Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.
> 
> Can we get any more screwed up?
Click to expand...



That's one of the many reasons I chose not to have children.

.


----------



## toobfreak

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
> 
> 
> 
> They come here uninvited.  Then DEMAND entry.  They are not citizens of this country and have no right to demand anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong.  Foreigners come here because they ARE invited.  A LOT of your American brethren are hiring them, renting to them, buying from them,. selling to them.  We're not at war with them.  As a matter of FACT, the welcome mat (the Statue of Liberty) has this on the base of the statue:
> _"Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> _
> We are not in a war with them and if they get anything from the government, it is by way of politicians YOU elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hiring them is against the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the law is unconstitutional and is without any relevance - Said so in post # 2086.  It's why they have a Hell of a time enforcing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Post # 2086 isn't yours, care to try again?
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Your counting in Base 10, Tex.  Porter counts in Base 6 7/8ths.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's true.  In the 2000's us liberals were against illegal immigrants while 75% of the Republican party was arguing they were just here doing jobs Americans won't do.  That's a lie.
> 
> Do a little math. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are 7.6 million unemployed Americans right now. Another 1.5 million Americans are no longer counted because they've become "long term" or "discouraged" unemployed workers. And although various groups have different ways of measuring it, most agree that at least another five to ten million Americans are either working part-time when they want to work full-time, or are "underemployed," doing jobs below their level of training, education, or experience. That's between eight and twenty million un- and under-employed Americans, many unable to find above-poverty-level work.
> 
> At the same time, there are between seven and fifteen million working illegal immigrants diluting our labor pool.
> 
> If illegal immigrants could no longer work, unions would flourish, the minimum wage would rise, and oligarchic nations to our south would have to confront and fix their corrupt ways.
> 
> Between the Reagan years - when there were only around 1 to 2 million illegal aliens in our workforce - and today, we've gone from about 25 percent of our private workforce being unionized to around seven percent. Much of this is the direct result - as César Chávez predicted - of illegal immigrants competing directly with unionized and legal labor. Although it's most obvious in the construction trades over the past 30 years, it's hit all sectors of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My math is simple:
> 
> I run ads on Craigslist, in community papers and list with the Dept. of Labor.  People don't even show up for an interview.
> 
> I could give you the *REAL* reason this happens, but it would take more than twenty words and you would not admit it.  I can show you a hundred people today under 40 that have never worked a job and they won't.  Most of it is the fault of people who back bad legislation because you're wholly uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pay more. Supply/Demand economics. What is the job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a minister with a jobs program.  We have temp, temp to perm and permanent jobs in many fields from laborers to farm workers and from warehouse workers to construction / handymen positions.
> 
> Whites will not work the jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your anecdotal stories don't hold true across the country, I have 5 guys numbers, all white, all citizens, I can call for handyman work, brush clearing and other things. I have 5 acres and the forest is constantly trying to reclaim cleared areas.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anecdotal?  They do tv segments on it here.  It's statewide and we ran # 4 in the nation for the number of undocumented foreigners.
Click to expand...



Yeah, it's anecdotal, what is happening in your State doesn't necessarily apply to others. If they're running TV segments I'm sure the print media is doing it also, yet you haven't provided one link to substantiate your claims.

.


----------



## OKTexas

otto105 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> My only point is that border patrol agents want it and they are on the frontlines. I would think we would and should be willing to support them. That is all.
> 
> 
> 
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> The report was based on internal Customs and Border Protection documents from the 2017 fiscal year. It concluded that less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggestions to secure the Southwest border mentioned the need for a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen other reports that contradict and I actually saw them on TV stating they want a WALL!!!!
> 
> *In four Customs and Border Protection sectors where physical barriers have been expanded — El Paso, Yuma, Tucson, and San Diego — illegal traffic has dropped by at least 90%.*
> 
> _*Dems pre-Trump:*
> 
> -Hillary: Supported border wall
> -Obama: More border security, illegals must speak English, go to back of line
> -Schumer: Border walls work
> -Reid: Offering benefits to illegals = insane
> -Feinstein: US can't be Mexico's welfare
> -Clinton: Illegal immigration is wrong_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I support border security.  A wall is a waste of money.  But watching the border is important.  You can watch the border with or without a wall.  And when you eventually stop watching the border without a wall then you don't feel stupid for building an unnecessary wall that was a huge waste of time and money and now has so many holes in it that it looks like swiss cheese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Watching doesn't prevent 1 person from crossing, drones, sensors and other technology won't prevent 1 person from crossing. Then we have to spend nearly $12,000 for each one we catch to deport them. Walls where erected have proven effective.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If Atlas wouldn't hire them, we would not have you budget wall assholes spending money.
Click to expand...



Yep, and until you commies get the balls to jail Atlas we need the wall.

.


----------



## OKTexas

otto105 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ignored what I previously wrote. i'll write it again.
> parents try to build, for their children, a better life so that their children don't have to go through the same trials and tribulations that they themselves had to. Over the course of generations it has gone from us fighting the British, living in log cabins and only eating what we kill, to what we have now. We earned the right to live this way because our ancestors did it for us. These illegals haven't. We can't allow them to flood our borders and ruin our lifestyle by sucking on Governmental teat, and working for substandard wages that won't allow us to maintain our current lifestyles. They need to put out the blood, sweat, and bullets to fix their own damn countries like we fixed ours. It isn't up to us to do it for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:
> 
> In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.
> 
> Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD
> 
> The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street
> 
> Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.
> 
> Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?
> 
> Let me put this into perspective:
> 
> America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.
> 
> Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.
> 
> Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.
> 
> Can we get any more screwed up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So fucking what. The country is as we made it and we don't need illegals coming here and ruining it for us. No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This country was made with immigration.
> 
> What you what is great white whale...er wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At one time immigrants were a benefit to this country.  Today they are a liability costing us billions a year.  Others have made claim slaves built this country, but we don't bring back slavery for that reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did slaves or immgraint labor add to GDP or not?
> 
> Did they thru hard work build wealth for our country or not?
Click to expand...



At this point, illegal aliens are a net negative. Stop trying to conflate legal and illegal, that's a tactic of a propagandist.

.


----------



## sealybobo

OKTexas said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You are only proving a point I've been making since I got on this thread. * The Democrats adopted the political idea BEFORE Trump came along.  It is not a conservative idea.
> 
> The talking points were pioneered by white supremacists and National Socialists back in the 1970s.  So, I would presume you have a point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only point is that border patrol agents want it and they are on the frontlines. I would think we would and should be willing to support them. That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> The report was based on internal Customs and Border Protection documents from the 2017 fiscal year. It concluded that less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggestions to secure the Southwest border mentioned the need for a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen other reports that contradict and I actually saw them on TV stating they want a WALL!!!!
> 
> *In four Customs and Border Protection sectors where physical barriers have been expanded — El Paso, Yuma, Tucson, and San Diego — illegal traffic has dropped by at least 90%.*
> 
> _*Dems pre-Trump:*
> 
> -Hillary: Supported border wall
> -Obama: More border security, illegals must speak English, go to back of line
> -Schumer: Border walls work
> -Reid: Offering benefits to illegals = insane
> -Feinstein: US can't be Mexico's welfare
> -Clinton: Illegal immigration is wrong_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I support border security.  A wall is a waste of money.  But watching the border is important.  You can watch the border with or without a wall.  And when you eventually stop watching the border without a wall then you don't feel stupid for building an unnecessary wall that was a huge waste of time and money and now has so many holes in it that it looks like swiss cheese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Watching doesn't prevent 1 person from crossing, drones, sensors and other technology won't prevent 1 person from crossing. Then we have to spend nearly $12,000 for each one we catch to deport them. Walls where erected have proven effective.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

If you watch, stop them and don’t let them in that works.

An unlatched area of wall won’t stop shit. So you just wasted $5 billion.

We didn’t have a problem until Reagan. He and GW Bush stopped cracking down on employers who hire illegals. If we go back to the way things were, illegals would go home. No employer would dare hire them..

Again, no wall necessary.

We survived all these years with no wall. Sorry trump you’re going to loose this one


----------



## OKTexas

sealybobo said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> My only point is that border patrol agents want it and they are on the frontlines. I would think we would and should be willing to support them. That is all.
> 
> 
> 
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> The report was based on internal Customs and Border Protection documents from the 2017 fiscal year. It concluded that less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggestions to secure the Southwest border mentioned the need for a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen other reports that contradict and I actually saw them on TV stating they want a WALL!!!!
> 
> *In four Customs and Border Protection sectors where physical barriers have been expanded — El Paso, Yuma, Tucson, and San Diego — illegal traffic has dropped by at least 90%.*
> 
> _*Dems pre-Trump:*
> 
> -Hillary: Supported border wall
> -Obama: More border security, illegals must speak English, go to back of line
> -Schumer: Border walls work
> -Reid: Offering benefits to illegals = insane
> -Feinstein: US can't be Mexico's welfare
> -Clinton: Illegal immigration is wrong_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I support border security.  A wall is a waste of money.  But watching the border is important.  You can watch the border with or without a wall.  And when you eventually stop watching the border without a wall then you don't feel stupid for building an unnecessary wall that was a huge waste of time and money and now has so many holes in it that it looks like swiss cheese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Watching doesn't prevent 1 person from crossing, drones, sensors and other technology won't prevent 1 person from crossing. Then we have to spend nearly $12,000 for each one we catch to deport them. Walls where erected have proven effective.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you watch, stop them and don’t let them in that works.
> 
> An unlatched area of wall won’t stop shit. So you just wasted $5 billion.
> 
> We didn’t have a problem until Reagan. He and GW Bush stopped cracking down on employers who hire illegals. If we go back to the way things were, illegals would go home. No employer would dare hire them..
> 
> Again, no wall necessary.
> 
> We survived all these years with no wall. Sorry trump you’re going to loose this one
Click to expand...



What you are refusing to acknowledge is that past illegal aliens were single working aged males that wanted to send money home to support their family. They were mostly from Mexico and could easily be removed.

Now we have whole families and unaccompanied minors, the law requires they be treated differently. They are overwhelming the system established to process and care for them. Right now we have almost a million pending asylum cases and thousands a month added to that backlog.

Another thing you seem not to understand is border patrol agent can NOT physically prevent an illegal alien form entering, all they can do is arrest and detain them AFTER they have entered, then the courts and the law gives them due process rights. The only legal way to prevent entry is a barrier that prevents entry in the first place.

Also I doubt Trump is monitoring this forum so your last sentence was a waste of band width. But feel free to try to refute the facts I've presented.

.


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ad hominems and other fallacies is all the right wing has.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we also have the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> true Gamorans and true Sodomites make better citizens than false Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not Christian. Now go assfuck another donkey, you know you want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no truth value; who cares what you think if you have no witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
Click to expand...

nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we also have the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> true Gamorans and true Sodomites make better citizens than false Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not Christian. Now go assfuck another donkey, you know you want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no truth value; who cares what you think if you have no witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.
Click to expand...

What do the first amendment have to do with immigration? Does it give someone a right to throw rocks at our Law Enforcement officers?


----------



## dblack

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> true Gamorans and true Sodomites make better citizens than false Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not Christian. Now go assfuck another donkey, you know you want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no truth value; who cares what you think if you have no witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do the first amendment have to do with immigration? Does it give someone a right to throw rocks at our Law Enforcement officers?
Click to expand...


Tell us more about "living wage".


----------



## Slyhunter

dblack said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not Christian. Now go assfuck another donkey, you know you want to.
> 
> 
> 
> you have no truth value; who cares what you think if you have no witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do the first amendment have to do with immigration? Does it give someone a right to throw rocks at our Law Enforcement officers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us more about "living wage".
Click to expand...

I don't get out of bed for less than $10 an hour. If I can't make enough money to pay my rent and end up homeless I'm not going to work for substandard wages. I'll shoplift lunch from Walmart first. and retire in prison for slapping a cop.

If you don't get paid enough to pay the rent then the job isn't worth working.


----------



## dblack

Slyhunter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no truth value; who cares what you think if you have no witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do the first amendment have to do with immigration? Does it give someone a right to throw rocks at our Law Enforcement officers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us more about "living wage".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't get out of bed for less than $10 an hour. If I can't make enough money to pay my rent and end up homeless I'm not going to work for substandard wages. I'll shoplift lunch from Walmart first. and retire in prison for slapping a cop.
> 
> If you don't get paid enough to pay the rent then the job isn't worth working.
Click to expand...


Big Daddy guberment has to make sure we're all making enough money - keep out them dirty poor people.


----------



## sealybobo

OKTexas said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
> 
> The report was based on internal Customs and Border Protection documents from the 2017 fiscal year. It concluded that less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggestions to secure the Southwest border mentioned the need for a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen other reports that contradict and I actually saw them on TV stating they want a WALL!!!!
> 
> *In four Customs and Border Protection sectors where physical barriers have been expanded — El Paso, Yuma, Tucson, and San Diego — illegal traffic has dropped by at least 90%.*
> 
> _*Dems pre-Trump:*
> 
> -Hillary: Supported border wall
> -Obama: More border security, illegals must speak English, go to back of line
> -Schumer: Border walls work
> -Reid: Offering benefits to illegals = insane
> -Feinstein: US can't be Mexico's welfare
> -Clinton: Illegal immigration is wrong_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I support border security.  A wall is a waste of money.  But watching the border is important.  You can watch the border with or without a wall.  And when you eventually stop watching the border without a wall then you don't feel stupid for building an unnecessary wall that was a huge waste of time and money and now has so many holes in it that it looks like swiss cheese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Watching doesn't prevent 1 person from crossing, drones, sensors and other technology won't prevent 1 person from crossing. Then we have to spend nearly $12,000 for each one we catch to deport them. Walls where erected have proven effective.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you watch, stop them and don’t let them in that works.
> 
> An unlatched area of wall won’t stop shit. So you just wasted $5 billion.
> 
> We didn’t have a problem until Reagan. He and GW Bush stopped cracking down on employers who hire illegals. If we go back to the way things were, illegals would go home. No employer would dare hire them..
> 
> Again, no wall necessary.
> 
> We survived all these years with no wall. Sorry trump you’re going to loose this one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you are refusing to acknowledge is that past illegal aliens were single working aged males that wanted to send money home to support their family. They were mostly from Mexico and could easily be removed.
> 
> Now we have whole families and unaccompanied minors, the law requires they be treated differently. They are overwhelming the system established to process and care for them. Right now we have almost a million pending asylum cases and thousands a month added to that backlog.
> 
> Another thing you seem not to understand is border patrol agent can NOT physically prevent an illegal alien form entering, all they can do is arrest and detain them AFTER they have entered, then the courts and the law gives them due process rights. The only legal way to prevent entry is a barrier that prevents entry in the first place.
> 
> Also I doubt Trump is monitoring this forum so your last sentence was a waste of band width. But feel free to try to refute the facts I've presented.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

You’re not listening to anything I say and you believe the wall is the silver bullet.

Texas should pay for it. States rights.


----------



## Geaux4it

Slyhunter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no truth value; who cares what you think if you have no witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do the first amendment have to do with immigration? Does it give someone a right to throw rocks at our Law Enforcement officers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us more about "living wage".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't get out of bed for less than $10 an hour. If I can't make enough money to pay my rent and end up homeless I'm not going to work for substandard wages. I'll shoplift lunch from Walmart first. and retire in prison for slapping a cop.
> 
> If you don't get paid enough to pay the rent then the job isn't worth working.
Click to expand...

In that case, you need two jobs

-Geaux


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's out of bounds?  Your argument is that they are trash and have no Rights. They aren't even human beings.  Read the thread.  Prove it. How in the Hell is that "out of bounds?"  I'd say you got checkmated.
> 
> Just because you hate people and think we're going to become lily white does not mean that YOU are not out of bounds either.  I'm just as sick of you as you are of me.  You know FULL WELL that those from south of the border have a Right to Life.  It is an unalienable Right - as is Liberty.  Explained the immigration law to you in post # 2086.
> 
> 
> 
> I never fucking said that moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say you specifically said it OR have I not made my point clear to you?  I'm not here to sell you any point of view.  I'm trying to find the consensus.  If you interfere and want to debate me when I don't want to debate (this IS a discussion forum), then it is only logical to say, birds of a feather flock together.  So, instead of seeing how many posts you can make, make your point and move on.  I'm debating roughly eight people at a time and am NOT going to continue answering the same questions over and over.  Read the freaking thread and quit posting so much if you want answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm in 15 different threads and you're having trouble dealing with just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you being attacked to the point that, at 80 wpm, for every one post you respond to, another ten posts are created that are directed toward you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You worry about the current one and when finished move on to the next.
> Maybe you should write fewer dissertations and just get to the point, you don't think the wall will prevent people from coming into our country and I think it will stop a lot of them.
Click to expand...


I KNOW it will not prevent crossings and have written "dissertations" as you call them with irrefutable empirical evidence.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Each day I am on this board trying to find some consensus.  Ray just wants the brown people gone; AzogtheDefiler says that they are trash.  Here's where I am:
> 
> If you think those people are not human beings, why not load up your AR and go to the border and shoot them like you would any other rodent?  What's stopping you?  The only consensus I've seen thus far is that they are not human beings and, consequently do not have Rights.  Possums don't have Rights.  So people shoot them.  In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> You ignored what I previously wrote. i'll write it again.
> parents try to build, for their children, a better life so that their children don't have to go through the same trials and tribulations that they themselves had to. Over the course of generations it has gone from us fighting the British, living in log cabins and only eating what we kill, to what we have now. We earned the right to live this way because our ancestors did it for us. These illegals haven't. We can't allow them to flood our borders and ruin our lifestyle by sucking on Governmental teat, and working for substandard wages that won't allow us to maintain our current lifestyles. They need to put out the blood, sweat, and bullets to fix their own damn countries like we fixed ours. It isn't up to us to do it for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a statement, not a question.  The reality is, the average American is only worthy of being a victim of the truth.  To wit:
> 
> In America, the government tries to tell parents how to rear their children.  The thing of it is, if you follow their guidelines, the government's idea of parenting is a clusterphuck of a disaster.  I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.  Since parents cannot properly rear their children, they take their children to doctors or ask the government what to do.
> 
> Children end up on *Ritalin* or *Adderall* for the *NONEXISTENT *conditions called ADD / ADHD
> 
> The child begins to age and is then put on *Opioids* for "anxiety" and some will skip the legalities and buy opioids off the street
> 
> Many of those will start using illegal drugs like M*arijuana, Heroin, Oxycontin, Crack,* etc.Parents with good insurance will see their kids put on *SSRIs*.
> 
> Eventually, a large number of these people will become hard core drug addicts and they will acquire a criminal record.  Being addicts they will not have any critical thinking skills, reasoning skills, and / or social skills.  Most of those will not even finish high school.  By the time they turn 26 they are dropped from mommy's insurance.  So, now you have drug addicts with no education, no job skills, no reasoning skills, fifty tattoos, numerous body piercings, and a criminal record.  So, who in the Hell is going to hire these people?
> 
> Let me put this into perspective:
> 
> America has about* 4 percent of the world's population* yet we consume over *80 percent of the world's opioid supply*.  We have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - the United States accounts for about *22 percent* of the world's prison population. *For every drug addict in a mental health facility being treated for drugs, there are more than ten drug addicts being held in prisons*.
> 
> Instead of crying out for a need to get parents parenting, we are comfortable with allowing the government and Big Pharma rearing the children with drugs as opposed to allowing normal growing behavior to occur.  Drugs become the first line of defense, not the last in dealing with the problems of children.
> 
> Now, these drug addicts have only way to support their habit and live any kind of lifestyle - sell drugs to the next generation.  The problem is a societal issue, but we would rather waste money on the border to fight back at drug cartels while parents, the government and Big Pharma are *creating the addicts*... which in turn creates the drug cartels.
> 
> Can we get any more screwed up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find the post where I said they were trash. That is an outright lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You stand behind the crowd that DID say it.  I cannot "debate" as the delusional build the wall guys call it and be expected to say who said what when I'm trying to answer all of you at 80 wpm.  If you wanted an answer, you would limit the posts and give me time to find out who said exactly what.  All I can say is, you don't want the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you lied. Thanks for clarifying. You sinned. To hell you go.
Click to expand...


You are lying by making such a baseless allegation.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never fucking said that moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say you specifically said it OR have I not made my point clear to you?  I'm not here to sell you any point of view.  I'm trying to find the consensus.  If you interfere and want to debate me when I don't want to debate (this IS a discussion forum), then it is only logical to say, birds of a feather flock together.  So, instead of seeing how many posts you can make, make your point and move on.  I'm debating roughly eight people at a time and am NOT going to continue answering the same questions over and over.  Read the freaking thread and quit posting so much if you want answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm in 15 different threads and you're having trouble dealing with just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you being attacked to the point that, at 80 wpm, for every one post you respond to, another ten posts are created that are directed toward you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You worry about the current one and when finished move on to the next.
> Maybe you should write fewer dissertations and just get to the point, you don't think the wall will prevent people from coming into our country and I think it will stop a lot of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I KNOW it will not prevent crossings and have written "dissertations" as you call them with irrefutable empirical evidence.
Click to expand...

The your either an idiot or a liar because it will stop a large part of it. Yes it won't stop all of it but it doesn't have to, to be effective.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
> 
> 
> 
> They come here uninvited.  Then DEMAND entry.  They are not citizens of this country and have no right to demand anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong.  Foreigners come here because they ARE invited.  A LOT of your American brethren are hiring them, renting to them, buying from them,. selling to them.  We're not at war with them.  As a matter of FACT, the welcome mat (the Statue of Liberty) has this on the base of the statue:
> _"Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> _
> We are not in a war with them and if they get anything from the government, it is by way of politicians YOU elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hiring them is against the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the law is unconstitutional and is without any relevance - Said so in post # 2086.  It's why they have a Hell of a time enforcing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Post # 2086 isn't yours, care to try again?
> 
> .
Click to expand...



At 80 wpm, it is possible to be imperfect.  It is actually post # 2806


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say you specifically said it OR have I not made my point clear to you?  I'm not here to sell you any point of view.  I'm trying to find the consensus.  If you interfere and want to debate me when I don't want to debate (this IS a discussion forum), then it is only logical to say, birds of a feather flock together.  So, instead of seeing how many posts you can make, make your point and move on.  I'm debating roughly eight people at a time and am NOT going to continue answering the same questions over and over.  Read the freaking thread and quit posting so much if you want answers.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in 15 different threads and you're having trouble dealing with just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you being attacked to the point that, at 80 wpm, for every one post you respond to, another ten posts are created that are directed toward you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You worry about the current one and when finished move on to the next.
> Maybe you should write fewer dissertations and just get to the point, you don't think the wall will prevent people from coming into our country and I think it will stop a lot of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I KNOW it will not prevent crossings and have written "dissertations" as you call them with irrefutable empirical evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The your either an idiot or a liar because it will stop a large part of it. Yes it won't stop all of it but it doesn't have to, to be effective.
Click to expand...



Look, quit posting; allow me to get caught up and instead of you spouting shit you don't say to people face to face, I will reply to you ind depth.  If all you want to do is call me a liar when you haven't told the truth once, then I will place you on ignore.  Give me an hour and then it's you and me OR you can talk to the hand as they used to say.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I raised my kids as i see fit.  The only issue is the stupity in schools .  Where disipline is out the door.  When grew up, if i did wrong they paddled my butt, and i got it again when i got home.  And i desrved it.
> 
> Now they are worried about being sued  and trying to teach or kids Morality.  That isnt their place.
> 
> You are dancing here.  Where are you from.  You screwed up earlier and let that out in a post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you doing bad drugs?  You're worried so much about me you can't focus on the issue.  One minute I'm being accused of "dancing" and the next people are backpedaling because even though they don't like me, they understand I'm direct and consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are also a liar. Is that not a sin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you said it don't make it true.  What are you afraid of?  Why don't you quit posting for an hour, allow me to answer others and focus on who said what?  Are you afraid?  Everybody thinks they are due an answer, but nobody wants to give me an opportunity.  I'm not lying.  I'm trying to fight eight battles at the same time.  You couldn't do it snowflake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find where I said they were trash. All I said was let’s do what the border patrol agents recommend. Not once did I say anything negative about the people from Mexico. Sorry you lied. Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I called them trash. he has trouble telling the difference between you and I.
> Not all of them are "riff raff" but the ones leaving their country to come here are the worst of the worse in poverty status. The rich ones aren't sneaking across the border.
Click to expand...



I don't have the time to remember who said what when both of you attacking me.  Two on one.  What's the matter?  Both of you got to hold each other's hand because you're afraid to take me one on one - and then have the unmitigated gall to call me a liar???  You shouldn't make statements like that.  When I'm outnumbered and you make those claims, you are being cowardly - and that we both know.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> More fudged figures.  OMG.  I already presented two non-partisan studies.  Wasn't it you who challenged one of them as being biased ?  And I got that study that disagrees with you from someone arguing YOUR points.  The bottom line, all B.S. aside, when both sides of the accounting ledger are counted, "it's a wash."  That was the term used in several studies over the years.  Those are the studies Congress sees.
> 
> So are we arguing walls OR costs?  Do we have to rehash this crap every 50 or so posts?  Save your pecking.  Asked and answered in posts 2806, 3475, 3476 and 3613.
> 
> This shotgun approach to whatever in the Hell it is you do, is hilarious.  Come up with something that has not been responded to.  Can you answer any of my questions?
> 
> Where do your unalienable Rights come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cited sources, all you have is your spew.,prove them wrong. And I'm citing monetary and human costs to justify the wall. And my rights are irrelevant to this discussion unless I'm killed or injured by an illegal alien tomorrow, they have deprived 10s of thousands of American their rights.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should have reread that post before making it.  Let me put this to you another way:
> 
> You can cite all the monetary costs you want.  THAT, sir, is *THE DISCONNECT*.Why are foreigners in the United States working?  Foreigners come here because it's profitable.  Your lobbying efforts DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT *BOTH SIDES* OF THE ACCOUNTING LEDGER.
> 
> That is how you're being proven wrong.  You have to look at the contributions foreigners make in order to understand the whole picture.  When this is done, from a financial perspective, the foreigners ARE profitable.  That is why Bill O'Reilly hired them; it's why Donald Trump uses them.
> 
> If you were not such a wall cultist, you would be able to understand that I'm taking this abuse and staying in this discussion because *I AM FIGHTING WITH MY VERY LIFE FOR YOUR RIGHTS*.  I am fighting for YOUR Rights.  You are trying to win a war predicated on propaganda, denying the REAL reason foreigners come here, with the false expectation you can keep them out, and without a real understanding of what and why the current immigration laws exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well child if you have been paying attention you'd know I'm all for jailing people that employ illegal aliens, the supposed charities that are helping fund them and provide lawyers to go south of the border to coach them on what to say and help them get settled once they're here. Anyone who harbors or enables illegal aliens should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
> 
> Also you have yet to explain how the current walls that cover about 1/3rd of the southern border has effected my or anyone else's rights. Or why adding an additional 10% would suddenly cause them to do so.
> 
> If you have something to say, lay it out in plain language, with credible links, I'm not concerned with your feelings.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times is it required of me to lay out the links?  Damn, son, I've done it at least half a dozen times, complete with irrefutable links.  Tell you what - if you will keep a list of the links and present them from here on out, I will redo my work for at least the SEVENTH time and then you promise to NEVER ask me that question and when someone from your side does challenge me, YOU post the post numbers.  Deal?
> 
> You're dangerous.  You would jail people for controlling their own property?  And you dare call others commiecrats???  WTH?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I would jail people for engaging in a criminal enterprise, laws prohibit people from hiring, transporting or harboring illegals in any manner. Lawyers who conspire with illegals to defraud the US should also be jailed. Roughly 9% of asylum claims are found to have merit, but they get through the initial screening because they are coached on what to say.
> 
> Also the only link you've provided to me was from a left wing academic who ignored the direct and indirect costs of illegal aliens. Your taxes are higher, your auto insurance is higher, your health care is higher, your wages are lower and the list could go on and on and all can be, in part attributed to illegals aliens. It offsets, by far, anything they may contribute. I've already covered the human costs to our citizens, if Americans truly knew the over all costs of illegal aliens they would revolt and demand a stop to it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The link I provided was used by someone ON YOUR SIDE OF THE DISCUSSION in another of these kinds of threads.  Culled it from another board.  Nice try, but no cigar.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in 15 different threads and you're having trouble dealing with just one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you being attacked to the point that, at 80 wpm, for every one post you respond to, another ten posts are created that are directed toward you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You worry about the current one and when finished move on to the next.
> Maybe you should write fewer dissertations and just get to the point, you don't think the wall will prevent people from coming into our country and I think it will stop a lot of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I KNOW it will not prevent crossings and have written "dissertations" as you call them with irrefutable empirical evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The your either an idiot or a liar because it will stop a large part of it. Yes it won't stop all of it but it doesn't have to, to be effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look, quit posting; allow me to get caught up and instead of you spouting shit you don't say to people face to face, I will reply to you ind depth.  If all you want to do is call me a liar when you haven't told the truth once, then I will place you on ignore.  Give me an hour and then it's you and me OR you can talk to the hand as they used to say.
Click to expand...

That isn't how a political forum works.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> My math is simple:
> 
> I run ads on Craigslist, in community papers and list with the Dept. of Labor.  People don't even show up for an interview.
> 
> I could give you the *REAL* reason this happens, but it would take more than twenty words and you would not admit it.  I can show you a hundred people today under 40 that have never worked a job and they won't.  Most of it is the fault of people who back bad legislation because you're wholly uninformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pay more. Supply/Demand economics. What is the job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a minister with a jobs program.  We have temp, temp to perm and permanent jobs in many fields from laborers to farm workers and from warehouse workers to construction / handymen positions.
> 
> Whites will not work the jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your anecdotal stories don't hold true across the country, I have 5 guys numbers, all white, all citizens, I can call for handyman work, brush clearing and other things. I have 5 acres and the forest is constantly trying to reclaim cleared areas.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anecdotal?  They do tv segments on it here.  It's statewide and we ran # 4 in the nation for the number of undocumented foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's anecdotal, what is happening in your State doesn't necessarily apply to others. If they're running TV segments I'm sure the print media is doing it also, yet you haven't provided one link to substantiate your claims.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Liar liar pants on fire.  Throughout this thread I've provided irrefutable links - just not going to keep looking them up and repeating them over and over.  It's childish and a waste of time.  READ THE DAMN THREAD.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay more. Supply/Demand economics. What is the job?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a minister with a jobs program.  We have temp, temp to perm and permanent jobs in many fields from laborers to farm workers and from warehouse workers to construction / handymen positions.
> 
> Whites will not work the jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your anecdotal stories don't hold true across the country, I have 5 guys numbers, all white, all citizens, I can call for handyman work, brush clearing and other things. I have 5 acres and the forest is constantly trying to reclaim cleared areas.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anecdotal?  They do tv segments on it here.  It's statewide and we ran # 4 in the nation for the number of undocumented foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's anecdotal, what is happening in your State doesn't necessarily apply to others. If they're running TV segments I'm sure the print media is doing it also, yet you haven't provided one link to substantiate your claims.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar liar pants on fire.  Throughout this thread I've provided irrefutable links - just not going to keep looking them up and repeating them over and over.  It's childish and a waste of time.  READ THE DAMN THREAD.
Click to expand...

Dude your links were liberal propaganda not irrefutable.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay more. Supply/Demand economics. What is the job?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a minister with a jobs program.  We have temp, temp to perm and permanent jobs in many fields from laborers to farm workers and from warehouse workers to construction / handymen positions.
> 
> Whites will not work the jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your anecdotal stories don't hold true across the country, I have 5 guys numbers, all white, all citizens, I can call for handyman work, brush clearing and other things. I have 5 acres and the forest is constantly trying to reclaim cleared areas.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anecdotal?  They do tv segments on it here.  It's statewide and we ran # 4 in the nation for the number of undocumented foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's anecdotal, what is happening in your State doesn't necessarily apply to others. If they're running TV segments I'm sure the print media is doing it also, yet you haven't provided one link to substantiate your claims.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar liar pants on fire.  Throughout this thread I've provided irrefutable links - just not going to keep looking them up and repeating them over and over.  It's childish and a waste of time.  READ THE DAMN THREAD.
Click to expand...


All I said was let’s listen to the border patrol agents first and foremost.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you being attacked to the point that, at 80 wpm, for every one post you respond to, another ten posts are created that are directed toward you?
> 
> 
> 
> You worry about the current one and when finished move on to the next.
> Maybe you should write fewer dissertations and just get to the point, you don't think the wall will prevent people from coming into our country and I think it will stop a lot of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I KNOW it will not prevent crossings and have written "dissertations" as you call them with irrefutable empirical evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The your either an idiot or a liar because it will stop a large part of it. Yes it won't stop all of it but it doesn't have to, to be effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look, quit posting; allow me to get caught up and instead of you spouting shit you don't say to people face to face, I will reply to you ind depth.  If all you want to do is call me a liar when you haven't told the truth once, then I will place you on ignore.  Give me an hour and then it's you and me OR you can talk to the hand as they used to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn't how a political forum works.
Click to expand...


I don't know how a political forum works, but calling people names back and forth is a waste of bandwidth.  But you've wanted me, you got my attention.

I DO know how a one on one debate works, so OPEN CHALLENGE.  I'll take you on in a forum of my choosing where we can both speak freely without fear of censorship and free from interruption.  

If you want to chicken out, then I'll give you a few minutes of my attention.  So, let us get the preliminaries out of the way:

1) I'm fighting at least eight different people on this thread at the same time.  IF I mis-attributed any statements to you then I apologize.  But, since it appeared to me that I was being ganged up on, there was no realistic opportunity to make a point, just counter-punch

2)  I came here to ask questions so as to best be informed on how to approach the subject; I didn't come here to debate my own conclusions.  If what you believe cannot withstand questioning and scrutiny, maybe you shouldn't share your views if you are that easily offended

3)  Having said that, without a laundry list of pretexts, explain to me WHY you want a border wall?  Bear in mind, there are follow up questions.


----------



## Slyhunter

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a minister with a jobs program.  We have temp, temp to perm and permanent jobs in many fields from laborers to farm workers and from warehouse workers to construction / handymen positions.
> 
> Whites will not work the jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your anecdotal stories don't hold true across the country, I have 5 guys numbers, all white, all citizens, I can call for handyman work, brush clearing and other things. I have 5 acres and the forest is constantly trying to reclaim cleared areas.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anecdotal?  They do tv segments on it here.  It's statewide and we ran # 4 in the nation for the number of undocumented foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's anecdotal, what is happening in your State doesn't necessarily apply to others. If they're running TV segments I'm sure the print media is doing it also, yet you haven't provided one link to substantiate your claims.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar liar pants on fire.  Throughout this thread I've provided irrefutable links - just not going to keep looking them up and repeating them over and over.  It's childish and a waste of time.  READ THE DAMN THREAD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I said was let’s listen to the border patrol agents first and foremost.
Click to expand...

They were on Fox and they said build the damn wall.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a minister with a jobs program.  We have temp, temp to perm and permanent jobs in many fields from laborers to farm workers and from warehouse workers to construction / handymen positions.
> 
> Whites will not work the jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your anecdotal stories don't hold true across the country, I have 5 guys numbers, all white, all citizens, I can call for handyman work, brush clearing and other things. I have 5 acres and the forest is constantly trying to reclaim cleared areas.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anecdotal?  They do tv segments on it here.  It's statewide and we ran # 4 in the nation for the number of undocumented foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's anecdotal, what is happening in your State doesn't necessarily apply to others. If they're running TV segments I'm sure the print media is doing it also, yet you haven't provided one link to substantiate your claims.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar liar pants on fire.  Throughout this thread I've provided irrefutable links - just not going to keep looking them up and repeating them over and over.  It's childish and a waste of time.  READ THE DAMN THREAD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude your links were liberal propaganda not irrefutable.
Click to expand...


I deliberately gave links posted by someone on YOUR side of the fence except for links from *non-partisan* sources that your legislators read on a regular basis.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You worry about the current one and when finished move on to the next.
> Maybe you should write fewer dissertations and just get to the point, you don't think the wall will prevent people from coming into our country and I think it will stop a lot of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I KNOW it will not prevent crossings and have written "dissertations" as you call them with irrefutable empirical evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The your either an idiot or a liar because it will stop a large part of it. Yes it won't stop all of it but it doesn't have to, to be effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look, quit posting; allow me to get caught up and instead of you spouting shit you don't say to people face to face, I will reply to you ind depth.  If all you want to do is call me a liar when you haven't told the truth once, then I will place you on ignore.  Give me an hour and then it's you and me OR you can talk to the hand as they used to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn't how a political forum works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how a political forum works, but calling people names back and forth is a waste of bandwidth.  But you've wanted me, you got my attention.
> 
> I DO know how a one on one debate works, so OPEN CHALLENGE.  I'll take you on in a forum of my choosing where we can both speak freely without fear of censorship and free from interruption.
> 
> If you want to chicken out, then I'll give you a few minutes of my attention.  So, let us get the preliminaries out of the way:
> 
> 1) I'm fighting at least eight different people on this thread at the same time.  IF I mis-attributed any statements to you then I apologize.  But, since it appeared to me that I was being ganged up on, there was no realistic opportunity to make a point, just counter-punch
> 
> 2)  I came here to ask questions so as to best be informed on how to approach the subject; I didn't come here to debate my own conclusions.  If what you believe cannot withstand questioning and scrutiny, maybe you shouldn't share your views if you are that easily offended
> 
> 3)  Having said that, without a laundry list of pretexts, explain to me WHY you want a border wall?  Bear in mind, there are follow up questions.
Click to expand...

This isn't a game for me. I'm not out to prove I'm a better debater than someone or anyone else. This shouldn't be a contest of skill but a contest of facts. And I've already said what I wanted to say and will will say more when and if I decide I have more to say.

I try not to call people names even when they call me names. But sometimes you have to call a liar out.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your anecdotal stories don't hold true across the country, I have 5 guys numbers, all white, all citizens, I can call for handyman work, brush clearing and other things. I have 5 acres and the forest is constantly trying to reclaim cleared areas.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anecdotal?  They do tv segments on it here.  It's statewide and we ran # 4 in the nation for the number of undocumented foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's anecdotal, what is happening in your State doesn't necessarily apply to others. If they're running TV segments I'm sure the print media is doing it also, yet you haven't provided one link to substantiate your claims.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar liar pants on fire.  Throughout this thread I've provided irrefutable links - just not going to keep looking them up and repeating them over and over.  It's childish and a waste of time.  READ THE DAMN THREAD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I said was let’s listen to the border patrol agents first and foremost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were on Fox and they said build the damn wall.
Click to expand...


You do realize that Fox News is owned primarily by a board of director on the Council on Foreign Relations and a Saudi Prince, right?  Do you honestly think they will give you unbiased facts?


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anecdotal?  They do tv segments on it here.  It's statewide and we ran # 4 in the nation for the number of undocumented foreigners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's anecdotal, what is happening in your State doesn't necessarily apply to others. If they're running TV segments I'm sure the print media is doing it also, yet you haven't provided one link to substantiate your claims.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar liar pants on fire.  Throughout this thread I've provided irrefutable links - just not going to keep looking them up and repeating them over and over.  It's childish and a waste of time.  READ THE DAMN THREAD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I said was let’s listen to the border patrol agents first and foremost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were on Fox and they said build the damn wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that Fox News is owned primarily by a board of director on the Council on Foreign Relations and a Saudi Prince, right?  Do you honestly think they will give you unbiased facts?
Click to expand...

I don't think they tell Hannity, and others, what to say when. Otherwise it would be another Liberal media station.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I KNOW it will not prevent crossings and have written "dissertations" as you call them with irrefutable empirical evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> The your either an idiot or a liar because it will stop a large part of it. Yes it won't stop all of it but it doesn't have to, to be effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look, quit posting; allow me to get caught up and instead of you spouting shit you don't say to people face to face, I will reply to you ind depth.  If all you want to do is call me a liar when you haven't told the truth once, then I will place you on ignore.  Give me an hour and then it's you and me OR you can talk to the hand as they used to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn't how a political forum works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how a political forum works, but calling people names back and forth is a waste of bandwidth.  But you've wanted me, you got my attention.
> 
> I DO know how a one on one debate works, so OPEN CHALLENGE.  I'll take you on in a forum of my choosing where we can both speak freely without fear of censorship and free from interruption.
> 
> If you want to chicken out, then I'll give you a few minutes of my attention.  So, let us get the preliminaries out of the way:
> 
> 1) I'm fighting at least eight different people on this thread at the same time.  IF I mis-attributed any statements to you then I apologize.  But, since it appeared to me that I was being ganged up on, there was no realistic opportunity to make a point, just counter-punch
> 
> 2)  I came here to ask questions so as to best be informed on how to approach the subject; I didn't come here to debate my own conclusions.  If what you believe cannot withstand questioning and scrutiny, maybe you shouldn't share your views if you are that easily offended
> 
> 3)  Having said that, without a laundry list of pretexts, explain to me WHY you want a border wall?  Bear in mind, there are follow up questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't a game for me. I'm not out to prove I'm a better debater than someone or anyone else. This shouldn't be a contest of skill but a contest of facts. And I've already said what I wanted to say and will will say more when and if I decide I have more to say.
> 
> I try not to call people names even when they call me names. But sometimes you have to call a liar out.
Click to expand...


You have not caught me in a lie.  You've only said that because you feel protected by majority rule on this board and you don't have to face me to make such cowardly statements.  Now, do you want to get past the penis measuring contest and have a discussion or do you want to force us to endure your snowflake feelings?


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The your either an idiot or a liar because it will stop a large part of it. Yes it won't stop all of it but it doesn't have to, to be effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, quit posting; allow me to get caught up and instead of you spouting shit you don't say to people face to face, I will reply to you ind depth.  If all you want to do is call me a liar when you haven't told the truth once, then I will place you on ignore.  Give me an hour and then it's you and me OR you can talk to the hand as they used to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn't how a political forum works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how a political forum works, but calling people names back and forth is a waste of bandwidth.  But you've wanted me, you got my attention.
> 
> I DO know how a one on one debate works, so OPEN CHALLENGE.  I'll take you on in a forum of my choosing where we can both speak freely without fear of censorship and free from interruption.
> 
> If you want to chicken out, then I'll give you a few minutes of my attention.  So, let us get the preliminaries out of the way:
> 
> 1) I'm fighting at least eight different people on this thread at the same time.  IF I mis-attributed any statements to you then I apologize.  But, since it appeared to me that I was being ganged up on, there was no realistic opportunity to make a point, just counter-punch
> 
> 2)  I came here to ask questions so as to best be informed on how to approach the subject; I didn't come here to debate my own conclusions.  If what you believe cannot withstand questioning and scrutiny, maybe you shouldn't share your views if you are that easily offended
> 
> 3)  Having said that, without a laundry list of pretexts, explain to me WHY you want a border wall?  Bear in mind, there are follow up questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't a game for me. I'm not out to prove I'm a better debater than someone or anyone else. This shouldn't be a contest of skill but a contest of facts. And I've already said what I wanted to say and will will say more when and if I decide I have more to say.
> 
> I try not to call people names even when they call me names. But sometimes you have to call a liar out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not caught me in a lie.  You've only said that because you feel protected by majority rule on this board and you don't have to face me to make such cowardly statements.  Now, do you want to get past the penis measuring contest and have a discussion or do you want to force us to endure your snowflake feelings?
Click to expand...

Walls stop people from crossing the point the wall crossed. Logic and common sense is all I need to know that.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's anecdotal, what is happening in your State doesn't necessarily apply to others. If they're running TV segments I'm sure the print media is doing it also, yet you haven't provided one link to substantiate your claims.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar liar pants on fire.  Throughout this thread I've provided irrefutable links - just not going to keep looking them up and repeating them over and over.  It's childish and a waste of time.  READ THE DAMN THREAD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I said was let’s listen to the border patrol agents first and foremost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were on Fox and they said build the damn wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that Fox News is owned primarily by a board of director on the Council on Foreign Relations and a Saudi Prince, right?  Do you honestly think they will give you unbiased facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think they tell Hannity, and others, what to say when. Otherwise it would be another Liberal media station.
Click to expand...


Sean Hannity is an entertainer, not a statesman.  I used to know the guy so many years ago, he'd drop me a line before the Internet came along.  He always joked and said he represented the fourth branch of government.  

He only says as much as the censors on Fox let him say.  Fox was set up to make it appear we have a free and independent press.  I question your sanity not to realize that they use that media to keep you from questioning the status quo.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, quit posting; allow me to get caught up and instead of you spouting shit you don't say to people face to face, I will reply to you ind depth.  If all you want to do is call me a liar when you haven't told the truth once, then I will place you on ignore.  Give me an hour and then it's you and me OR you can talk to the hand as they used to say.
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't how a political forum works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how a political forum works, but calling people names back and forth is a waste of bandwidth.  But you've wanted me, you got my attention.
> 
> I DO know how a one on one debate works, so OPEN CHALLENGE.  I'll take you on in a forum of my choosing where we can both speak freely without fear of censorship and free from interruption.
> 
> If you want to chicken out, then I'll give you a few minutes of my attention.  So, let us get the preliminaries out of the way:
> 
> 1) I'm fighting at least eight different people on this thread at the same time.  IF I mis-attributed any statements to you then I apologize.  But, since it appeared to me that I was being ganged up on, there was no realistic opportunity to make a point, just counter-punch
> 
> 2)  I came here to ask questions so as to best be informed on how to approach the subject; I didn't come here to debate my own conclusions.  If what you believe cannot withstand questioning and scrutiny, maybe you shouldn't share your views if you are that easily offended
> 
> 3)  Having said that, without a laundry list of pretexts, explain to me WHY you want a border wall?  Bear in mind, there are follow up questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't a game for me. I'm not out to prove I'm a better debater than someone or anyone else. This shouldn't be a contest of skill but a contest of facts. And I've already said what I wanted to say and will will say more when and if I decide I have more to say.
> 
> I try not to call people names even when they call me names. But sometimes you have to call a liar out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not caught me in a lie.  You've only said that because you feel protected by majority rule on this board and you don't have to face me to make such cowardly statements.  Now, do you want to get past the penis measuring contest and have a discussion or do you want to force us to endure your snowflake feelings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Walls stop people from crossing the point the wall crossed. Logic and common sense is all I need to know that.
Click to expand...


As has been said, walls can be breached in this day and time.

You miss the whole point.  Walls work to keep people out *ONLY* when those on the inside want to help keep them out.  The American people don't want to keep them out and that is why the legislators are having this discussion as a heated debate.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar liar pants on fire.  Throughout this thread I've provided irrefutable links - just not going to keep looking them up and repeating them over and over.  It's childish and a waste of time.  READ THE DAMN THREAD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I said was let’s listen to the border patrol agents first and foremost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were on Fox and they said build the damn wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that Fox News is owned primarily by a board of director on the Council on Foreign Relations and a Saudi Prince, right?  Do you honestly think they will give you unbiased facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think they tell Hannity, and others, what to say when. Otherwise it would be another Liberal media station.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sean Hannity is an entertainer, not a statesman.  I used to know the guy so many years ago, he'd drop me a line before the Internet came along.  He always joked and said he represented the fourth branch of government.
> 
> He only says as much as the censors on Fox let him say.  Fox was set up to make it appear we have a free and independent press.  I question your sanity not to realize that they use that media to keep you from questioning the status quo.
Click to expand...

I don't get all my news from Fox. But I also don't waste time watching or reading the left wing biased news except occasionally to see if they are still biased.
I like CRTV. I like www.drudgereport.com


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't how a political forum works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how a political forum works, but calling people names back and forth is a waste of bandwidth.  But you've wanted me, you got my attention.
> 
> I DO know how a one on one debate works, so OPEN CHALLENGE.  I'll take you on in a forum of my choosing where we can both speak freely without fear of censorship and free from interruption.
> 
> If you want to chicken out, then I'll give you a few minutes of my attention.  So, let us get the preliminaries out of the way:
> 
> 1) I'm fighting at least eight different people on this thread at the same time.  IF I mis-attributed any statements to you then I apologize.  But, since it appeared to me that I was being ganged up on, there was no realistic opportunity to make a point, just counter-punch
> 
> 2)  I came here to ask questions so as to best be informed on how to approach the subject; I didn't come here to debate my own conclusions.  If what you believe cannot withstand questioning and scrutiny, maybe you shouldn't share your views if you are that easily offended
> 
> 3)  Having said that, without a laundry list of pretexts, explain to me WHY you want a border wall?  Bear in mind, there are follow up questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't a game for me. I'm not out to prove I'm a better debater than someone or anyone else. This shouldn't be a contest of skill but a contest of facts. And I've already said what I wanted to say and will will say more when and if I decide I have more to say.
> 
> I try not to call people names even when they call me names. But sometimes you have to call a liar out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not caught me in a lie.  You've only said that because you feel protected by majority rule on this board and you don't have to face me to make such cowardly statements.  Now, do you want to get past the penis measuring contest and have a discussion or do you want to force us to endure your snowflake feelings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Walls stop people from crossing the point the wall crossed. Logic and common sense is all I need to know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As has been said, walls can be breached in this day and time.
> 
> You miss the whole point.  Walls work to keep people out *ONLY* when those on the inside want to help keep them out.  The American people don't want to keep them out and that is why the legislators are having this discussion as a heated debate.
Click to expand...

They are better than no wall.
The American people want to keep them out.
The establishment doesn't. Republicans want cheap labor, Dems want cheap votes. That is why we elected Trump to take out the establishment.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how a political forum works, but calling people names back and forth is a waste of bandwidth.  But you've wanted me, you got my attention.
> 
> I DO know how a one on one debate works, so OPEN CHALLENGE.  I'll take you on in a forum of my choosing where we can both speak freely without fear of censorship and free from interruption.
> 
> If you want to chicken out, then I'll give you a few minutes of my attention.  So, let us get the preliminaries out of the way:
> 
> 1) I'm fighting at least eight different people on this thread at the same time.  IF I mis-attributed any statements to you then I apologize.  But, since it appeared to me that I was being ganged up on, there was no realistic opportunity to make a point, just counter-punch
> 
> 2)  I came here to ask questions so as to best be informed on how to approach the subject; I didn't come here to debate my own conclusions.  If what you believe cannot withstand questioning and scrutiny, maybe you shouldn't share your views if you are that easily offended
> 
> 3)  Having said that, without a laundry list of pretexts, explain to me WHY you want a border wall?  Bear in mind, there are follow up questions.
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't a game for me. I'm not out to prove I'm a better debater than someone or anyone else. This shouldn't be a contest of skill but a contest of facts. And I've already said what I wanted to say and will will say more when and if I decide I have more to say.
> 
> I try not to call people names even when they call me names. But sometimes you have to call a liar out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not caught me in a lie.  You've only said that because you feel protected by majority rule on this board and you don't have to face me to make such cowardly statements.  Now, do you want to get past the penis measuring contest and have a discussion or do you want to force us to endure your snowflake feelings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Walls stop people from crossing the point the wall crossed. Logic and common sense is all I need to know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As has been said, walls can be breached in this day and time.
> 
> You miss the whole point.  Walls work to keep people out *ONLY* when those on the inside want to help keep them out.  The American people don't want to keep them out and that is why the legislators are having this discussion as a heated debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are better than no wall.
> The American people want to keep them out.
> The establishment doesn't. Republicans want cheap labor, Dems want cheap votes. That is why we elected Trump to take out the establishment.
Click to expand...


Just a few minutes ago, following the news conference, pollsters had it with almost 60 percent of the American people OPPOSING the wall.

Then you have the undecideds.  Your major problem, however is that the lawful / de jure / constitutional government in America is a Republic (See Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution)

So I repeat, from where do YOU get your unalienable Rights from?


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't a game for me. I'm not out to prove I'm a better debater than someone or anyone else. This shouldn't be a contest of skill but a contest of facts. And I've already said what I wanted to say and will will say more when and if I decide I have more to say.
> 
> I try not to call people names even when they call me names. But sometimes you have to call a liar out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not caught me in a lie.  You've only said that because you feel protected by majority rule on this board and you don't have to face me to make such cowardly statements.  Now, do you want to get past the penis measuring contest and have a discussion or do you want to force us to endure your snowflake feelings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Walls stop people from crossing the point the wall crossed. Logic and common sense is all I need to know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As has been said, walls can be breached in this day and time.
> 
> You miss the whole point.  Walls work to keep people out *ONLY* when those on the inside want to help keep them out.  The American people don't want to keep them out and that is why the legislators are having this discussion as a heated debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are better than no wall.
> The American people want to keep them out.
> The establishment doesn't. Republicans want cheap labor, Dems want cheap votes. That is why we elected Trump to take out the establishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a few minutes ago, following the news conference, pollsters had it with almost 60 percent of the American people OPPOSING the wall.
> 
> Then you have the undecideds.  Your major problem, however is that the lawful / de jure / constitutional government in America is a Republic (See Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution)
> 
> So I repeat, from where do YOU get your unalienable Rights from?
Click to expand...

I don't trust Liberal pollsters.
Also most conservatives don't answer the phone to those they don't know so they don't get polled so their opinion is never included in the polls. But they are included on voting day.


----------



## OKTexas

sealybobo said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen other reports that contradict and I actually saw them on TV stating they want a WALL!!!!
> 
> *In four Customs and Border Protection sectors where physical barriers have been expanded — El Paso, Yuma, Tucson, and San Diego — illegal traffic has dropped by at least 90%.*
> 
> _*Dems pre-Trump:*
> 
> -Hillary: Supported border wall
> -Obama: More border security, illegals must speak English, go to back of line
> -Schumer: Border walls work
> -Reid: Offering benefits to illegals = insane
> -Feinstein: US can't be Mexico's welfare
> -Clinton: Illegal immigration is wrong_
> 
> 
> 
> I support border security.  A wall is a waste of money.  But watching the border is important.  You can watch the border with or without a wall.  And when you eventually stop watching the border without a wall then you don't feel stupid for building an unnecessary wall that was a huge waste of time and money and now has so many holes in it that it looks like swiss cheese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Watching doesn't prevent 1 person from crossing, drones, sensors and other technology won't prevent 1 person from crossing. Then we have to spend nearly $12,000 for each one we catch to deport them. Walls where erected have proven effective.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you watch, stop them and don’t let them in that works.
> 
> An unlatched area of wall won’t stop shit. So you just wasted $5 billion.
> 
> We didn’t have a problem until Reagan. He and GW Bush stopped cracking down on employers who hire illegals. If we go back to the way things were, illegals would go home. No employer would dare hire them..
> 
> Again, no wall necessary.
> 
> We survived all these years with no wall. Sorry trump you’re going to loose this one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you are refusing to acknowledge is that past illegal aliens were single working aged males that wanted to send money home to support their family. They were mostly from Mexico and could easily be removed.
> 
> Now we have whole families and unaccompanied minors, the law requires they be treated differently. They are overwhelming the system established to process and care for them. Right now we have almost a million pending asylum cases and thousands a month added to that backlog.
> 
> Another thing you seem not to understand is border patrol agent can NOT physically prevent an illegal alien form entering, all they can do is arrest and detain them AFTER they have entered, then the courts and the law gives them due process rights. The only legal way to prevent entry is a barrier that prevents entry in the first place.
> 
> Also I doubt Trump is monitoring this forum so your last sentence was a waste of band width. But feel free to try to refute the facts I've presented.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re not listening to anything I say and you believe the wall is the silver bullet.
> 
> Texas should pay for it. States rights.
Click to expand...



Never said it was a silver bullet, it's just part of the solution, but your claims that todays illegals are the same as in the past is BS. I notice you didn't even try to actually rebut what I actually said. So carry on with your intellectually dishonest crap and I'll continue to smile at your ignorance.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not caught me in a lie.  You've only said that because you feel protected by majority rule on this board and you don't have to face me to make such cowardly statements.  Now, do you want to get past the penis measuring contest and have a discussion or do you want to force us to endure your snowflake feelings?
> 
> 
> 
> Walls stop people from crossing the point the wall crossed. Logic and common sense is all I need to know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As has been said, walls can be breached in this day and time.
> 
> You miss the whole point.  Walls work to keep people out *ONLY* when those on the inside want to help keep them out.  The American people don't want to keep them out and that is why the legislators are having this discussion as a heated debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are better than no wall.
> The American people want to keep them out.
> The establishment doesn't. Republicans want cheap labor, Dems want cheap votes. That is why we elected Trump to take out the establishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a few minutes ago, following the news conference, pollsters had it with almost 60 percent of the American people OPPOSING the wall.
> 
> Then you have the undecideds.  Your major problem, however is that the lawful / de jure / constitutional government in America is a Republic (See Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution)
> 
> So I repeat, from where do YOU get your unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't trust Liberal pollsters.
> Also most conservatives don't answer the phone to those they don't know so they don't get polled so their opinion is never included in the polls. But they are included on voting day.
Click to expand...


You would believe the pollsters if the numbers were in your favor.  The point is, a significant number of Americans are against the wall.

And so, I ask, from where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?


----------



## dblack

Porter Rockwell said:


> And so, I ask, from where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?



Trump. Duh!


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walls stop people from crossing the point the wall crossed. Logic and common sense is all I need to know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As has been said, walls can be breached in this day and time.
> 
> You miss the whole point.  Walls work to keep people out *ONLY* when those on the inside want to help keep them out.  The American people don't want to keep them out and that is why the legislators are having this discussion as a heated debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are better than no wall.
> The American people want to keep them out.
> The establishment doesn't. Republicans want cheap labor, Dems want cheap votes. That is why we elected Trump to take out the establishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a few minutes ago, following the news conference, pollsters had it with almost 60 percent of the American people OPPOSING the wall.
> 
> Then you have the undecideds.  Your major problem, however is that the lawful / de jure / constitutional government in America is a Republic (See Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution)
> 
> So I repeat, from where do YOU get your unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't trust Liberal pollsters.
> Also most conservatives don't answer the phone to those they don't know so they don't get polled so their opinion is never included in the polls. But they are included on voting day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would believe the pollsters if the numbers were in your favor.  The point is, a significant number of Americans are against the wall.
> 
> And so, I ask, from where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?
Click to expand...

I'm Agnostic.
I believe Intelligent life is more important than other life. I believe individuals should be free to do any damn thing they want to do as long as it doesn't stop another individual from having his rights.
I believe my ancestors built this country for me to appreciate it and I don't have to give away the stuff I take for granted and end up losing it all to a bunch of people from poverty stricken countries unwilling to fix their own damn countries.
I believe there are 158 million poverty folks on this planet and they can't all come here. They are lucky we allow a million a year to come here.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> As has been said, walls can be breached in this day and time.
> 
> You miss the whole point.  Walls work to keep people out *ONLY* when those on the inside want to help keep them out.  The American people don't want to keep them out and that is why the legislators are having this discussion as a heated debate.
> 
> 
> 
> They are better than no wall.
> The American people want to keep them out.
> The establishment doesn't. Republicans want cheap labor, Dems want cheap votes. That is why we elected Trump to take out the establishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a few minutes ago, following the news conference, pollsters had it with almost 60 percent of the American people OPPOSING the wall.
> 
> Then you have the undecideds.  Your major problem, however is that the lawful / de jure / constitutional government in America is a Republic (See Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution)
> 
> So I repeat, from where do YOU get your unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't trust Liberal pollsters.
> Also most conservatives don't answer the phone to those they don't know so they don't get polled so their opinion is never included in the polls. But they are included on voting day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would believe the pollsters if the numbers were in your favor.  The point is, a significant number of Americans are against the wall.
> 
> And so, I ask, from where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm Agnostic.
> I believe Intelligent life is more important than other life. I believe individuals should be free to do any damn thing they want to do as long as it doesn't stop another individual from having his rights.
> I believe my ancestors built this country for me to appreciate it and I don't have to give away the stuff I take for granted and end up losing it all to a bunch of people from poverty stricken countries unwilling to fix their own damn countries.
> I believe there are 158 million poverty folks on this planet and they can't all come here. They are lucky we allow a million a year to come here.
Click to expand...


So, like Ray, you think that rights are inalienable?  Do you, like he, believe that our Rights come through mortal men who can vote for or against what they will or will not give you in terms of Liberty?

So, when an employer hires a foreigner, how do you justify taking away his Rights?  As I see it, owning private property is one of the greatest hallmarks of our constitutional Republic.  Do you disagree with that?


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are better than no wall.
> The American people want to keep them out.
> The establishment doesn't. Republicans want cheap labor, Dems want cheap votes. That is why we elected Trump to take out the establishment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a few minutes ago, following the news conference, pollsters had it with almost 60 percent of the American people OPPOSING the wall.
> 
> Then you have the undecideds.  Your major problem, however is that the lawful / de jure / constitutional government in America is a Republic (See Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution)
> 
> So I repeat, from where do YOU get your unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't trust Liberal pollsters.
> Also most conservatives don't answer the phone to those they don't know so they don't get polled so their opinion is never included in the polls. But they are included on voting day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would believe the pollsters if the numbers were in your favor.  The point is, a significant number of Americans are against the wall.
> 
> And so, I ask, from where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm Agnostic.
> I believe Intelligent life is more important than other life. I believe individuals should be free to do any damn thing they want to do as long as it doesn't stop another individual from having his rights.
> I believe my ancestors built this country for me to appreciate it and I don't have to give away the stuff I take for granted and end up losing it all to a bunch of people from poverty stricken countries unwilling to fix their own damn countries.
> I believe there are 158 million poverty folks on this planet and they can't all come here. They are lucky we allow a million a year to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, like Ray, you think that rights are inalienable?  Do you, like he, believe that our Rights come through mortal men who can vote for or against what they will or will not give you in terms of Liberty?
> 
> So, when an employer hires a foreigner, how do you justify taking away his Rights?  As I see it, owning private property is one of the greatest hallmarks of our constitutional Republic.  Do you disagree with that?
Click to expand...

I already answered that. Father builds better life for their children, through the generations I benefit from my ancestors sweat, work, blood, bullets and have the life I have now. We Americans earned our lives as they exist here and now. These foreigners did not.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They come here uninvited.  Then DEMAND entry.  They are not citizens of this country and have no right to demand anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong.  Foreigners come here because they ARE invited.  A LOT of your American brethren are hiring them, renting to them, buying from them,. selling to them.  We're not at war with them.  As a matter of FACT, the welcome mat (the Statue of Liberty) has this on the base of the statue:
> _"Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> _
> We are not in a war with them and if they get anything from the government, it is by way of politicians YOU elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hiring them is against the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the law is unconstitutional and is without any relevance - Said so in post # 2086.  It's why they have a Hell of a time enforcing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Post # 2086 isn't yours, care to try again?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> At 80 wpm, it is possible to be imperfect.  It is actually post # 2806
Click to expand...



Hey thanks for the laugh, all the supremes did in that case was uphold the commerce clause and the immigration powers the Constitution vested in congress after 1808. But good try.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a few minutes ago, following the news conference, pollsters had it with almost 60 percent of the American people OPPOSING the wall.
> 
> Then you have the undecideds.  Your major problem, however is that the lawful / de jure / constitutional government in America is a Republic (See Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution)
> 
> So I repeat, from where do YOU get your unalienable Rights from?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't trust Liberal pollsters.
> Also most conservatives don't answer the phone to those they don't know so they don't get polled so their opinion is never included in the polls. But they are included on voting day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would believe the pollsters if the numbers were in your favor.  The point is, a significant number of Americans are against the wall.
> 
> And so, I ask, from where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm Agnostic.
> I believe Intelligent life is more important than other life. I believe individuals should be free to do any damn thing they want to do as long as it doesn't stop another individual from having his rights.
> I believe my ancestors built this country for me to appreciate it and I don't have to give away the stuff I take for granted and end up losing it all to a bunch of people from poverty stricken countries unwilling to fix their own damn countries.
> I believe there are 158 million poverty folks on this planet and they can't all come here. They are lucky we allow a million a year to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, like Ray, you think that rights are inalienable?  Do you, like he, believe that our Rights come through mortal men who can vote for or against what they will or will not give you in terms of Liberty?
> 
> So, when an employer hires a foreigner, how do you justify taking away his Rights?  As I see it, owning private property is one of the greatest hallmarks of our constitutional Republic.  Do you disagree with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already answered that. Father builds better life for their children, through the generations I benefit from my ancestors sweat, work, blood, bullets and have the life I have now. We Americans earned our lives as they exist here and now. These foreigners did not.
Click to expand...


You have accused me of lying.  I'm now asking you honest questions and am ready to ignore all others IF you have a question for me.  But, right now you are deflecting.

The subject of the OP is: Why is building the wall wrong?  How can I formulate an answer to that if the criteria are subjective as opposed to objective?  I'm not trying to insult you, but your thinking regarding our foundational principles prevents you and I from having an objective discussion about the topic.  To repeating a point, the Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights*, that among these are Life, *Liberty* and the pursuit of Happiness."

In this discussion, in my mind, that is the most important issue to be addressed.  Our forefathers believed that your Rights are unalienable.  That means they are above the reach of the law.  Liberty is one of them.  So, I have concluded, unless you clarify it for me, that the majority can revoke a person's Liberty on the basis of a popularity vote.  Is that your view?


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cited sources, all you have is your spew.,prove them wrong. And I'm citing monetary and human costs to justify the wall. And my rights are irrelevant to this discussion unless I'm killed or injured by an illegal alien tomorrow, they have deprived 10s of thousands of American their rights.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should have reread that post before making it.  Let me put this to you another way:
> 
> You can cite all the monetary costs you want.  THAT, sir, is *THE DISCONNECT*.Why are foreigners in the United States working?  Foreigners come here because it's profitable.  Your lobbying efforts DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT *BOTH SIDES* OF THE ACCOUNTING LEDGER.
> 
> That is how you're being proven wrong.  You have to look at the contributions foreigners make in order to understand the whole picture.  When this is done, from a financial perspective, the foreigners ARE profitable.  That is why Bill O'Reilly hired them; it's why Donald Trump uses them.
> 
> If you were not such a wall cultist, you would be able to understand that I'm taking this abuse and staying in this discussion because *I AM FIGHTING WITH MY VERY LIFE FOR YOUR RIGHTS*.  I am fighting for YOUR Rights.  You are trying to win a war predicated on propaganda, denying the REAL reason foreigners come here, with the false expectation you can keep them out, and without a real understanding of what and why the current immigration laws exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well child if you have been paying attention you'd know I'm all for jailing people that employ illegal aliens, the supposed charities that are helping fund them and provide lawyers to go south of the border to coach them on what to say and help them get settled once they're here. Anyone who harbors or enables illegal aliens should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
> 
> Also you have yet to explain how the current walls that cover about 1/3rd of the southern border has effected my or anyone else's rights. Or why adding an additional 10% would suddenly cause them to do so.
> 
> If you have something to say, lay it out in plain language, with credible links, I'm not concerned with your feelings.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times is it required of me to lay out the links?  Damn, son, I've done it at least half a dozen times, complete with irrefutable links.  Tell you what - if you will keep a list of the links and present them from here on out, I will redo my work for at least the SEVENTH time and then you promise to NEVER ask me that question and when someone from your side does challenge me, YOU post the post numbers.  Deal?
> 
> You're dangerous.  You would jail people for controlling their own property?  And you dare call others commiecrats???  WTH?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I would jail people for engaging in a criminal enterprise, laws prohibit people from hiring, transporting or harboring illegals in any manner. Lawyers who conspire with illegals to defraud the US should also be jailed. Roughly 9% of asylum claims are found to have merit, but they get through the initial screening because they are coached on what to say.
> 
> Also the only link you've provided to me was from a left wing academic who ignored the direct and indirect costs of illegal aliens. Your taxes are higher, your auto insurance is higher, your health care is higher, your wages are lower and the list could go on and on and all can be, in part attributed to illegals aliens. It offsets, by far, anything they may contribute. I've already covered the human costs to our citizens, if Americans truly knew the over all costs of illegal aliens they would revolt and demand a stop to it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The link I provided was used by someone ON YOUR SIDE OF THE DISCUSSION in another of these kinds of threads.  Culled it from another board.  Nice try, but no cigar.
Click to expand...



Yet you felt the need to post it here, did you actually read it or just scan the summary? Also if someone on my side used it, they're an idiot. Feel free to tell them I said so.

Now would you care to actually address what I said instead of deflecting to the link?

.

.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't trust Liberal pollsters.
> Also most conservatives don't answer the phone to those they don't know so they don't get polled so their opinion is never included in the polls. But they are included on voting day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would believe the pollsters if the numbers were in your favor.  The point is, a significant number of Americans are against the wall.
> 
> And so, I ask, from where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm Agnostic.
> I believe Intelligent life is more important than other life. I believe individuals should be free to do any damn thing they want to do as long as it doesn't stop another individual from having his rights.
> I believe my ancestors built this country for me to appreciate it and I don't have to give away the stuff I take for granted and end up losing it all to a bunch of people from poverty stricken countries unwilling to fix their own damn countries.
> I believe there are 158 million poverty folks on this planet and they can't all come here. They are lucky we allow a million a year to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, like Ray, you think that rights are inalienable?  Do you, like he, believe that our Rights come through mortal men who can vote for or against what they will or will not give you in terms of Liberty?
> 
> So, when an employer hires a foreigner, how do you justify taking away his Rights?  As I see it, owning private property is one of the greatest hallmarks of our constitutional Republic.  Do you disagree with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already answered that. Father builds better life for their children, through the generations I benefit from my ancestors sweat, work, blood, bullets and have the life I have now. We Americans earned our lives as they exist here and now. These foreigners did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have accused me of lying.  I'm now asking you honest questions and am ready to ignore all others IF you have a question for me.  But, right now you are deflecting.
> 
> The subject of the OP is: Why is building the wall wrong?  How can I formulate an answer to that if the criteria are subjective as opposed to objective?  I'm not trying to insult you, but your thinking regarding our foundational principles prevents you and I from having an objective discussion about the topic.  To repeating a point, the Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights*, that among these are Life, *Liberty* and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> In this discussion, in my mind, that is the most important issue to be addressed.  Our forefathers believed that your Rights are unalienable.  That means they are above the reach of the law.  Liberty is one of them.  So, I have concluded, unless you clarify it for me, that the majority can revoke a person's Liberty on the basis of a popularity vote.  Is that your view?
Click to expand...

The wall is not wrong because saying so means trying to keep people out of our country is wrong and that's not wrong because foreigners do not have a right to come here unless we let them.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong.  Foreigners come here because they ARE invited.  A LOT of your American brethren are hiring them, renting to them, buying from them,. selling to them.  We're not at war with them.  As a matter of FACT, the welcome mat (the Statue of Liberty) has this on the base of the statue:
> _"Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> _
> We are not in a war with them and if they get anything from the government, it is by way of politicians YOU elected.
> 
> 
> 
> Hiring them is against the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the law is unconstitutional and is without any relevance - Said so in post # 2086.  It's why they have a Hell of a time enforcing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Post # 2086 isn't yours, care to try again?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> At 80 wpm, it is possible to be imperfect.  It is actually post # 2806
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey thanks for the laugh, all the supremes did in that case was uphold the commerce clause and the immigration powers the Constitution vested in congress after 1808. But goo try.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



You cannot read.  In 1808 state immigration officials were to collect a $10 tax per person they had in their states.  That is why, in 1875, California had state immigration officials.  That is over half a century AFTER your misrepresentation of the facts.

BTW, I'm in one discussion tonight.  Any way you can wait til tomorrow to give me a sporting chance to respond to you?


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay more. Supply/Demand economics. What is the job?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a minister with a jobs program.  We have temp, temp to perm and permanent jobs in many fields from laborers to farm workers and from warehouse workers to construction / handymen positions.
> 
> Whites will not work the jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your anecdotal stories don't hold true across the country, I have 5 guys numbers, all white, all citizens, I can call for handyman work, brush clearing and other things. I have 5 acres and the forest is constantly trying to reclaim cleared areas.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anecdotal?  They do tv segments on it here.  It's statewide and we ran # 4 in the nation for the number of undocumented foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's anecdotal, what is happening in your State doesn't necessarily apply to others. If they're running TV segments I'm sure the print media is doing it also, yet you haven't provided one link to substantiate your claims.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar liar pants on fire.  Throughout this thread I've provided irrefutable links - just not going to keep looking them up and repeating them over and over.  It's childish and a waste of time.  READ THE DAMN THREAD.
Click to expand...



I don't recall a link on this particular topic, but I be glad to take a look if you can point to one.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would believe the pollsters if the numbers were in your favor.  The point is, a significant number of Americans are against the wall.
> 
> And so, I ask, from where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm Agnostic.
> I believe Intelligent life is more important than other life. I believe individuals should be free to do any damn thing they want to do as long as it doesn't stop another individual from having his rights.
> I believe my ancestors built this country for me to appreciate it and I don't have to give away the stuff I take for granted and end up losing it all to a bunch of people from poverty stricken countries unwilling to fix their own damn countries.
> I believe there are 158 million poverty folks on this planet and they can't all come here. They are lucky we allow a million a year to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, like Ray, you think that rights are inalienable?  Do you, like he, believe that our Rights come through mortal men who can vote for or against what they will or will not give you in terms of Liberty?
> 
> So, when an employer hires a foreigner, how do you justify taking away his Rights?  As I see it, owning private property is one of the greatest hallmarks of our constitutional Republic.  Do you disagree with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already answered that. Father builds better life for their children, through the generations I benefit from my ancestors sweat, work, blood, bullets and have the life I have now. We Americans earned our lives as they exist here and now. These foreigners did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have accused me of lying.  I'm now asking you honest questions and am ready to ignore all others IF you have a question for me.  But, right now you are deflecting.
> 
> The subject of the OP is: Why is building the wall wrong?  How can I formulate an answer to that if the criteria are subjective as opposed to objective?  I'm not trying to insult you, but your thinking regarding our foundational principles prevents you and I from having an objective discussion about the topic.  To repeating a point, the Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights*, that among these are Life, *Liberty* and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> In this discussion, in my mind, that is the most important issue to be addressed.  Our forefathers believed that your Rights are unalienable.  That means they are above the reach of the law.  Liberty is one of them.  So, I have concluded, unless you clarify it for me, that the majority can revoke a person's Liberty on the basis of a popularity vote.  Is that your view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall is not wrong because saying so means trying to keep people out of our country is wrong and that's not wrong because foreigners do not have a right to come here unless we let them.
Click to expand...


It would be wrong if:

A) All Americans have the equal protection of the laws (though I'm opposed to the 14th Amendment) and you violate them

B) That you interfere with the free market, the Rights of others to openly do business with us and use a wall as a means of control - which is the antithesis of Liberty.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hiring them is against the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the law is unconstitutional and is without any relevance - Said so in post # 2086.  It's why they have a Hell of a time enforcing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Post # 2086 isn't yours, care to try again?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> At 80 wpm, it is possible to be imperfect.  It is actually post # 2806
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey thanks for the laugh, all the supremes did in that case was uphold the commerce clause and the immigration powers the Constitution vested in congress after 1808. But goo try.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot read.  In 1808 state immigration officials were to collect a $10 tax per person they had in their states.  That is why, in 1875, California had state immigration officials.  That is over half a century AFTER your misrepresentation of the facts.
> 
> BTW, I'm in one discussion tonight.  Any way you can wait til tomorrow to give me a sporting chance to respond to you?
Click to expand...

Dude that isn't how this forum works. Anyone who wants to can reply to anything I say and I can't demand they wait their turn.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should have reread that post before making it.  Let me put this to you another way:
> 
> You can cite all the monetary costs you want.  THAT, sir, is *THE DISCONNECT*.Why are foreigners in the United States working?  Foreigners come here because it's profitable.  Your lobbying efforts DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT *BOTH SIDES* OF THE ACCOUNTING LEDGER.
> 
> That is how you're being proven wrong.  You have to look at the contributions foreigners make in order to understand the whole picture.  When this is done, from a financial perspective, the foreigners ARE profitable.  That is why Bill O'Reilly hired them; it's why Donald Trump uses them.
> 
> If you were not such a wall cultist, you would be able to understand that I'm taking this abuse and staying in this discussion because *I AM FIGHTING WITH MY VERY LIFE FOR YOUR RIGHTS*.  I am fighting for YOUR Rights.  You are trying to win a war predicated on propaganda, denying the REAL reason foreigners come here, with the false expectation you can keep them out, and without a real understanding of what and why the current immigration laws exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well child if you have been paying attention you'd know I'm all for jailing people that employ illegal aliens, the supposed charities that are helping fund them and provide lawyers to go south of the border to coach them on what to say and help them get settled once they're here. Anyone who harbors or enables illegal aliens should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
> 
> Also you have yet to explain how the current walls that cover about 1/3rd of the southern border has effected my or anyone else's rights. Or why adding an additional 10% would suddenly cause them to do so.
> 
> If you have something to say, lay it out in plain language, with credible links, I'm not concerned with your feelings.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times is it required of me to lay out the links?  Damn, son, I've done it at least half a dozen times, complete with irrefutable links.  Tell you what - if you will keep a list of the links and present them from here on out, I will redo my work for at least the SEVENTH time and then you promise to NEVER ask me that question and when someone from your side does challenge me, YOU post the post numbers.  Deal?
> 
> You're dangerous.  You would jail people for controlling their own property?  And you dare call others commiecrats???  WTH?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I would jail people for engaging in a criminal enterprise, laws prohibit people from hiring, transporting or harboring illegals in any manner. Lawyers who conspire with illegals to defraud the US should also be jailed. Roughly 9% of asylum claims are found to have merit, but they get through the initial screening because they are coached on what to say.
> 
> Also the only link you've provided to me was from a left wing academic who ignored the direct and indirect costs of illegal aliens. Your taxes are higher, your auto insurance is higher, your health care is higher, your wages are lower and the list could go on and on and all can be, in part attributed to illegals aliens. It offsets, by far, anything they may contribute. I've already covered the human costs to our citizens, if Americans truly knew the over all costs of illegal aliens they would revolt and demand a stop to it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The link I provided was used by someone ON YOUR SIDE OF THE DISCUSSION in another of these kinds of threads.  Culled it from another board.  Nice try, but no cigar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you felt the need to post it here, did you actually read it or just scan the summary? Also if someone on my side used it, they're an idiot. Feel free to tell them I said so.
> 
> Now would you care to actually address what I said instead of deflecting to the link?
> 
> .
> 
> .
Click to expand...


ANY chance I can discuss this stuff with slyhunter and come back to you later or do you feel that threatened that he can't fend for himself?  Can I please defend myself one at a time?


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm Agnostic.
> I believe Intelligent life is more important than other life. I believe individuals should be free to do any damn thing they want to do as long as it doesn't stop another individual from having his rights.
> I believe my ancestors built this country for me to appreciate it and I don't have to give away the stuff I take for granted and end up losing it all to a bunch of people from poverty stricken countries unwilling to fix their own damn countries.
> I believe there are 158 million poverty folks on this planet and they can't all come here. They are lucky we allow a million a year to come here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, like Ray, you think that rights are inalienable?  Do you, like he, believe that our Rights come through mortal men who can vote for or against what they will or will not give you in terms of Liberty?
> 
> So, when an employer hires a foreigner, how do you justify taking away his Rights?  As I see it, owning private property is one of the greatest hallmarks of our constitutional Republic.  Do you disagree with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already answered that. Father builds better life for their children, through the generations I benefit from my ancestors sweat, work, blood, bullets and have the life I have now. We Americans earned our lives as they exist here and now. These foreigners did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have accused me of lying.  I'm now asking you honest questions and am ready to ignore all others IF you have a question for me.  But, right now you are deflecting.
> 
> The subject of the OP is: Why is building the wall wrong?  How can I formulate an answer to that if the criteria are subjective as opposed to objective?  I'm not trying to insult you, but your thinking regarding our foundational principles prevents you and I from having an objective discussion about the topic.  To repeating a point, the Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights*, that among these are Life, *Liberty* and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> In this discussion, in my mind, that is the most important issue to be addressed.  Our forefathers believed that your Rights are unalienable.  That means they are above the reach of the law.  Liberty is one of them.  So, I have concluded, unless you clarify it for me, that the majority can revoke a person's Liberty on the basis of a popularity vote.  Is that your view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall is not wrong because saying so means trying to keep people out of our country is wrong and that's not wrong because foreigners do not have a right to come here unless we let them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be wrong if:
> 
> A) All Americans have the equal protection of the laws (though I'm opposed to the 14th Amendment) and you violate them
> 
> B) That you interfere with the free market, the Rights of others to openly do business with us and use a wall as a means of control - which is the antithesis of Liberty.
Click to expand...

Were allowed to collect tariffs and regulate the market through port of entry. Doesn't mean you can practice trade just anywhere along the border you want to.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the law is unconstitutional and is without any relevance - Said so in post # 2086.  It's why they have a Hell of a time enforcing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post # 2086 isn't yours, care to try again?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> At 80 wpm, it is possible to be imperfect.  It is actually post # 2806
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey thanks for the laugh, all the supremes did in that case was uphold the commerce clause and the immigration powers the Constitution vested in congress after 1808. But goo try.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot read.  In 1808 state immigration officials were to collect a $10 tax per person they had in their states.  That is why, in 1875, California had state immigration officials.  That is over half a century AFTER your misrepresentation of the facts.
> 
> BTW, I'm in one discussion tonight.  Any way you can wait til tomorrow to give me a sporting chance to respond to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude that isn't how this forum works. Anyone who wants to can reply to anything I say and I can't demand they wait their turn.
Click to expand...


Now you are bringing in reinforcements because yo cannot defend a position you realize is wrong.  *Okay, I accept your concession of defeat.*


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post # 2086 isn't yours, care to try again?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 80 wpm, it is possible to be imperfect.  It is actually post # 2806
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey thanks for the laugh, all the supremes did in that case was uphold the commerce clause and the immigration powers the Constitution vested in congress after 1808. But goo try.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot read.  In 1808 state immigration officials were to collect a $10 tax per person they had in their states.  That is why, in 1875, California had state immigration officials.  That is over half a century AFTER your misrepresentation of the facts.
> 
> BTW, I'm in one discussion tonight.  Any way you can wait til tomorrow to give me a sporting chance to respond to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude that isn't how this forum works. Anyone who wants to can reply to anything I say and I can't demand they wait their turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are bringing in reinforcements because yo cannot defend a position you realize is wrong.  *Okay, I accept your concession of defeat.*
Click to expand...

You are so full of shit. You sound like a Liberal.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, like Ray, you think that rights are inalienable?  Do you, like he, believe that our Rights come through mortal men who can vote for or against what they will or will not give you in terms of Liberty?
> 
> So, when an employer hires a foreigner, how do you justify taking away his Rights?  As I see it, owning private property is one of the greatest hallmarks of our constitutional Republic.  Do you disagree with that?
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered that. Father builds better life for their children, through the generations I benefit from my ancestors sweat, work, blood, bullets and have the life I have now. We Americans earned our lives as they exist here and now. These foreigners did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have accused me of lying.  I'm now asking you honest questions and am ready to ignore all others IF you have a question for me.  But, right now you are deflecting.
> 
> The subject of the OP is: Why is building the wall wrong?  How can I formulate an answer to that if the criteria are subjective as opposed to objective?  I'm not trying to insult you, but your thinking regarding our foundational principles prevents you and I from having an objective discussion about the topic.  To repeating a point, the Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights*, that among these are Life, *Liberty* and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> In this discussion, in my mind, that is the most important issue to be addressed.  Our forefathers believed that your Rights are unalienable.  That means they are above the reach of the law.  Liberty is one of them.  So, I have concluded, unless you clarify it for me, that the majority can revoke a person's Liberty on the basis of a popularity vote.  Is that your view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall is not wrong because saying so means trying to keep people out of our country is wrong and that's not wrong because foreigners do not have a right to come here unless we let them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be wrong if:
> 
> A) All Americans have the equal protection of the laws (though I'm opposed to the 14th Amendment) and you violate them
> 
> B) That you interfere with the free market, the Rights of others to openly do business with us and use a wall as a means of control - which is the antithesis of Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were allowed to collect tariffs and regulate the market through port of entry. Doesn't mean you can practice trade just anywhere along the border you want to.
Click to expand...


Irrelevant, besides I have acknowledged your *concession of defeat*. I I'm not going to try and fight three people at a time this late at night.

Let's face the facts:  If you can't take me alone, you're fucked.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post # 2086 isn't yours, care to try again?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 80 wpm, it is possible to be imperfect.  It is actually post # 2806
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey thanks for the laugh, all the supremes did in that case was uphold the commerce clause and the immigration powers the Constitution vested in congress after 1808. But goo try.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot read.  In 1808 state immigration officials were to collect a $10 tax per person they had in their states.  That is why, in 1875, California had state immigration officials.  That is over half a century AFTER your misrepresentation of the facts.
> 
> BTW, I'm in one discussion tonight.  Any way you can wait til tomorrow to give me a sporting chance to respond to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude that isn't how this forum works. Anyone who wants to can reply to anything I say and I can't demand they wait their turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are bringing in reinforcements because yo cannot defend a position you realize is wrong.  *Okay, I accept your concession of defeat.*
Click to expand...

This isn't a contest of skill. This isn't a game. This isn't a Debate class in school. You need to grow up.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> At 80 wpm, it is possible to be imperfect.  It is actually post # 2806
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey thanks for the laugh, all the supremes did in that case was uphold the commerce clause and the immigration powers the Constitution vested in congress after 1808. But goo try.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot read.  In 1808 state immigration officials were to collect a $10 tax per person they had in their states.  That is why, in 1875, California had state immigration officials.  That is over half a century AFTER your misrepresentation of the facts.
> 
> BTW, I'm in one discussion tonight.  Any way you can wait til tomorrow to give me a sporting chance to respond to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude that isn't how this forum works. Anyone who wants to can reply to anything I say and I can't demand they wait their turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are bringing in reinforcements because yo cannot defend a position you realize is wrong.  *Okay, I accept your concession of defeat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are so full of shit. You sound like a Liberal.
Click to expand...


You should know because everything you've posted leads back to socialism - which is liberalism,  *Since you cannot answer questions, I accept your concession of defeat.*


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered that. Father builds better life for their children, through the generations I benefit from my ancestors sweat, work, blood, bullets and have the life I have now. We Americans earned our lives as they exist here and now. These foreigners did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have accused me of lying.  I'm now asking you honest questions and am ready to ignore all others IF you have a question for me.  But, right now you are deflecting.
> 
> The subject of the OP is: Why is building the wall wrong?  How can I formulate an answer to that if the criteria are subjective as opposed to objective?  I'm not trying to insult you, but your thinking regarding our foundational principles prevents you and I from having an objective discussion about the topic.  To repeating a point, the Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights*, that among these are Life, *Liberty* and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> In this discussion, in my mind, that is the most important issue to be addressed.  Our forefathers believed that your Rights are unalienable.  That means they are above the reach of the law.  Liberty is one of them.  So, I have concluded, unless you clarify it for me, that the majority can revoke a person's Liberty on the basis of a popularity vote.  Is that your view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wall is not wrong because saying so means trying to keep people out of our country is wrong and that's not wrong because foreigners do not have a right to come here unless we let them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be wrong if:
> 
> A) All Americans have the equal protection of the laws (though I'm opposed to the 14th Amendment) and you violate them
> 
> B) That you interfere with the free market, the Rights of others to openly do business with us and use a wall as a means of control - which is the antithesis of Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were allowed to collect tariffs and regulate the market through port of entry. Doesn't mean you can practice trade just anywhere along the border you want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant, besides I have acknowledged your *concession of defeat*. I I'm not going to try and fight three people at a time this late at night.
> 
> Let's face the facts:  If you can't take me alone, you're fucked.
Click to expand...

Dude you were a bully in school weren't you. Or were you a nerd and your trying to be a bully online. Either way I'm not the one fucked.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a minister with a jobs program.  We have temp, temp to perm and permanent jobs in many fields from laborers to farm workers and from warehouse workers to construction / handymen positions.
> 
> Whites will not work the jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your anecdotal stories don't hold true across the country, I have 5 guys numbers, all white, all citizens, I can call for handyman work, brush clearing and other things. I have 5 acres and the forest is constantly trying to reclaim cleared areas.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anecdotal?  They do tv segments on it here.  It's statewide and we ran # 4 in the nation for the number of undocumented foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's anecdotal, what is happening in your State doesn't necessarily apply to others. If they're running TV segments I'm sure the print media is doing it also, yet you haven't provided one link to substantiate your claims.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar liar pants on fire.  Throughout this thread I've provided irrefutable links - just not going to keep looking them up and repeating them over and over.  It's childish and a waste of time.  READ THE DAMN THREAD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall a link on this particular topic, but I be glad to take a look if you can point to one.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Okay, slyhunter threw in the towel.  I'm not going to research that entire conversation and then read all the previous posts for you to answer a question.  Repeat the question you want answered.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey thanks for the laugh, all the supremes did in that case was uphold the commerce clause and the immigration powers the Constitution vested in congress after 1808. But goo try.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot read.  In 1808 state immigration officials were to collect a $10 tax per person they had in their states.  That is why, in 1875, California had state immigration officials.  That is over half a century AFTER your misrepresentation of the facts.
> 
> BTW, I'm in one discussion tonight.  Any way you can wait til tomorrow to give me a sporting chance to respond to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude that isn't how this forum works. Anyone who wants to can reply to anything I say and I can't demand they wait their turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are bringing in reinforcements because yo cannot defend a position you realize is wrong.  *Okay, I accept your concession of defeat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are so full of shit. You sound like a Liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should know because everything you've posted leads back to socialism - which is liberalism,  *Since you cannot answer questions, I accept your concession of defeat.*
Click to expand...

The fact that you don't like my answers does not mean I did not answer. Your bolded statement shows me you are actually immature. I'm not trying to win a game here just stating facts.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have accused me of lying.  I'm now asking you honest questions and am ready to ignore all others IF you have a question for me.  But, right now you are deflecting.
> 
> The subject of the OP is: Why is building the wall wrong?  How can I formulate an answer to that if the criteria are subjective as opposed to objective?  I'm not trying to insult you, but your thinking regarding our foundational principles prevents you and I from having an objective discussion about the topic.  To repeating a point, the Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator *with certain *unalienable Rights*, that among these are Life, *Liberty* and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> In this discussion, in my mind, that is the most important issue to be addressed.  Our forefathers believed that your Rights are unalienable.  That means they are above the reach of the law.  Liberty is one of them.  So, I have concluded, unless you clarify it for me, that the majority can revoke a person's Liberty on the basis of a popularity vote.  Is that your view?
> 
> 
> 
> The wall is not wrong because saying so means trying to keep people out of our country is wrong and that's not wrong because foreigners do not have a right to come here unless we let them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be wrong if:
> 
> A) All Americans have the equal protection of the laws (though I'm opposed to the 14th Amendment) and you violate them
> 
> B) That you interfere with the free market, the Rights of others to openly do business with us and use a wall as a means of control - which is the antithesis of Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were allowed to collect tariffs and regulate the market through port of entry. Doesn't mean you can practice trade just anywhere along the border you want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant, besides I have acknowledged your *concession of defeat*. I I'm not going to try and fight three people at a time this late at night.
> 
> Let's face the facts:  If you can't take me alone, you're fucked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude you were a bully in school weren't you. Or were you a nerd and your trying to be a bully online. Either way I'm not the one fucked.
Click to expand...


No, I was the really kind of quiet guy and one day I had enough of a bully.  It was like that scene in A Christmas Story.  Now, you've used your time to be dishonest while calling me a liar; you've deflected; you vied for my attention more than any other and when given the chance, you folded like a cheap accordion.  

I'm giving OKTexas his shot now, so sin loi victor charlie.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot read.  In 1808 state immigration officials were to collect a $10 tax per person they had in their states.  That is why, in 1875, California had state immigration officials.  That is over half a century AFTER your misrepresentation of the facts.
> 
> BTW, I'm in one discussion tonight.  Any way you can wait til tomorrow to give me a sporting chance to respond to you?
> 
> 
> 
> Dude that isn't how this forum works. Anyone who wants to can reply to anything I say and I can't demand they wait their turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are bringing in reinforcements because yo cannot defend a position you realize is wrong.  *Okay, I accept your concession of defeat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are so full of shit. You sound like a Liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should know because everything you've posted leads back to socialism - which is liberalism,  *Since you cannot answer questions, I accept your concession of defeat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that you don't like my answers does not mean I did not answer. Your bolded statement shows me you are actually immature. I'm not trying to win a game here just stating facts.
Click to expand...


Deflections are not facts.  Going to bed, OKTexas has to get someone else to help him try and take me down.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude that isn't how this forum works. Anyone who wants to can reply to anything I say and I can't demand they wait their turn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are bringing in reinforcements because yo cannot defend a position you realize is wrong.  *Okay, I accept your concession of defeat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are so full of shit. You sound like a Liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should know because everything you've posted leads back to socialism - which is liberalism,  *Since you cannot answer questions, I accept your concession of defeat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that you don't like my answers does not mean I did not answer. Your bolded statement shows me you are actually immature. I'm not trying to win a game here just stating facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deflections are not facts.
Click to expand...

I answered your question directly. We don't have to let them in if we don't want to.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are bringing in reinforcements because yo cannot defend a position you realize is wrong.  *Okay, I accept your concession of defeat.*
> 
> 
> 
> You are so full of shit. You sound like a Liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should know because everything you've posted leads back to socialism - which is liberalism,  *Since you cannot answer questions, I accept your concession of defeat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that you don't like my answers does not mean I did not answer. Your bolded statement shows me you are actually immature. I'm not trying to win a game here just stating facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deflections are not facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I answered your question directly. We don't have to let them in if we don't want to.
Click to expand...


But the majority of Americans DO want them in... even your savior Donnie Trump hired 'em.  See you tomorrow.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude that isn't how this forum works. Anyone who wants to can reply to anything I say and I can't demand they wait their turn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are bringing in reinforcements because yo cannot defend a position you realize is wrong.  *Okay, I accept your concession of defeat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are so full of shit. You sound like a Liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should know because everything you've posted leads back to socialism - which is liberalism,  *Since you cannot answer questions, I accept your concession of defeat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that you don't like my answers does not mean I did not answer. Your bolded statement shows me you are actually immature. I'm not trying to win a game here just stating facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deflections are not facts.  Going to bed, OKTexas has to get someone else to help him try and take me down.
Click to expand...

Hows this for a poll
A poll on Fox showed 50% of Independents supported a wall, vast majority of GOP, only Dems didn't
So apparently you lied about most of the people polled being against the wall.

I don't limit myself to just a single thread.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so full of shit. You sound like a Liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should know because everything you've posted leads back to socialism - which is liberalism,  *Since you cannot answer questions, I accept your concession of defeat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that you don't like my answers does not mean I did not answer. Your bolded statement shows me you are actually immature. I'm not trying to win a game here just stating facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deflections are not facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I answered your question directly. We don't have to let them in if we don't want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the majority of Americans DO want them in... even your savior Donnie Trump hired 'em.  See you tomorrow.
Click to expand...

That would be a lie.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walls stop people from crossing the point the wall crossed. Logic and common sense is all I need to know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As has been said, walls can be breached in this day and time.
> 
> You miss the whole point.  Walls work to keep people out *ONLY* when those on the inside want to help keep them out.  The American people don't want to keep them out and that is why the legislators are having this discussion as a heated debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are better than no wall.
> The American people want to keep them out.
> The establishment doesn't. Republicans want cheap labor, Dems want cheap votes. That is why we elected Trump to take out the establishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a few minutes ago, following the news conference, pollsters had it with almost 60 percent of the American people OPPOSING the wall.
> 
> Then you have the undecideds.  Your major problem, however is that the lawful / de jure / constitutional government in America is a Republic (See Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution)
> 
> So I repeat, from where do YOU get your unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't trust Liberal pollsters.
> Also most conservatives don't answer the phone to those they don't know so they don't get polled so their opinion is never included in the polls. But they are included on voting day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would believe the pollsters if the numbers were in your favor.  The point is, a significant number of Americans are against the wall.
> 
> And so, I ask, from where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?
Click to expand...



Would you expect otherwise with the MSM blasting it 24/7. The media isn't objectively reporting todays occurrences, they are advocating for the commiecrats.

.


----------



## Slyhunter

BTW while the Democrat party is full of socialists, not all liberals are socialists. Read up on Thomas Payne to see what a true Liberal is. I should stop using that word as an insult.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are better than no wall.
> The American people want to keep them out.
> The establishment doesn't. Republicans want cheap labor, Dems want cheap votes. That is why we elected Trump to take out the establishment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a few minutes ago, following the news conference, pollsters had it with almost 60 percent of the American people OPPOSING the wall.
> 
> Then you have the undecideds.  Your major problem, however is that the lawful / de jure / constitutional government in America is a Republic (See Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution)
> 
> So I repeat, from where do YOU get your unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't trust Liberal pollsters.
> Also most conservatives don't answer the phone to those they don't know so they don't get polled so their opinion is never included in the polls. But they are included on voting day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would believe the pollsters if the numbers were in your favor.  The point is, a significant number of Americans are against the wall.
> 
> And so, I ask, from where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm Agnostic.
> I believe Intelligent life is more important than other life. I believe individuals should be free to do any damn thing they want to do as long as it doesn't stop another individual from having his rights.
> I believe my ancestors built this country for me to appreciate it and I don't have to give away the stuff I take for granted and end up losing it all to a bunch of people from poverty stricken countries unwilling to fix their own damn countries.
> I believe there are 158 million poverty folks on this planet and they can't all come here. They are lucky we allow a million a year to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, like Ray, you think that rights are inalienable?  Do you, like he, believe that our Rights come through mortal men who can vote for or against what they will or will not give you in terms of Liberty?
> 
> So, when an employer hires a foreigner, how do you justify taking away his Rights?  As I see it, owning private property is one of the greatest hallmarks of our constitutional Republic.  Do you disagree with that?
Click to expand...



That's a strawman, if you want to argue the theoretical it belongs elsewhere, this is a discussion of what is. You have yet to explain how the existing wall on 1/3rd to the border is effecting your or any one else's rights. Or how an additional wall on 10% more would change anything related to rights.

If an employer hires and illegal he just became a criminal, like the person he hired. Criminals forfeit their rights. 

.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hiring them is against the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the law is unconstitutional and is without any relevance - Said so in post # 2086.  It's why they have a Hell of a time enforcing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Post # 2086 isn't yours, care to try again?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> At 80 wpm, it is possible to be imperfect.  It is actually post # 2806
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey thanks for the laugh, all the supremes did in that case was uphold the commerce clause and the immigration powers the Constitution vested in congress after 1808. But goo try.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot read.  In 1808 state immigration officials were to collect a $10 tax per person they had in their states.  That is why, in 1875, California had state immigration officials.  That is over half a century AFTER your misrepresentation of the facts.
> 
> BTW, I'm in one discussion tonight.  Any way you can wait til tomorrow to give me a sporting chance to respond to you?
Click to expand...



That's not what CA was doing, they were going far above that. A $500 bond in gold, where were they authorized to do that.

Also, this is an open forum, I'll respond to any post I chose.

.


----------



## Slyhunter

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a few minutes ago, following the news conference, pollsters had it with almost 60 percent of the American people OPPOSING the wall.
> 
> Then you have the undecideds.  Your major problem, however is that the lawful / de jure / constitutional government in America is a Republic (See Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution)
> 
> So I repeat, from where do YOU get your unalienable Rights from?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't trust Liberal pollsters.
> Also most conservatives don't answer the phone to those they don't know so they don't get polled so their opinion is never included in the polls. But they are included on voting day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would believe the pollsters if the numbers were in your favor.  The point is, a significant number of Americans are against the wall.
> 
> And so, I ask, from where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm Agnostic.
> I believe Intelligent life is more important than other life. I believe individuals should be free to do any damn thing they want to do as long as it doesn't stop another individual from having his rights.
> I believe my ancestors built this country for me to appreciate it and I don't have to give away the stuff I take for granted and end up losing it all to a bunch of people from poverty stricken countries unwilling to fix their own damn countries.
> I believe there are 158 million poverty folks on this planet and they can't all come here. They are lucky we allow a million a year to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, like Ray, you think that rights are inalienable?  Do you, like he, believe that our Rights come through mortal men who can vote for or against what they will or will not give you in terms of Liberty?
> 
> So, when an employer hires a foreigner, how do you justify taking away his Rights?  As I see it, owning private property is one of the greatest hallmarks of our constitutional Republic.  Do you disagree with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a strawman, if you want to argue the theoretical it belongs elsewhere, this is a discussion of what is. You have yet to explain how the existing wall on 1/3rd to the border is effecting your or any one else's rights. Or how an additional wall on 10% more would change anything related to rights.
> 
> If an employer hires and illegal he just became a criminal, like the person he hired. Criminals forfeit their rights.
> 
> .
> 
> .
Click to expand...

He believes that if an employer wants to hire someone for $1 an hour and someone is desperate enough to take the job that the employer should be free to do so. That not allowing the employer to hire slave labor is the equivalent of having a socialistic society.

I bet this guy is under the age of 25 and was practicing debate for his debate class and is a very immature guy.


----------



## otto105

Slyhunter said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just how would this wall stop anything?
> 
> People don't have ladders?
> 
> People don't have shovels?
> 
> How would an airplane land with a wall on the runway?
> 
> How does a wall work on a pier?
> 
> 
> 
> most of these illegals can't afford to buy food, they're not going to buy ladders. they are unfit and unhealthy and the harder we make it to get here the more likely they'll stay where they're at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just when do you get by sean handity talking points?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're my talking points and they're true.
Click to expand...


No, it’s just opinion.


----------



## Slyhunter

otto105 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just how would this wall stop anything?
> 
> People don't have ladders?
> 
> People don't have shovels?
> 
> How would an airplane land with a wall on the runway?
> 
> How does a wall work on a pier?
> 
> 
> 
> most of these illegals can't afford to buy food, they're not going to buy ladders. they are unfit and unhealthy and the harder we make it to get here the more likely they'll stay where they're at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just when do you get by sean handity talking points?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're my talking points and they're true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it’s just opinion.
Click to expand...

I can live with that.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well child if you have been paying attention you'd know I'm all for jailing people that employ illegal aliens, the supposed charities that are helping fund them and provide lawyers to go south of the border to coach them on what to say and help them get settled once they're here. Anyone who harbors or enables illegal aliens should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
> 
> Also you have yet to explain how the current walls that cover about 1/3rd of the southern border has effected my or anyone else's rights. Or why adding an additional 10% would suddenly cause them to do so.
> 
> If you have something to say, lay it out in plain language, with credible links, I'm not concerned with your feelings.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times is it required of me to lay out the links?  Damn, son, I've done it at least half a dozen times, complete with irrefutable links.  Tell you what - if you will keep a list of the links and present them from here on out, I will redo my work for at least the SEVENTH time and then you promise to NEVER ask me that question and when someone from your side does challenge me, YOU post the post numbers.  Deal?
> 
> You're dangerous.  You would jail people for controlling their own property?  And you dare call others commiecrats???  WTH?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I would jail people for engaging in a criminal enterprise, laws prohibit people from hiring, transporting or harboring illegals in any manner. Lawyers who conspire with illegals to defraud the US should also be jailed. Roughly 9% of asylum claims are found to have merit, but they get through the initial screening because they are coached on what to say.
> 
> Also the only link you've provided to me was from a left wing academic who ignored the direct and indirect costs of illegal aliens. Your taxes are higher, your auto insurance is higher, your health care is higher, your wages are lower and the list could go on and on and all can be, in part attributed to illegals aliens. It offsets, by far, anything they may contribute. I've already covered the human costs to our citizens, if Americans truly knew the over all costs of illegal aliens they would revolt and demand a stop to it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The link I provided was used by someone ON YOUR SIDE OF THE DISCUSSION in another of these kinds of threads.  Culled it from another board.  Nice try, but no cigar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you felt the need to post it here, did you actually read it or just scan the summary? Also if someone on my side used it, they're an idiot. Feel free to tell them I said so.
> 
> Now would you care to actually address what I said instead of deflecting to the link?
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ANY chance I can discuss this stuff with slyhunter and come back to you later or do you feel that threatened that he can't fend for himself?  Can I please defend myself one at a time?
Click to expand...



When you chose to reply to a post is up to you, likewise for myself.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your anecdotal stories don't hold true across the country, I have 5 guys numbers, all white, all citizens, I can call for handyman work, brush clearing and other things. I have 5 acres and the forest is constantly trying to reclaim cleared areas.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anecdotal?  They do tv segments on it here.  It's statewide and we ran # 4 in the nation for the number of undocumented foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's anecdotal, what is happening in your State doesn't necessarily apply to others. If they're running TV segments I'm sure the print media is doing it also, yet you haven't provided one link to substantiate your claims.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar liar pants on fire.  Throughout this thread I've provided irrefutable links - just not going to keep looking them up and repeating them over and over.  It's childish and a waste of time.  READ THE DAMN THREAD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall a link on this particular topic, but I be glad to take a look if you can point to one.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, slyhunter threw in the towel.  I'm not going to research that entire conversation and then read all the previous posts for you to answer a question.  Repeat the question you want answered.
Click to expand...



All you have to do is read that last few posts in this string, is that too much of a challenge?

.


----------



## OKTexas

Slyhunter said:


> BTW while the Democrat party is full of socialists, not all liberals are socialists. Read up on Thomas Payne to see what a true Liberal is. I should stop using that word as an insult.




I use regressives, it fits better.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Slyhunter said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't trust Liberal pollsters.
> Also most conservatives don't answer the phone to those they don't know so they don't get polled so their opinion is never included in the polls. But they are included on voting day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would believe the pollsters if the numbers were in your favor.  The point is, a significant number of Americans are against the wall.
> 
> And so, I ask, from where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm Agnostic.
> I believe Intelligent life is more important than other life. I believe individuals should be free to do any damn thing they want to do as long as it doesn't stop another individual from having his rights.
> I believe my ancestors built this country for me to appreciate it and I don't have to give away the stuff I take for granted and end up losing it all to a bunch of people from poverty stricken countries unwilling to fix their own damn countries.
> I believe there are 158 million poverty folks on this planet and they can't all come here. They are lucky we allow a million a year to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, like Ray, you think that rights are inalienable?  Do you, like he, believe that our Rights come through mortal men who can vote for or against what they will or will not give you in terms of Liberty?
> 
> So, when an employer hires a foreigner, how do you justify taking away his Rights?  As I see it, owning private property is one of the greatest hallmarks of our constitutional Republic.  Do you disagree with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a strawman, if you want to argue the theoretical it belongs elsewhere, this is a discussion of what is. You have yet to explain how the existing wall on 1/3rd to the border is effecting your or any one else's rights. Or how an additional wall on 10% more would change anything related to rights.
> 
> If an employer hires and illegal he just became a criminal, like the person he hired. Criminals forfeit their rights.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He believes that if an employer wants to hire someone for $1 an hour and someone is desperate enough to take the job that the employer should be free to do so. That not allowing the employer to hire slave labor is the equivalent of having a socialistic society.
> 
> I bet this guy is under the age of 25 and was practicing debate for his debate class and is a very immature guy.
Click to expand...



No he's at least late 60's and I agree that government shouldn't interfere with an employment contracts between citizens or legal residence. Illegals are a totally different story.

.


----------



## Flopper

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never fucking said that moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say you specifically said it OR have I not made my point clear to you?  I'm not here to sell you any point of view.  I'm trying to find the consensus.  If you interfere and want to debate me when I don't want to debate (this IS a discussion forum), then it is only logical to say, birds of a feather flock together.  So, instead of seeing how many posts you can make, make your point and move on.  I'm debating roughly eight people at a time and am NOT going to continue answering the same questions over and over.  Read the freaking thread and quit posting so much if you want answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm in 15 different threads and you're having trouble dealing with just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you being attacked to the point that, at 80 wpm, for every one post you respond to, another ten posts are created that are directed toward you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You worry about the current one and when finished move on to the next.
> Maybe you should write fewer dissertations and just get to the point, you don't think the wall will prevent people from coming into our country and I think it will stop a lot of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I KNOW it will not prevent crossings and have written "dissertations" as you call them with irrefutable empirical evidence.
Click to expand...


You can not build a wall on less than 10 percent of the border and expect any real impact because migrants will cross the 90 percent where there is no wall. 

The rebuttal is once we complete one section we build more. Will that ever occur?  By the time this part of the wall is complete we have another president who may not be Trump.   Even if Trump wins he’s very likely to be facing a divide congress.

 The bottom line is that the wall will never be competed and increased border security and improving condition south of the border will have reduced illegal immigration so low no one will care. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## toobfreak

OKTexas said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it fundamentally changes America from being a beacon of Freedom for the world to a country that aspires to be a gated community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, a gated community that welcomes the worthy.
> 
> .
Click to expand...




More than that, the "gate" has always been there in some form as the method by which we preserve ourselves AS the beacon of freedom!  The FREEDOM is for those of us living IN the United States.  The freedom has NEVER been about others outside the USA just being free to walk in here and do any damn thing they choose.  That might be "free" for them, but represents a HUGE loss of freedom for Americans, thus ultimately destroying America itself for the freedom it tries to preserve and represent.


----------



## toobfreak

otto105 said:


> Just how would this wall stop anything?



*The exact same way a wall stops you every time you run into one. * You really think you just dig a tunnel under a wall ten, twenty feet under ground and hundreds of feet long?   That's a major undertaking, takes a lot of people, work and time and sooner or later gets detected.  You really think it is an easy thing to carry a 40 foot ladder out into the middle of nowhere in the desert, climb up a 30 foot wall designed to make it hard to sit on top, pull the ladder up and over the top and down the other side to get down?  Only young, healthy, strong people can even try to do that, the kind of people that should be staying in Mexico trying to make a better way of life for their people rather than skipping out on it.  AND the kind of people most apt to do crime here or be potential terrorists.


----------



## toobfreak

otto105 said:


> sean handity



Yep.  Another Ace, Ivy Leaguer here!

More like another lefty goon with about an 8th grade education collecting carts at Walmart tapping on his smartphone.


----------



## toobfreak

otto105 said:


> This country was made with immigration.



CORRECTION, you drunken, beer bottle booze hound, it was made with LEGAL, documented, vetted immigration.


----------



## toobfreak

otto105 said:


> Because it fundamentally changes America from being a beacon of Freedom for the world to a country that aspires to be a gated community.




Hey asswipe, that freedom you speak of was why people wanted to come here from all over the world, because the freedom was inside America for Americans to live and enjoy.  It was never about any "freedom" for any ol' indigent BUM like you to just waltz in here with your sick, diseased, fly-infested family looking for support and a free handout.

We are a Beacon of Freedom IN the World, you Dolt, NOT a Beacon of Freedom FOR the World!


----------



## OKTexas

toobfreak said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it fundamentally changes America from being a beacon of Freedom for the world to a country that aspires to be a gated community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, a gated community that welcomes the worthy.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than that, the "gate" has always been there in some form as the method by which we preserve ourselves AS the beacon of freedom!  The FREEDOM is for those of us living IN the United States.  The freedom has NEVER been about others outside the USA just being free to walk in here and do any damn thing they choose.  That might be "free" for them, but represents a HUGE loss of freedom for Americans, thus ultimately destroying America itself for the freedom it tries to preserve and represent.
Click to expand...



The US has the most generous legal immigration policy of all the countries in the world. That's not good enough for the commies.

.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Flopper said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look to the facts from a study, on the cost burdens surrounding illegal immigrants.
> 
> “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion.”
> 
> 
> 
> So let's fix that. And let's do it without indulging the shackles of big government.
> 
> The problems we have are the welfare state and birth-right citizenship. Neither of those requires the Berlin wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China / Hong Kong (early 1960s) - 32 km
> Botswana / Zimbabwe 2003 - 500 km
> Bulgaria / Turkey 2014 - 30 km
> Chinese / Korean border fence (under construction) - 1,416 km
> Macedonia / Greece barrier  2015 - 30 km
> India / Myanmar barrier (under construction) - 1,624 km
> 
> Just the facts, and this is to name but a few. However, we are called to follow after other nations on how government faces health care?  Yet a wall is immoral and racist, despite other nations around the globe seeing fit to do so against illegal immigration.
> 
> Explain that one to me.  Anyone?
> 
> Even Harry Reid saw the burden of illegals on our nation, and that was 1993.  Look, liberals lost the cost argument on illegal immigration and now they are to lose on the nation’s border barrier argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The studies of immigration, legal or illegal seem to always focuses 1st generation immigrants since they differ the most from the general population. Second generation immigrants are much closer to the general population.  For example, in 2008 2nd generation immigrants earned and average of $42,297, 32% higher than their parents.  There educational level was higher than national average.  Their use of social programs like their parents was less than than than the national average and their violent crime rate was well below the national average.
> 
> Third generation immigrants are statistically about the same as the general population since most American identify themselves as third generation immigrants.  For Hispanic immigrants only 7% of third generation consider themselves Hispanic, Africans 13%, and Asians 15%.
> Majority of Americans Identify Themselves as Third Generation Americans
Click to expand...


Our own history has shown, those immigrants who came here from overseas (Africans, Asians) had to go through a national check point at Ellis Island before being allowed to enter the United States.   
In 1917, Congress approved the measure stating people who wished to settle in the U.S. now had to pass a literacy test.  Those who came into the United States had to prove they could be productive members of society, and most immigrants at that time had to learn English. Basic English is still expected among those who want to be American citizens today.  The point of the wall is to show other nations also developed immigration policies that did not include an open border, however these nations  established their chosen method where they have a greater chance to see HOW MANY immigrants were entering their country.  Allowing certain designated “checkpoints” is nothing new to the United States, as well as these kind of restrictions are even found today whenever any foreigner wishes to enter into Canada.  Every nation has immigration policies and laws that they each enforce. Choosing to have certain entry points on our southern border, is no different than restricting immigration of those who cross our northern border.


----------



## dblack

Slyhunter said:


> He believes that if an employer wants to hire someone for $1 an hour and someone is desperate enough to take the job that the employer should be free to do so.


Yes. That's how freedom and free markets work. People get to make their own decisions without asking the state for permission.


> That not allowing the employer to hire slave labor is the equivalent of having a socialistic society.



Comparing voluntary employment to slavery is an insult the memory of real slaves. But the policies you're advocating do  lean socialist. Wage and price controls are an important step in taking over the economy with government.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just how would this wall stop anything?
> 
> People don't have ladders?
> 
> People don't have shovels?
> 
> How would an airplane land with a wall on the runway?
> 
> How does a wall work on a pier?
> 
> 
> 
> most of these illegals can't afford to buy food, they're not going to buy ladders. they are unfit and unhealthy and the harder we make it to get here the more likely they'll stay where they're at.
Click to expand...

refugees are not illegal; and have to be processed individually.


----------



## danielpalos

toobfreak said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just how would this wall stop anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The exact same way a wall stops you every time you run into one. * You really think you just dig a tunnel under a wall ten, twenty feet under ground and hundreds of feet long?   That's a major undertaking, takes a lot of people, work and time and sooner or later gets detected.  You really think it is an easy thing to carry a 40 foot ladder out into the middle of nowhere in the desert, climb up a 30 foot wall designed to make it hard to sit on top, pull the ladder up and over the top and down the other side to get down?  Only young, healthy, strong people can even try to do that, the kind of people that should be staying in Mexico trying to make a better way of life for their people rather than skipping out on it.  AND the kind of people most apt to do crime here or be potential terrorists.
Click to expand...

there is no express wall building clause and we don't have an immigration clause.  it is a naturalization clause.  we should have no "illegal" problem; only lousy right wing management does that.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

dblack said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> He believes that if an employer wants to hire someone for $1 an hour and someone is desperate enough to take the job that the employer should be free to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That's how freedom and free markets work. People get to make their own decisions without asking the state for permission.
> 
> 
> 
> That not allowing the employer to hire slave labor is the equivalent of having a socialistic society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comparing voluntary employment to slavery is an insult the memory of real slaves. But the policies you're advocating do  lean socialist. Wage and price controls are an important step in taking over the economy with government.
Click to expand...


Hiring who you desire is free market, but bringing people in for you to choose from is not.  That is up to government.  Once they are approved to be here, then you can decide to hire them or not.  If you want to hire people outside our country, then move your business there.  


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are bringing in reinforcements because yo cannot defend a position you realize is wrong.  *Okay, I accept your concession of defeat.*
> 
> 
> 
> You are so full of shit. You sound like a Liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should know because everything you've posted leads back to socialism - which is liberalism,  *Since you cannot answer questions, I accept your concession of defeat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that you don't like my answers does not mean I did not answer. Your bolded statement shows me you are actually immature. I'm not trying to win a game here just stating facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deflections are not facts.  Going to bed, OKTexas has to get someone else to help him try and take me down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hows this for a poll
> A poll on Fox showed 50% of Independents supported a wall, vast majority of GOP, only Dems didn't
> So apparently you lied about most of the people polled being against the wall.
> 
> I don't limit myself to just a single thread.
Click to expand...


LMAO.  There are more registered Democrats than Repubs and when nearly a quarter of the Repubs are going left, the total numbers are against the wall.  You aren't ready for this discussion.  If you losing even on Fox, even by slim numbers, you have a problem.

We aren't a democracy, maybe you didn't know, so there is the issue of Liberty.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we also have the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> true Gamorans and true Sodomites make better citizens than false Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not Christian. Now go assfuck another donkey, you know you want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no truth value; who cares what you think if you have no witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.
Click to expand...

We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> true Gamorans and true Sodomites make better citizens than false Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not Christian. Now go assfuck another donkey, you know you want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no truth value; who cares what you think if you have no witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.
Click to expand...

there is no need to keep people out with a naturalization clause.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not Christian. Now go assfuck another donkey, you know you want to.
> 
> 
> 
> you have no truth value; who cares what you think if you have no witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no need to keep people out with a naturalization clause.
Click to expand...

So if a billion Chinese want to come here, we should let them all in?


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no truth value; who cares what you think if you have no witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no need to keep people out with a naturalization clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if a billion Chinese want to come here, we should let them all in?
Click to expand...

all won't stay.  Capitalism; What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing.  Tourism is the first, second, or third largest employer in twenty-nine States.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a few minutes ago, following the news conference, pollsters had it with almost 60 percent of the American people OPPOSING the wall.
> 
> Then you have the undecideds.  Your major problem, however is that the lawful / de jure / constitutional government in America is a Republic (See Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution)
> 
> So I repeat, from where do YOU get your unalienable Rights from?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't trust Liberal pollsters.
> Also most conservatives don't answer the phone to those they don't know so they don't get polled so their opinion is never included in the polls. But they are included on voting day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would believe the pollsters if the numbers were in your favor.  The point is, a significant number of Americans are against the wall.
> 
> And so, I ask, from where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm Agnostic.
> I believe Intelligent life is more important than other life. I believe individuals should be free to do any damn thing they want to do as long as it doesn't stop another individual from having his rights.
> I believe my ancestors built this country for me to appreciate it and I don't have to give away the stuff I take for granted and end up losing it all to a bunch of people from poverty stricken countries unwilling to fix their own damn countries.
> I believe there are 158 million poverty folks on this planet and they can't all come here. They are lucky we allow a million a year to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, like Ray, you think that rights are inalienable?  Do you, like he, believe that our Rights come through mortal men who can vote for or against what they will or will not give you in terms of Liberty?
> 
> So, when an employer hires a foreigner, how do you justify taking away his Rights?  As I see it, owning private property is one of the greatest hallmarks of our constitutional Republic.  Do you disagree with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a strawman, if you want to argue the theoretical it belongs elsewhere, this is a discussion of what is. You have yet to explain how the existing wall on 1/3rd to the border is effecting your or any one else's rights. Or how an additional wall on 10% more would change anything related to rights.
> 
> If an employer hires and illegal he just became a criminal, like the person he hired. Criminals forfeit their rights.
> 
> .
> 
> .
Click to expand...



AFTER I go to bed and you had tapped out, you come by for a hit and run?  Where I live you cannot pay an undocumented worker less than $10 an hour.  The local government don't waste their time chasing undocumented people since they understand that most of the laws you support are blatantly unconstitutional. I'll explain that to you in a moment.

I have answered your question at least *six times *on this thread.  I may do it again for chits and giggles at some point, but YOU don't repeat anything for me, so it's not my job to read the thread and keep up with what you say either.  You got me mixed up.  I'm not your push button monkey.  So, you should quit lying and read the thread.  Now, here is what I think about your unconstitutional laws:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.

Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

*No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it*."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
> 
> 
> 
> nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no need to keep people out with a naturalization clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if a billion Chinese want to come here, we should let them all in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all won't stay.  Capitalism; What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing.  Tourism is the first, second, or third largest employer in twenty-nine States.
Click to expand...

But if 1 billion Chinese want to stay, then what?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the law is unconstitutional and is without any relevance - Said so in post # 2086.  It's why they have a Hell of a time enforcing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post # 2086 isn't yours, care to try again?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> At 80 wpm, it is possible to be imperfect.  It is actually post # 2806
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey thanks for the laugh, all the supremes did in that case was uphold the commerce clause and the immigration powers the Constitution vested in congress after 1808. But goo try.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot read.  In 1808 state immigration officials were to collect a $10 tax per person they had in their states.  That is why, in 1875, California had state immigration officials.  That is over half a century AFTER your misrepresentation of the facts.
> 
> BTW, I'm in one discussion tonight.  Any way you can wait til tomorrow to give me a sporting chance to respond to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what CA was doing, they were going far above that. A $500 bond in gold, where were they authorized to do that.
> 
> Also, this is an open forum, I'll respond to any post I chose.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Semantics.  All semantics.  What I recall from memory is that the state did not comply with the law.  Neither did they answer to the charges and so the court was legally compelled to rule against them.

If we repealed the 14th Amendment and if California challenged the immigration laws on the books, they would win - that's the bottom line.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it fundamentally changes America from being a beacon of Freedom for the world to a country that aspires to be a gated community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, a gated community that welcomes the worthy.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than that, the "gate" has always been there in some form as the method by which we preserve ourselves AS the beacon of freedom!  The FREEDOM is for those of us living IN the United States.  The freedom has NEVER been about others outside the USA just being free to walk in here and do any damn thing they choose.  That might be "free" for them, but represents a HUGE loss of freedom for Americans, thus ultimately destroying America itself for the freedom it tries to preserve and represent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US has the most generous legal immigration policy of all the countries in the world. That's not good enough for the commies.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You are so funny you should take that act on the road.  When you aren't pretending to be a bully or a know it all, you're talking out your ass.  In fact, it is easier to get into communist China than the United States.  Add to that, you expect everyone who comes here to become a citizen and you hang with those who tell you they are concerned about our culture.

How you people are going to make citizens out of the third world and maintain your culture as you become an irrelevant minority is certainly going to be a trick for the ages.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> He believes that if an employer wants to hire someone for $1 an hour and someone is desperate enough to take the job that the employer should be free to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That's how freedom and free markets work. People get to make their own decisions without asking the state for permission.
> 
> 
> 
> That not allowing the employer to hire slave labor is the equivalent of having a socialistic society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comparing voluntary employment to slavery is an insult the memory of real slaves. But the policies you're advocating do  lean socialist. Wage and price controls are an important step in taking over the economy with government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hiring who you desire is free market, but bringing people in for you to choose from is not.  That is up to government.  Once they are approved to be here, then you can decide to hire them or not.  If you want to hire people outside our country, then move your business there.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...


I have explained that you are wrong on that count.  Your side don't seem to get it.  With that attitude you cannot preserve your culture.  

Don't you remember?  The federal government  has no de jure / legal / lawful interests of who the individual state allows in.  The feds are claiming an illegal power.  The feds were *NEVER* given any authority to dictate to the states on this issue by the only branch of government constitutionally authorized to give it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> true Gamorans and true Sodomites make better citizens than false Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not Christian. Now go assfuck another donkey, you know you want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no truth value; who cares what you think if you have no witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.
Click to expand...


Where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?


----------



## dblack

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> He believes that if an employer wants to hire someone for $1 an hour and someone is desperate enough to take the job that the employer should be free to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That's how freedom and free markets work. People get to make their own decisions without asking the state for permission.
> 
> 
> 
> That not allowing the employer to hire slave labor is the equivalent of having a socialistic society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comparing voluntary employment to slavery is an insult the memory of real slaves. But the policies you're advocating do  lean socialist. Wage and price controls are an important step in taking over the economy with government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hiring who you desire is free market, but bringing people in for you to choose from is not.  That is up to government.  Once they are approved to be here, then you can decide to hire them or not.  If you want to hire people outside our country, then move your business there.
Click to expand...


Uh huh... it's really kind of embarrassing watching former "conservatives" dancing around their socialist conceits.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no truth value; who cares what you think if you have no witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no need to keep people out with a naturalization clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if a billion Chinese want to come here, we should let them all in?
Click to expand...


When you get spanked by danielpalos like that, maybe you should just sit back, read, and learn.  That was so humiliating I don't know whether to feel sorry for you or keep laughing.


----------



## sealybobo

OKTexas said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support border security.  A wall is a waste of money.  But watching the border is important.  You can watch the border with or without a wall.  And when you eventually stop watching the border without a wall then you don't feel stupid for building an unnecessary wall that was a huge waste of time and money and now has so many holes in it that it looks like swiss cheese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watching doesn't prevent 1 person from crossing, drones, sensors and other technology won't prevent 1 person from crossing. Then we have to spend nearly $12,000 for each one we catch to deport them. Walls where erected have proven effective.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you watch, stop them and don’t let them in that works.
> 
> An unlatched area of wall won’t stop shit. So you just wasted $5 billion.
> 
> We didn’t have a problem until Reagan. He and GW Bush stopped cracking down on employers who hire illegals. If we go back to the way things were, illegals would go home. No employer would dare hire them..
> 
> Again, no wall necessary.
> 
> We survived all these years with no wall. Sorry trump you’re going to loose this one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you are refusing to acknowledge is that past illegal aliens were single working aged males that wanted to send money home to support their family. They were mostly from Mexico and could easily be removed.
> 
> Now we have whole families and unaccompanied minors, the law requires they be treated differently. They are overwhelming the system established to process and care for them. Right now we have almost a million pending asylum cases and thousands a month added to that backlog.
> 
> Another thing you seem not to understand is border patrol agent can NOT physically prevent an illegal alien form entering, all they can do is arrest and detain them AFTER they have entered, then the courts and the law gives them due process rights. The only legal way to prevent entry is a barrier that prevents entry in the first place.
> 
> Also I doubt Trump is monitoring this forum so your last sentence was a waste of band width. But feel free to try to refute the facts I've presented.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re not listening to anything I say and you believe the wall is the silver bullet.
> 
> Texas should pay for it. States rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never said it was a silver bullet, it's just part of the solution, but your claims that todays illegals are the same as in the past is BS. I notice you didn't even try to actually rebut what I actually said. So carry on with your intellectually dishonest crap and I'll continue to smile at your ignorance.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



1.  We don't need a wall.  This is a manufactured crisis
2. Wall is too expensive and won't solve a thing.  $5 bill is just the down payment.  Do you want to spend a trillion on a wall?  Really?  
3.  So you want your taxes to go up?
4.  Our roads and infrastructure are falling apart because we don't have the money to fix them.  So we should build a wall first?
5.  This is just a simple idea that his simple followers can understand and rally behind.  Forget about getting them to understand a comprehensive solution to this.
6. Trump can't be a hypocrite and hire illegals at Mara Largo and then say we need a wall
7.  This is a legacy or monument Trump wants personally
8. Trump needs to stop punishing us because he can't stand to lose.  
9.  We can't give in to Trump or else this will be the new way a President governs.


----------



## Taz

Porter Rockwell said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not Christian. Now go assfuck another donkey, you know you want to.
> 
> 
> 
> you have no truth value; who cares what you think if you have no witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?
Click to expand...

From being an actual US citizen.


----------



## Taz

Porter Rockwell said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
> 
> 
> 
> nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no need to keep people out with a naturalization clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if a billion Chinese want to come here, we should let them all in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you get spanked by danielpalos like that, maybe you should just sit back, read, and learn.  That was so humiliating I don't know whether to feel sorry for you or keep laughing.
Click to expand...

Because of his "naturalization" bullshit? Go eat another taco.


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> He believes that if an employer wants to hire someone for $1 an hour and someone is desperate enough to take the job that the employer should be free to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That's how freedom and free markets work. People get to make their own decisions without asking the state for permission.
> 
> 
> 
> That not allowing the employer to hire slave labor is the equivalent of having a socialistic society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comparing voluntary employment to slavery is an insult the memory of real slaves. But the policies you're advocating do  lean socialist. Wage and price controls are an important step in taking over the economy with government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hiring who you desire is free market, but bringing people in for you to choose from is not.  That is up to government.  Once they are approved to be here, then you can decide to hire them or not.  If you want to hire people outside our country, then move your business there.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...

Trump can't be serious that he wants a wall built when the illegals who work at his resorts are getting here a plethora of other ways.  

Again, if we just went after illegal employers like Trump we could solve this problem.

And we can patrol a border without building a multi trillion dollar ineffective monument to Donald Trump.


----------



## Taz

sealybobo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> He believes that if an employer wants to hire someone for $1 an hour and someone is desperate enough to take the job that the employer should be free to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That's how freedom and free markets work. People get to make their own decisions without asking the state for permission.
> 
> 
> 
> That not allowing the employer to hire slave labor is the equivalent of having a socialistic society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comparing voluntary employment to slavery is an insult the memory of real slaves. But the policies you're advocating do  lean socialist. Wage and price controls are an important step in taking over the economy with government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hiring who you desire is free market, but bringing people in for you to choose from is not.  That is up to government.  Once they are approved to be here, then you can decide to hire them or not.  If you want to hire people outside our country, then move your business there.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump can't be serious that he wants a wall built when the illegals who work at his resorts are getting here a plethora of other ways.
> 
> Again, if we just went after illegal employers like Trump we could solve this problem.
> 
> And we can patrol a border without building a multi trillion dollar ineffective monument to Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

sealybobo said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watching doesn't prevent 1 person from crossing, drones, sensors and other technology won't prevent 1 person from crossing. Then we have to spend nearly $12,000 for each one we catch to deport them. Walls where erected have proven effective.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> If you watch, stop them and don’t let them in that works.
> 
> An unlatched area of wall won’t stop shit. So you just wasted $5 billion.
> 
> We didn’t have a problem until Reagan. He and GW Bush stopped cracking down on employers who hire illegals. If we go back to the way things were, illegals would go home. No employer would dare hire them..
> 
> Again, no wall necessary.
> 
> We survived all these years with no wall. Sorry trump you’re going to loose this one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you are refusing to acknowledge is that past illegal aliens were single working aged males that wanted to send money home to support their family. They were mostly from Mexico and could easily be removed.
> 
> Now we have whole families and unaccompanied minors, the law requires they be treated differently. They are overwhelming the system established to process and care for them. Right now we have almost a million pending asylum cases and thousands a month added to that backlog.
> 
> Another thing you seem not to understand is border patrol agent can NOT physically prevent an illegal alien form entering, all they can do is arrest and detain them AFTER they have entered, then the courts and the law gives them due process rights. The only legal way to prevent entry is a barrier that prevents entry in the first place.
> 
> Also I doubt Trump is monitoring this forum so your last sentence was a waste of band width. But feel free to try to refute the facts I've presented.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re not listening to anything I say and you believe the wall is the silver bullet.
> 
> Texas should pay for it. States rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never said it was a silver bullet, it's just part of the solution, but your claims that todays illegals are the same as in the past is BS. I notice you didn't even try to actually rebut what I actually said. So carry on with your intellectually dishonest crap and I'll continue to smile at your ignorance.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  We don't need a wall.  This is a manufactured crisis
> 2. Wall is too expensive and won't solve a thing.  $5 bill is just the down payment.  Do you want to spend a trillion on a wall?  Really?
> 3.  So you want your taxes to go up?
> 4.  Our roads and infrastructure are falling apart because we don't have the money to fix them.  So we should build a wall first?
> 5.  This is just a simple idea that his simple followers can understand and rally behind.  Forget about getting them to understand a comprehensive solution to this.
> 6. Trump can't be a hypocrite and hire illegals at Mara Largo and then say we need a wall
> 7.  This is a legacy or monument Trump wants personally
> 8. Trump needs to stop punishing us because he can't stand to lose.
> 9.  We can't give in to Trump or else this will be the new way a President governs.
Click to expand...



Of every argument the build the walls guys make, they seem to ignore it when their spokesmen, from Bill O Reilly to Donald Trump hire undocumented foreigners.  They never ask why.  AND, as long as they chant the mantra - the talking points, they are forgiven even if they do it again.


----------



## Taz

Porter Rockwell said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you watch, stop them and don’t let them in that works.
> 
> An unlatched area of wall won’t stop shit. So you just wasted $5 billion.
> 
> We didn’t have a problem until Reagan. He and GW Bush stopped cracking down on employers who hire illegals. If we go back to the way things were, illegals would go home. No employer would dare hire them..
> 
> Again, no wall necessary.
> 
> We survived all these years with no wall. Sorry trump you’re going to loose this one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are refusing to acknowledge is that past illegal aliens were single working aged males that wanted to send money home to support their family. They were mostly from Mexico and could easily be removed.
> 
> Now we have whole families and unaccompanied minors, the law requires they be treated differently. They are overwhelming the system established to process and care for them. Right now we have almost a million pending asylum cases and thousands a month added to that backlog.
> 
> Another thing you seem not to understand is border patrol agent can NOT physically prevent an illegal alien form entering, all they can do is arrest and detain them AFTER they have entered, then the courts and the law gives them due process rights. The only legal way to prevent entry is a barrier that prevents entry in the first place.
> 
> Also I doubt Trump is monitoring this forum so your last sentence was a waste of band width. But feel free to try to refute the facts I've presented.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re not listening to anything I say and you believe the wall is the silver bullet.
> 
> Texas should pay for it. States rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never said it was a silver bullet, it's just part of the solution, but your claims that todays illegals are the same as in the past is BS. I notice you didn't even try to actually rebut what I actually said. So carry on with your intellectually dishonest crap and I'll continue to smile at your ignorance.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  We don't need a wall.  This is a manufactured crisis
> 2. Wall is too expensive and won't solve a thing.  $5 bill is just the down payment.  Do you want to spend a trillion on a wall?  Really?
> 3.  So you want your taxes to go up?
> 4.  Our roads and infrastructure are falling apart because we don't have the money to fix them.  So we should build a wall first?
> 5.  This is just a simple idea that his simple followers can understand and rally behind.  Forget about getting them to understand a comprehensive solution to this.
> 6. Trump can't be a hypocrite and hire illegals at Mara Largo and then say we need a wall
> 7.  This is a legacy or monument Trump wants personally
> 8. Trump needs to stop punishing us because he can't stand to lose.
> 9.  We can't give in to Trump or else this will be the new way a President governs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of every argument the build the walls guys make, they seem to ignore it when their spokesmen, from Bill O Reilly to Donald Trump hire undocumented foreigners.  They never ask why.  AND, as long as they chant the mantra - the talking points, they are forgiven even if they do it again.
Click to expand...

Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.


----------



## sealybobo

Taz said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> He believes that if an employer wants to hire someone for $1 an hour and someone is desperate enough to take the job that the employer should be free to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That's how freedom and free markets work. People get to make their own decisions without asking the state for permission.
> 
> 
> 
> That not allowing the employer to hire slave labor is the equivalent of having a socialistic society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comparing voluntary employment to slavery is an insult the memory of real slaves. But the policies you're advocating do  lean socialist. Wage and price controls are an important step in taking over the economy with government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hiring who you desire is free market, but bringing people in for you to choose from is not.  That is up to government.  Once they are approved to be here, then you can decide to hire them or not.  If you want to hire people outside our country, then move your business there.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump can't be serious that he wants a wall built when the illegals who work at his resorts are getting here a plethora of other ways.
> 
> Again, if we just went after illegal employers like Trump we could solve this problem.
> 
> And we can patrol a border without building a multi trillion dollar ineffective monument to Donald Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.
Click to expand...

Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.


----------



## Taz

sealybobo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> He believes that if an employer wants to hire someone for $1 an hour and someone is desperate enough to take the job that the employer should be free to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That's how freedom and free markets work. People get to make their own decisions without asking the state for permission.
> 
> 
> 
> That not allowing the employer to hire slave labor is the equivalent of having a socialistic society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comparing voluntary employment to slavery is an insult the memory of real slaves. But the policies you're advocating do  lean socialist. Wage and price controls are an important step in taking over the economy with government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hiring who you desire is free market, but bringing people in for you to choose from is not.  That is up to government.  Once they are approved to be here, then you can decide to hire them or not.  If you want to hire people outside our country, then move your business there.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump can't be serious that he wants a wall built when the illegals who work at his resorts are getting here a plethora of other ways.
> 
> Again, if we just went after illegal employers like Trump we could solve this problem.
> 
> And we can patrol a border without building a multi trillion dollar ineffective monument to Donald Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.
Click to expand...

I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Taz said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no truth value; who cares what you think if you have no witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From being an actual US citizen.
Click to expand...



We got to talk about this one.  I need for you to explain this:

Your Rights are a by product of citizenship?  So, work with me here:

Let us say you own a firearm or you belong to a religion the government does not like OR maybe the liberals decide that you cannot be agnostic or atheist, but instead must belong to a One World Religion.  If such a proposition is put into place by majority vote, do you then comply?  if not, can you explain to me your theory of law?


----------



## Taz

Porter Rockwell said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
> 
> 
> 
> nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From being an actual US citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We got to talk about this one.  I need for you to explain this:
> 
> Your Rights are a by product of citizenship?  So, work with me here:
> 
> Let us say you own a firearm or you belong to a religion the government does not like OR maybe the liberals decide that you cannot be agnostic or atheist, but instead must belong to a One World Religion.  If such a proposition is put into place by majority vote, do you then comply?  if not, can you explain to me your theory of law?
Click to expand...

Your example is absurd and makes no sense. What planet would this be on?


----------



## sealybobo

Taz said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That's how freedom and free markets work. People get to make their own decisions without asking the state for permission.
> Comparing voluntary employment to slavery is an insult the memory of real slaves. But the policies you're advocating do  lean socialist. Wage and price controls are an important step in taking over the economy with government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiring who you desire is free market, but bringing people in for you to choose from is not.  That is up to government.  Once they are approved to be here, then you can decide to hire them or not.  If you want to hire people outside our country, then move your business there.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump can't be serious that he wants a wall built when the illegals who work at his resorts are getting here a plethora of other ways.
> 
> Again, if we just went after illegal employers like Trump we could solve this problem.
> 
> And we can patrol a border without building a multi trillion dollar ineffective monument to Donald Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
Click to expand...

I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.  

Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)

So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.

We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.  

This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.


----------



## sealybobo

Taz said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From being an actual US citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We got to talk about this one.  I need for you to explain this:
> 
> Your Rights are a by product of citizenship?  So, work with me here:
> 
> Let us say you own a firearm or you belong to a religion the government does not like OR maybe the liberals decide that you cannot be agnostic or atheist, but instead must belong to a One World Religion.  If such a proposition is put into place by majority vote, do you then comply?  if not, can you explain to me your theory of law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your example is absurd and makes no sense. What planet would this be on?
Click to expand...

It's a though exercise.


----------



## Taz

sealybobo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hiring who you desire is free market, but bringing people in for you to choose from is not.  That is up to government.  Once they are approved to be here, then you can decide to hire them or not.  If you want to hire people outside our country, then move your business there.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> 
> 
> Trump can't be serious that he wants a wall built when the illegals who work at his resorts are getting here a plethora of other ways.
> 
> Again, if we just went after illegal employers like Trump we could solve this problem.
> 
> And we can patrol a border without building a multi trillion dollar ineffective monument to Donald Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
Click to expand...

We wasted about 80 trillion fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for nothing. Now you don't want to spend money for something that is actually necessary.


----------



## Taz

sealybobo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From being an actual US citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We got to talk about this one.  I need for you to explain this:
> 
> Your Rights are a by product of citizenship?  So, work with me here:
> 
> Let us say you own a firearm or you belong to a religion the government does not like OR maybe the liberals decide that you cannot be agnostic or atheist, but instead must belong to a One World Religion.  If such a proposition is put into place by majority vote, do you then comply?  if not, can you explain to me your theory of law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your example is absurd and makes no sense. What planet would this be on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a though exercise.
Click to expand...

So is spelling.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Taz said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From being an actual US citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We got to talk about this one.  I need for you to explain this:
> 
> Your Rights are a by product of citizenship?  So, work with me here:
> 
> Let us say you own a firearm or you belong to a religion the government does not like OR maybe the liberals decide that you cannot be agnostic or atheist, but instead must belong to a One World Religion.  If such a proposition is put into place by majority vote, do you then comply?  if not, can you explain to me your theory of law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your example is absurd and makes no sense. What planet would this be on?
Click to expand...


The Democrats have already passed an Assault Weapons Ban and fortunately it wasn't permanent.  Congress did not make it permanent, so that's happened.

In my lifetime, Bob Jones University had a policy prohibiting inter-racial dating and relationships on campus.  The government forced them to comply with "public policy"  (an area of law I can't find in American law and have yet to meet its head honcho)

The Tea Party was pursued by the IRS on the basis of their beliefs.  

So, I suppose the answer to your question is maybe the third rock from the  sun is where such abuses and infringements can and do happen.

Okay, I get it.  You like to deflect.  Let's try again.  Can you explain to me your interpretation of this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

What does that mean?


----------



## sealybobo

Taz said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump can't be serious that he wants a wall built when the illegals who work at his resorts are getting here a plethora of other ways.
> 
> Again, if we just went after illegal employers like Trump we could solve this problem.
> 
> And we can patrol a border without building a multi trillion dollar ineffective monument to Donald Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We wasted about 80 trillion fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for nothing. Now you don't want to spend money for something that is actually necessary.
Click to expand...

It's not god damn necessary.  And I wasn't happy we wasted 80 trillion in Iraq.

For once I'd like you Trump supporters to admit when Trump has a bad idea.  

But thanks for now at least finally admitting it's going to be a lot more than $5 billion and we are going to pay for it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

sealybobo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hiring who you desire is free market, but bringing people in for you to choose from is not.  That is up to government.  Once they are approved to be here, then you can decide to hire them or not.  If you want to hire people outside our country, then move your business there.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> 
> 
> Trump can't be serious that he wants a wall built when the illegals who work at his resorts are getting here a plethora of other ways.
> 
> Again, if we just went after illegal employers like Trump we could solve this problem.
> 
> And we can patrol a border without building a multi trillion dollar ineffective monument to Donald Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
Click to expand...


So you don't believe in private property rights either?


----------



## sealybobo

Porter Rockwell said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump can't be serious that he wants a wall built when the illegals who work at his resorts are getting here a plethora of other ways.
> 
> Again, if we just went after illegal employers like Trump we could solve this problem.
> 
> And we can patrol a border without building a multi trillion dollar ineffective monument to Donald Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't believe in private property rights either?
Click to expand...

Why do you say that?  Did you know I don't own the first foot of my grass?  I have to cut it but the city owns that.  In case they need to put in a fire hydrant or sidewalk.  

No American should own property on the border.  There should be a foot or 10 feet where the government can do what is necessary.

Is that what you meant?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

sealybobo said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't believe in private property rights either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you say that?  Did you know I don't own the first foot of my grass?  I have to cut it but the city owns that.  In case they need to put in a fire hydrant or sidewalk.
> 
> No American should own property on the border.  There should be a foot or 10 feet where the government can do what is necessary.
> 
> Is that what you meant?
Click to expand...


No, in post # 4140 you advocated jailing employers who hire "illegals" (that alone made me wonder whether you were an American... you know, presumption of innocence and all.)  But, in all reality, Americans don't want hard jobs:

Few Americans take immigrants' jobs in Alabama

In addition to that, no only does out experiences mirror those in that story, but a couple of years ago I underwent major surgery.  Then the county decided to jerk my chain over a property I owned.  IF I had been physically able, I could have taken them to court and won.

But, I had to come up with a fantastic amount of money; I wasn't able to work and had a finite amount of money to work with.  Like I keep saying, you cannot hire even a handyman with basic skills here that don't think he's worth what a surgeon makes.

Not having the money, I hired a few Mexican guys and I didn't give two hoots in Hell about their immigration status.  It was either get the work done or forfeit the home to the government.  Later, at a block party, the elderly and those on fixed incomes asked where I found that crew.  People here sometimes have to choose between eating and keeping their property up (they charge us $1000 fine if your grass goes over 8 inches high.)  The bottom line is you seem to think it's okay to jail people for maintaining their own private property using an invitee due to a federal law where the government has no actual constitutional authority.

I had to add this as I just found it and it was revealing and more up to date.  Here's a quote from the article:

"Many farmers have had to rely on undocumented workers. Perhaps as much as 60-70 percent of the laborers working on farms and ranches across the country might not have the proper documentation, said Charles Connor, president of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives and a former deputy secretary of agriculture.

But a crackdown on the border controls and an increase in deportations under both the Obama and Trump administrations have cut the labor pool further. Some farmers have responded by moving their operations to Mexico, where the workers are."

U.S. crops ready for picking, but farm workers in short supply


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't trust Liberal pollsters.
> Also most conservatives don't answer the phone to those they don't know so they don't get polled so their opinion is never included in the polls. But they are included on voting day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would believe the pollsters if the numbers were in your favor.  The point is, a significant number of Americans are against the wall.
> 
> And so, I ask, from where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm Agnostic.
> I believe Intelligent life is more important than other life. I believe individuals should be free to do any damn thing they want to do as long as it doesn't stop another individual from having his rights.
> I believe my ancestors built this country for me to appreciate it and I don't have to give away the stuff I take for granted and end up losing it all to a bunch of people from poverty stricken countries unwilling to fix their own damn countries.
> I believe there are 158 million poverty folks on this planet and they can't all come here. They are lucky we allow a million a year to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, like Ray, you think that rights are inalienable?  Do you, like he, believe that our Rights come through mortal men who can vote for or against what they will or will not give you in terms of Liberty?
> 
> So, when an employer hires a foreigner, how do you justify taking away his Rights?  As I see it, owning private property is one of the greatest hallmarks of our constitutional Republic.  Do you disagree with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a strawman, if you want to argue the theoretical it belongs elsewhere, this is a discussion of what is. You have yet to explain how the existing wall on 1/3rd to the border is effecting your or any one else's rights. Or how an additional wall on 10% more would change anything related to rights.
> 
> If an employer hires and illegal he just became a criminal, like the person he hired. Criminals forfeit their rights.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> AFTER I go to bed and you had tapped out, you come by for a hit and run?  Where I live you cannot pay an undocumented worker less than $10 an hour.  The local government don't waste their time chasing undocumented people since they understand that most of the laws you support are blatantly unconstitutional. I'll explain that to you in a moment.
> 
> I have answered your question at least *six times *on this thread.  I may do it again for chits and giggles at some point, but YOU don't repeat anything for me, so it's not my job to read the thread and keep up with what you say either.  You got me mixed up.  I'm not your push button monkey.  So, you should quit lying and read the thread.  Now, here is what I think about your unconstitutional laws:
> 
> "The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
> This is succinctly stated as follows:
> 
> The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
> 
> An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
> 
> Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
> 
> Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
> 
> A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
> An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
> 
> Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
> 
> *No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it*."
> 
> — Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
Click to expand...



Cool, so you ignore the fact that the courts have upheld the laws being discussed. Like I said earlier we can discuss theoretical constitutional principles, but this thread is on what is. Also when I hire Americans for odd jobs, I pay them 10.00 an hour.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post # 2086 isn't yours, care to try again?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 80 wpm, it is possible to be imperfect.  It is actually post # 2806
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey thanks for the laugh, all the supremes did in that case was uphold the commerce clause and the immigration powers the Constitution vested in congress after 1808. But goo try.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot read.  In 1808 state immigration officials were to collect a $10 tax per person they had in their states.  That is why, in 1875, California had state immigration officials.  That is over half a century AFTER your misrepresentation of the facts.
> 
> BTW, I'm in one discussion tonight.  Any way you can wait til tomorrow to give me a sporting chance to respond to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what CA was doing, they were going far above that. A $500 bond in gold, where were they authorized to do that.
> 
> Also, this is an open forum, I'll respond to any post I chose.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semantics.  All semantics.  What I recall from memory is that the state did not comply with the law.  Neither did they answer to the charges and so the court was legally compelled to rule against them.
> 
> If we repealed the 14th Amendment and if California challenged the immigration laws on the books, they would win - that's the bottom line.
Click to expand...



I doubt that, CA was charging far in excess for their costs of inspections, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2 say all excess funds would have to be turned over to the Treasury of the US. Also there is nothing in the Constitution that allowed them to collect bonds on immigrants.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would believe the pollsters if the numbers were in your favor.  The point is, a significant number of Americans are against the wall.
> 
> And so, I ask, from where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm Agnostic.
> I believe Intelligent life is more important than other life. I believe individuals should be free to do any damn thing they want to do as long as it doesn't stop another individual from having his rights.
> I believe my ancestors built this country for me to appreciate it and I don't have to give away the stuff I take for granted and end up losing it all to a bunch of people from poverty stricken countries unwilling to fix their own damn countries.
> I believe there are 158 million poverty folks on this planet and they can't all come here. They are lucky we allow a million a year to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, like Ray, you think that rights are inalienable?  Do you, like he, believe that our Rights come through mortal men who can vote for or against what they will or will not give you in terms of Liberty?
> 
> So, when an employer hires a foreigner, how do you justify taking away his Rights?  As I see it, owning private property is one of the greatest hallmarks of our constitutional Republic.  Do you disagree with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a strawman, if you want to argue the theoretical it belongs elsewhere, this is a discussion of what is. You have yet to explain how the existing wall on 1/3rd to the border is effecting your or any one else's rights. Or how an additional wall on 10% more would change anything related to rights.
> 
> If an employer hires and illegal he just became a criminal, like the person he hired. Criminals forfeit their rights.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> AFTER I go to bed and you had tapped out, you come by for a hit and run?  Where I live you cannot pay an undocumented worker less than $10 an hour.  The local government don't waste their time chasing undocumented people since they understand that most of the laws you support are blatantly unconstitutional. I'll explain that to you in a moment.
> 
> I have answered your question at least *six times *on this thread.  I may do it again for chits and giggles at some point, but YOU don't repeat anything for me, so it's not my job to read the thread and keep up with what you say either.  You got me mixed up.  I'm not your push button monkey.  So, you should quit lying and read the thread.  Now, here is what I think about your unconstitutional laws:
> 
> "The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
> This is succinctly stated as follows:
> 
> The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
> 
> An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
> 
> Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
> 
> Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
> 
> A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
> An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
> 
> Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
> 
> *No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it*."
> 
> — Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cool, so you ignore the fact that the courts have upheld the laws being discussed. Like I said earlier we can discuss theoretical constitutional principles, but this thread is on what is. Also when I hire Americans for odd jobs, I pay them 10.00 an hour.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Are you lying again?  You wait until a topic is several posts old and then comment, forcing me to do an intensive search to find out what the Hell you're talking about.  You need to either be specific OR give me the relevant post number as the quote feature only goes back so many posts.

The courts have not upheld any point I've discussed as the federal courts have NO de jure / lawful / constitutional authority in immigration law save of citizenship.  Who a state allows within its jurisdiction is, constitutionally, their business.  Period sir.


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no need to keep people out with a naturalization clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if a billion Chinese want to come here, we should let them all in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all won't stay.  Capitalism; What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing.  Tourism is the first, second, or third largest employer in twenty-nine States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But if 1 billion Chinese want to stay, then what?
Click to expand...

New Cities in more optimal locations.  How many jobs do we want to manufacture?


----------



## Taz

Porter Rockwell said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From being an actual US citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We got to talk about this one.  I need for you to explain this:
> 
> Your Rights are a by product of citizenship?  So, work with me here:
> 
> Let us say you own a firearm or you belong to a religion the government does not like OR maybe the liberals decide that you cannot be agnostic or atheist, but instead must belong to a One World Religion.  If such a proposition is put into place by majority vote, do you then comply?  if not, can you explain to me your theory of law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your example is absurd and makes no sense. What planet would this be on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrats have already passed an Assault Weapons Ban and fortunately it wasn't permanent.  Congress did not make it permanent, so that's happened.
> 
> In my lifetime, Bob Jones University had a policy prohibiting inter-racial dating and relationships on campus.  The government forced them to comply with "public policy"  (an area of law I can't find in American law and have yet to meet its head honcho)
> 
> The Tea Party was pursued by the IRS on the basis of their beliefs.
> 
> So, I suppose the answer to your question is maybe the third rock from the  sun is where such abuses and infringements can and do happen.
> 
> Okay, I get it.  You like to deflect.  Let's try again.  Can you explain to me your interpretation of this:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
> 
> What does that mean?
Click to expand...

It’s for citizens, not for a billion Chinese and all the beaners in the world.


----------



## Taz

sealybobo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hiring who you desire is free market, but bringing people in for you to choose from is not.  That is up to government.  Once they are approved to be here, then you can decide to hire them or not.  If you want to hire people outside our country, then move your business there.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> 
> 
> Trump can't be serious that he wants a wall built when the illegals who work at his resorts are getting here a plethora of other ways.
> 
> Again, if we just went after illegal employers like Trump we could solve this problem.
> 
> And we can patrol a border without building a multi trillion dollar ineffective monument to Donald Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
Click to expand...

I’m a Libertarian, not GOP.


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no need to keep people out with a naturalization clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if a billion Chinese want to come here, we should let them all in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you get spanked by danielpalos like that, maybe you should just sit back, read, and learn.  That was so humiliating I don't know whether to feel sorry for you or keep laughing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because of his "naturalization" bullshit? Go eat another taco.
Click to expand...

the right wing doesn't care about the law; they are just kettles whining about pots.


----------



## Taz

sealybobo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We wasted about 80 trillion fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for nothing. Now you don't want to spend money for something that is actually necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not god damn necessary.  And I wasn't happy we wasted 80 trillion in Iraq.
> 
> For once I'd like you Trump supporters to admit when Trump has a bad idea.
> 
> But thanks for now at least finally admitting it's going to be a lot more than $5 billion and we are going to pay for it.
Click to expand...

I vote Libertarian, which is way better than you having voted for Hillderbeast. And I don’t care how much the border wall costs, it’s something we need.


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?
> 
> 
> 
> From being an actual US citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We got to talk about this one.  I need for you to explain this:
> 
> Your Rights are a by product of citizenship?  So, work with me here:
> 
> Let us say you own a firearm or you belong to a religion the government does not like OR maybe the liberals decide that you cannot be agnostic or atheist, but instead must belong to a One World Religion.  If such a proposition is put into place by majority vote, do you then comply?  if not, can you explain to me your theory of law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your example is absurd and makes no sense. What planet would this be on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrats have already passed an Assault Weapons Ban and fortunately it wasn't permanent.  Congress did not make it permanent, so that's happened.
> 
> In my lifetime, Bob Jones University had a policy prohibiting inter-racial dating and relationships on campus.  The government forced them to comply with "public policy"  (an area of law I can't find in American law and have yet to meet its head honcho)
> 
> The Tea Party was pursued by the IRS on the basis of their beliefs.
> 
> So, I suppose the answer to your question is maybe the third rock from the  sun is where such abuses and infringements can and do happen.
> 
> Okay, I get it.  You like to deflect.  Let's try again.  Can you explain to me your interpretation of this:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s for citizens, not for a billion Chinese and all the beaners in the world.
Click to expand...

we don't have an immigration clause it is a naturalization clause.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no need to keep people out with a naturalization clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if a billion Chinese want to come here, we should let them all in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all won't stay.  Capitalism; What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing.  Tourism is the first, second, or third largest employer in twenty-nine States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But if 1 billion Chinese want to stay, then what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> New Cities in more optimal locations.  How many jobs do we want to manufacture?
Click to expand...

If official, you’re an idiot.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no need to keep people out with a naturalization clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if a billion Chinese want to come here, we should let them all in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you get spanked by danielpalos like that, maybe you should just sit back, read, and learn.  That was so humiliating I don't know whether to feel sorry for you or keep laughing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because of his "naturalization" bullshit? Go eat another taco.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing doesn't care about the law; they are just kettles whining about pots.
Click to expand...

Do something useful and go make some tacos.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> From being an actual US citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We got to talk about this one.  I need for you to explain this:
> 
> Your Rights are a by product of citizenship?  So, work with me here:
> 
> Let us say you own a firearm or you belong to a religion the government does not like OR maybe the liberals decide that you cannot be agnostic or atheist, but instead must belong to a One World Religion.  If such a proposition is put into place by majority vote, do you then comply?  if not, can you explain to me your theory of law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your example is absurd and makes no sense. What planet would this be on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrats have already passed an Assault Weapons Ban and fortunately it wasn't permanent.  Congress did not make it permanent, so that's happened.
> 
> In my lifetime, Bob Jones University had a policy prohibiting inter-racial dating and relationships on campus.  The government forced them to comply with "public policy"  (an area of law I can't find in American law and have yet to meet its head honcho)
> 
> The Tea Party was pursued by the IRS on the basis of their beliefs.
> 
> So, I suppose the answer to your question is maybe the third rock from the  sun is where such abuses and infringements can and do happen.
> 
> Okay, I get it.  You like to deflect.  Let's try again.  Can you explain to me your interpretation of this:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s for citizens, not for a billion Chinese and all the beaners in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't have an immigration clause it is a naturalization clause.
Click to expand...

Go eat a dog, you must be hungry.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> At 80 wpm, it is possible to be imperfect.  It is actually post # 2806
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey thanks for the laugh, all the supremes did in that case was uphold the commerce clause and the immigration powers the Constitution vested in congress after 1808. But goo try.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot read.  In 1808 state immigration officials were to collect a $10 tax per person they had in their states.  That is why, in 1875, California had state immigration officials.  That is over half a century AFTER your misrepresentation of the facts.
> 
> BTW, I'm in one discussion tonight.  Any way you can wait til tomorrow to give me a sporting chance to respond to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what CA was doing, they were going far above that. A $500 bond in gold, where were they authorized to do that.
> 
> Also, this is an open forum, I'll respond to any post I chose.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semantics.  All semantics.  What I recall from memory is that the state did not comply with the law.  Neither did they answer to the charges and so the court was legally compelled to rule against them.
> 
> If we repealed the 14th Amendment and if California challenged the immigration laws on the books, they would win - that's the bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that, CA was charging far in excess for their costs of inspections, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2 say all excess funds would have to turned over to the Treasury of the US. Also there is nothing in the Constitution that allowed them to collect bonds on immigrants.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Someone else challenged the amount of money in question.  I didn't feel like debating an irrelevant point, so I will repeat my point along with having to repeat myself due to your blatant dishonesty.

"In 1875, the State of California passed a statute authorizing the *immigration* commissioner to inspect passengers arriving in California at a* cost of 75 cents per inspection* (levied on the passenger) and giving him the authority to deny entry to passengers suspected of being lewd and debauched. Those suspected thus could be allowed entry if the captain of the ship paid a bond for them"

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia.

IIRC, you made a bogus argument once before about the Constitution and what happened in 1808.  I cited the relevant portion and still got some bogus counter-response.  So, let us see how much *authority* the federal government has over foreigners as per the Constitution:

"Congress shall have the power to  ... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution

...The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."  Article I  Section 9 of the United States Constitution.

Now let us get to the facts:

1)  Throughout the lives of the founders, the states had control of immigration (the migration of people) and federal authority is limited to citizenship

2)  Between 1808 and 1875, the states controlled immigration, proving that the issue of jurisdiction never changed.  The ONLY thing Article I Section 9 of the Constitution deals with is the tax

3)  In Chy Lung v Freeman, according to Wikepedia:

"22 women from China, including Chy Lung, were among the passengers on the steamer _Japan_ that journeyed from China to San Francisco, arriving in 1875.[9] The immigration commissioner examined the passengers and identified Chy Lung and the other women as "lewd and debauched women." The captain of the ship had the option of paying a $500 bond per woman to allow her to land, with the bond having the ostensible purpose to "indemnify all the counties, towns, and cities of California against liability for her support or maintenance for two years." The captain, however, refused to pay the bond, and detained the women on board. They sued out a writ of _habeas corpus_, which led to them being moved into the custody of the Sheriff of the County and City of San Francisco, where they stayed, awaiting deportation upon the return of _Japan_, which had already left on its trip to China.[2]

The women refused to be deported to China, and appealed the decision to deport them. The California High Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute used to deny them entry, and upheld their deportation. They appealed the decision in the United States Supreme Court.[2] This was the first case to appear before the United States Supreme Court that involved a Chinese litigant.[9]

*Supreme Court decision[edit]*
Justice Stephen Johnson Field ordered the release of all the women from the Sheriff's custody. However, Chy Lung still pressed the case in the Supreme Court, seeking to test the constitutionality of the statute that had been used to imprison her and her companions.[2]

On October 1, 1875, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of Chy Lung. Its primary argument was that the United States federal government, as opposed to state governments, were in charge of immigration policy and diplomatic relations with other nations, {the defendants did not ask the court to interpret the law as to who had jurisdiction over immigrants} so it was not up to the state of California to impose restrictions on Chinese immigration. The Supreme Court also noted that this action by the government of California could jeopardize foreign relations for the United States government insofar as it ran afoul of treaty obligations.[2][3][10]

The court did note that states could make reasonable and necessary regulations concerning paupers and convicted criminals, but that this regulation went far beyond that and was also extortionary.[3]

*The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case*.[2]

The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched.[2]"

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

My commentary in red.

The case of Chy Lung WAS NOT about who had jurisdiction over immigrants.  And so, the SCOTUS (because of what I bolded) decided to grant plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration.

The problem is, Congress has *NO AUTHORITY *to bestow upon any other branch of government a power of any kind.  They are to interpret the law, not legislate.  Legislating from the bench is unconstitutional.  Legislators simply refuse to hold Congress accountable.  

"In United States constitutional law, plenary power is a power that has been granted to a body or person in absolute terms, with no review of or limitations upon the exercise of that power. The assignment of a plenary power to one body divests all other bodies from the right to exercise that power, where not otherwise entitled. Plenary powers are not subject to judicial review in a particular instance or in general.

In regard to immigration law, Congress, under the Plenary Power Doctrine, has the *power* to make immigration policy subject to judicial oversight. "

Plenary power - Wikipedia

I thank wikipedia for using that word* POWER* instead of *AUTHORITY*.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Taz said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?
> 
> 
> 
> From being an actual US citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We got to talk about this one.  I need for you to explain this:
> 
> Your Rights are a by product of citizenship?  So, work with me here:
> 
> Let us say you own a firearm or you belong to a religion the government does not like OR maybe the liberals decide that you cannot be agnostic or atheist, but instead must belong to a One World Religion.  If such a proposition is put into place by majority vote, do you then comply?  if not, can you explain to me your theory of law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your example is absurd and makes no sense. What planet would this be on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrats have already passed an Assault Weapons Ban and fortunately it wasn't permanent.  Congress did not make it permanent, so that's happened.
> 
> In my lifetime, Bob Jones University had a policy prohibiting inter-racial dating and relationships on campus.  The government forced them to comply with "public policy"  (an area of law I can't find in American law and have yet to meet its head honcho)
> 
> The Tea Party was pursued by the IRS on the basis of their beliefs.
> 
> So, I suppose the answer to your question is maybe the third rock from the  sun is where such abuses and infringements can and do happen.
> 
> Okay, I get it.  You like to deflect.  Let's try again.  Can you explain to me your interpretation of this:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s for citizens, not for a billion Chinese and all the beaners in the world.
Click to expand...



Again, Taz,  Is it your position that only American citizens are due the unalienable Rights mentioned above?


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it fundamentally changes America from being a beacon of Freedom for the world to a country that aspires to be a gated community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, a gated community that welcomes the worthy.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than that, the "gate" has always been there in some form as the method by which we preserve ourselves AS the beacon of freedom!  The FREEDOM is for those of us living IN the United States.  The freedom has NEVER been about others outside the USA just being free to walk in here and do any damn thing they choose.  That might be "free" for them, but represents a HUGE loss of freedom for Americans, thus ultimately destroying America itself for the freedom it tries to preserve and represent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US has the most generous legal immigration policy of all the countries in the world. That's not good enough for the commies.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so funny you should take that act on the road.  When you aren't pretending to be a bully or a know it all, you're talking out your ass.  In fact, it is easier to get into communist China than the United States.  Add to that, you expect everyone who comes here to become a citizen and you hang with those who tell you they are concerned about our culture.
> 
> How you people are going to make citizens out of the third world and maintain your culture as you become an irrelevant minority is certainly going to be a trick for the ages.
Click to expand...



They did it in the early 20's I think by drastically slowing immigration for more than a decade to allow new immigrants time to assimilate. See the immigration act of 1924.

.


----------



## OKTexas

sealybobo said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watching doesn't prevent 1 person from crossing, drones, sensors and other technology won't prevent 1 person from crossing. Then we have to spend nearly $12,000 for each one we catch to deport them. Walls where erected have proven effective.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> If you watch, stop them and don’t let them in that works.
> 
> An unlatched area of wall won’t stop shit. So you just wasted $5 billion.
> 
> We didn’t have a problem until Reagan. He and GW Bush stopped cracking down on employers who hire illegals. If we go back to the way things were, illegals would go home. No employer would dare hire them..
> 
> Again, no wall necessary.
> 
> We survived all these years with no wall. Sorry trump you’re going to loose this one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you are refusing to acknowledge is that past illegal aliens were single working aged males that wanted to send money home to support their family. They were mostly from Mexico and could easily be removed.
> 
> Now we have whole families and unaccompanied minors, the law requires they be treated differently. They are overwhelming the system established to process and care for them. Right now we have almost a million pending asylum cases and thousands a month added to that backlog.
> 
> Another thing you seem not to understand is border patrol agent can NOT physically prevent an illegal alien form entering, all they can do is arrest and detain them AFTER they have entered, then the courts and the law gives them due process rights. The only legal way to prevent entry is a barrier that prevents entry in the first place.
> 
> Also I doubt Trump is monitoring this forum so your last sentence was a waste of band width. But feel free to try to refute the facts I've presented.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re not listening to anything I say and you believe the wall is the silver bullet.
> 
> Texas should pay for it. States rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never said it was a silver bullet, it's just part of the solution, but your claims that todays illegals are the same as in the past is BS. I notice you didn't even try to actually rebut what I actually said. So carry on with your intellectually dishonest crap and I'll continue to smile at your ignorance.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  We don't need a wall.  This is a manufactured crisis
> 2. Wall is too expensive and won't solve a thing.  $5 bill is just the down payment.  Do you want to spend a trillion on a wall?  Really?
> 3.  So you want your taxes to go up?
> 4.  Our roads and infrastructure are falling apart because we don't have the money to fix them.  So we should build a wall first?
> 5.  This is just a simple idea that his simple followers can understand and rally behind.  Forget about getting them to understand a comprehensive solution to this.
> 6. Trump can't be a hypocrite and hire illegals at Mara Largo and then say we need a wall
> 7.  This is a legacy or monument Trump wants personally
> 8. Trump needs to stop punishing us because he can't stand to lose.
> 9.  We can't give in to Trump or else this will be the new way a President governs.
Click to expand...



Still can't address what I said, but your deflection is noted. Have a great day.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it fundamentally changes America from being a beacon of Freedom for the world to a country that aspires to be a gated community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, a gated community that welcomes the worthy.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than that, the "gate" has always been there in some form as the method by which we preserve ourselves AS the beacon of freedom!  The FREEDOM is for those of us living IN the United States.  The freedom has NEVER been about others outside the USA just being free to walk in here and do any damn thing they choose.  That might be "free" for them, but represents a HUGE loss of freedom for Americans, thus ultimately destroying America itself for the freedom it tries to preserve and represent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US has the most generous legal immigration policy of all the countries in the world. That's not good enough for the commies.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so funny you should take that act on the road.  When you aren't pretending to be a bully or a know it all, you're talking out your ass.  In fact, it is easier to get into communist China than the United States.  Add to that, you expect everyone who comes here to become a citizen and you hang with those who tell you they are concerned about our culture.
> 
> How you people are going to make citizens out of the third world and maintain your culture as you become an irrelevant minority is certainly going to be a trick for the ages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They did it in the early 20's I think by drastically slowing immigration for more than a decade to allow new immigrants time to assimilate. See the immigration act of 1924.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


What is it you think we did in the 1920s?  Dude, for real, I'm going to have start ignoring you if your posts don't add up to what you're quoting.  That post you just did don't have squat to do with what you quoted me on.


----------



## OKTexas

sealybobo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> He believes that if an employer wants to hire someone for $1 an hour and someone is desperate enough to take the job that the employer should be free to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That's how freedom and free markets work. People get to make their own decisions without asking the state for permission.
> 
> 
> 
> That not allowing the employer to hire slave labor is the equivalent of having a socialistic society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comparing voluntary employment to slavery is an insult the memory of real slaves. But the policies you're advocating do  lean socialist. Wage and price controls are an important step in taking over the economy with government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hiring who you desire is free market, but bringing people in for you to choose from is not.  That is up to government.  Once they are approved to be here, then you can decide to hire them or not.  If you want to hire people outside our country, then move your business there.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump can't be serious that he wants a wall built when the illegals who work at his resorts are getting here a plethora of other ways.
> 
> Again, if we just went after illegal employers like Trump we could solve this problem.
> 
> And we can patrol a border without building a multi trillion dollar ineffective monument to Donald Trump.
Click to expand...



Multi trillion, wow your imagination has really ran away with you.

.


----------



## Slyhunter

sealybobo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hiring who you desire is free market, but bringing people in for you to choose from is not.  That is up to government.  Once they are approved to be here, then you can decide to hire them or not.  If you want to hire people outside our country, then move your business there.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> 
> 
> Trump can't be serious that he wants a wall built when the illegals who work at his resorts are getting here a plethora of other ways.
> 
> Again, if we just went after illegal employers like Trump we could solve this problem.
> 
> And we can patrol a border without building a multi trillion dollar ineffective monument to Donald Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
Click to expand...

How do you stop illegal entry without a wall. Shoot them?


----------



## Taz

Porter Rockwell said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> From being an actual US citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We got to talk about this one.  I need for you to explain this:
> 
> Your Rights are a by product of citizenship?  So, work with me here:
> 
> Let us say you own a firearm or you belong to a religion the government does not like OR maybe the liberals decide that you cannot be agnostic or atheist, but instead must belong to a One World Religion.  If such a proposition is put into place by majority vote, do you then comply?  if not, can you explain to me your theory of law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your example is absurd and makes no sense. What planet would this be on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrats have already passed an Assault Weapons Ban and fortunately it wasn't permanent.  Congress did not make it permanent, so that's happened.
> 
> In my lifetime, Bob Jones University had a policy prohibiting inter-racial dating and relationships on campus.  The government forced them to comply with "public policy"  (an area of law I can't find in American law and have yet to meet its head honcho)
> 
> The Tea Party was pursued by the IRS on the basis of their beliefs.
> 
> So, I suppose the answer to your question is maybe the third rock from the  sun is where such abuses and infringements can and do happen.
> 
> Okay, I get it.  You like to deflect.  Let's try again.  Can you explain to me your interpretation of this:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s for citizens, not for a billion Chinese and all the beaners in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Taz,  Is it your position that only American citizens are due the unalienable Rights mentioned above?
Click to expand...

If it’s in the Constitution then yes, it’s only for citizens.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm Agnostic.
> I believe Intelligent life is more important than other life. I believe individuals should be free to do any damn thing they want to do as long as it doesn't stop another individual from having his rights.
> I believe my ancestors built this country for me to appreciate it and I don't have to give away the stuff I take for granted and end up losing it all to a bunch of people from poverty stricken countries unwilling to fix their own damn countries.
> I believe there are 158 million poverty folks on this planet and they can't all come here. They are lucky we allow a million a year to come here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, like Ray, you think that rights are inalienable?  Do you, like he, believe that our Rights come through mortal men who can vote for or against what they will or will not give you in terms of Liberty?
> 
> So, when an employer hires a foreigner, how do you justify taking away his Rights?  As I see it, owning private property is one of the greatest hallmarks of our constitutional Republic.  Do you disagree with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a strawman, if you want to argue the theoretical it belongs elsewhere, this is a discussion of what is. You have yet to explain how the existing wall on 1/3rd to the border is effecting your or any one else's rights. Or how an additional wall on 10% more would change anything related to rights.
> 
> If an employer hires and illegal he just became a criminal, like the person he hired. Criminals forfeit their rights.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> AFTER I go to bed and you had tapped out, you come by for a hit and run?  Where I live you cannot pay an undocumented worker less than $10 an hour.  The local government don't waste their time chasing undocumented people since they understand that most of the laws you support are blatantly unconstitutional. I'll explain that to you in a moment.
> 
> I have answered your question at least *six times *on this thread.  I may do it again for chits and giggles at some point, but YOU don't repeat anything for me, so it's not my job to read the thread and keep up with what you say either.  You got me mixed up.  I'm not your push button monkey.  So, you should quit lying and read the thread.  Now, here is what I think about your unconstitutional laws:
> 
> "The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
> This is succinctly stated as follows:
> 
> The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
> 
> An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
> 
> Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
> 
> Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
> 
> A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
> An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
> 
> Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
> 
> *No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it*."
> 
> — Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cool, so you ignore the fact that the courts have upheld the laws being discussed. Like I said earlier we can discuss theoretical constitutional principles, but this thread is on what is. Also when I hire Americans for odd jobs, I pay them 10.00 an hour.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you lying again?  You wait until a topic is several posts old and then comment, forcing me to do an intensive search to find out what the Hell you're talking about.  You need to either be specific OR give me the relevant post number as the quote feature only goes back so many posts.
> 
> The courts have not upheld any point I've discussed as the federal courts have NO de jure / lawful / constitutional authority in immigration law save of citizenship.  Who a state allows within its jurisdiction is, constitutionally, their business.  Period sir.
Click to expand...



Sorry you lack the ability to review a string, all you need do is click the portion where it says expand. But the supremes say you're full of it on immigration law, so does the Constitution. Also I get here when I can, this is not all I do.

.


----------



## dblack

Taz said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump can't be serious that he wants a wall built when the illegals who work at his resorts are getting here a plethora of other ways.
> 
> Again, if we just went after illegal employers like Trump we could solve this problem.
> 
> And we can patrol a border without building a multi trillion dollar ineffective monument to Donald Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m a Libertarian, not GOP.
Click to expand...


Yeah. Just like bripat9643 is a Libertarian.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Taz said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> We got to talk about this one.  I need for you to explain this:
> 
> Your Rights are a by product of citizenship?  So, work with me here:
> 
> Let us say you own a firearm or you belong to a religion the government does not like OR maybe the liberals decide that you cannot be agnostic or atheist, but instead must belong to a One World Religion.  If such a proposition is put into place by majority vote, do you then comply?  if not, can you explain to me your theory of law?
> 
> 
> 
> Your example is absurd and makes no sense. What planet would this be on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrats have already passed an Assault Weapons Ban and fortunately it wasn't permanent.  Congress did not make it permanent, so that's happened.
> 
> In my lifetime, Bob Jones University had a policy prohibiting inter-racial dating and relationships on campus.  The government forced them to comply with "public policy"  (an area of law I can't find in American law and have yet to meet its head honcho)
> 
> The Tea Party was pursued by the IRS on the basis of their beliefs.
> 
> So, I suppose the answer to your question is maybe the third rock from the  sun is where such abuses and infringements can and do happen.
> 
> Okay, I get it.  You like to deflect.  Let's try again.  Can you explain to me your interpretation of this:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s for citizens, not for a billion Chinese and all the beaners in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Taz,  Is it your position that only American citizens are due the unalienable Rights mentioned above?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it’s in the Constitution then yes, it’s only for citizens.
Click to expand...


Taz, what I quoted came from the Declaration of Independence.  What you are saying, and I'm not judging you - just paraphrasing you:

Unalienable Rights are a byproduct of the Constitution, given by government and subject to their terms and conditions.  

I suppose that if you start talking about the Constitution prior to the 14th Amendment, you would be correct that it (the Constitution) applies only to citizens.Since the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified in reality, the Constitution only guarantees not to infringe upon the whites, who were the posterity the Constitution applied to.

OTOH, although only whites could become citizens, millions of foreigners came here at the discretion of the states to take part in our free enterprise system without becoming citizens.  

The problem I have with your theory is that I could be voted into oblivion - as could ALL the people you are siding with on how to best resolve the dilemma.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey thanks for the laugh, all the supremes did in that case was uphold the commerce clause and the immigration powers the Constitution vested in congress after 1808. But goo try.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot read.  In 1808 state immigration officials were to collect a $10 tax per person they had in their states.  That is why, in 1875, California had state immigration officials.  That is over half a century AFTER your misrepresentation of the facts.
> 
> BTW, I'm in one discussion tonight.  Any way you can wait til tomorrow to give me a sporting chance to respond to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what CA was doing, they were going far above that. A $500 bond in gold, where were they authorized to do that.
> 
> Also, this is an open forum, I'll respond to any post I chose.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semantics.  All semantics.  What I recall from memory is that the state did not comply with the law.  Neither did they answer to the charges and so the court was legally compelled to rule against them.
> 
> If we repealed the 14th Amendment and if California challenged the immigration laws on the books, they would win - that's the bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that, CA was charging far in excess for their costs of inspections, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2 say all excess funds would have to turned over to the Treasury of the US. Also there is nothing in the Constitution that allowed them to collect bonds on immigrants.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone else challenged the amount of money in question.  I didn't feel like debating an irrelevant point, so I will repeat my point along with having to repeat myself due to your blatant dishonesty.
> 
> "In 1875, the State of California passed a statute authorizing the *immigration* commissioner to inspect passengers arriving in California at a* cost of 75 cents per inspection* (levied on the passenger) and giving him the authority to deny entry to passengers suspected of being lewd and debauched. Those suspected thus could be allowed entry if the captain of the ship paid a bond for them"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia.
> 
> IIRC, you made a bogus argument once before about the Constitution and what happened in 1808.  I cited the relevant portion and still got some bogus counter-response.  So, let us see how much *authority* the federal government has over foreigners as per the Constitution:
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to  ... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> ...The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."  Article I  Section 9 of the United States Constitution.
> 
> Now let us get to the facts:
> 
> 1)  Throughout the lives of the founders, the states had control of immigration (the migration of people) and federal authority is limited to citizenship
> 
> 2)  Between 1808 and 1875, the states controlled immigration, proving that the issue of jurisdiction never changed.  The ONLY thing Article I Section 9 of the Constitution deals with is the tax
> 
> 3)  In Chy Lung v Freeman, according to Wikepedia:
> 
> "22 women from China, including Chy Lung, were among the passengers on the steamer _Japan_ that journeyed from China to San Francisco, arriving in 1875.[9] The immigration commissioner examined the passengers and identified Chy Lung and the other women as "lewd and debauched women." The captain of the ship had the option of paying a $500 bond per woman to allow her to land, with the bond having the ostensible purpose to "indemnify all the counties, towns, and cities of California against liability for her support or maintenance for two years." The captain, however, refused to pay the bond, and detained the women on board. They sued out a writ of _habeas corpus_, which led to them being moved into the custody of the Sheriff of the County and City of San Francisco, where they stayed, awaiting deportation upon the return of _Japan_, which had already left on its trip to China.[2]
> 
> The women refused to be deported to China, and appealed the decision to deport them. The California High Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute used to deny them entry, and upheld their deportation. They appealed the decision in the United States Supreme Court.[2] This was the first case to appear before the United States Supreme Court that involved a Chinese litigant.[9]
> 
> *Supreme Court decision[edit]*
> Justice Stephen Johnson Field ordered the release of all the women from the Sheriff's custody. However, Chy Lung still pressed the case in the Supreme Court, seeking to test the constitutionality of the statute that had been used to imprison her and her companions.[2]
> 
> On October 1, 1875, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of Chy Lung. Its primary argument was that the United States federal government, as opposed to state governments, were in charge of immigration policy and diplomatic relations with other nations, {the defendants did not ask the court to interpret the law as to who had jurisdiction over immigrants} so it was not up to the state of California to impose restrictions on Chinese immigration. The Supreme Court also noted that this action by the government of California could jeopardize foreign relations for the United States government insofar as it ran afoul of treaty obligations.[2][3][10]
> 
> The court did note that states could make reasonable and necessary regulations concerning paupers and convicted criminals, but that this regulation went far beyond that and was also extortionary.[3]
> 
> *The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case*.[2]
> 
> The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched.[2]"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> My commentary in red.
> 
> The case of Chy Lung WAS NOT about who had jurisdiction over immigrants.  And so, the SCOTUS (because of what I bolded) decided to grant plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration.
> 
> The problem is, Congress has *NO AUTHORITY *to bestow upon any other branch of government a power of any kind.  They are to interpret the law, not legislate.  Legislating from the bench is unconstitutional.  Legislators simply refuse to hold Congress accountable.
> 
> "In United States constitutional law, plenary power is a power that has been granted to a body or person in absolute terms, with no review of or limitations upon the exercise of that power. The assignment of a plenary power to one body divests all other bodies from the right to exercise that power, where not otherwise entitled. Plenary powers are not subject to judicial review in a particular instance or in general.
> 
> In regard to immigration law, Congress, under the Plenary Power Doctrine, has the *power* to make immigration policy subject to judicial oversight. "
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> I thank wikipedia for using that word* POWER* instead of *AUTHORITY*.
Click to expand...



You really can't read can you?


Porter Rockwell said:


> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight*


The Constitution granted plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration after 1808, not the court.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, like Ray, you think that rights are inalienable?  Do you, like he, believe that our Rights come through mortal men who can vote for or against what they will or will not give you in terms of Liberty?
> 
> So, when an employer hires a foreigner, how do you justify taking away his Rights?  As I see it, owning private property is one of the greatest hallmarks of our constitutional Republic.  Do you disagree with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a strawman, if you want to argue the theoretical it belongs elsewhere, this is a discussion of what is. You have yet to explain how the existing wall on 1/3rd to the border is effecting your or any one else's rights. Or how an additional wall on 10% more would change anything related to rights.
> 
> If an employer hires and illegal he just became a criminal, like the person he hired. Criminals forfeit their rights.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> AFTER I go to bed and you had tapped out, you come by for a hit and run?  Where I live you cannot pay an undocumented worker less than $10 an hour.  The local government don't waste their time chasing undocumented people since they understand that most of the laws you support are blatantly unconstitutional. I'll explain that to you in a moment.
> 
> I have answered your question at least *six times *on this thread.  I may do it again for chits and giggles at some point, but YOU don't repeat anything for me, so it's not my job to read the thread and keep up with what you say either.  You got me mixed up.  I'm not your push button monkey.  So, you should quit lying and read the thread.  Now, here is what I think about your unconstitutional laws:
> 
> "The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
> This is succinctly stated as follows:
> 
> The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
> 
> An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
> 
> Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
> 
> Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
> 
> A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
> An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
> 
> Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
> 
> *No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it*."
> 
> — Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cool, so you ignore the fact that the courts have upheld the laws being discussed. Like I said earlier we can discuss theoretical constitutional principles, but this thread is on what is. Also when I hire Americans for odd jobs, I pay them 10.00 an hour.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you lying again?  You wait until a topic is several posts old and then comment, forcing me to do an intensive search to find out what the Hell you're talking about.  You need to either be specific OR give me the relevant post number as the quote feature only goes back so many posts.
> 
> The courts have not upheld any point I've discussed as the federal courts have NO de jure / lawful / constitutional authority in immigration law save of citizenship.  Who a state allows within its jurisdiction is, constitutionally, their business.  Period sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you lack the ability to review a string, all you need do is click the portion where it says expand. But the supremes say you're full of it on immigration law, so does the Constitution. Also I get here when I can, this is not all I do.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You've not provided but one link to the Immigration Act of 1924 when that is just another law that was passed outside the scope of what is in the Constitution.  You pretending to be able to evaluate laws and then you cannot accept points you don't like say that you are the one who is full of it.


----------



## Taz

Porter Rockwell said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your example is absurd and makes no sense. What planet would this be on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have already passed an Assault Weapons Ban and fortunately it wasn't permanent.  Congress did not make it permanent, so that's happened.
> 
> In my lifetime, Bob Jones University had a policy prohibiting inter-racial dating and relationships on campus.  The government forced them to comply with "public policy"  (an area of law I can't find in American law and have yet to meet its head honcho)
> 
> The Tea Party was pursued by the IRS on the basis of their beliefs.
> 
> So, I suppose the answer to your question is maybe the third rock from the  sun is where such abuses and infringements can and do happen.
> 
> Okay, I get it.  You like to deflect.  Let's try again.  Can you explain to me your interpretation of this:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s for citizens, not for a billion Chinese and all the beaners in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Taz,  Is it your position that only American citizens are due the unalienable Rights mentioned above?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it’s in the Constitution then yes, it’s only for citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taz, what I quoted came from the Declaration of Independence.  What you are saying, and I'm not judging you - just paraphrasing you:
> 
> Unalienable Rights are a byproduct of the Constitution, given by government and subject to their terms and conditions.
> 
> I suppose that if you start talking about the Constitution prior to the 14th Amendment, you would be correct that it (the Constitution) applies only to citizens.Since the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified in reality, the Constitution only guarantees not to infringe upon the whites, who were the posterity the Constitution applied to.
> 
> OTOH, although only whites could become citizens, millions of foreigners came here at the discretion of the states to take part in our free enterprise system without becoming citizens.
> 
> The problem I have with your theory is that I could be voted into oblivion - as could ALL the people you are siding with on how to best resolve the dilemma.
Click to expand...

Whether it's the Declaration or Constitution, they only apply to citizens. As a country, we can't give rights to the rest of the world and let anyone in, we'll be a third world shithole in 5 minutes, and some places here already are because of illegals.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> From being an actual US citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We got to talk about this one.  I need for you to explain this:
> 
> Your Rights are a by product of citizenship?  So, work with me here:
> 
> Let us say you own a firearm or you belong to a religion the government does not like OR maybe the liberals decide that you cannot be agnostic or atheist, but instead must belong to a One World Religion.  If such a proposition is put into place by majority vote, do you then comply?  if not, can you explain to me your theory of law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your example is absurd and makes no sense. What planet would this be on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrats have already passed an Assault Weapons Ban and fortunately it wasn't permanent.  Congress did not make it permanent, so that's happened.
> 
> In my lifetime, Bob Jones University had a policy prohibiting inter-racial dating and relationships on campus.  The government forced them to comply with "public policy"  (an area of law I can't find in American law and have yet to meet its head honcho)
> 
> The Tea Party was pursued by the IRS on the basis of their beliefs.
> 
> So, I suppose the answer to your question is maybe the third rock from the  sun is where such abuses and infringements can and do happen.
> 
> Okay, I get it.  You like to deflect.  Let's try again.  Can you explain to me your interpretation of this:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s for citizens, not for a billion Chinese and all the beaners in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Taz,  Is it your position that only American citizens are due the unalienable Rights mentioned above?
Click to expand...



Are you suggesting we impose our values on the rest of the world. 

.


----------



## dblack

Taz said:


> Whether it's the Declaration or Constitution, they only apply to citizens.



Nope. They don't apply to citizens at all. They only apply to government.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot read.  In 1808 state immigration officials were to collect a $10 tax per person they had in their states.  That is why, in 1875, California had state immigration officials.  That is over half a century AFTER your misrepresentation of the facts.
> 
> BTW, I'm in one discussion tonight.  Any way you can wait til tomorrow to give me a sporting chance to respond to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what CA was doing, they were going far above that. A $500 bond in gold, where were they authorized to do that.
> 
> Also, this is an open forum, I'll respond to any post I chose.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semantics.  All semantics.  What I recall from memory is that the state did not comply with the law.  Neither did they answer to the charges and so the court was legally compelled to rule against them.
> 
> If we repealed the 14th Amendment and if California challenged the immigration laws on the books, they would win - that's the bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that, CA was charging far in excess for their costs of inspections, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2 say all excess funds would have to turned over to the Treasury of the US. Also there is nothing in the Constitution that allowed them to collect bonds on immigrants.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone else challenged the amount of money in question.  I didn't feel like debating an irrelevant point, so I will repeat my point along with having to repeat myself due to your blatant dishonesty.
> 
> "In 1875, the State of California passed a statute authorizing the *immigration* commissioner to inspect passengers arriving in California at a* cost of 75 cents per inspection* (levied on the passenger) and giving him the authority to deny entry to passengers suspected of being lewd and debauched. Those suspected thus could be allowed entry if the captain of the ship paid a bond for them"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia.
> 
> IIRC, you made a bogus argument once before about the Constitution and what happened in 1808.  I cited the relevant portion and still got some bogus counter-response.  So, let us see how much *authority* the federal government has over foreigners as per the Constitution:
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to  ... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> ...The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."  Article I  Section 9 of the United States Constitution.
> 
> Now let us get to the facts:
> 
> 1)  Throughout the lives of the founders, the states had control of immigration (the migration of people) and federal authority is limited to citizenship
> 
> 2)  Between 1808 and 1875, the states controlled immigration, proving that the issue of jurisdiction never changed.  The ONLY thing Article I Section 9 of the Constitution deals with is the tax
> 
> 3)  In Chy Lung v Freeman, according to Wikepedia:
> 
> "22 women from China, including Chy Lung, were among the passengers on the steamer _Japan_ that journeyed from China to San Francisco, arriving in 1875.[9] The immigration commissioner examined the passengers and identified Chy Lung and the other women as "lewd and debauched women." The captain of the ship had the option of paying a $500 bond per woman to allow her to land, with the bond having the ostensible purpose to "indemnify all the counties, towns, and cities of California against liability for her support or maintenance for two years." The captain, however, refused to pay the bond, and detained the women on board. They sued out a writ of _habeas corpus_, which led to them being moved into the custody of the Sheriff of the County and City of San Francisco, where they stayed, awaiting deportation upon the return of _Japan_, which had already left on its trip to China.[2]
> 
> The women refused to be deported to China, and appealed the decision to deport them. The California High Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute used to deny them entry, and upheld their deportation. They appealed the decision in the United States Supreme Court.[2] This was the first case to appear before the United States Supreme Court that involved a Chinese litigant.[9]
> 
> *Supreme Court decision[edit]*
> Justice Stephen Johnson Field ordered the release of all the women from the Sheriff's custody. However, Chy Lung still pressed the case in the Supreme Court, seeking to test the constitutionality of the statute that had been used to imprison her and her companions.[2]
> 
> On October 1, 1875, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of Chy Lung. Its primary argument was that the United States federal government, as opposed to state governments, were in charge of immigration policy and diplomatic relations with other nations, {the defendants did not ask the court to interpret the law as to who had jurisdiction over immigrants} so it was not up to the state of California to impose restrictions on Chinese immigration. The Supreme Court also noted that this action by the government of California could jeopardize foreign relations for the United States government insofar as it ran afoul of treaty obligations.[2][3][10]
> 
> The court did note that states could make reasonable and necessary regulations concerning paupers and convicted criminals, but that this regulation went far beyond that and was also extortionary.[3]
> 
> *The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case*.[2]
> 
> The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched.[2]"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> My commentary in red.
> 
> The case of Chy Lung WAS NOT about who had jurisdiction over immigrants.  And so, the SCOTUS (because of what I bolded) decided to grant plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration.
> 
> The problem is, Congress has *NO AUTHORITY *to bestow upon any other branch of government a power of any kind.  They are to interpret the law, not legislate.  Legislating from the bench is unconstitutional.  Legislators simply refuse to hold Congress accountable.
> 
> "In United States constitutional law, plenary power is a power that has been granted to a body or person in absolute terms, with no review of or limitations upon the exercise of that power. The assignment of a plenary power to one body divests all other bodies from the right to exercise that power, where not otherwise entitled. Plenary powers are not subject to judicial review in a particular instance or in general.
> 
> In regard to immigration law, Congress, under the Plenary Power Doctrine, has the *power* to make immigration policy subject to judicial oversight. "
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> I thank wikipedia for using that word* POWER* instead of *AUTHORITY*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read can you?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution granted plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration after 1808, not the court.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


No, it did not.  Now, you're becoming the danielpalos of the right.  If you read the plenary powers article, it is by that, NOT THE CONSTITUTION, that the federal government is ruling immigration by.  They rule over immigration by way of an interpretation in Chy Lung v Freeman wherein the jurisdiction of the state was not an issue the defendants brought to the table.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, a gated community that welcomes the worthy.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than that, the "gate" has always been there in some form as the method by which we preserve ourselves AS the beacon of freedom!  The FREEDOM is for those of us living IN the United States.  The freedom has NEVER been about others outside the USA just being free to walk in here and do any damn thing they choose.  That might be "free" for them, but represents a HUGE loss of freedom for Americans, thus ultimately destroying America itself for the freedom it tries to preserve and represent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US has the most generous legal immigration policy of all the countries in the world. That's not good enough for the commies.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so funny you should take that act on the road.  When you aren't pretending to be a bully or a know it all, you're talking out your ass.  In fact, it is easier to get into communist China than the United States.  Add to that, you expect everyone who comes here to become a citizen and you hang with those who tell you they are concerned about our culture.
> 
> How you people are going to make citizens out of the third world and maintain your culture as you become an irrelevant minority is certainly going to be a trick for the ages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They did it in the early 20's I think by drastically slowing immigration for more than a decade to allow new immigrants time to assimilate. See the immigration act of 1924.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it you think we did in the 1920s?  Dude, for real, I'm going to have start ignoring you if your posts don't add up to what you're quoting.  That post you just did don't have squat to do with what you quoted me on.
Click to expand...



Actually it had everything to do with the last sentence in your post.

.


----------



## Taz

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what CA was doing, they were going far above that. A $500 bond in gold, where were they authorized to do that.
> 
> Also, this is an open forum, I'll respond to any post I chose.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semantics.  All semantics.  What I recall from memory is that the state did not comply with the law.  Neither did they answer to the charges and so the court was legally compelled to rule against them.
> 
> If we repealed the 14th Amendment and if California challenged the immigration laws on the books, they would win - that's the bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that, CA was charging far in excess for their costs of inspections, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2 say all excess funds would have to turned over to the Treasury of the US. Also there is nothing in the Constitution that allowed them to collect bonds on immigrants.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone else challenged the amount of money in question.  I didn't feel like debating an irrelevant point, so I will repeat my point along with having to repeat myself due to your blatant dishonesty.
> 
> "In 1875, the State of California passed a statute authorizing the *immigration* commissioner to inspect passengers arriving in California at a* cost of 75 cents per inspection* (levied on the passenger) and giving him the authority to deny entry to passengers suspected of being lewd and debauched. Those suspected thus could be allowed entry if the captain of the ship paid a bond for them"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia.
> 
> IIRC, you made a bogus argument once before about the Constitution and what happened in 1808.  I cited the relevant portion and still got some bogus counter-response.  So, let us see how much *authority* the federal government has over foreigners as per the Constitution:
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to  ... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> ...The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."  Article I  Section 9 of the United States Constitution.
> 
> Now let us get to the facts:
> 
> 1)  Throughout the lives of the founders, the states had control of immigration (the migration of people) and federal authority is limited to citizenship
> 
> 2)  Between 1808 and 1875, the states controlled immigration, proving that the issue of jurisdiction never changed.  The ONLY thing Article I Section 9 of the Constitution deals with is the tax
> 
> 3)  In Chy Lung v Freeman, according to Wikepedia:
> 
> "22 women from China, including Chy Lung, were among the passengers on the steamer _Japan_ that journeyed from China to San Francisco, arriving in 1875.[9] The immigration commissioner examined the passengers and identified Chy Lung and the other women as "lewd and debauched women." The captain of the ship had the option of paying a $500 bond per woman to allow her to land, with the bond having the ostensible purpose to "indemnify all the counties, towns, and cities of California against liability for her support or maintenance for two years." The captain, however, refused to pay the bond, and detained the women on board. They sued out a writ of _habeas corpus_, which led to them being moved into the custody of the Sheriff of the County and City of San Francisco, where they stayed, awaiting deportation upon the return of _Japan_, which had already left on its trip to China.[2]
> 
> The women refused to be deported to China, and appealed the decision to deport them. The California High Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute used to deny them entry, and upheld their deportation. They appealed the decision in the United States Supreme Court.[2] This was the first case to appear before the United States Supreme Court that involved a Chinese litigant.[9]
> 
> *Supreme Court decision[edit]*
> Justice Stephen Johnson Field ordered the release of all the women from the Sheriff's custody. However, Chy Lung still pressed the case in the Supreme Court, seeking to test the constitutionality of the statute that had been used to imprison her and her companions.[2]
> 
> On October 1, 1875, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of Chy Lung. Its primary argument was that the United States federal government, as opposed to state governments, were in charge of immigration policy and diplomatic relations with other nations, {the defendants did not ask the court to interpret the law as to who had jurisdiction over immigrants} so it was not up to the state of California to impose restrictions on Chinese immigration. The Supreme Court also noted that this action by the government of California could jeopardize foreign relations for the United States government insofar as it ran afoul of treaty obligations.[2][3][10]
> 
> The court did note that states could make reasonable and necessary regulations concerning paupers and convicted criminals, but that this regulation went far beyond that and was also extortionary.[3]
> 
> *The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case*.[2]
> 
> The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched.[2]"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> My commentary in red.
> 
> The case of Chy Lung WAS NOT about who had jurisdiction over immigrants.  And so, the SCOTUS (because of what I bolded) decided to grant plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration.
> 
> The problem is, Congress has *NO AUTHORITY *to bestow upon any other branch of government a power of any kind.  They are to interpret the law, not legislate.  Legislating from the bench is unconstitutional.  Legislators simply refuse to hold Congress accountable.
> 
> "In United States constitutional law, plenary power is a power that has been granted to a body or person in absolute terms, with no review of or limitations upon the exercise of that power. The assignment of a plenary power to one body divests all other bodies from the right to exercise that power, where not otherwise entitled. Plenary powers are not subject to judicial review in a particular instance or in general.
> 
> In regard to immigration law, Congress, under the Plenary Power Doctrine, has the *power* to make immigration policy subject to judicial oversight. "
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> I thank wikipedia for using that word* POWER* instead of *AUTHORITY*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read can you?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution granted plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration after 1808, not the court.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it did not.  Now, you're becoming the danielpalos of the right.  If you read the plenary powers article, it is by that, NOT THE CONSTITUTION, that the federal government is ruling immigration by.  They rule over immigration by way of an interpretation in Chy Lung v Freeman wherein the jurisdiction of the state was not an issue the defendants brought to the table.
Click to expand...

Danielpalos admitted to me in another thread that he's trying to get the rest of his beaner family into the US, so anything he says is totally biased.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Taz said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have already passed an Assault Weapons Ban and fortunately it wasn't permanent.  Congress did not make it permanent, so that's happened.
> 
> In my lifetime, Bob Jones University had a policy prohibiting inter-racial dating and relationships on campus.  The government forced them to comply with "public policy"  (an area of law I can't find in American law and have yet to meet its head honcho)
> 
> The Tea Party was pursued by the IRS on the basis of their beliefs.
> 
> So, I suppose the answer to your question is maybe the third rock from the  sun is where such abuses and infringements can and do happen.
> 
> Okay, I get it.  You like to deflect.  Let's try again.  Can you explain to me your interpretation of this:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> 
> 
> It’s for citizens, not for a billion Chinese and all the beaners in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Taz,  Is it your position that only American citizens are due the unalienable Rights mentioned above?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it’s in the Constitution then yes, it’s only for citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taz, what I quoted came from the Declaration of Independence.  What you are saying, and I'm not judging you - just paraphrasing you:
> 
> Unalienable Rights are a byproduct of the Constitution, given by government and subject to their terms and conditions.
> 
> I suppose that if you start talking about the Constitution prior to the 14th Amendment, you would be correct that it (the Constitution) applies only to citizens.Since the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified in reality, the Constitution only guarantees not to infringe upon the whites, who were the posterity the Constitution applied to.
> 
> OTOH, although only whites could become citizens, millions of foreigners came here at the discretion of the states to take part in our free enterprise system without becoming citizens.
> 
> The problem I have with your theory is that I could be voted into oblivion - as could ALL the people you are siding with on how to best resolve the dilemma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether it's the Declaration or Constitution, they only apply to citizens. As a country, we can't give rights to the rest of the world and let anyone in, we'll be a third world shithole in 5 minutes, and some places here already are because of illegals.
Click to expand...


Taz,

America was built on this principle that each of has Rights that are bestowed upon us by our Creator (our God, whomever we deem that to be.)  In saying that a Right is unalienable, it means that our forefathers believed there are some things that are above the government like Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Constitution did not even exist when our forefathers adopted those founding principles.  So, if foreigners have no Right to Liberty, they have no Right to Life.  How come you suppose that people aren't shooting these so - called illegal aliens if they do not have a Right to Life?  If you're saying they are not men, then they must be rodents.  I mean, under those principles you cannot say they have a Right to Life, but no Right to Liberty.  You have to be consistent.  If you believe what you're preaching, what's keeping you from thinning the herd out a bit?


----------



## toobfreak

Porter Rockwell said:


> You wait until a topic is several posts old and then comment, forcing me to do an intensive search to find out what the Hell you're talking about.



Right!  Right!  Right!  Why didn't I think of that, OKTexas?!  So in other words, Portly, you either comment of only the posts immediately as they are typed while online and reading THAT thread or say nothing at all!  What extensive research having to flip up to the posts printed right above or to look back a couple pages and see the context.  Takes maybe, what . . . 30 seconds?  I know it must be a conspiracy just to SCREW YOU, Portly and make you look STUPID.  Yeah.  That's it.

Damn, now you're going to have to go back and extensively research a post again.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> More than that, the "gate" has always been there in some form as the method by which we preserve ourselves AS the beacon of freedom!  The FREEDOM is for those of us living IN the United States.  The freedom has NEVER been about others outside the USA just being free to walk in here and do any damn thing they choose.  That might be "free" for them, but represents a HUGE loss of freedom for Americans, thus ultimately destroying America itself for the freedom it tries to preserve and represent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US has the most generous legal immigration policy of all the countries in the world. That's not good enough for the commies.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so funny you should take that act on the road.  When you aren't pretending to be a bully or a know it all, you're talking out your ass.  In fact, it is easier to get into communist China than the United States.  Add to that, you expect everyone who comes here to become a citizen and you hang with those who tell you they are concerned about our culture.
> 
> How you people are going to make citizens out of the third world and maintain your culture as you become an irrelevant minority is certainly going to be a trick for the ages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They did it in the early 20's I think by drastically slowing immigration for more than a decade to allow new immigrants time to assimilate. See the immigration act of 1924.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it you think we did in the 1920s?  Dude, for real, I'm going to have start ignoring you if your posts don't add up to what you're quoting.  That post you just did don't have squat to do with what you quoted me on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it had everything to do with the last sentence in your post.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The Immigration Act of 1924 has NO constitutional standing.  The states controlled immigration even between 1808 and 1875.  Their jurisdiction was NOT challenged so there was NO legitimate and constitutional reason for the SCOTUS to grant plenary powers that were not part of any case that has been interpreted.


----------



## toobfreak

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it fundamentally changes America from being a beacon of Freedom for the world to a country that aspires to be a gated community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, a gated community that welcomes the worthy.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More than that, the "gate" has always been there in some form as the method by which we preserve ourselves AS the beacon of freedom!  The FREEDOM is for those of us living IN the United States.  The freedom has NEVER been about others outside the USA just being free to walk in here and do any damn thing they choose.  That might be "free" for them, but represents a HUGE loss of freedom for Americans, thus ultimately destroying America itself for the freedom it tries to preserve and represent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US has the most generous legal immigration policy of all the countries in the world. That's not good enough for the commies.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so funny you should take that act on the road.  When you aren't pretending to be a bully or a know it all, you're talking out your ass.  In fact, it is easier to get into communist China than the United States.  Add to that, you expect everyone who comes here to become a citizen and you hang with those who tell you they are concerned about our culture.
> 
> How you people are going to make citizens out of the third world and maintain your culture as you become an irrelevant minority is certainly going to be a trick for the ages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did it in the early 20's I think by drastically slowing immigration for more than a decade to allow new immigrants time to assimilate. See the immigration act of 1924.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



DANG!  Tex!  There you go making Mr. Portly have to go off doing "extensive research" again!  You must really have it in for the guy.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a strawman, if you want to argue the theoretical it belongs elsewhere, this is a discussion of what is. You have yet to explain how the existing wall on 1/3rd to the border is effecting your or any one else's rights. Or how an additional wall on 10% more would change anything related to rights.
> 
> If an employer hires and illegal he just became a criminal, like the person he hired. Criminals forfeit their rights.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFTER I go to bed and you had tapped out, you come by for a hit and run?  Where I live you cannot pay an undocumented worker less than $10 an hour.  The local government don't waste their time chasing undocumented people since they understand that most of the laws you support are blatantly unconstitutional. I'll explain that to you in a moment.
> 
> I have answered your question at least *six times *on this thread.  I may do it again for chits and giggles at some point, but YOU don't repeat anything for me, so it's not my job to read the thread and keep up with what you say either.  You got me mixed up.  I'm not your push button monkey.  So, you should quit lying and read the thread.  Now, here is what I think about your unconstitutional laws:
> 
> "The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
> This is succinctly stated as follows:
> 
> The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
> 
> An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
> 
> Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
> 
> Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
> 
> A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
> An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
> 
> Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
> 
> *No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it*."
> 
> — Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cool, so you ignore the fact that the courts have upheld the laws being discussed. Like I said earlier we can discuss theoretical constitutional principles, but this thread is on what is. Also when I hire Americans for odd jobs, I pay them 10.00 an hour.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you lying again?  You wait until a topic is several posts old and then comment, forcing me to do an intensive search to find out what the Hell you're talking about.  You need to either be specific OR give me the relevant post number as the quote feature only goes back so many posts.
> 
> The courts have not upheld any point I've discussed as the federal courts have NO de jure / lawful / constitutional authority in immigration law save of citizenship.  Who a state allows within its jurisdiction is, constitutionally, their business.  Period sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you lack the ability to review a string, all you need do is click the portion where it says expand. But the supremes say you're full of it on immigration law, so does the Constitution. Also I get here when I can, this is not all I do.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've not provided but one link to the Immigration Act of 1924 when that is just another law that was passed outside the scope of what is in the Constitution.  You pretending to be able to evaluate laws and then you cannot accept points you don't like say that you are the one who is full of it.
Click to expand...



I gave you the citation, is your google broke?

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

toobfreak said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wait until a topic is several posts old and then comment, forcing me to do an intensive search to find out what the Hell you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right!  Right!  Right!  Why didn't I think of that, OKTexas?!  So in other words, Portly, you either comment of only the posts immediately as they are typed while online and reading THAT thread or say nothing at all!  What extensive research having to flip up to the posts printed right above or to look back a couple pages and see the context.  Takes maybe, what . . . 30 seconds?  I know it must be a conspiracy just to SCREW YOU, Portly and make you look STUPID.  Yeah.  That's it.
> 
> Damn, now you're going to have to go back and extensively research a post again.
Click to expand...


You and your insecure buddies try to work the Hell out of me and expect me to be you freaking push button monkey.  It takes at least four of you to even keep up with me in this B.S,. circus show.  None of you ever took my one on one challenge - and for damn good reason.  

When you are having to respond to as many as eight posters at a time, even thirty seconds matters.  Hell as fast as I was typing ONE response last night, you guys were throwing TWO FULL pages of skeet at me.  You're scared, insecure, and you cannot send one guy at a time at me.  Today, you're trying to save Taz's ass because he's not articulating your position the way you want him to.

Dude, if you sent an army of nitwits like you, they could only post B.S and try to claim a victory.  Eight on one... and you have the audacity to claim you're winning against me?  IN YOUR DREAMS.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Taz said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Semantics.  All semantics.  What I recall from memory is that the state did not comply with the law.  Neither did they answer to the charges and so the court was legally compelled to rule against them.
> 
> If we repealed the 14th Amendment and if California challenged the immigration laws on the books, they would win - that's the bottom line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that, CA was charging far in excess for their costs of inspections, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2 say all excess funds would have to turned over to the Treasury of the US. Also there is nothing in the Constitution that allowed them to collect bonds on immigrants.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone else challenged the amount of money in question.  I didn't feel like debating an irrelevant point, so I will repeat my point along with having to repeat myself due to your blatant dishonesty.
> 
> "In 1875, the State of California passed a statute authorizing the *immigration* commissioner to inspect passengers arriving in California at a* cost of 75 cents per inspection* (levied on the passenger) and giving him the authority to deny entry to passengers suspected of being lewd and debauched. Those suspected thus could be allowed entry if the captain of the ship paid a bond for them"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia.
> 
> IIRC, you made a bogus argument once before about the Constitution and what happened in 1808.  I cited the relevant portion and still got some bogus counter-response.  So, let us see how much *authority* the federal government has over foreigners as per the Constitution:
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to  ... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> ...The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."  Article I  Section 9 of the United States Constitution.
> 
> Now let us get to the facts:
> 
> 1)  Throughout the lives of the founders, the states had control of immigration (the migration of people) and federal authority is limited to citizenship
> 
> 2)  Between 1808 and 1875, the states controlled immigration, proving that the issue of jurisdiction never changed.  The ONLY thing Article I Section 9 of the Constitution deals with is the tax
> 
> 3)  In Chy Lung v Freeman, according to Wikepedia:
> 
> "22 women from China, including Chy Lung, were among the passengers on the steamer _Japan_ that journeyed from China to San Francisco, arriving in 1875.[9] The immigration commissioner examined the passengers and identified Chy Lung and the other women as "lewd and debauched women." The captain of the ship had the option of paying a $500 bond per woman to allow her to land, with the bond having the ostensible purpose to "indemnify all the counties, towns, and cities of California against liability for her support or maintenance for two years." The captain, however, refused to pay the bond, and detained the women on board. They sued out a writ of _habeas corpus_, which led to them being moved into the custody of the Sheriff of the County and City of San Francisco, where they stayed, awaiting deportation upon the return of _Japan_, which had already left on its trip to China.[2]
> 
> The women refused to be deported to China, and appealed the decision to deport them. The California High Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute used to deny them entry, and upheld their deportation. They appealed the decision in the United States Supreme Court.[2] This was the first case to appear before the United States Supreme Court that involved a Chinese litigant.[9]
> 
> *Supreme Court decision[edit]*
> Justice Stephen Johnson Field ordered the release of all the women from the Sheriff's custody. However, Chy Lung still pressed the case in the Supreme Court, seeking to test the constitutionality of the statute that had been used to imprison her and her companions.[2]
> 
> On October 1, 1875, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of Chy Lung. Its primary argument was that the United States federal government, as opposed to state governments, were in charge of immigration policy and diplomatic relations with other nations, {the defendants did not ask the court to interpret the law as to who had jurisdiction over immigrants} so it was not up to the state of California to impose restrictions on Chinese immigration. The Supreme Court also noted that this action by the government of California could jeopardize foreign relations for the United States government insofar as it ran afoul of treaty obligations.[2][3][10]
> 
> The court did note that states could make reasonable and necessary regulations concerning paupers and convicted criminals, but that this regulation went far beyond that and was also extortionary.[3]
> 
> *The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case*.[2]
> 
> The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched.[2]"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> My commentary in red.
> 
> The case of Chy Lung WAS NOT about who had jurisdiction over immigrants.  And so, the SCOTUS (because of what I bolded) decided to grant plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration.
> 
> The problem is, Congress has *NO AUTHORITY *to bestow upon any other branch of government a power of any kind.  They are to interpret the law, not legislate.  Legislating from the bench is unconstitutional.  Legislators simply refuse to hold Congress accountable.
> 
> "In United States constitutional law, plenary power is a power that has been granted to a body or person in absolute terms, with no review of or limitations upon the exercise of that power. The assignment of a plenary power to one body divests all other bodies from the right to exercise that power, where not otherwise entitled. Plenary powers are not subject to judicial review in a particular instance or in general.
> 
> In regard to immigration law, Congress, under the Plenary Power Doctrine, has the *power* to make immigration policy subject to judicial oversight. "
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> I thank wikipedia for using that word* POWER* instead of *AUTHORITY*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read can you?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution granted plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration after 1808, not the court.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it did not.  Now, you're becoming the danielpalos of the right.  If you read the plenary powers article, it is by that, NOT THE CONSTITUTION, that the federal government is ruling immigration by.  They rule over immigration by way of an interpretation in Chy Lung v Freeman wherein the jurisdiction of the state was not an issue the defendants brought to the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Danielpalos admitted to me in another thread that he's trying to get the rest of his beaner family into the US, so anything he says is totally biased.
Click to expand...


He is totally biased.  He's left of left.  But, on occasion, he makes a point about this one issue.  Trump said just last night that the left agreed with him until he became president.  

The SOLUTIONS the right proposes are socialist, having been the talking points of the left before the right got conned into adopting them.  Those suffering with TDS cannot understand that some people will agree that we have a problem, but disagree with the socialist solutions.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> AFTER I go to bed and you had tapped out, you come by for a hit and run?  Where I live you cannot pay an undocumented worker less than $10 an hour.  The local government don't waste their time chasing undocumented people since they understand that most of the laws you support are blatantly unconstitutional. I'll explain that to you in a moment.
> 
> I have answered your question at least *six times *on this thread.  I may do it again for chits and giggles at some point, but YOU don't repeat anything for me, so it's not my job to read the thread and keep up with what you say either.  You got me mixed up.  I'm not your push button monkey.  So, you should quit lying and read the thread.  Now, here is what I think about your unconstitutional laws:
> 
> "The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
> This is succinctly stated as follows:
> 
> The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
> 
> An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
> 
> Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
> 
> Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
> 
> A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
> An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
> 
> Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
> 
> *No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it*."
> 
> — Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool, so you ignore the fact that the courts have upheld the laws being discussed. Like I said earlier we can discuss theoretical constitutional principles, but this thread is on what is. Also when I hire Americans for odd jobs, I pay them 10.00 an hour.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you lying again?  You wait until a topic is several posts old and then comment, forcing me to do an intensive search to find out what the Hell you're talking about.  You need to either be specific OR give me the relevant post number as the quote feature only goes back so many posts.
> 
> The courts have not upheld any point I've discussed as the federal courts have NO de jure / lawful / constitutional authority in immigration law save of citizenship.  Who a state allows within its jurisdiction is, constitutionally, their business.  Period sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you lack the ability to review a string, all you need do is click the portion where it says expand. But the supremes say you're full of it on immigration law, so does the Constitution. Also I get here when I can, this is not all I do.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've not provided but one link to the Immigration Act of 1924 when that is just another law that was passed outside the scope of what is in the Constitution.  You pretending to be able to evaluate laws and then you cannot accept points you don't like say that you are the one who is full of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you the citation, is your google broke?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You have a reply.  What in the Hell is you want?  The Immigration Act of 1924 has no constitutional standing.  How many explanations do you need?

If I give you a detailed explanation, your buddy who claims it's taking two of you to kick my ass will be bitching because the answer is more than four sentences long.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what CA was doing, they were going far above that. A $500 bond in gold, where were they authorized to do that.
> 
> Also, this is an open forum, I'll respond to any post I chose.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semantics.  All semantics.  What I recall from memory is that the state did not comply with the law.  Neither did they answer to the charges and so the court was legally compelled to rule against them.
> 
> If we repealed the 14th Amendment and if California challenged the immigration laws on the books, they would win - that's the bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that, CA was charging far in excess for their costs of inspections, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2 say all excess funds would have to turned over to the Treasury of the US. Also there is nothing in the Constitution that allowed them to collect bonds on immigrants.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone else challenged the amount of money in question.  I didn't feel like debating an irrelevant point, so I will repeat my point along with having to repeat myself due to your blatant dishonesty.
> 
> "In 1875, the State of California passed a statute authorizing the *immigration* commissioner to inspect passengers arriving in California at a* cost of 75 cents per inspection* (levied on the passenger) and giving him the authority to deny entry to passengers suspected of being lewd and debauched. Those suspected thus could be allowed entry if the captain of the ship paid a bond for them"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia.
> 
> IIRC, you made a bogus argument once before about the Constitution and what happened in 1808.  I cited the relevant portion and still got some bogus counter-response.  So, let us see how much *authority* the federal government has over foreigners as per the Constitution:
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to  ... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> ...The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."  Article I  Section 9 of the United States Constitution.
> 
> Now let us get to the facts:
> 
> 1)  Throughout the lives of the founders, the states had control of immigration (the migration of people) and federal authority is limited to citizenship
> 
> 2)  Between 1808 and 1875, the states controlled immigration, proving that the issue of jurisdiction never changed.  The ONLY thing Article I Section 9 of the Constitution deals with is the tax
> 
> 3)  In Chy Lung v Freeman, according to Wikepedia:
> 
> "22 women from China, including Chy Lung, were among the passengers on the steamer _Japan_ that journeyed from China to San Francisco, arriving in 1875.[9] The immigration commissioner examined the passengers and identified Chy Lung and the other women as "lewd and debauched women." The captain of the ship had the option of paying a $500 bond per woman to allow her to land, with the bond having the ostensible purpose to "indemnify all the counties, towns, and cities of California against liability for her support or maintenance for two years." The captain, however, refused to pay the bond, and detained the women on board. They sued out a writ of _habeas corpus_, which led to them being moved into the custody of the Sheriff of the County and City of San Francisco, where they stayed, awaiting deportation upon the return of _Japan_, which had already left on its trip to China.[2]
> 
> The women refused to be deported to China, and appealed the decision to deport them. The California High Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute used to deny them entry, and upheld their deportation. They appealed the decision in the United States Supreme Court.[2] This was the first case to appear before the United States Supreme Court that involved a Chinese litigant.[9]
> 
> *Supreme Court decision[edit]*
> Justice Stephen Johnson Field ordered the release of all the women from the Sheriff's custody. However, Chy Lung still pressed the case in the Supreme Court, seeking to test the constitutionality of the statute that had been used to imprison her and her companions.[2]
> 
> On October 1, 1875, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of Chy Lung. Its primary argument was that the United States federal government, as opposed to state governments, were in charge of immigration policy and diplomatic relations with other nations, {the defendants did not ask the court to interpret the law as to who had jurisdiction over immigrants} so it was not up to the state of California to impose restrictions on Chinese immigration. The Supreme Court also noted that this action by the government of California could jeopardize foreign relations for the United States government insofar as it ran afoul of treaty obligations.[2][3][10]
> 
> The court did note that states could make reasonable and necessary regulations concerning paupers and convicted criminals, but that this regulation went far beyond that and was also extortionary.[3]
> 
> *The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case*.[2]
> 
> The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched.[2]"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> My commentary in red.
> 
> The case of Chy Lung WAS NOT about who had jurisdiction over immigrants.  And so, the SCOTUS (because of what I bolded) decided to grant plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration.
> 
> The problem is, Congress has *NO AUTHORITY *to bestow upon any other branch of government a power of any kind.  They are to interpret the law, not legislate.  Legislating from the bench is unconstitutional.  Legislators simply refuse to hold Congress accountable.
> 
> "In United States constitutional law, plenary power is a power that has been granted to a body or person in absolute terms, with no review of or limitations upon the exercise of that power. The assignment of a plenary power to one body divests all other bodies from the right to exercise that power, where not otherwise entitled. Plenary powers are not subject to judicial review in a particular instance or in general.
> 
> In regard to immigration law, Congress, under the Plenary Power Doctrine, has the *power* to make immigration policy subject to judicial oversight. "
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> I thank wikipedia for using that word* POWER* instead of *AUTHORITY*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read can you?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution granted plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration after 1808, not the court.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it did not.  Now, you're becoming the danielpalos of the right.  If you read the plenary powers article, it is by that, NOT THE CONSTITUTION, that the federal government is ruling immigration by.  They rule over immigration by way of an interpretation in Chy Lung v Freeman wherein the jurisdiction of the state was not an issue the defendants brought to the table.
Click to expand...



So what do you call the plenary powers article? Plenary powers are found throughout the Constitution.

.


----------



## Taz

Porter Rockwell said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that, CA was charging far in excess for their costs of inspections, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2 say all excess funds would have to turned over to the Treasury of the US. Also there is nothing in the Constitution that allowed them to collect bonds on immigrants.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone else challenged the amount of money in question.  I didn't feel like debating an irrelevant point, so I will repeat my point along with having to repeat myself due to your blatant dishonesty.
> 
> "In 1875, the State of California passed a statute authorizing the *immigration* commissioner to inspect passengers arriving in California at a* cost of 75 cents per inspection* (levied on the passenger) and giving him the authority to deny entry to passengers suspected of being lewd and debauched. Those suspected thus could be allowed entry if the captain of the ship paid a bond for them"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia.
> 
> IIRC, you made a bogus argument once before about the Constitution and what happened in 1808.  I cited the relevant portion and still got some bogus counter-response.  So, let us see how much *authority* the federal government has over foreigners as per the Constitution:
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to  ... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> ...The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."  Article I  Section 9 of the United States Constitution.
> 
> Now let us get to the facts:
> 
> 1)  Throughout the lives of the founders, the states had control of immigration (the migration of people) and federal authority is limited to citizenship
> 
> 2)  Between 1808 and 1875, the states controlled immigration, proving that the issue of jurisdiction never changed.  The ONLY thing Article I Section 9 of the Constitution deals with is the tax
> 
> 3)  In Chy Lung v Freeman, according to Wikepedia:
> 
> "22 women from China, including Chy Lung, were among the passengers on the steamer _Japan_ that journeyed from China to San Francisco, arriving in 1875.[9] The immigration commissioner examined the passengers and identified Chy Lung and the other women as "lewd and debauched women." The captain of the ship had the option of paying a $500 bond per woman to allow her to land, with the bond having the ostensible purpose to "indemnify all the counties, towns, and cities of California against liability for her support or maintenance for two years." The captain, however, refused to pay the bond, and detained the women on board. They sued out a writ of _habeas corpus_, which led to them being moved into the custody of the Sheriff of the County and City of San Francisco, where they stayed, awaiting deportation upon the return of _Japan_, which had already left on its trip to China.[2]
> 
> The women refused to be deported to China, and appealed the decision to deport them. The California High Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute used to deny them entry, and upheld their deportation. They appealed the decision in the United States Supreme Court.[2] This was the first case to appear before the United States Supreme Court that involved a Chinese litigant.[9]
> 
> *Supreme Court decision[edit]*
> Justice Stephen Johnson Field ordered the release of all the women from the Sheriff's custody. However, Chy Lung still pressed the case in the Supreme Court, seeking to test the constitutionality of the statute that had been used to imprison her and her companions.[2]
> 
> On October 1, 1875, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of Chy Lung. Its primary argument was that the United States federal government, as opposed to state governments, were in charge of immigration policy and diplomatic relations with other nations, {the defendants did not ask the court to interpret the law as to who had jurisdiction over immigrants} so it was not up to the state of California to impose restrictions on Chinese immigration. The Supreme Court also noted that this action by the government of California could jeopardize foreign relations for the United States government insofar as it ran afoul of treaty obligations.[2][3][10]
> 
> The court did note that states could make reasonable and necessary regulations concerning paupers and convicted criminals, but that this regulation went far beyond that and was also extortionary.[3]
> 
> *The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case*.[2]
> 
> The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched.[2]"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> My commentary in red.
> 
> The case of Chy Lung WAS NOT about who had jurisdiction over immigrants.  And so, the SCOTUS (because of what I bolded) decided to grant plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration.
> 
> The problem is, Congress has *NO AUTHORITY *to bestow upon any other branch of government a power of any kind.  They are to interpret the law, not legislate.  Legislating from the bench is unconstitutional.  Legislators simply refuse to hold Congress accountable.
> 
> "In United States constitutional law, plenary power is a power that has been granted to a body or person in absolute terms, with no review of or limitations upon the exercise of that power. The assignment of a plenary power to one body divests all other bodies from the right to exercise that power, where not otherwise entitled. Plenary powers are not subject to judicial review in a particular instance or in general.
> 
> In regard to immigration law, Congress, under the Plenary Power Doctrine, has the *power* to make immigration policy subject to judicial oversight. "
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> I thank wikipedia for using that word* POWER* instead of *AUTHORITY*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read can you?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution granted plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration after 1808, not the court.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it did not.  Now, you're becoming the danielpalos of the right.  If you read the plenary powers article, it is by that, NOT THE CONSTITUTION, that the federal government is ruling immigration by.  They rule over immigration by way of an interpretation in Chy Lung v Freeman wherein the jurisdiction of the state was not an issue the defendants brought to the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Danielpalos admitted to me in another thread that he's trying to get the rest of his beaner family into the US, so anything he says is totally biased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is totally biased.  He's left of left.  But, on occasion, he makes a point about this one issue.  Trump said just last night that the left agreed with him until he became president.
> 
> The SOLUTIONS the right proposes are socialist, having been the talking points of the left before the right got conned into adopting them.  Those suffering with TDS cannot understand that some people will agree that we have a problem, but disagree with the socialist solutions.
Click to expand...

We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!

My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Semantics.  All semantics.  What I recall from memory is that the state did not comply with the law.  Neither did they answer to the charges and so the court was legally compelled to rule against them.
> 
> If we repealed the 14th Amendment and if California challenged the immigration laws on the books, they would win - that's the bottom line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that, CA was charging far in excess for their costs of inspections, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2 say all excess funds would have to turned over to the Treasury of the US. Also there is nothing in the Constitution that allowed them to collect bonds on immigrants.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone else challenged the amount of money in question.  I didn't feel like debating an irrelevant point, so I will repeat my point along with having to repeat myself due to your blatant dishonesty.
> 
> "In 1875, the State of California passed a statute authorizing the *immigration* commissioner to inspect passengers arriving in California at a* cost of 75 cents per inspection* (levied on the passenger) and giving him the authority to deny entry to passengers suspected of being lewd and debauched. Those suspected thus could be allowed entry if the captain of the ship paid a bond for them"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia.
> 
> IIRC, you made a bogus argument once before about the Constitution and what happened in 1808.  I cited the relevant portion and still got some bogus counter-response.  So, let us see how much *authority* the federal government has over foreigners as per the Constitution:
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to  ... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> ...The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."  Article I  Section 9 of the United States Constitution.
> 
> Now let us get to the facts:
> 
> 1)  Throughout the lives of the founders, the states had control of immigration (the migration of people) and federal authority is limited to citizenship
> 
> 2)  Between 1808 and 1875, the states controlled immigration, proving that the issue of jurisdiction never changed.  The ONLY thing Article I Section 9 of the Constitution deals with is the tax
> 
> 3)  In Chy Lung v Freeman, according to Wikepedia:
> 
> "22 women from China, including Chy Lung, were among the passengers on the steamer _Japan_ that journeyed from China to San Francisco, arriving in 1875.[9] The immigration commissioner examined the passengers and identified Chy Lung and the other women as "lewd and debauched women." The captain of the ship had the option of paying a $500 bond per woman to allow her to land, with the bond having the ostensible purpose to "indemnify all the counties, towns, and cities of California against liability for her support or maintenance for two years." The captain, however, refused to pay the bond, and detained the women on board. They sued out a writ of _habeas corpus_, which led to them being moved into the custody of the Sheriff of the County and City of San Francisco, where they stayed, awaiting deportation upon the return of _Japan_, which had already left on its trip to China.[2]
> 
> The women refused to be deported to China, and appealed the decision to deport them. The California High Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute used to deny them entry, and upheld their deportation. They appealed the decision in the United States Supreme Court.[2] This was the first case to appear before the United States Supreme Court that involved a Chinese litigant.[9]
> 
> *Supreme Court decision[edit]*
> Justice Stephen Johnson Field ordered the release of all the women from the Sheriff's custody. However, Chy Lung still pressed the case in the Supreme Court, seeking to test the constitutionality of the statute that had been used to imprison her and her companions.[2]
> 
> On October 1, 1875, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of Chy Lung. Its primary argument was that the United States federal government, as opposed to state governments, were in charge of immigration policy and diplomatic relations with other nations, {the defendants did not ask the court to interpret the law as to who had jurisdiction over immigrants} so it was not up to the state of California to impose restrictions on Chinese immigration. The Supreme Court also noted that this action by the government of California could jeopardize foreign relations for the United States government insofar as it ran afoul of treaty obligations.[2][3][10]
> 
> The court did note that states could make reasonable and necessary regulations concerning paupers and convicted criminals, but that this regulation went far beyond that and was also extortionary.[3]
> 
> *The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case*.[2]
> 
> The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched.[2]"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> My commentary in red.
> 
> The case of Chy Lung WAS NOT about who had jurisdiction over immigrants.  And so, the SCOTUS (because of what I bolded) decided to grant plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration.
> 
> The problem is, Congress has *NO AUTHORITY *to bestow upon any other branch of government a power of any kind.  They are to interpret the law, not legislate.  Legislating from the bench is unconstitutional.  Legislators simply refuse to hold Congress accountable.
> 
> "In United States constitutional law, plenary power is a power that has been granted to a body or person in absolute terms, with no review of or limitations upon the exercise of that power. The assignment of a plenary power to one body divests all other bodies from the right to exercise that power, where not otherwise entitled. Plenary powers are not subject to judicial review in a particular instance or in general.
> 
> In regard to immigration law, Congress, under the Plenary Power Doctrine, has the *power* to make immigration policy subject to judicial oversight. "
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> I thank wikipedia for using that word* POWER* instead of *AUTHORITY*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read can you?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution granted plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration after 1808, not the court.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it did not.  Now, you're becoming the danielpalos of the right.  If you read the plenary powers article, it is by that, NOT THE CONSTITUTION, that the federal government is ruling immigration by.  They rule over immigration by way of an interpretation in Chy Lung v Freeman wherein the jurisdiction of the state was not an issue the defendants brought to the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you call the plenary powers article? Plenary powers are found throughout the Constitution.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



WTF???  You condemn me and ride my ass for the very same things you do?  HYPOCRITE.  It is in the above quoted exchange.  You don't have to go back several pages to find the link.  It's the last link in the long post in the Chy Lung explanation.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Semantics.  All semantics.  What I recall from memory is that the state did not comply with the law.  Neither did they answer to the charges and so the court was legally compelled to rule against them.
> 
> If we repealed the 14th Amendment and if California challenged the immigration laws on the books, they would win - that's the bottom line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that, CA was charging far in excess for their costs of inspections, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2 say all excess funds would have to turned over to the Treasury of the US. Also there is nothing in the Constitution that allowed them to collect bonds on immigrants.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone else challenged the amount of money in question.  I didn't feel like debating an irrelevant point, so I will repeat my point along with having to repeat myself due to your blatant dishonesty.
> 
> "In 1875, the State of California passed a statute authorizing the *immigration* commissioner to inspect passengers arriving in California at a* cost of 75 cents per inspection* (levied on the passenger) and giving him the authority to deny entry to passengers suspected of being lewd and debauched. Those suspected thus could be allowed entry if the captain of the ship paid a bond for them"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia.
> 
> IIRC, you made a bogus argument once before about the Constitution and what happened in 1808.  I cited the relevant portion and still got some bogus counter-response.  So, let us see how much *authority* the federal government has over foreigners as per the Constitution:
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to  ... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> ...The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."  Article I  Section 9 of the United States Constitution.
> 
> Now let us get to the facts:
> 
> 1)  Throughout the lives of the founders, the states had control of immigration (the migration of people) and federal authority is limited to citizenship
> 
> 2)  Between 1808 and 1875, the states controlled immigration, proving that the issue of jurisdiction never changed.  The ONLY thing Article I Section 9 of the Constitution deals with is the tax
> 
> 3)  In Chy Lung v Freeman, according to Wikepedia:
> 
> "22 women from China, including Chy Lung, were among the passengers on the steamer _Japan_ that journeyed from China to San Francisco, arriving in 1875.[9] The immigration commissioner examined the passengers and identified Chy Lung and the other women as "lewd and debauched women." The captain of the ship had the option of paying a $500 bond per woman to allow her to land, with the bond having the ostensible purpose to "indemnify all the counties, towns, and cities of California against liability for her support or maintenance for two years." The captain, however, refused to pay the bond, and detained the women on board. They sued out a writ of _habeas corpus_, which led to them being moved into the custody of the Sheriff of the County and City of San Francisco, where they stayed, awaiting deportation upon the return of _Japan_, which had already left on its trip to China.[2]
> 
> The women refused to be deported to China, and appealed the decision to deport them. The California High Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute used to deny them entry, and upheld their deportation. They appealed the decision in the United States Supreme Court.[2] This was the first case to appear before the United States Supreme Court that involved a Chinese litigant.[9]
> 
> *Supreme Court decision[edit]*
> Justice Stephen Johnson Field ordered the release of all the women from the Sheriff's custody. However, Chy Lung still pressed the case in the Supreme Court, seeking to test the constitutionality of the statute that had been used to imprison her and her companions.[2]
> 
> On October 1, 1875, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of Chy Lung. Its primary argument was that the United States federal government, as opposed to state governments, were in charge of immigration policy and diplomatic relations with other nations, {the defendants did not ask the court to interpret the law as to who had jurisdiction over immigrants} so it was not up to the state of California to impose restrictions on Chinese immigration. The Supreme Court also noted that this action by the government of California could jeopardize foreign relations for the United States government insofar as it ran afoul of treaty obligations.[2][3][10]
> 
> The court did note that states could make reasonable and necessary regulations concerning paupers and convicted criminals, but that this regulation went far beyond that and was also extortionary.[3]
> 
> *The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case*.[2]
> 
> The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched.[2]"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> My commentary in red.
> 
> The case of Chy Lung WAS NOT about who had jurisdiction over immigrants.  And so, the SCOTUS (because of what I bolded) decided to grant plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration.
> 
> The problem is, Congress has *NO AUTHORITY *to bestow upon any other branch of government a power of any kind.  They are to interpret the law, not legislate.  Legislating from the bench is unconstitutional.  Legislators simply refuse to hold Congress accountable.
> 
> "In United States constitutional law, plenary power is a power that has been granted to a body or person in absolute terms, with no review of or limitations upon the exercise of that power. The assignment of a plenary power to one body divests all other bodies from the right to exercise that power, where not otherwise entitled. Plenary powers are not subject to judicial review in a particular instance or in general.
> 
> In regard to immigration law, Congress, under the Plenary Power Doctrine, has the *power* to make immigration policy subject to judicial oversight. "
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> I thank wikipedia for using that word* POWER* instead of *AUTHORITY*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read can you?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution granted plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration after 1808, not the court.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it did not.  Now, you're becoming the danielpalos of the right.  If you read the plenary powers article, it is by that, NOT THE CONSTITUTION, that the federal government is ruling immigration by.  They rule over immigration by way of an interpretation in Chy Lung v Freeman wherein the jurisdiction of the state was not an issue the defendants brought to the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you call the plenary powers article? Plenary powers are found throughout the Constitution.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



WTF???  You condemn me and ride my ass for the very same things you do?  HYPOCRITE.  It is in the above quoted exchange.  You don't have to go back several pages to find the link.  It's the last link in the long post in the Chy Lung explanation.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Taz said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone else challenged the amount of money in question.  I didn't feel like debating an irrelevant point, so I will repeat my point along with having to repeat myself due to your blatant dishonesty.
> 
> "In 1875, the State of California passed a statute authorizing the *immigration* commissioner to inspect passengers arriving in California at a* cost of 75 cents per inspection* (levied on the passenger) and giving him the authority to deny entry to passengers suspected of being lewd and debauched. Those suspected thus could be allowed entry if the captain of the ship paid a bond for them"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia.
> 
> IIRC, you made a bogus argument once before about the Constitution and what happened in 1808.  I cited the relevant portion and still got some bogus counter-response.  So, let us see how much *authority* the federal government has over foreigners as per the Constitution:
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to  ... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> ...The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."  Article I  Section 9 of the United States Constitution.
> 
> Now let us get to the facts:
> 
> 1)  Throughout the lives of the founders, the states had control of immigration (the migration of people) and federal authority is limited to citizenship
> 
> 2)  Between 1808 and 1875, the states controlled immigration, proving that the issue of jurisdiction never changed.  The ONLY thing Article I Section 9 of the Constitution deals with is the tax
> 
> 3)  In Chy Lung v Freeman, according to Wikepedia:
> 
> "22 women from China, including Chy Lung, were among the passengers on the steamer _Japan_ that journeyed from China to San Francisco, arriving in 1875.[9] The immigration commissioner examined the passengers and identified Chy Lung and the other women as "lewd and debauched women." The captain of the ship had the option of paying a $500 bond per woman to allow her to land, with the bond having the ostensible purpose to "indemnify all the counties, towns, and cities of California against liability for her support or maintenance for two years." The captain, however, refused to pay the bond, and detained the women on board. They sued out a writ of _habeas corpus_, which led to them being moved into the custody of the Sheriff of the County and City of San Francisco, where they stayed, awaiting deportation upon the return of _Japan_, which had already left on its trip to China.[2]
> 
> The women refused to be deported to China, and appealed the decision to deport them. The California High Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute used to deny them entry, and upheld their deportation. They appealed the decision in the United States Supreme Court.[2] This was the first case to appear before the United States Supreme Court that involved a Chinese litigant.[9]
> 
> *Supreme Court decision[edit]*
> Justice Stephen Johnson Field ordered the release of all the women from the Sheriff's custody. However, Chy Lung still pressed the case in the Supreme Court, seeking to test the constitutionality of the statute that had been used to imprison her and her companions.[2]
> 
> On October 1, 1875, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of Chy Lung. Its primary argument was that the United States federal government, as opposed to state governments, were in charge of immigration policy and diplomatic relations with other nations, {the defendants did not ask the court to interpret the law as to who had jurisdiction over immigrants} so it was not up to the state of California to impose restrictions on Chinese immigration. The Supreme Court also noted that this action by the government of California could jeopardize foreign relations for the United States government insofar as it ran afoul of treaty obligations.[2][3][10]
> 
> The court did note that states could make reasonable and necessary regulations concerning paupers and convicted criminals, but that this regulation went far beyond that and was also extortionary.[3]
> 
> *The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case*.[2]
> 
> The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched.[2]"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> My commentary in red.
> 
> The case of Chy Lung WAS NOT about who had jurisdiction over immigrants.  And so, the SCOTUS (because of what I bolded) decided to grant plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration.
> 
> The problem is, Congress has *NO AUTHORITY *to bestow upon any other branch of government a power of any kind.  They are to interpret the law, not legislate.  Legislating from the bench is unconstitutional.  Legislators simply refuse to hold Congress accountable.
> 
> "In United States constitutional law, plenary power is a power that has been granted to a body or person in absolute terms, with no review of or limitations upon the exercise of that power. The assignment of a plenary power to one body divests all other bodies from the right to exercise that power, where not otherwise entitled. Plenary powers are not subject to judicial review in a particular instance or in general.
> 
> In regard to immigration law, Congress, under the Plenary Power Doctrine, has the *power* to make immigration policy subject to judicial oversight. "
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> I thank wikipedia for using that word* POWER* instead of *AUTHORITY*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read can you?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution granted plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration after 1808, not the court.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it did not.  Now, you're becoming the danielpalos of the right.  If you read the plenary powers article, it is by that, NOT THE CONSTITUTION, that the federal government is ruling immigration by.  They rule over immigration by way of an interpretation in Chy Lung v Freeman wherein the jurisdiction of the state was not an issue the defendants brought to the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Danielpalos admitted to me in another thread that he's trying to get the rest of his beaner family into the US, so anything he says is totally biased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is totally biased.  He's left of left.  But, on occasion, he makes a point about this one issue.  Trump said just last night that the left agreed with him until he became president.
> 
> The SOLUTIONS the right proposes are socialist, having been the talking points of the left before the right got conned into adopting them.  Those suffering with TDS cannot understand that some people will agree that we have a problem, but disagree with the socialist solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!
> 
> My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!
Click to expand...


Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans?  Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US has the most generous legal immigration policy of all the countries in the world. That's not good enough for the commies.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so funny you should take that act on the road.  When you aren't pretending to be a bully or a know it all, you're talking out your ass.  In fact, it is easier to get into communist China than the United States.  Add to that, you expect everyone who comes here to become a citizen and you hang with those who tell you they are concerned about our culture.
> 
> How you people are going to make citizens out of the third world and maintain your culture as you become an irrelevant minority is certainly going to be a trick for the ages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They did it in the early 20's I think by drastically slowing immigration for more than a decade to allow new immigrants time to assimilate. See the immigration act of 1924.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it you think we did in the 1920s?  Dude, for real, I'm going to have start ignoring you if your posts don't add up to what you're quoting.  That post you just did don't have squat to do with what you quoted me on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it had everything to do with the last sentence in your post.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Immigration Act of 1924 has NO constitutional standing.  The states controlled immigration even between 1808 and 1875.  Their jurisdiction was NOT challenged so there was NO legitimate and constitutional reason for the SCOTUS to grant plenary powers that were not part of any case that has been interpreted.
Click to expand...



Actually the Act was challenged with some very interesting results. It was summarize by wiki as this.


> *Court decision[edit]*
> From _United States ex. rel. Turner v. Williams_:[22]
> 
> if an alien is not permitted to enter this country, or, having entered contrary to law, is expelled, he is in fact cut off from worshipping or speaking or publishing or petitioning in the country; but that is merely because of his exclusion therefrom. He does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter, forbidden by law. *To appeal to the Constitution is to concede that this is a land governed by that supreme law, and as under it the power to exclude has been determined to exist, those who are excluded cannot assert the rights in general obtaining in a land to which they do not belong as citizens or otherwise.*
> 
> Immigration Act of 1924 - Wikipedia


Go figure.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Taz said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone else challenged the amount of money in question.  I didn't feel like debating an irrelevant point, so I will repeat my point along with having to repeat myself due to your blatant dishonesty.
> 
> "In 1875, the State of California passed a statute authorizing the *immigration* commissioner to inspect passengers arriving in California at a* cost of 75 cents per inspection* (levied on the passenger) and giving him the authority to deny entry to passengers suspected of being lewd and debauched. Those suspected thus could be allowed entry if the captain of the ship paid a bond for them"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia.
> 
> IIRC, you made a bogus argument once before about the Constitution and what happened in 1808.  I cited the relevant portion and still got some bogus counter-response.  So, let us see how much *authority* the federal government has over foreigners as per the Constitution:
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to  ... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> ...The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."  Article I  Section 9 of the United States Constitution.
> 
> Now let us get to the facts:
> 
> 1)  Throughout the lives of the founders, the states had control of immigration (the migration of people) and federal authority is limited to citizenship
> 
> 2)  Between 1808 and 1875, the states controlled immigration, proving that the issue of jurisdiction never changed.  The ONLY thing Article I Section 9 of the Constitution deals with is the tax
> 
> 3)  In Chy Lung v Freeman, according to Wikepedia:
> 
> "22 women from China, including Chy Lung, were among the passengers on the steamer _Japan_ that journeyed from China to San Francisco, arriving in 1875.[9] The immigration commissioner examined the passengers and identified Chy Lung and the other women as "lewd and debauched women." The captain of the ship had the option of paying a $500 bond per woman to allow her to land, with the bond having the ostensible purpose to "indemnify all the counties, towns, and cities of California against liability for her support or maintenance for two years." The captain, however, refused to pay the bond, and detained the women on board. They sued out a writ of _habeas corpus_, which led to them being moved into the custody of the Sheriff of the County and City of San Francisco, where they stayed, awaiting deportation upon the return of _Japan_, which had already left on its trip to China.[2]
> 
> The women refused to be deported to China, and appealed the decision to deport them. The California High Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute used to deny them entry, and upheld their deportation. They appealed the decision in the United States Supreme Court.[2] This was the first case to appear before the United States Supreme Court that involved a Chinese litigant.[9]
> 
> *Supreme Court decision[edit]*
> Justice Stephen Johnson Field ordered the release of all the women from the Sheriff's custody. However, Chy Lung still pressed the case in the Supreme Court, seeking to test the constitutionality of the statute that had been used to imprison her and her companions.[2]
> 
> On October 1, 1875, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of Chy Lung. Its primary argument was that the United States federal government, as opposed to state governments, were in charge of immigration policy and diplomatic relations with other nations, {the defendants did not ask the court to interpret the law as to who had jurisdiction over immigrants} so it was not up to the state of California to impose restrictions on Chinese immigration. The Supreme Court also noted that this action by the government of California could jeopardize foreign relations for the United States government insofar as it ran afoul of treaty obligations.[2][3][10]
> 
> The court did note that states could make reasonable and necessary regulations concerning paupers and convicted criminals, but that this regulation went far beyond that and was also extortionary.[3]
> 
> *The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case*.[2]
> 
> The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched.[2]"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> My commentary in red.
> 
> The case of Chy Lung WAS NOT about who had jurisdiction over immigrants.  And so, the SCOTUS (because of what I bolded) decided to grant plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration.
> 
> The problem is, Congress has *NO AUTHORITY *to bestow upon any other branch of government a power of any kind.  They are to interpret the law, not legislate.  Legislating from the bench is unconstitutional.  Legislators simply refuse to hold Congress accountable.
> 
> "In United States constitutional law, plenary power is a power that has been granted to a body or person in absolute terms, with no review of or limitations upon the exercise of that power. The assignment of a plenary power to one body divests all other bodies from the right to exercise that power, where not otherwise entitled. Plenary powers are not subject to judicial review in a particular instance or in general.
> 
> In regard to immigration law, Congress, under the Plenary Power Doctrine, has the *power* to make immigration policy subject to judicial oversight. "
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> I thank wikipedia for using that word* POWER* instead of *AUTHORITY*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read can you?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution granted plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration after 1808, not the court.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it did not.  Now, you're becoming the danielpalos of the right.  If you read the plenary powers article, it is by that, NOT THE CONSTITUTION, that the federal government is ruling immigration by.  They rule over immigration by way of an interpretation in Chy Lung v Freeman wherein the jurisdiction of the state was not an issue the defendants brought to the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Danielpalos admitted to me in another thread that he's trying to get the rest of his beaner family into the US, so anything he says is totally biased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is totally biased.  He's left of left.  But, on occasion, he makes a point about this one issue.  Trump said just last night that the left agreed with him until he became president.
> 
> The SOLUTIONS the right proposes are socialist, having been the talking points of the left before the right got conned into adopting them.  Those suffering with TDS cannot understand that some people will agree that we have a problem, but disagree with the socialist solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!
> 
> My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!
Click to expand...


Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans?  Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that, CA was charging far in excess for their costs of inspections, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2 say all excess funds would have to turned over to the Treasury of the US. Also there is nothing in the Constitution that allowed them to collect bonds on immigrants.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone else challenged the amount of money in question.  I didn't feel like debating an irrelevant point, so I will repeat my point along with having to repeat myself due to your blatant dishonesty.
> 
> "In 1875, the State of California passed a statute authorizing the *immigration* commissioner to inspect passengers arriving in California at a* cost of 75 cents per inspection* (levied on the passenger) and giving him the authority to deny entry to passengers suspected of being lewd and debauched. Those suspected thus could be allowed entry if the captain of the ship paid a bond for them"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia.
> 
> IIRC, you made a bogus argument once before about the Constitution and what happened in 1808.  I cited the relevant portion and still got some bogus counter-response.  So, let us see how much *authority* the federal government has over foreigners as per the Constitution:
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to  ... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> ...The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."  Article I  Section 9 of the United States Constitution.
> 
> Now let us get to the facts:
> 
> 1)  Throughout the lives of the founders, the states had control of immigration (the migration of people) and federal authority is limited to citizenship
> 
> 2)  Between 1808 and 1875, the states controlled immigration, proving that the issue of jurisdiction never changed.  The ONLY thing Article I Section 9 of the Constitution deals with is the tax
> 
> 3)  In Chy Lung v Freeman, according to Wikepedia:
> 
> "22 women from China, including Chy Lung, were among the passengers on the steamer _Japan_ that journeyed from China to San Francisco, arriving in 1875.[9] The immigration commissioner examined the passengers and identified Chy Lung and the other women as "lewd and debauched women." The captain of the ship had the option of paying a $500 bond per woman to allow her to land, with the bond having the ostensible purpose to "indemnify all the counties, towns, and cities of California against liability for her support or maintenance for two years." The captain, however, refused to pay the bond, and detained the women on board. They sued out a writ of _habeas corpus_, which led to them being moved into the custody of the Sheriff of the County and City of San Francisco, where they stayed, awaiting deportation upon the return of _Japan_, which had already left on its trip to China.[2]
> 
> The women refused to be deported to China, and appealed the decision to deport them. The California High Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute used to deny them entry, and upheld their deportation. They appealed the decision in the United States Supreme Court.[2] This was the first case to appear before the United States Supreme Court that involved a Chinese litigant.[9]
> 
> *Supreme Court decision[edit]*
> Justice Stephen Johnson Field ordered the release of all the women from the Sheriff's custody. However, Chy Lung still pressed the case in the Supreme Court, seeking to test the constitutionality of the statute that had been used to imprison her and her companions.[2]
> 
> On October 1, 1875, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of Chy Lung. Its primary argument was that the United States federal government, as opposed to state governments, were in charge of immigration policy and diplomatic relations with other nations, {the defendants did not ask the court to interpret the law as to who had jurisdiction over immigrants} so it was not up to the state of California to impose restrictions on Chinese immigration. The Supreme Court also noted that this action by the government of California could jeopardize foreign relations for the United States government insofar as it ran afoul of treaty obligations.[2][3][10]
> 
> The court did note that states could make reasonable and necessary regulations concerning paupers and convicted criminals, but that this regulation went far beyond that and was also extortionary.[3]
> 
> *The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case*.[2]
> 
> The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched.[2]"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> My commentary in red.
> 
> The case of Chy Lung WAS NOT about who had jurisdiction over immigrants.  And so, the SCOTUS (because of what I bolded) decided to grant plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration.
> 
> The problem is, Congress has *NO AUTHORITY *to bestow upon any other branch of government a power of any kind.  They are to interpret the law, not legislate.  Legislating from the bench is unconstitutional.  Legislators simply refuse to hold Congress accountable.
> 
> "In United States constitutional law, plenary power is a power that has been granted to a body or person in absolute terms, with no review of or limitations upon the exercise of that power. The assignment of a plenary power to one body divests all other bodies from the right to exercise that power, where not otherwise entitled. Plenary powers are not subject to judicial review in a particular instance or in general.
> 
> In regard to immigration law, Congress, under the Plenary Power Doctrine, has the *power* to make immigration policy subject to judicial oversight. "
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> I thank wikipedia for using that word* POWER* instead of *AUTHORITY*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read can you?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution granted plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration after 1808, not the court.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it did not.  Now, you're becoming the danielpalos of the right.  If you read the plenary powers article, it is by that, NOT THE CONSTITUTION, that the federal government is ruling immigration by.  They rule over immigration by way of an interpretation in Chy Lung v Freeman wherein the jurisdiction of the state was not an issue the defendants brought to the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you call the plenary powers article? Plenary powers are found throughout the Constitution.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WTF???  You condemn me and ride my ass for the very same things you do?  HYPOCRITE.  It is in the above quoted exchange.  You don't have to go back several pages to find the link.  It's the last link in the long post in the Chy Lung explanation.
Click to expand...



I read it, you later mentioned the plenary powers article, I simply asked what you meant by that. No need to get excited, it was a simple question.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Counselor, what do you suppose if a creative attorney were to NOT appeal to the Court for relief, but rather, challenge jurisdiction?

Do you even know WHY (or more accurately, the history) of that 1924 law?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Billo_Really said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you have no supporting evidence to your made-up claim.  Sure we were pissed about Kavanaugh and what the dirty Democrats tried to do to this honest man, but it's a done issue.  The ongoing issue is the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Kavanaugh is a liar, drunk and attempted rapist.  The fact that you think he's honest, shows your own lack of a moral compass.  Which explains why you're so willing to sell out the country for this bullshit wall that ain't ever getting built.
Click to expand...


I’m sure you’re used to the media playing judge and jury, but In this country it’s inncocent until PROVEN guilty not the other way around.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you have no supporting evidence to your made-up claim.  Sure we were pissed about Kavanaugh and what the dirty Democrats tried to do to this honest man, but it's a done issue.  The ongoing issue is the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Kavanaugh is a liar, drunk and attempted rapist.  The fact that you think he's honest, shows your own lack of a moral compass.  Which explains why you're so willing to sell out the country for this bullshit wall that ain't ever getting built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m sure you’re used to the media playing judge and jury, but In this country it’s inncocent until PROVEN guilty not the other way around.
Click to expand...


I wish you could remember that concept works both ways.

BTW, my answer may not show up for a while.  This site has slowed to a crawl and isn't posting my responses for more than five minutes.  I have some work to do and will return later.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read can you?
> The Constitution granted plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration after 1808, not the court.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it did not.  Now, you're becoming the danielpalos of the right.  If you read the plenary powers article, it is by that, NOT THE CONSTITUTION, that the federal government is ruling immigration by.  They rule over immigration by way of an interpretation in Chy Lung v Freeman wherein the jurisdiction of the state was not an issue the defendants brought to the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Danielpalos admitted to me in another thread that he's trying to get the rest of his beaner family into the US, so anything he says is totally biased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is totally biased.  He's left of left.  But, on occasion, he makes a point about this one issue.  Trump said just last night that the left agreed with him until he became president.
> 
> The SOLUTIONS the right proposes are socialist, having been the talking points of the left before the right got conned into adopting them.  Those suffering with TDS cannot understand that some people will agree that we have a problem, but disagree with the socialist solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!
> 
> My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans?  Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?
Click to expand...

You claimed you weren't taking sides you were just asking questions. You lied.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump can't be serious that he wants a wall built when the illegals who work at his resorts are getting here a plethora of other ways.
> 
> Again, if we just went after illegal employers like Trump we could solve this problem.
> 
> And we can patrol a border without building a multi trillion dollar ineffective monument to Donald Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you stop illegal entry without a wall. Shoot them?
Click to expand...

our northern border is even less secure.


----------



## Taz

Porter Rockwell said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read can you?
> The Constitution granted plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration after 1808, not the court.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it did not.  Now, you're becoming the danielpalos of the right.  If you read the plenary powers article, it is by that, NOT THE CONSTITUTION, that the federal government is ruling immigration by.  They rule over immigration by way of an interpretation in Chy Lung v Freeman wherein the jurisdiction of the state was not an issue the defendants brought to the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Danielpalos admitted to me in another thread that he's trying to get the rest of his beaner family into the US, so anything he says is totally biased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is totally biased.  He's left of left.  But, on occasion, he makes a point about this one issue.  Trump said just last night that the left agreed with him until he became president.
> 
> The SOLUTIONS the right proposes are socialist, having been the talking points of the left before the right got conned into adopting them.  Those suffering with TDS cannot understand that some people will agree that we have a problem, but disagree with the socialist solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!
> 
> My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans?  Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?
Click to expand...

Nothing against Messikins per say, but we’re full up on uneducated losers.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you stop illegal entry without a wall. Shoot them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our northern border is even less secure.
Click to expand...

Canadians are cool and don’t even want to come here to live. Unlike greasy beaners who look like they haven’t heard of soap.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you stop illegal entry without a wall. Shoot them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our northern border is even less secure.
Click to expand...

Canadians are cool and don’t even want to come here to live. Unlike greasy beaners who look like they haven’t heard of soap.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> Counselor, what do you suppose if a creative attorney were to NOT appeal to the Court for relief, but rather, challenge jurisdiction?
> 
> Do you even know WHY (or more accurately, the history) of that 1924 law?




I'm assuming this was for me. If you're referring to the Immigration act of 1924, I think the court would kick his ass.



> *Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1*
> 
> *The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,* the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
> 
> Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1


Also I only know what I've read about the act itself, is there something in particular you want to discuss?

.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you stop illegal entry without a wall. Shoot them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our northern border is even less secure.
Click to expand...

Canadians are cool and don’t even want to come here to live. Unlike greasy beaners who look like they haven’t heard of soap.


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you stop illegal entry without a wall. Shoot them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our northern border is even less secure.
Click to expand...

we don't have poverty stricken people with no job skills crossing the northern border in the thousands like we do the southern border.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that, CA was charging far in excess for their costs of inspections, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2 say all excess funds would have to turned over to the Treasury of the US. Also there is nothing in the Constitution that allowed them to collect bonds on immigrants.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone else challenged the amount of money in question.  I didn't feel like debating an irrelevant point, so I will repeat my point along with having to repeat myself due to your blatant dishonesty.
> 
> "In 1875, the State of California passed a statute authorizing the *immigration* commissioner to inspect passengers arriving in California at a* cost of 75 cents per inspection* (levied on the passenger) and giving him the authority to deny entry to passengers suspected of being lewd and debauched. Those suspected thus could be allowed entry if the captain of the ship paid a bond for them"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia.
> 
> IIRC, you made a bogus argument once before about the Constitution and what happened in 1808.  I cited the relevant portion and still got some bogus counter-response.  So, let us see how much *authority* the federal government has over foreigners as per the Constitution:
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to  ... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> ...The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."  Article I  Section 9 of the United States Constitution.
> 
> Now let us get to the facts:
> 
> 1)  Throughout the lives of the founders, the states had control of immigration (the migration of people) and federal authority is limited to citizenship
> 
> 2)  Between 1808 and 1875, the states controlled immigration, proving that the issue of jurisdiction never changed.  The ONLY thing Article I Section 9 of the Constitution deals with is the tax
> 
> 3)  In Chy Lung v Freeman, according to Wikepedia:
> 
> "22 women from China, including Chy Lung, were among the passengers on the steamer _Japan_ that journeyed from China to San Francisco, arriving in 1875.[9] The immigration commissioner examined the passengers and identified Chy Lung and the other women as "lewd and debauched women." The captain of the ship had the option of paying a $500 bond per woman to allow her to land, with the bond having the ostensible purpose to "indemnify all the counties, towns, and cities of California against liability for her support or maintenance for two years." The captain, however, refused to pay the bond, and detained the women on board. They sued out a writ of _habeas corpus_, which led to them being moved into the custody of the Sheriff of the County and City of San Francisco, where they stayed, awaiting deportation upon the return of _Japan_, which had already left on its trip to China.[2]
> 
> The women refused to be deported to China, and appealed the decision to deport them. The California High Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute used to deny them entry, and upheld their deportation. They appealed the decision in the United States Supreme Court.[2] This was the first case to appear before the United States Supreme Court that involved a Chinese litigant.[9]
> 
> *Supreme Court decision[edit]*
> Justice Stephen Johnson Field ordered the release of all the women from the Sheriff's custody. However, Chy Lung still pressed the case in the Supreme Court, seeking to test the constitutionality of the statute that had been used to imprison her and her companions.[2]
> 
> On October 1, 1875, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of Chy Lung. Its primary argument was that the United States federal government, as opposed to state governments, were in charge of immigration policy and diplomatic relations with other nations, {the defendants did not ask the court to interpret the law as to who had jurisdiction over immigrants} so it was not up to the state of California to impose restrictions on Chinese immigration. The Supreme Court also noted that this action by the government of California could jeopardize foreign relations for the United States government insofar as it ran afoul of treaty obligations.[2][3][10]
> 
> The court did note that states could make reasonable and necessary regulations concerning paupers and convicted criminals, but that this regulation went far beyond that and was also extortionary.[3]
> 
> *The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case*.[2]
> 
> The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched.[2]"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> My commentary in red.
> 
> The case of Chy Lung WAS NOT about who had jurisdiction over immigrants.  And so, the SCOTUS (because of what I bolded) decided to grant plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration.
> 
> The problem is, Congress has *NO AUTHORITY *to bestow upon any other branch of government a power of any kind.  They are to interpret the law, not legislate.  Legislating from the bench is unconstitutional.  Legislators simply refuse to hold Congress accountable.
> 
> "In United States constitutional law, plenary power is a power that has been granted to a body or person in absolute terms, with no review of or limitations upon the exercise of that power. The assignment of a plenary power to one body divests all other bodies from the right to exercise that power, where not otherwise entitled. Plenary powers are not subject to judicial review in a particular instance or in general.
> 
> In regard to immigration law, Congress, under the Plenary Power Doctrine, has the *power* to make immigration policy subject to judicial oversight. "
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> I thank wikipedia for using that word* POWER* instead of *AUTHORITY*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read can you?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution granted plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration after 1808, not the court.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it did not.  Now, you're becoming the danielpalos of the right.  If you read the plenary powers article, it is by that, NOT THE CONSTITUTION, that the federal government is ruling immigration by.  They rule over immigration by way of an interpretation in Chy Lung v Freeman wherein the jurisdiction of the state was not an issue the defendants brought to the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you call the plenary powers article? Plenary powers are found throughout the Constitution.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WTF???  You condemn me and ride my ass for the very same things you do?  HYPOCRITE.  It is in the above quoted exchange.  You don't have to go back several pages to find the link.  It's the last link in the long post in the Chy Lung explanation.
Click to expand...



*U.S. Supreme Court
Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875)*

“if this plaintiff and her twenty companions had been subjects of the Queen of Great Britain, can anyone doubt that this matter would have been the subject of international inquiry, if not of a direct claim for redress? Upon whom would such a claim be made? Not upon the State of California, for, by our Constitution, she can hold no exterior relations with other nations. It would be made upon the government of the United States. *If that government should get into a difficulty which would lead to war or to suspension of intercourse, would California alone suffer, or all the Union? *If we should conclude that a pecuniary indemnity* w*as proper as a satisfaction for the injury, would California pay it, or the federal government?  *If that government has forbidden the states to hold negotiations with any foreign nations or to declare war and has taken the whole subject of these relations upon herself, has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to leave it in the power of the states to pass laws whose enforcement renders the general government liable to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?*

The Constitution of the United States is no such instrument. *The passage of LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE ADMISSION OF CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS TO OUR SHORES BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND NOT TO THE STATES. *It has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations; the responsibility for the character of those regulations and for the manner of their execution belongs solely to the national government. *If it be otherwise, a single state can at her pleasure embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations.”

*
Now I didn’t use “Cliff Notes”, like some high school college students had used to avoid actual tajing trhe time to read an entire book, I actually took the time to read the* “ACTUAL OPINION BEHIND THE RULING” of the Supreme Court decision itself.


*
I should not be able to *EDUCATE* someone who is a Constitutional Lawyer with over 250 cases (or so they claim).  Perhaps you need a new profession? One preferably that allows you to get away with your many “Cliff Notes” as part of your job.

You see this is what separates the researcher from the amateur.  

You’re welcome.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it did not.  Now, you're becoming the danielpalos of the right.  If you read the plenary powers article, it is by that, NOT THE CONSTITUTION, that the federal government is ruling immigration by.  They rule over immigration by way of an interpretation in Chy Lung v Freeman wherein the jurisdiction of the state was not an issue the defendants brought to the table.
> 
> 
> 
> Danielpalos admitted to me in another thread that he's trying to get the rest of his beaner family into the US, so anything he says is totally biased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is totally biased.  He's left of left.  But, on occasion, he makes a point about this one issue.  Trump said just last night that the left agreed with him until he became president.
> 
> The SOLUTIONS the right proposes are socialist, having been the talking points of the left before the right got conned into adopting them.  Those suffering with TDS cannot understand that some people will agree that we have a problem, but disagree with the socialist solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!
> 
> My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans?  Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed you weren't taking sides you were just asking questions. You lied.
Click to expand...


How did I take sides with what I quoted?  I suppose that if you look at it realistically, I did take sides in that I'm after Taz most of the time so that he can review his talking points and not look like a country bumpkin when the far left challenges him.

I'm going to level with you about something:

There is the left; there is the right and then there is me.  I have not *politically *worked for either side, at any time, on this issue.  What the general public thinks about the build the wall guys is that they are not mainstream Establishment Republicans.  I always voted Republican as the lesser of two evils.  And I'm telling you that what used to be conservatism is *NOT* what is being articulated on this thread.  Furthermore, my personal concern is with the protection, preservation, and protection of the posterity of the founding fathers and the foundational principles that America was built on.

Specifically, America was founded by white Christians with a world view unlike any other culture.  So, being white and being Christian, I'm on a side not represented on this board.  I had to ask questions in order to be able to understand what is going on.  Honestly, I still do not understand the fight.  Those who want the wall have no real credible argument that would prevent the people they hate from taking over "legally" as they term it and making this entire conversation moot.  The strategies of those who want a wall, when followed to their final destination, end in irreversible defeat for this country.

I kept asking people where they got their Rights from.  The only three responses I've gotten in all the *thousands* of posts were from non-Christians who think their unalienable Rights come from man.  So, ultimately, with a world view like that, they end up being democrats without realizing it.  The left *knows* what they are and they admit to it.

I disagree with the left, but I respect their honesty.  My observation is that the build the wall guys know they are trying to beat the left at their own game - which is dishonesty in strategy and tactics.  The left will tell you what they believe, but use subterfuge or anything else in order to get what they want.  The build the wall guys won't be honest in what it is, exactly, they believe in (or maybe they have not thought about it) and they are NO match for the left in tactics and strategies.

Psychologically, perception is reality.  Optics is everything.  Take for example, the separation of families issue with the people entering the U.S.  I work in this field.  As a foster parent, I see parents get arrested (both husband and wife.)  A foster parent may not be able to take in all their kids, so some go into one foster home, the others in another.  MOST of the time it is a flaming democrat who delivers the kids to me.

The husband is in a jail with men separated from his wife who is in jail with women.  Their kids are separated from them in different homes and that's life.  But, do it to undocumented foreigners and all Hell breaks loose.  It's all smoke and mirrors.  The right helps the left create a caravan and the masses cannot see that the sudden influx of foreigners is all a gimmick.  If the Hispanics wanted to come here in a caravan, why not under the community organizer?  He'd have welcomed them in and gave them all a joint on their way in the door.

I've just been waiting, hinting, and almost begging the build the wall guys to ask me one more question.  They won't.  They are not Christians so they cannot understand the foundational principles this country was built on.  In their ignorance, they will destroy our Liberty, the foundational principles and probably cause the demise of the posterity of the founders of our Republic.  I am, however, almost ready to do a part 4 giving the reasons that the current strategies will (and have) destroyed your Liberties and mine.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone else challenged the amount of money in question.  I didn't feel like debating an irrelevant point, so I will repeat my point along with having to repeat myself due to your blatant dishonesty.
> 
> "In 1875, the State of California passed a statute authorizing the *immigration* commissioner to inspect passengers arriving in California at a* cost of 75 cents per inspection* (levied on the passenger) and giving him the authority to deny entry to passengers suspected of being lewd and debauched. Those suspected thus could be allowed entry if the captain of the ship paid a bond for them"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia.
> 
> IIRC, you made a bogus argument once before about the Constitution and what happened in 1808.  I cited the relevant portion and still got some bogus counter-response.  So, let us see how much *authority* the federal government has over foreigners as per the Constitution:
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to  ... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> ...The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."  Article I  Section 9 of the United States Constitution.
> 
> Now let us get to the facts:
> 
> 1)  Throughout the lives of the founders, the states had control of immigration (the migration of people) and federal authority is limited to citizenship
> 
> 2)  Between 1808 and 1875, the states controlled immigration, proving that the issue of jurisdiction never changed.  The ONLY thing Article I Section 9 of the Constitution deals with is the tax
> 
> 3)  In Chy Lung v Freeman, according to Wikepedia:
> 
> "22 women from China, including Chy Lung, were among the passengers on the steamer _Japan_ that journeyed from China to San Francisco, arriving in 1875.[9] The immigration commissioner examined the passengers and identified Chy Lung and the other women as "lewd and debauched women." The captain of the ship had the option of paying a $500 bond per woman to allow her to land, with the bond having the ostensible purpose to "indemnify all the counties, towns, and cities of California against liability for her support or maintenance for two years." The captain, however, refused to pay the bond, and detained the women on board. They sued out a writ of _habeas corpus_, which led to them being moved into the custody of the Sheriff of the County and City of San Francisco, where they stayed, awaiting deportation upon the return of _Japan_, which had already left on its trip to China.[2]
> 
> The women refused to be deported to China, and appealed the decision to deport them. The California High Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute used to deny them entry, and upheld their deportation. They appealed the decision in the United States Supreme Court.[2] This was the first case to appear before the United States Supreme Court that involved a Chinese litigant.[9]
> 
> *Supreme Court decision[edit]*
> Justice Stephen Johnson Field ordered the release of all the women from the Sheriff's custody. However, Chy Lung still pressed the case in the Supreme Court, seeking to test the constitutionality of the statute that had been used to imprison her and her companions.[2]
> 
> On October 1, 1875, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of Chy Lung. Its primary argument was that the United States federal government, as opposed to state governments, were in charge of immigration policy and diplomatic relations with other nations, {the defendants did not ask the court to interpret the law as to who had jurisdiction over immigrants} so it was not up to the state of California to impose restrictions on Chinese immigration. The Supreme Court also noted that this action by the government of California could jeopardize foreign relations for the United States government insofar as it ran afoul of treaty obligations.[2][3][10]
> 
> The court did note that states could make reasonable and necessary regulations concerning paupers and convicted criminals, but that this regulation went far beyond that and was also extortionary.[3]
> 
> *The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case*.[2]
> 
> The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched.[2]"
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> My commentary in red.
> 
> The case of Chy Lung WAS NOT about who had jurisdiction over immigrants.  And so, the SCOTUS (because of what I bolded) decided to grant plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration.
> 
> The problem is, Congress has *NO AUTHORITY *to bestow upon any other branch of government a power of any kind.  They are to interpret the law, not legislate.  Legislating from the bench is unconstitutional.  Legislators simply refuse to hold Congress accountable.
> 
> "In United States constitutional law, plenary power is a power that has been granted to a body or person in absolute terms, with no review of or limitations upon the exercise of that power. The assignment of a plenary power to one body divests all other bodies from the right to exercise that power, where not otherwise entitled. Plenary powers are not subject to judicial review in a particular instance or in general.
> 
> In regard to immigration law, Congress, under the Plenary Power Doctrine, has the *power* to make immigration policy subject to judicial oversight. "
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> I thank wikipedia for using that word* POWER* instead of *AUTHORITY*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read can you?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution granted plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration after 1808, not the court.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it did not.  Now, you're becoming the danielpalos of the right.  If you read the plenary powers article, it is by that, NOT THE CONSTITUTION, that the federal government is ruling immigration by.  They rule over immigration by way of an interpretation in Chy Lung v Freeman wherein the jurisdiction of the state was not an issue the defendants brought to the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you call the plenary powers article? Plenary powers are found throughout the Constitution.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WTF???  You condemn me and ride my ass for the very same things you do?  HYPOCRITE.  It is in the above quoted exchange.  You don't have to go back several pages to find the link.  It's the last link in the long post in the Chy Lung explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. Supreme Court
> Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875)*
> 
> “if this plaintiff and her twenty companions had been subjects of the Queen of Great Britain, can anyone doubt that this matter would have been the subject of international inquiry, if not of a direct claim for redress? Upon whom would such a claim be made? Not upon the State of California, for, by our Constitution, she can hold no exterior relations with other nations. It would be made upon the government of the United States. *If that government should get into a difficulty which would lead to war or to suspension of intercourse, would California alone suffer, or all the Union? *If we should conclude that a pecuniary indemnity* w*as proper as a satisfaction for the injury, would California pay it, or the federal government?  *If that government has forbidden the states to hold negotiations with any foreign nations or to declare war and has taken the whole subject of these relations upon herself, has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to leave it in the power of the states to pass laws whose enforcement renders the general government liable to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?*
> 
> The Constitution of the United States is no such instrument. *The passage of LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE ADMISSION OF CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS TO OUR SHORES BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND NOT TO THE STATES. *It has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations; the responsibility for the character of those regulations and for the manner of their execution belongs solely to the national government. *If it be otherwise, a single state can at her pleasure embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations.”
> 
> *
> Now I didn’t use “Cliff Notes”, like some high school college students had used to avoid actual tajing trhe time to read an entire book, I actually took the time to read the* “ACTUAL OPINION BEHIND THE RULING” of the Supreme Court decision itself.
> 
> 
> *
> I should not be able to *EDUCATE* someone who is a Constitutional Lawyer with over 250 cases (or so they claim).  Perhaps you need a new profession? One preferably that allows you to get away with your many “Cliff Notes” as part of your job.
> 
> You see this is what separates the researcher from the amateur.
> 
> You’re welcome.
Click to expand...


I have never made the claims to which you allude.  So, right off the bat, you are a liar.  You simply lack any reasoning capacity.  Not my fault.  You should actually *READ* what I write.  You should not lie about it nor represent it.

The Chy Lung case did NOT ask the Court to address the issues that you have bolded.  Therefore, they were not interpreting the law; they were justifying the act of granting Congress a power that the SCOTUS never had.

Who comes and goes within a state's borders has NO bearing on citizenship.  They are completely different concepts. You have shown yourself to be the amateur by not being able to distinguish between the two.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read can you?
> The Constitution granted plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration after 1808, not the court.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it did not.  Now, you're becoming the danielpalos of the right.  If you read the plenary powers article, it is by that, NOT THE CONSTITUTION, that the federal government is ruling immigration by.  They rule over immigration by way of an interpretation in Chy Lung v Freeman wherein the jurisdiction of the state was not an issue the defendants brought to the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you call the plenary powers article? Plenary powers are found throughout the Constitution.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WTF???  You condemn me and ride my ass for the very same things you do?  HYPOCRITE.  It is in the above quoted exchange.  You don't have to go back several pages to find the link.  It's the last link in the long post in the Chy Lung explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. Supreme Court
> Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875)*
> 
> “if this plaintiff and her twenty companions had been subjects of the Queen of Great Britain, can anyone doubt that this matter would have been the subject of international inquiry, if not of a direct claim for redress? Upon whom would such a claim be made? Not upon the State of California, for, by our Constitution, she can hold no exterior relations with other nations. It would be made upon the government of the United States. *If that government should get into a difficulty which would lead to war or to suspension of intercourse, would California alone suffer, or all the Union? *If we should conclude that a pecuniary indemnity* w*as proper as a satisfaction for the injury, would California pay it, or the federal government?  *If that government has forbidden the states to hold negotiations with any foreign nations or to declare war and has taken the whole subject of these relations upon herself, has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to leave it in the power of the states to pass laws whose enforcement renders the general government liable to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?*
> 
> The Constitution of the United States is no such instrument. *The passage of LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE ADMISSION OF CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS TO OUR SHORES BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND NOT TO THE STATES. *It has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations; the responsibility for the character of those regulations and for the manner of their execution belongs solely to the national government. *If it be otherwise, a single state can at her pleasure embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations.”
> 
> *
> Now I didn’t use “Cliff Notes”, like some high school college students had used to avoid actual tajing trhe time to read an entire book, I actually took the time to read the* “ACTUAL OPINION BEHIND THE RULING” of the Supreme Court decision itself.
> 
> 
> *
> I should not be able to *EDUCATE* someone who is a Constitutional Lawyer with over 250 cases (or so they claim).  Perhaps you need a new profession? One preferably that allows you to get away with your many “Cliff Notes” as part of your job.
> 
> You see this is what separates the researcher from the amateur.
> 
> You’re welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never made the claims to which you allude.  So, right off the bat, you are a liar.  You simply lack any reasoning capacity.  Not my fault.  You should actually *READ* what I write.  You should not lie about it nor represent it.
> 
> The Chy Lung case did NOT ask the Court to address the issues that you have bolded.  Therefore, they were not interpreting the law; they were justifying the act of granting Congress a power that the SCOTUS never had.
> 
> Who comes and goes within a state's borders has NO bearing on citizenship.  They are completely different concepts. You have shown yourself to be the amateur by not being able to distinguish between the two.
Click to expand...


Porter Rockwell —
“You're probably right. *I've only been involved in court cases* surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and *have written maybe 250 court briefs* on the topic.“

You are the liar, and I can point to the exact page reference if you like. Don’t think I will ever ease up on your “claims” of your apparent knowledge (laughable) of the Constitution.

If you read the Supreme Court case - *Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875) *it clearly gives reason and support to Congress having the authority OVER the state surrounding the issue of immigration.

You can play the clueless ignorant if you like.  As I have said, I’ve done the research FAR more than you on the subject.


----------



## sealybobo

Taz said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We wasted about 80 trillion fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for nothing. Now you don't want to spend money for something that is actually necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not god damn necessary.  And I wasn't happy we wasted 80 trillion in Iraq.
> 
> For once I'd like you Trump supporters to admit when Trump has a bad idea.
> 
> But thanks for now at least finally admitting it's going to be a lot more than $5 billion and we are going to pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I vote Libertarian, which is way better than you having voted for Hillderbeast. And I don’t care how much the border wall costs, it’s something we need.
Click to expand...

If Texas needs a wall Texas should build a wall. Build one all around Texas for all we care. Arizona too.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your family that's throwing rocks at US border guards?
> 
> 
> 
> nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From being an actual US citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We got to talk about this one.  I need for you to explain this:
> 
> Your Rights are a by product of citizenship?  So, work with me here:
> 
> Let us say you own a firearm or you belong to a religion the government does not like OR maybe the liberals decide that you cannot be agnostic or atheist, but instead must belong to a One World Religion.  If such a proposition is put into place by majority vote, do you then comply?  if not, can you explain to me your theory of law?
Click to expand...

LOL

The Constitution and the bill of Rights takes care of that............It is an unlawful order..........The Branch of Gov't for that Challenge is the courts.......If the Gov't has turned the courts into a Mickey Mouse Production and they try to enforce a religion down our throats........Then it is no longer the Republic as intended by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.........

Then there is only one option........The 2nd Amendment............and we take our country back.

Illegals are NOT CITIZENS............PERIOD.............They have rights and in those LEGAL RIGHTS they have used the loop holes in the laws to force their way into our country...........Those need to be closed............and the border needs to be secured..........


----------



## eagle1462010

sealybobo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We wasted about 80 trillion fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for nothing. Now you don't want to spend money for something that is actually necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not god damn necessary.  And I wasn't happy we wasted 80 trillion in Iraq.
> 
> For once I'd like you Trump supporters to admit when Trump has a bad idea.
> 
> But thanks for now at least finally admitting it's going to be a lot more than $5 billion and we are going to pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I vote Libertarian, which is way better than you having voted for Hillderbeast. And I don’t care how much the border wall costs, it’s something we need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Texas needs a wall Texas should build a wall. Build one all around Texas for all we care. Arizona too.
Click to expand...

Fuck that.........we need to build one around California............You can join Mexico since you love them so much.............Then you can do as you please there.........and so will we.


----------



## eagle1462010

sealybobo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We wasted about 80 trillion fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for nothing. Now you don't want to spend money for something that is actually necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not god damn necessary.  And I wasn't happy we wasted 80 trillion in Iraq.
> 
> For once I'd like you Trump supporters to admit when Trump has a bad idea.
> 
> But thanks for now at least finally admitting it's going to be a lot more than $5 billion and we are going to pay for it.
Click to expand...

LOL

80 Trillion............


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read can you?
> The Constitution granted plenary powers to Congress over all aspects of immigration after 1808, not the court.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it did not.  Now, you're becoming the danielpalos of the right.  If you read the plenary powers article, it is by that, NOT THE CONSTITUTION, that the federal government is ruling immigration by.  They rule over immigration by way of an interpretation in Chy Lung v Freeman wherein the jurisdiction of the state was not an issue the defendants brought to the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Danielpalos admitted to me in another thread that he's trying to get the rest of his beaner family into the US, so anything he says is totally biased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is totally biased.  He's left of left.  But, on occasion, he makes a point about this one issue.  Trump said just last night that the left agreed with him until he became president.
> 
> The SOLUTIONS the right proposes are socialist, having been the talking points of the left before the right got conned into adopting them.  Those suffering with TDS cannot understand that some people will agree that we have a problem, but disagree with the socialist solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!
> 
> My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans?  Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?
Click to expand...

Tyranny.............LOL

When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.

VIVA LA MEHICO...............

That isn't the proper forms sir........

I Demand Entry............





NEXT.


----------



## dblack

Viva la police state. 

Phucking Phascists.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it did not.  Now, you're becoming the danielpalos of the right.  If you read the plenary powers article, it is by that, NOT THE CONSTITUTION, that the federal government is ruling immigration by.  They rule over immigration by way of an interpretation in Chy Lung v Freeman wherein the jurisdiction of the state was not an issue the defendants brought to the table.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you call the plenary powers article? Plenary powers are found throughout the Constitution.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WTF???  You condemn me and ride my ass for the very same things you do?  HYPOCRITE.  It is in the above quoted exchange.  You don't have to go back several pages to find the link.  It's the last link in the long post in the Chy Lung explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. Supreme Court
> Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875)*
> 
> “if this plaintiff and her twenty companions had been subjects of the Queen of Great Britain, can anyone doubt that this matter would have been the subject of international inquiry, if not of a direct claim for redress? Upon whom would such a claim be made? Not upon the State of California, for, by our Constitution, she can hold no exterior relations with other nations. It would be made upon the government of the United States. *If that government should get into a difficulty which would lead to war or to suspension of intercourse, would California alone suffer, or all the Union? *If we should conclude that a pecuniary indemnity* w*as proper as a satisfaction for the injury, would California pay it, or the federal government?  *If that government has forbidden the states to hold negotiations with any foreign nations or to declare war and has taken the whole subject of these relations upon herself, has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to leave it in the power of the states to pass laws whose enforcement renders the general government liable to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?*
> 
> The Constitution of the United States is no such instrument. *The passage of LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE ADMISSION OF CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS TO OUR SHORES BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND NOT TO THE STATES. *It has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations; the responsibility for the character of those regulations and for the manner of their execution belongs solely to the national government. *If it be otherwise, a single state can at her pleasure embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations.”
> 
> *
> Now I didn’t use “Cliff Notes”, like some high school college students had used to avoid actual tajing trhe time to read an entire book, I actually took the time to read the* “ACTUAL OPINION BEHIND THE RULING” of the Supreme Court decision itself.
> 
> 
> *
> I should not be able to *EDUCATE* someone who is a Constitutional Lawyer with over 250 cases (or so they claim).  Perhaps you need a new profession? One preferably that allows you to get away with your many “Cliff Notes” as part of your job.
> 
> You see this is what separates the researcher from the amateur.
> 
> You’re welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never made the claims to which you allude.  So, right off the bat, you are a liar.  You simply lack any reasoning capacity.  Not my fault.  You should actually *READ* what I write.  You should not lie about it nor represent it.
> 
> The Chy Lung case did NOT ask the Court to address the issues that you have bolded.  Therefore, they were not interpreting the law; they were justifying the act of granting Congress a power that the SCOTUS never had.
> 
> Who comes and goes within a state's borders has NO bearing on citizenship.  They are completely different concepts. You have shown yourself to be the amateur by not being able to distinguish between the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell —
> “You're probably right. *I've only been involved in court cases* surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and *have written maybe 250 court briefs* on the topic.“
> 
> You are the liar, and I can point to the exact page reference if you like. Don’t think I will ever ease up on your “claims” of your apparent knowledge (laughable) of the Constitution.
> 
> If you read the Supreme Court case - *Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875) *it clearly gives reason and support to Congress having the authority OVER the state surrounding the issue of immigration.
> 
> You can play the clueless ignorant if you like.  As I have said, I’ve done the research FAR more than you on the subject.
Click to expand...


Still doesn't say what you claim, does it?

I clearly read Chy Lung many times.  The defendants did not petition the Court for any ruling on the jurisdiction of federal over states rights on immigration.

Yeah, bro.  You're a legend in your own mind that puffs himself up and attempts to make his case on the basis of lies and flat out misinterpretations of the facts.  I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

If the day ever comes that you and I meet face to face around people we both know, they are going to laugh at you so hard, you'll *NEVER* post again.


----------



## sealybobo

Slyhunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump can't be serious that he wants a wall built when the illegals who work at his resorts are getting here a plethora of other ways.
> 
> Again, if we just went after illegal employers like Trump we could solve this problem.
> 
> And we can patrol a border without building a multi trillion dollar ineffective monument to Donald Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer Says A Wall 'Ineffective,' 'Unnecessary.' Here's What He Said In 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you stop illegal entry without a wall. Shoot them?
Click to expand...

Same thing you do if you catch someone climbing the wall or tunneling under.

Listen. Don’t ask a bunch of stupid questions. It’s a bad idea. Expensive, a waste of time, won’t work, bla we’ve already told you all the reasons.

Now let’s talk about the real solutions to this. Oh wait. I forgot I’m talking to people who can only say three words. Build the wall.

Trump got a lot of people to vote for him because he said Mexico would pay. Sorry this is one campaign promise he can’t keep. 

One other person here laughed when I said multi trillion. Well the fact is he’s talking about walling an entire border. It would be a monument to trump. That’s what he wants. 

Let Texas wall itself in but won’t it have to worry about illegals coming in via the northern border too? Better wall the entire state


----------



## sealybobo

OKTexas said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you watch, stop them and don’t let them in that works.
> 
> An unlatched area of wall won’t stop shit. So you just wasted $5 billion.
> 
> We didn’t have a problem until Reagan. He and GW Bush stopped cracking down on employers who hire illegals. If we go back to the way things were, illegals would go home. No employer would dare hire them..
> 
> Again, no wall necessary.
> 
> We survived all these years with no wall. Sorry trump you’re going to loose this one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are refusing to acknowledge is that past illegal aliens were single working aged males that wanted to send money home to support their family. They were mostly from Mexico and could easily be removed.
> 
> Now we have whole families and unaccompanied minors, the law requires they be treated differently. They are overwhelming the system established to process and care for them. Right now we have almost a million pending asylum cases and thousands a month added to that backlog.
> 
> Another thing you seem not to understand is border patrol agent can NOT physically prevent an illegal alien form entering, all they can do is arrest and detain them AFTER they have entered, then the courts and the law gives them due process rights. The only legal way to prevent entry is a barrier that prevents entry in the first place.
> 
> Also I doubt Trump is monitoring this forum so your last sentence was a waste of band width. But feel free to try to refute the facts I've presented.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re not listening to anything I say and you believe the wall is the silver bullet.
> 
> Texas should pay for it. States rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never said it was a silver bullet, it's just part of the solution, but your claims that todays illegals are the same as in the past is BS. I notice you didn't even try to actually rebut what I actually said. So carry on with your intellectually dishonest crap and I'll continue to smile at your ignorance.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  We don't need a wall.  This is a manufactured crisis
> 2. Wall is too expensive and won't solve a thing.  $5 bill is just the down payment.  Do you want to spend a trillion on a wall?  Really?
> 3.  So you want your taxes to go up?
> 4.  Our roads and infrastructure are falling apart because we don't have the money to fix them.  So we should build a wall first?
> 5.  This is just a simple idea that his simple followers can understand and rally behind.  Forget about getting them to understand a comprehensive solution to this.
> 6. Trump can't be a hypocrite and hire illegals at Mara Largo and then say we need a wall
> 7.  This is a legacy or monument Trump wants personally
> 8. Trump needs to stop punishing us because he can't stand to lose.
> 9.  We can't give in to Trump or else this will be the new way a President governs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still can't address what I said, but your deflection is noted. Have a great day.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

You could name off ten other ideas and I would agree with most of them but building a wall is a dumb idea. Even when democrats proposed it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope; there is no immigration clause and we have a First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> We can keep ANYONE out of our country that we feel like. Nobody has a "right" to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From being an actual US citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We got to talk about this one.  I need for you to explain this:
> 
> Your Rights are a by product of citizenship?  So, work with me here:
> 
> Let us say you own a firearm or you belong to a religion the government does not like OR maybe the liberals decide that you cannot be agnostic or atheist, but instead must belong to a One World Religion.  If such a proposition is put into place by majority vote, do you then comply?  if not, can you explain to me your theory of law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> The Constitution and the bill of Rights takes care of that............It is an unlawful order..........The Branch of Gov't for that Challenge is the courts.......If the Gov't has turned the courts into a Mickey Mouse Production and they try to enforce a religion down our throats........Then it is no longer the Republic as intended by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.........
> 
> Then there is only one option........The 2nd Amendment............and we take our country back.
> 
> Illegals are NOT CITIZENS............PERIOD.............They have rights and in those LEGAL RIGHTS they have used the loop holes in the laws to force their way into our country...........Those need to be closed............and the border needs to be secured..........
Click to expand...


WTH is this nonsense?  What is your point?  Or do you have one?  Never mind.  If your next post is like this, then I'm going to ignore such crap.  It looks like something cobbled together by someone on a bad acid trip.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it did not.  Now, you're becoming the danielpalos of the right.  If you read the plenary powers article, it is by that, NOT THE CONSTITUTION, that the federal government is ruling immigration by.  They rule over immigration by way of an interpretation in Chy Lung v Freeman wherein the jurisdiction of the state was not an issue the defendants brought to the table.
> 
> 
> 
> Danielpalos admitted to me in another thread that he's trying to get the rest of his beaner family into the US, so anything he says is totally biased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is totally biased.  He's left of left.  But, on occasion, he makes a point about this one issue.  Trump said just last night that the left agreed with him until he became president.
> 
> The SOLUTIONS the right proposes are socialist, having been the talking points of the left before the right got conned into adopting them.  Those suffering with TDS cannot understand that some people will agree that we have a problem, but disagree with the socialist solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!
> 
> My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans?  Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tyranny.............LOL
> 
> When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.
> 
> VIVA LA MEHICO...............
> 
> That isn't the proper forms sir........
> 
> I Demand Entry............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEXT.
Click to expand...


That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years.  You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Danielpalos admitted to me in another thread that he's trying to get the rest of his beaner family into the US, so anything he says is totally biased.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is totally biased.  He's left of left.  But, on occasion, he makes a point about this one issue.  Trump said just last night that the left agreed with him until he became president.
> 
> The SOLUTIONS the right proposes are socialist, having been the talking points of the left before the right got conned into adopting them.  Those suffering with TDS cannot understand that some people will agree that we have a problem, but disagree with the socialist solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!
> 
> My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans?  Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tyranny.............LOL
> 
> When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.
> 
> VIVA LA MEHICO...............
> 
> That isn't the proper forms sir........
> 
> I Demand Entry............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEXT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years.  You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.
Click to expand...

Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you.  Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.


----------



## sealybobo

eagle1462010 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We wasted about 80 trillion fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for nothing. Now you don't want to spend money for something that is actually necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not god damn necessary.  And I wasn't happy we wasted 80 trillion in Iraq.
> 
> For once I'd like you Trump supporters to admit when Trump has a bad idea.
> 
> But thanks for now at least finally admitting it's going to be a lot more than $5 billion and we are going to pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> 80 Trillion............
Click to expand...

$5 billion? Lolololol


----------



## sealybobo

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is totally biased.  He's left of left.  But, on occasion, he makes a point about this one issue.  Trump said just last night that the left agreed with him until he became president.
> 
> The SOLUTIONS the right proposes are socialist, having been the talking points of the left before the right got conned into adopting them.  Those suffering with TDS cannot understand that some people will agree that we have a problem, but disagree with the socialist solutions.
> 
> 
> 
> We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!
> 
> My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans?  Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tyranny.............LOL
> 
> When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.
> 
> VIVA LA MEHICO...............
> 
> That isn't the proper forms sir........
> 
> I Demand Entry............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEXT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years.  You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you.  Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.
Click to expand...

And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.

You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?

Go after illegal employers you’ll see a wall wasn’t necessary. Just saved us $5 billion


----------



## eagle1462010

sealybobo said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!
> 
> My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans?  Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tyranny.............LOL
> 
> When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.
> 
> VIVA LA MEHICO...............
> 
> That isn't the proper forms sir........
> 
> I Demand Entry............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEXT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years.  You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you.  Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.
> 
> You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?
Click to expand...

You don't listen well then..............I've supported that ........even put up bills that would do that.......But you go with blinders on here?


----------



## LilOlLady

candycorn said:


> A&B mostly.  Most illegal immigration does not come over the border by foot.  And if we’re 21T in debt, a quarter T on building a wall is not a good investment.
> 
> So as an immigration barrier, it’s a bad idea; also in the stark light of the reality that illegal immigration has been largely beneficial to the economy despite the horror stories and cherry picked anecdotes.
> 
> That being said, it seems to me that a fantastic idea would be to create an alternative to the Panama canal from San Diego to Brownsville TX or so that allows goods to bypass the trip through Central America and can possibly bring irrigation to the desert Southwest.  Not right along the border but something like that would serve multiple purposes;
> 
> Jobs during the construction
> Immigration barrier to those that do cross illegally
> Irrigation
> Commerce
> National Security.
> 
> 
> All a pipe dream.
> It would be a multi decade project of course and We don’t do big things any longer.
> 
> Space Force!


Sick of hearing the word "most" is native born that commit crimes. The fact that any Americans are killed by illegal aliens is too many. Of course most criminals in this country are native born because they are the largest in population. DA . Aliens are approximately 3percent of the U.S. population.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

sealybobo said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!
> 
> My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans?  Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tyranny.............LOL
> 
> When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.
> 
> VIVA LA MEHICO...............
> 
> That isn't the proper forms sir........
> 
> I Demand Entry............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEXT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years.  You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you.  Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.
> 
> You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?
> 
> Go after illegal employers you’ll see a wall wasn’t necessary. Just saved us $5 billion
Click to expand...


My response to that is if the government ever tried to tell me who I can and cannot hire, it's game on.  They tax us to death, regulate the Hell out of us, then expect you to pay people an amount that would drive a company into bankruptcy... and then when you have no other choices, they'd jail you for giving someone a job to feed their family and keep the business going?  Are you nucking futs?

What nobody seems to want to do is invest some of that money into taking the homeless welfarites with criminal records and cleaning them up, educating them, and getting them back into the workforce.  Hell no.  That makes too much sense.  Anybody who comes here telling me who I can and cannot hire or have on my property will be ignored.  If they don't like my response, they've just found my line in the sand.  I'm not losing what I own because some snowflake gets offended.  If you want a job, quit drinking, smoking, doing drugs, wasting your money on tattoos, and body piercings.  Invest in an education, some skill sets, your dental health / general hygiene and learn how to dress for an interview - then APPLY FOR THE DAMN JOB.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

LilOlLady said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A&B mostly.  Most illegal immigration does not come over the border by foot.  And if we’re 21T in debt, a quarter T on building a wall is not a good investment.
> 
> So as an immigration barrier, it’s a bad idea; also in the stark light of the reality that illegal immigration has been largely beneficial to the economy despite the horror stories and cherry picked anecdotes.
> 
> That being said, it seems to me that a fantastic idea would be to create an alternative to the Panama canal from San Diego to Brownsville TX or so that allows goods to bypass the trip through Central America and can possibly bring irrigation to the desert Southwest.  Not right along the border but something like that would serve multiple purposes;
> 
> Jobs during the construction
> Immigration barrier to those that do cross illegally
> Irrigation
> Commerce
> National Security.
> 
> 
> All a pipe dream.
> It would be a multi decade project of course and We don’t do big things any longer.
> 
> Space Force!
> 
> 
> 
> Sick of hearing the word "most" is native born that commit crimes. The fact that any Americans are killed by illegal aliens is too many. Of course most criminals in this country are native born because they are the largest in population. DA . Aliens are approximately 3percent of the U.S. population.
Click to expand...


That portion of America who commit crimes are the ones who get a criminal record - that NEVER goes away.  That's because the build the wall advocates wanted it.

With a criminal record, they cannot get a job.  So, the majority of unemployed people are equivalent to the number of foreigners, who, in turn,  end up taking the job.  THAT offends the build the wall crowd. If someone is unemployable due to the build the walls efforts, deporting the guy who took the job does not magically transform the unemployable into qualified.

The build the wall people worship that damn wall, but don't have a clue as to *WHY* they have symptoms of their own making that are drawing the foreigners here.  Furthermore, what walls, laws and stupid bigots don't understand is that you're not going to keep "them" out.  You will either devise sensible regulation measures OR lose.  Even if you build a wall, it will come down within a generation because, unlike other countries, Americans are willingly inviting foreigners to come here.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans?  Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?
> 
> 
> 
> Tyranny.............LOL
> 
> When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.
> 
> VIVA LA MEHICO...............
> 
> That isn't the proper forms sir........
> 
> I Demand Entry............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEXT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years.  You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you.  Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.
> 
> You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?
> 
> Go after illegal employers you’ll see a wall wasn’t necessary. Just saved us $5 billion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My response to that is if the government ever tried to tell me who I can and cannot hire, it's game on.  They tax us to death, regulate the Hell out of us, then expect you to pay people an amount that would drive a company into bankruptcy... and then when you have no other choices, they'd jail you for giving someone a job to feed their family and keep the business going?  Are you nucking futs?
> 
> What nobody seems to want to do is invest some of that money into taking the homeless welfarites with criminal records and cleaning them up, educating them, and getting them back into the workforce.  Hell no.  That makes too much sense.  Anybody who comes here telling me who I can and cannot hire or have on my property will be ignored.  If they don't like my response, they've just found my line in the sand.  I'm not losing what I own because some snowflake gets offended.  If you want a job, quit drinking, smoking, doing drugs, wasting your money on tattoos, and body piercings.  Invest in an education, some skill sets, your dental health / general hygiene and learn how to dress for an interview - then APPLY FOR THE DAMN JOB.
Click to expand...

Follow the law..........use the E-verify and/or a reliable verification program to make sure they LEGALLY CAN WORK..........

End of discussion............You would have to hire LEGAL WORKERS.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you call the plenary powers article? Plenary powers are found throughout the Constitution.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF???  You condemn me and ride my ass for the very same things you do?  HYPOCRITE.  It is in the above quoted exchange.  You don't have to go back several pages to find the link.  It's the last link in the long post in the Chy Lung explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. Supreme Court
> Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875)*
> 
> “if this plaintiff and her twenty companions had been subjects of the Queen of Great Britain, can anyone doubt that this matter would have been the subject of international inquiry, if not of a direct claim for redress? Upon whom would such a claim be made? Not upon the State of California, for, by our Constitution, she can hold no exterior relations with other nations. It would be made upon the government of the United States. *If that government should get into a difficulty which would lead to war or to suspension of intercourse, would California alone suffer, or all the Union? *If we should conclude that a pecuniary indemnity* w*as proper as a satisfaction for the injury, would California pay it, or the federal government?  *If that government has forbidden the states to hold negotiations with any foreign nations or to declare war and has taken the whole subject of these relations upon herself, has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to leave it in the power of the states to pass laws whose enforcement renders the general government liable to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?*
> 
> The Constitution of the United States is no such instrument. *The passage of LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE ADMISSION OF CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS TO OUR SHORES BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND NOT TO THE STATES. *It has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations; the responsibility for the character of those regulations and for the manner of their execution belongs solely to the national government. *If it be otherwise, a single state can at her pleasure embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations.”
> 
> *
> Now I didn’t use “Cliff Notes”, like some high school college students had used to avoid actual tajing trhe time to read an entire book, I actually took the time to read the* “ACTUAL OPINION BEHIND THE RULING” of the Supreme Court decision itself.
> 
> 
> *
> I should not be able to *EDUCATE* someone who is a Constitutional Lawyer with over 250 cases (or so they claim).  Perhaps you need a new profession? One preferably that allows you to get away with your many “Cliff Notes” as part of your job.
> 
> You see this is what separates the researcher from the amateur.
> 
> You’re welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never made the claims to which you allude.  So, right off the bat, you are a liar.  You simply lack any reasoning capacity.  Not my fault.  You should actually *READ* what I write.  You should not lie about it nor represent it.
> 
> The Chy Lung case did NOT ask the Court to address the issues that you have bolded.  Therefore, they were not interpreting the law; they were justifying the act of granting Congress a power that the SCOTUS never had.
> 
> Who comes and goes within a state's borders has NO bearing on citizenship.  They are completely different concepts. You have shown yourself to be the amateur by not being able to distinguish between the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell —
> “You're probably right. *I've only been involved in court cases* surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and *have written maybe 250 court briefs* on the topic.“
> 
> You are the liar, and I can point to the exact page reference if you like. Don’t think I will ever ease up on your “claims” of your apparent knowledge (laughable) of the Constitution.
> 
> If you read the Supreme Court case - *Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875) *it clearly gives reason and support to Congress having the authority OVER the state surrounding the issue of immigration.
> 
> You can play the clueless ignorant if you like.  As I have said, I’ve done the research FAR more than you on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still doesn't say what you claim, does it?
> 
> I clearly read Chy Lung many times.  The defendants did not petition the Court for any ruling on the jurisdiction of federal over states rights on immigration.
> 
> Yeah, bro.  You're a legend in your own mind that puffs himself up and attempts to make his case on the basis of lies and flat out misinterpretations of the facts.  I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
> 
> If the day ever comes that you and I meet face to face around people we both know, they are going to laugh at you so hard, you'll *NEVER* post again.
Click to expand...


Actually it DOES say clearly that the state does not have authority on the issue of immigration, but that Congress does OVER the state.  Right there in red for anyone to see.

*“ has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to LEAVE IT IN THE POWER OF THE STATES TO PASS LAWS WHOSE ENFORCEMENT RENDERS THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT LIABLE to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?*

*The passage of LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE ADMISSION OF CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS TO OUR SHORES BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND NOT TO THE STATES. *“


How about you try showing some backed up RESEARCH on this thread.  I don’t know what more I can do as the decision and views of a Supreme Court Justice is crystal clear with little room of a “grey area”. (some with an emphasis of bold and red).  To be honest you haven’t proven a thing contrary to THEIR interpretation of the Constitution regarding immigration.  No RESEARCH rebuttals, no detailed historic opinions of Court cases - nothing.

Instead I get this “meet you out in the parking lot after school” kind of public crap. Now if you care to bring yourself down to reliving some child-like adolescence ... no one here is really interested in your childish antics.  Seriously ... Grow up bud, this is a political thread forum for more mature adults than that.


----------



## candycorn

LilOlLady said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A&B mostly.  Most illegal immigration does not come over the border by foot.  And if we’re 21T in debt, a quarter T on building a wall is not a good investment.
> 
> So as an immigration barrier, it’s a bad idea; also in the stark light of the reality that illegal immigration has been largely beneficial to the economy despite the horror stories and cherry picked anecdotes.
> 
> That being said, it seems to me that a fantastic idea would be to create an alternative to the Panama canal from San Diego to Brownsville TX or so that allows goods to bypass the trip through Central America and can possibly bring irrigation to the desert Southwest.  Not right along the border but something like that would serve multiple purposes;
> 
> Jobs during the construction
> Immigration barrier to those that do cross illegally
> Irrigation
> Commerce
> National Security.
> 
> 
> All a pipe dream.
> It would be a multi decade project of course and We don’t do big things any longer.
> 
> Space Force!
> 
> 
> 
> Sick of hearing the word "most" is native born that commit crimes. The fact that any Americans are killed by illegal aliens is too many. Of course most criminals in this country are native born because they are the largest in population. DA . Aliens are approximately 3percent of the U.S. population.
Click to expand...


Not sure where I mentioned crime in the post you replied to.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF???  You condemn me and ride my ass for the very same things you do?  HYPOCRITE.  It is in the above quoted exchange.  You don't have to go back several pages to find the link.  It's the last link in the long post in the Chy Lung explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. Supreme Court
> Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875)*
> 
> “if this plaintiff and her twenty companions had been subjects of the Queen of Great Britain, can anyone doubt that this matter would have been the subject of international inquiry, if not of a direct claim for redress? Upon whom would such a claim be made? Not upon the State of California, for, by our Constitution, she can hold no exterior relations with other nations. It would be made upon the government of the United States. *If that government should get into a difficulty which would lead to war or to suspension of intercourse, would California alone suffer, or all the Union? *If we should conclude that a pecuniary indemnity* w*as proper as a satisfaction for the injury, would California pay it, or the federal government?  *If that government has forbidden the states to hold negotiations with any foreign nations or to declare war and has taken the whole subject of these relations upon herself, has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to leave it in the power of the states to pass laws whose enforcement renders the general government liable to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?*
> 
> The Constitution of the United States is no such instrument. *The passage of LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE ADMISSION OF CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS TO OUR SHORES BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND NOT TO THE STATES. *It has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations; the responsibility for the character of those regulations and for the manner of their execution belongs solely to the national government. *If it be otherwise, a single state can at her pleasure embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations.”
> 
> *
> Now I didn’t use “Cliff Notes”, like some high school college students had used to avoid actual tajing trhe time to read an entire book, I actually took the time to read the* “ACTUAL OPINION BEHIND THE RULING” of the Supreme Court decision itself.
> 
> 
> *
> I should not be able to *EDUCATE* someone who is a Constitutional Lawyer with over 250 cases (or so they claim).  Perhaps you need a new profession? One preferably that allows you to get away with your many “Cliff Notes” as part of your job.
> 
> You see this is what separates the researcher from the amateur.
> 
> You’re welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never made the claims to which you allude.  So, right off the bat, you are a liar.  You simply lack any reasoning capacity.  Not my fault.  You should actually *READ* what I write.  You should not lie about it nor represent it.
> 
> The Chy Lung case did NOT ask the Court to address the issues that you have bolded.  Therefore, they were not interpreting the law; they were justifying the act of granting Congress a power that the SCOTUS never had.
> 
> Who comes and goes within a state's borders has NO bearing on citizenship.  They are completely different concepts. You have shown yourself to be the amateur by not being able to distinguish between the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell —
> “You're probably right. *I've only been involved in court cases* surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and *have written maybe 250 court briefs* on the topic.“
> 
> You are the liar, and I can point to the exact page reference if you like. Don’t think I will ever ease up on your “claims” of your apparent knowledge (laughable) of the Constitution.
> 
> If you read the Supreme Court case - *Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875) *it clearly gives reason and support to Congress having the authority OVER the state surrounding the issue of immigration.
> 
> You can play the clueless ignorant if you like.  As I have said, I’ve done the research FAR more than you on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still doesn't say what you claim, does it?
> 
> I clearly read Chy Lung many times.  The defendants did not petition the Court for any ruling on the jurisdiction of federal over states rights on immigration.
> 
> Yeah, bro.  You're a legend in your own mind that puffs himself up and attempts to make his case on the basis of lies and flat out misinterpretations of the facts.  I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
> 
> If the day ever comes that you and I meet face to face around people we both know, they are going to laugh at you so hard, you'll *NEVER* post again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it DOES say clearly that the state does not have authority on the issue of immigration, but that Congress does OVER the state.  Right there in red for anyone to see.
> 
> *“ has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to LEAVE IT IN THE POWER OF THE STATES TO PASS LAWS WHOSE ENFORCEMENT RENDERS THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT LIABLE to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?*
> 
> *The passage of LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE ADMISSION OF CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS TO OUR SHORES BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND NOT TO THE STATES. *“
> 
> 
> How about you try showing some backed up RESEARCH on this thread.  I don’t know what more I can do as the decision and views of a Supreme Court Justice is crystal clear with little room of a “grey area”. (some with an emphasis of bold and red).  To be honest you haven’t proven a thing contrary to THEIR interpretation of the Constitution regarding immigration.  No RESEARCH rebuttals, no detailed historic opinions of Court cases - nothing.
> 
> Instead I get this “meet you out in the parking lot after school” kind of public crap. Now if you care to bring yourself down to reliving some child-like adolescence ... no one here is really interested in your childish antics.  Seriously ... Grow up bud, this is a political thread forum for more mature adults than that.
Click to expand...


Damn son, you *ARE* stupid.  I'm not disputing what the SCOTUS ruled.  It's just that the SCOTUS did not have the *AUTHORITY* to take power and grant it to Congress.  That is *NOT* interpretation; that is legislation from the bench.

When the courts can legislate from the bench; when the SCOTUS can change their own precedents, then we are no longer living in the Republic guaranteed in the Constitution.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tyranny.............LOL
> 
> When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.
> 
> VIVA LA MEHICO...............
> 
> That isn't the proper forms sir........
> 
> I Demand Entry............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEXT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years.  You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you.  Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.
> 
> You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?
> 
> Go after illegal employers you’ll see a wall wasn’t necessary. Just saved us $5 billion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My response to that is if the government ever tried to tell me who I can and cannot hire, it's game on.  They tax us to death, regulate the Hell out of us, then expect you to pay people an amount that would drive a company into bankruptcy... and then when you have no other choices, they'd jail you for giving someone a job to feed their family and keep the business going?  Are you nucking futs?
> 
> What nobody seems to want to do is invest some of that money into taking the homeless welfarites with criminal records and cleaning them up, educating them, and getting them back into the workforce.  Hell no.  That makes too much sense.  Anybody who comes here telling me who I can and cannot hire or have on my property will be ignored.  If they don't like my response, they've just found my line in the sand.  I'm not losing what I own because some snowflake gets offended.  If you want a job, quit drinking, smoking, doing drugs, wasting your money on tattoos, and body piercings.  Invest in an education, some skill sets, your dental health / general hygiene and learn how to dress for an interview - then APPLY FOR THE DAMN JOB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Follow the law..........use the E-verify and/or a reliable verification program to make sure they LEGALLY CAN WORK..........
> 
> End of discussion............You would have to hire LEGAL WORKERS.
Click to expand...


 I don't have to obey any law that contradicts the Constitution:


_"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_

_The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._

_An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._

_Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._

_A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._

*An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.*

_Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._

*No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."*

_*— *Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_

Forfeiting property Rights just so you can have a happy ending over the concept of a wall doesn't change my mind.  You are advocating a society that makes Orwell's futuristic novel look tame.


----------



## OKTexas

sealybobo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We wasted about 80 trillion fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for nothing. Now you don't want to spend money for something that is actually necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not god damn necessary.  And I wasn't happy we wasted 80 trillion in Iraq.
> 
> For once I'd like you Trump supporters to admit when Trump has a bad idea.
> 
> But thanks for now at least finally admitting it's going to be a lot more than $5 billion and we are going to pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I vote Libertarian, which is way better than you having voted for Hillderbeast. And I don’t care how much the border wall costs, it’s something we need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Texas needs a wall Texas should build a wall. Build one all around Texas for all we care. Arizona too.
Click to expand...



The same can be said about your roads.

.


----------



## OKTexas

sealybobo said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are refusing to acknowledge is that past illegal aliens were single working aged males that wanted to send money home to support their family. They were mostly from Mexico and could easily be removed.
> 
> Now we have whole families and unaccompanied minors, the law requires they be treated differently. They are overwhelming the system established to process and care for them. Right now we have almost a million pending asylum cases and thousands a month added to that backlog.
> 
> Another thing you seem not to understand is border patrol agent can NOT physically prevent an illegal alien form entering, all they can do is arrest and detain them AFTER they have entered, then the courts and the law gives them due process rights. The only legal way to prevent entry is a barrier that prevents entry in the first place.
> 
> Also I doubt Trump is monitoring this forum so your last sentence was a waste of band width. But feel free to try to refute the facts I've presented.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> You’re not listening to anything I say and you believe the wall is the silver bullet.
> 
> Texas should pay for it. States rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never said it was a silver bullet, it's just part of the solution, but your claims that todays illegals are the same as in the past is BS. I notice you didn't even try to actually rebut what I actually said. So carry on with your intellectually dishonest crap and I'll continue to smile at your ignorance.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  We don't need a wall.  This is a manufactured crisis
> 2. Wall is too expensive and won't solve a thing.  $5 bill is just the down payment.  Do you want to spend a trillion on a wall?  Really?
> 3.  So you want your taxes to go up?
> 4.  Our roads and infrastructure are falling apart because we don't have the money to fix them.  So we should build a wall first?
> 5.  This is just a simple idea that his simple followers can understand and rally behind.  Forget about getting them to understand a comprehensive solution to this.
> 6. Trump can't be a hypocrite and hire illegals at Mara Largo and then say we need a wall
> 7.  This is a legacy or monument Trump wants personally
> 8. Trump needs to stop punishing us because he can't stand to lose.
> 9.  We can't give in to Trump or else this will be the new way a President governs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still can't address what I said, but your deflection is noted. Have a great day.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could name off ten other ideas and I would agree with most of them but building a wall is a dumb idea. Even when democrats proposed it.
Click to expand...



You're entitled to your opinion, as am I, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Danielpalos admitted to me in another thread that he's trying to get the rest of his beaner family into the US, so anything he says is totally biased.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is totally biased.  He's left of left.  But, on occasion, he makes a point about this one issue.  Trump said just last night that the left agreed with him until he became president.
> 
> The SOLUTIONS the right proposes are socialist, having been the talking points of the left before the right got conned into adopting them.  Those suffering with TDS cannot understand that some people will agree that we have a problem, but disagree with the socialist solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!
> 
> My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans?  Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tyranny.............LOL
> 
> When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.
> 
> VIVA LA MEHICO...............
> 
> That isn't the proper forms sir........
> 
> I Demand Entry............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEXT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years.  You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.
Click to expand...



Actually immigration laws have been updated 10 times since 1986. The latest in 2012.

List of United States immigration laws - Wikipedia

.


----------



## otto105

Again, has no conservative here answered the question of whether there were more or less border crossings 15-20 years ago.


Why is that.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is totally biased.  He's left of left.  But, on occasion, he makes a point about this one issue.  Trump said just last night that the left agreed with him until he became president.
> 
> The SOLUTIONS the right proposes are socialist, having been the talking points of the left before the right got conned into adopting them.  Those suffering with TDS cannot understand that some people will agree that we have a problem, but disagree with the socialist solutions.
> 
> 
> 
> We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!
> 
> My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans?  Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tyranny.............LOL
> 
> When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.
> 
> VIVA LA MEHICO...............
> 
> That isn't the proper forms sir........
> 
> I Demand Entry............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEXT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years.  You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually immigration laws have been updated 10 times since 1986. The latest in 2012.
> 
> List of United States immigration laws - Wikipedia
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Thank you for such a terrific laugh.  For almost 15 years I debated, discussed, and argued the National ID / REAL ID Act as being an immigration measure.  Build the wall guys DENIED it!  Even on this thread, you would hear the trolls asking what Liberty was endangered by the wall.  

Strict enforcement of the Hitler style National ID law is a threat to our Liberty and it will jeopardize the Liberty to the point of nullifying the Fourth Amendment after the wall is built.

Then the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security with its 40.5 *BILLION Dollar a year* budget - you claim that as an update of immigration laws?   Well the National Socialists under Hitler had the Fatherland; Communist Russia was Motherland so the Socialist States of Amerika has the Dept. of "Homeland" (IN) Security.  I have an old link along those lines:

'Homeland Security': The Trillion-Dollar Concept That No One Can Define

Amnesties addressed the immigration issue, how, exactly?  It made those people "legal" as you erroneously call it and now they are registered voters giving you the middle finger.

I won't pick them apart, but none of them change the major legislation that perpetuates a situation whereby it was REALLY easy to flip the right and make them take up socialist solutions - as you have so graciously pointed out.  I'm loving it.  You continue to prove my point.

There remains a question you still haven't gotten to.  I have a feeling I can count on you.  You've alerted your fellow build the wall advocates as to how much has already been available.  Are you SURE you aren't being played?  Maybe there is more to the story?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

otto105 said:


> Again, has no conservative here answered the question of whether there were more or less border crossings 15-20 years ago.
> 
> 
> Why is that.



I bet you watched 60 Minutes on CBS and /or watched them fact check Trump's news conference, didn't you?


----------



## OKTexas

otto105 said:


> Again, has no conservative here answered the question of whether there were more or less border crossings 15-20 years ago.
> 
> 
> Why is that.



It doesn't matter, years ago it was mostly working aged males crossing from Mexico, most could be easily deported, now it's mostly family units and unaccompanied minors. We can't quickly deport them, thus the strain on detention facilities, the immigrations courts and all other resources. And yes it was answered earlier in the thread.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!
> 
> My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans?  Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tyranny.............LOL
> 
> When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.
> 
> VIVA LA MEHICO...............
> 
> That isn't the proper forms sir........
> 
> I Demand Entry............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEXT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years.  You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually immigration laws have been updated 10 times since 1986. The latest in 2012.
> 
> List of United States immigration laws - Wikipedia
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for such a terrific laugh.  For almost 15 years I debated, discussed, and argued the National ID / REAL ID Act as being an immigration measure.  Build the wall guys DENIED it!  Even on this thread, you would hear the trolls asking what Liberty was endangered by the wall.
> 
> Strict enforcement of the Hitler style National ID law is a threat to our Liberty and it will jeopardize the Liberty to the point of nullifying the Fourth Amendment after the wall is built.
> 
> Then the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security with its 40.5 *BILLION Dollar a year* budget - you claim that as an update of immigration laws?   Well the National Socialists under Hitler had the Fatherland; Communist Russia was Motherland so the Socialist States of Amerika has the Dept. of "Homeland" (IN) Security.  I have an old link along those lines:
> 
> 'Homeland Security': The Trillion-Dollar Concept That No One Can Define
> 
> Amnesties addressed the immigration issue, how, exactly?  It made those people "legal" as you erroneously call it and now they are registered voters giving you the middle finger.
> 
> I won't pick them apart, but none of them change the major legislation that perpetuates a situation whereby it was REALLY easy to flip the right and make them take up socialist solutions - as you have so graciously pointed out.  I'm loving it.  You continue to prove my point.
> 
> There remains a question you still haven't gotten to.  I have a feeling I can count on you.  You've alerted your fellow build the wall advocates as to how much has already been available.  Are you SURE you aren't being played?  Maybe there is more to the story?
Click to expand...



Wow that was a long article that could be summed up in a few words, "the feds waste money". GO FIGURE! I'm sure the average American is unaware of this fact. LMAO

BTW it was wiki that characterized those as changes to immigration law. I sure with your brief writing ability you'll have no problem getting the fix that oversight. Also your invocation of Hitler just put your credibility down a few notches.

.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. Supreme Court
> Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875)*
> 
> “if this plaintiff and her twenty companions had been subjects of the Queen of Great Britain, can anyone doubt that this matter would have been the subject of international inquiry, if not of a direct claim for redress? Upon whom would such a claim be made? Not upon the State of California, for, by our Constitution, she can hold no exterior relations with other nations. It would be made upon the government of the United States. *If that government should get into a difficulty which would lead to war or to suspension of intercourse, would California alone suffer, or all the Union? *If we should conclude that a pecuniary indemnity* w*as proper as a satisfaction for the injury, would California pay it, or the federal government?  *If that government has forbidden the states to hold negotiations with any foreign nations or to declare war and has taken the whole subject of these relations upon herself, has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to leave it in the power of the states to pass laws whose enforcement renders the general government liable to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?*
> 
> The Constitution of the United States is no such instrument. *The passage of LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE ADMISSION OF CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS TO OUR SHORES BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND NOT TO THE STATES. *It has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations; the responsibility for the character of those regulations and for the manner of their execution belongs solely to the national government. *If it be otherwise, a single state can at her pleasure embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations.”
> 
> *
> Now I didn’t use “Cliff Notes”, like some high school college students had used to avoid actual tajing trhe time to read an entire book, I actually took the time to read the* “ACTUAL OPINION BEHIND THE RULING” of the Supreme Court decision itself.
> 
> 
> *
> I should not be able to *EDUCATE* someone who is a Constitutional Lawyer with over 250 cases (or so they claim).  Perhaps you need a new profession? One preferably that allows you to get away with your many “Cliff Notes” as part of your job.
> 
> You see this is what separates the researcher from the amateur.
> 
> You’re welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never made the claims to which you allude.  So, right off the bat, you are a liar.  You simply lack any reasoning capacity.  Not my fault.  You should actually *READ* what I write.  You should not lie about it nor represent it.
> 
> The Chy Lung case did NOT ask the Court to address the issues that you have bolded.  Therefore, they were not interpreting the law; they were justifying the act of granting Congress a power that the SCOTUS never had.
> 
> Who comes and goes within a state's borders has NO bearing on citizenship.  They are completely different concepts. You have shown yourself to be the amateur by not being able to distinguish between the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell —
> “You're probably right. *I've only been involved in court cases* surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and *have written maybe 250 court briefs* on the topic.“
> 
> You are the liar, and I can point to the exact page reference if you like. Don’t think I will ever ease up on your “claims” of your apparent knowledge (laughable) of the Constitution.
> 
> If you read the Supreme Court case - *Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875) *it clearly gives reason and support to Congress having the authority OVER the state surrounding the issue of immigration.
> 
> You can play the clueless ignorant if you like.  As I have said, I’ve done the research FAR more than you on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still doesn't say what you claim, does it?
> 
> I clearly read Chy Lung many times.  The defendants did not petition the Court for any ruling on the jurisdiction of federal over states rights on immigration.
> 
> Yeah, bro.  You're a legend in your own mind that puffs himself up and attempts to make his case on the basis of lies and flat out misinterpretations of the facts.  I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
> 
> If the day ever comes that you and I meet face to face around people we both know, they are going to laugh at you so hard, you'll *NEVER* post again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it DOES say clearly that the state does not have authority on the issue of immigration, but that Congress does OVER the state.  Right there in red for anyone to see.
> 
> *“ has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to LEAVE IT IN THE POWER OF THE STATES TO PASS LAWS WHOSE ENFORCEMENT RENDERS THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT LIABLE to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?*
> 
> *The passage of LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE ADMISSION OF CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS TO OUR SHORES BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND NOT TO THE STATES. *“
> 
> 
> How about you try showing some backed up RESEARCH on this thread.  I don’t know what more I can do as the decision and views of a Supreme Court Justice is crystal clear with little room of a “grey area”. (some with an emphasis of bold and red).  To be honest you haven’t proven a thing contrary to THEIR interpretation of the Constitution regarding immigration.  No RESEARCH rebuttals, no detailed historic opinions of Court cases - nothing.
> 
> Instead I get this “meet you out in the parking lot after school” kind of public crap. Now if you care to bring yourself down to reliving some child-like adolescence ... no one here is really interested in your childish antics.  Seriously ... Grow up bud, this is a political thread forum for more mature adults than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn son, you *ARE* stupid.  I'm not disputing what the SCOTUS ruled.  It's just that the SCOTUS did not have the *AUTHORITY* to take power and grant it to Congress.  That is *NOT* interpretation; that is legislation from the bench.
> 
> When the courts can legislate from the bench; when the SCOTUS can change their own precedents, then we are no longer living in the Republic guaranteed in the Constitution.
Click to expand...


There is nothing written in the Constitution that grants states the authority over the Federal Government on immigration.  We have been down this road before.  It’s the same damn thing as you never being able to PROVE the ratification of the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional. 

*Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.*
The *Migration* *or Importation of such Persons as any of the States* now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year* one thousand eight hundred and eight  *[ 1808 ]*.

The provision covered both slaves and free immigrants. The Supreme Court case - *Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 *was in *1875*.

HOW many ways do you want to be proven wrong?

Again.  Provide me a Constitutional Case or researched evidence that you can back up, that proves me wrong.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

otto105 said:


> Again, has no conservative here answered the question of whether there were more or less border crossings 15-20 years ago.
> 
> 
> Why is that.



You left out when the Reagan Administration granted amnesty, with the promise of strict enforcement by Congress that tackles the issue of preventing further undocumented immigrants from crossing the border illegally after.  Congress forgot to address the second half of that, and where are we today after granting Amnesty?  Are we in a better or worse position regarding the issue of illegals residing in this country since then?  Now the Democrats want DACA, without dealing with the border yet again.


----------



## Slyhunter

Trump is willing to give Democrats stuff in the bill like DACA in trade for the wall. Why don't they take him up on his offer?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a problem with people walking willy-nilly into our country. Let's apply everyone's solution, something might actually work!!!
> 
> My solution is to mine the border and put up Messikin pictograms. Talk about problem solved!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans?  Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tyranny.............LOL
> 
> When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.
> 
> VIVA LA MEHICO...............
> 
> That isn't the proper forms sir........
> 
> I Demand Entry............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEXT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years.  You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually immigration laws have been updated 10 times since 1986. The latest in 2012.
> 
> List of United States immigration laws - Wikipedia
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for such a terrific laugh.  For almost 15 years I debated, discussed, and argued the National ID / REAL ID Act as being an immigration measure.  Build the wall guys DENIED it!  Even on this thread, you would hear the trolls asking what Liberty was endangered by the wall.
> 
> Strict enforcement of the Hitler style National ID law is a threat to our Liberty and it will jeopardize the Liberty to the point of nullifying the Fourth Amendment after the wall is built.
> 
> Then the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security with its 40.5 *BILLION Dollar a year* budget - you claim that as an update of immigration laws?   Well the National Socialists under Hitler had the Fatherland; Communist Russia was Motherland so the Socialist States of Amerika has the Dept. of "Homeland" (IN) Security.  I have an old link along those lines:
> 
> 'Homeland Security': The Trillion-Dollar Concept That No One Can Define
> 
> Amnesties addressed the immigration issue, how, exactly?  It made those people "legal" as you erroneously call it and now they are registered voters giving you the middle finger.
> 
> I won't pick them apart, but none of them change the major legislation that perpetuates a situation whereby it was REALLY easy to flip the right and make them take up socialist solutions - as you have so graciously pointed out.  I'm loving it.  You continue to prove my point.
> 
> There remains a question you still haven't gotten to.  I have a feeling I can count on you.  You've alerted your fellow build the wall advocates as to how much has already been available.  Are you SURE you aren't being played?  Maybe there is more to the story?
Click to expand...


Does this individual “liberty” allow a foreign immigrant to break the law?  Should be a very simple question for you to answer, unless you want to ignore it with a question of your own.

Also for someone to talk about some form of “REAL ID” and throwing out Hitler, you really don’t know how much more information and individual liberty you give up with just your name and SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.  

A Social Security Number allows someone to get information on address, bank accounts, school records, job history, history of where you live, parents names through birth records, their Social Security Information.  Can you get all that through some form of “REAL ID”?  Yet the ACLU doesn’t seem at all concerned. Does it?


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years.  You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you.  Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.
> 
> You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?
> 
> Go after illegal employers you’ll see a wall wasn’t necessary. Just saved us $5 billion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My response to that is if the government ever tried to tell me who I can and cannot hire, it's game on.  They tax us to death, regulate the Hell out of us, then expect you to pay people an amount that would drive a company into bankruptcy... and then when you have no other choices, they'd jail you for giving someone a job to feed their family and keep the business going?  Are you nucking futs?
> 
> What nobody seems to want to do is invest some of that money into taking the homeless welfarites with criminal records and cleaning them up, educating them, and getting them back into the workforce.  Hell no.  That makes too much sense.  Anybody who comes here telling me who I can and cannot hire or have on my property will be ignored.  If they don't like my response, they've just found my line in the sand.  I'm not losing what I own because some snowflake gets offended.  If you want a job, quit drinking, smoking, doing drugs, wasting your money on tattoos, and body piercings.  Invest in an education, some skill sets, your dental health / general hygiene and learn how to dress for an interview - then APPLY FOR THE DAMN JOB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Follow the law..........use the E-verify and/or a reliable verification program to make sure they LEGALLY CAN WORK..........
> 
> End of discussion............You would have to hire LEGAL WORKERS.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to obey any law that contradicts the Constitution:
> 
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> *An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.*
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> *No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."*
> 
> _*— *Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
> 
> Forfeiting property Rights just so you can have a happy ending over the concept of a wall doesn't change my mind.  You are advocating a society that makes Orwell's futuristic novel look tame.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court is your avenue if you disagree.  Now isnt it?

Feel free to hire any LEGAL worker available.  If you dont like it move to Mexico.


----------



## sealybobo

Porter Rockwell said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans?  Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?
> 
> 
> 
> Tyranny.............LOL
> 
> When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.
> 
> VIVA LA MEHICO...............
> 
> That isn't the proper forms sir........
> 
> I Demand Entry............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEXT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years.  You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you.  Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.
> 
> You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?
> 
> Go after illegal employers you’ll see a wall wasn’t necessary. Just saved us $5 billion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My response to that is if the government ever tried to tell me who I can and cannot hire, it's game on.  They tax us to death, regulate the Hell out of us, then expect you to pay people an amount that would drive a company into bankruptcy... and then when you have no other choices, they'd jail you for giving someone a job to feed their family and keep the business going?  Are you nucking futs?
> 
> What nobody seems to want to do is invest some of that money into taking the homeless welfarites with criminal records and cleaning them up, educating them, and getting them back into the workforce.  Hell no.  That makes too much sense.  Anybody who comes here telling me who I can and cannot hire or have on my property will be ignored.  If they don't like my response, they've just found my line in the sand.  I'm not losing what I own because some snowflake gets offended.  If you want a job, quit drinking, smoking, doing drugs, wasting your money on tattoos, and body piercings.  Invest in an education, some skill sets, your dental health / general hygiene and learn how to dress for an interview - then APPLY FOR THE DAMN JOB.
Click to expand...

You think you have the right to hire illegal immigrants? And what is your argument that you would make to the judge? You may feel justified but the community you live in doesn’t agree.

Ever try cleaning up a drug addict or alcoholic? I know a guy who’s on the cusp. He’s a bum but he works. He is a loser. Good luck wasting money trying to fix all the people who don’t want to be fixed.

If he wanted to clean himself up he would. The government can’t help him


----------



## sealybobo

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years.  You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you.  Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.
> 
> You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?
> 
> Go after illegal employers you’ll see a wall wasn’t necessary. Just saved us $5 billion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My response to that is if the government ever tried to tell me who I can and cannot hire, it's game on.  They tax us to death, regulate the Hell out of us, then expect you to pay people an amount that would drive a company into bankruptcy... and then when you have no other choices, they'd jail you for giving someone a job to feed their family and keep the business going?  Are you nucking futs?
> 
> What nobody seems to want to do is invest some of that money into taking the homeless welfarites with criminal records and cleaning them up, educating them, and getting them back into the workforce.  Hell no.  That makes too much sense.  Anybody who comes here telling me who I can and cannot hire or have on my property will be ignored.  If they don't like my response, they've just found my line in the sand.  I'm not losing what I own because some snowflake gets offended.  If you want a job, quit drinking, smoking, doing drugs, wasting your money on tattoos, and body piercings.  Invest in an education, some skill sets, your dental health / general hygiene and learn how to dress for an interview - then APPLY FOR THE DAMN JOB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Follow the law..........use the E-verify and/or a reliable verification program to make sure they LEGALLY CAN WORK..........
> 
> End of discussion............You would have to hire LEGAL WORKERS.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to obey any law that contradicts the Constitution:
> 
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> *An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.*
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> *No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."*
> 
> _*— *Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
> 
> Forfeiting property Rights just so you can have a happy ending over the concept of a wall doesn't change my mind.  You are advocating a society that makes Orwell's futuristic novel look tame.
Click to expand...

I believe the income tax is unconstitutional but get caught not paying you’ll go to jail


----------



## Taz

sealybobo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We wasted about 80 trillion fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for nothing. Now you don't want to spend money for something that is actually necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not god damn necessary.  And I wasn't happy we wasted 80 trillion in Iraq.
> 
> For once I'd like you Trump supporters to admit when Trump has a bad idea.
> 
> But thanks for now at least finally admitting it's going to be a lot more than $5 billion and we are going to pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I vote Libertarian, which is way better than you having voted for Hillderbeast. And I don’t care how much the border wall costs, it’s something we need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Texas needs a wall Texas should build a wall. Build one all around Texas for all we care. Arizona too.
Click to expand...

Borders are a Fed responsibility.


----------



## Taz

otto105 said:


> Again, has no conservative here answered the question of whether there were more or less border crossings 15-20 years ago.
> 
> 
> Why is that.


That doesn’t matter, what matters is that it’s still happening.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans?  Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?
> 
> 
> 
> Tyranny.............LOL
> 
> When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.
> 
> VIVA LA MEHICO...............
> 
> That isn't the proper forms sir........
> 
> I Demand Entry............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEXT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years.  You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually immigration laws have been updated 10 times since 1986. The latest in 2012.
> 
> List of United States immigration laws - Wikipedia
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for such a terrific laugh.  For almost 15 years I debated, discussed, and argued the National ID / REAL ID Act as being an immigration measure.  Build the wall guys DENIED it!  Even on this thread, you would hear the trolls asking what Liberty was endangered by the wall.
> 
> Strict enforcement of the Hitler style National ID law is a threat to our Liberty and it will jeopardize the Liberty to the point of nullifying the Fourth Amendment after the wall is built.
> 
> Then the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security with its 40.5 *BILLION Dollar a year* budget - you claim that as an update of immigration laws?   Well the National Socialists under Hitler had the Fatherland; Communist Russia was Motherland so the Socialist States of Amerika has the Dept. of "Homeland" (IN) Security.  I have an old link along those lines:
> 
> 'Homeland Security': The Trillion-Dollar Concept That No One Can Define
> 
> Amnesties addressed the immigration issue, how, exactly?  It made those people "legal" as you erroneously call it and now they are registered voters giving you the middle finger.
> 
> I won't pick them apart, but none of them change the major legislation that perpetuates a situation whereby it was REALLY easy to flip the right and make them take up socialist solutions - as you have so graciously pointed out.  I'm loving it.  You continue to prove my point.
> 
> There remains a question you still haven't gotten to.  I have a feeling I can count on you.  You've alerted your fellow build the wall advocates as to how much has already been available.  Are you SURE you aren't being played?  Maybe there is more to the story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that was a long article that could be summed up in a few words, "the feds waste money". GO FIGURE! I'm sure the average American is unaware of this fact. LMAO
> 
> BTW it was wiki that characterized those as changes to immigration law. I sure with your brief writing ability you'll have no problem getting the fix that oversight. Also your invocation of Hitler just put your credibility down a few notches.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Oh, easy out.  You didn't like the Hitler reference?  I will give the build the wall guys one thing: they have the people so programmed that people like you automatically try to ridicule the truth.  The* FACT* is, from the genesis to the revelation of your build the wall ideology, it was  *founded*, f*inanced*, and *had its talking points* made by National Socialists.

Now, you can lie about it or admit that you *REALLY* don't know as much as you claim.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never made the claims to which you allude.  So, right off the bat, you are a liar.  You simply lack any reasoning capacity.  Not my fault.  You should actually *READ* what I write.  You should not lie about it nor represent it.
> 
> The Chy Lung case did NOT ask the Court to address the issues that you have bolded.  Therefore, they were not interpreting the law; they were justifying the act of granting Congress a power that the SCOTUS never had.
> 
> Who comes and goes within a state's borders has NO bearing on citizenship.  They are completely different concepts. You have shown yourself to be the amateur by not being able to distinguish between the two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell —
> “You're probably right. *I've only been involved in court cases* surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and *have written maybe 250 court briefs* on the topic.“
> 
> You are the liar, and I can point to the exact page reference if you like. Don’t think I will ever ease up on your “claims” of your apparent knowledge (laughable) of the Constitution.
> 
> If you read the Supreme Court case - *Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875) *it clearly gives reason and support to Congress having the authority OVER the state surrounding the issue of immigration.
> 
> You can play the clueless ignorant if you like.  As I have said, I’ve done the research FAR more than you on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still doesn't say what you claim, does it?
> 
> I clearly read Chy Lung many times.  The defendants did not petition the Court for any ruling on the jurisdiction of federal over states rights on immigration.
> 
> Yeah, bro.  You're a legend in your own mind that puffs himself up and attempts to make his case on the basis of lies and flat out misinterpretations of the facts.  I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
> 
> If the day ever comes that you and I meet face to face around people we both know, they are going to laugh at you so hard, you'll *NEVER* post again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it DOES say clearly that the state does not have authority on the issue of immigration, but that Congress does OVER the state.  Right there in red for anyone to see.
> 
> *“ has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to LEAVE IT IN THE POWER OF THE STATES TO PASS LAWS WHOSE ENFORCEMENT RENDERS THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT LIABLE to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?*
> 
> *The passage of LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE ADMISSION OF CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS TO OUR SHORES BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND NOT TO THE STATES. *“
> 
> 
> How about you try showing some backed up RESEARCH on this thread.  I don’t know what more I can do as the decision and views of a Supreme Court Justice is crystal clear with little room of a “grey area”. (some with an emphasis of bold and red).  To be honest you haven’t proven a thing contrary to THEIR interpretation of the Constitution regarding immigration.  No RESEARCH rebuttals, no detailed historic opinions of Court cases - nothing.
> 
> Instead I get this “meet you out in the parking lot after school” kind of public crap. Now if you care to bring yourself down to reliving some child-like adolescence ... no one here is really interested in your childish antics.  Seriously ... Grow up bud, this is a political thread forum for more mature adults than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn son, you *ARE* stupid.  I'm not disputing what the SCOTUS ruled.  It's just that the SCOTUS did not have the *AUTHORITY* to take power and grant it to Congress.  That is *NOT* interpretation; that is legislation from the bench.
> 
> When the courts can legislate from the bench; when the SCOTUS can change their own precedents, then we are no longer living in the Republic guaranteed in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing written in the Constitution that grants states the authority over the Federal Government on immigration.  We have been down this road before.  It’s the same damn thing as you never being able to PROVE the ratification of the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional.
> 
> *Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.*
> The *Migration* *or Importation of such Persons as any of the States* now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year* one thousand eight hundred and eight  *[ 1808 ]*.
> 
> The provision covered both slaves and free immigrants. The Supreme Court case - *Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 *was in *1875*.
> 
> HOW many ways do you want to be proven wrong?
> 
> Again.  Provide me a Constitutional Case or researched evidence that you can back up, that proves me wrong.
Click to expand...



You've yet to prove me wrong.  Repeating errors in logic do not prove your point.  CONGRESS DID NOT PASS ANY SUCH LAW BETWEEN 1808 AND 1924.  Period.  The SCOTUS granted plenary powers in 1875 when they had no such AUTHORITY to do so.  

Sir, we are done with this argument.  If you want to take a complete class in this, PM me and I'll be happy to teach you both legal research and constitutional interpretation.  But, you need to change gears.

You're a legend in your own mind AND you are wrong.


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you stop illegal entry without a wall. Shoot them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our northern border is even less secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Canadians are cool and don’t even want to come here to live. Unlike greasy beaners who look like they haven’t heard of soap.
Click to expand...

should we ask the Mexicans to apply for British Dominion status so they can get Dominion rates and go through Canada?


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where you agreed with him in 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you stop illegal entry without a wall. Shoot them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our northern border is even less secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't have poverty stricken people with no job skills crossing the northern border in the thousands like we do the southern border.
Click to expand...

capitalism should be saving us, not a wall.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there something that makes you hate Mexicans?  Have you ever considered that someone may be playing you to do outrageous things so they could implement tyrannical laws due to the kind of attitude you've been programmed to display?
> 
> 
> 
> Tyranny.............LOL
> 
> When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.
> 
> VIVA LA MEHICO...............
> 
> That isn't the proper forms sir........
> 
> I Demand Entry............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEXT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years.  You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually immigration laws have been updated 10 times since 1986. The latest in 2012.
> 
> List of United States immigration laws - Wikipedia
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for such a terrific laugh.  For almost 15 years I debated, discussed, and argued the National ID / REAL ID Act as being an immigration measure.  Build the wall guys DENIED it!  Even on this thread, you would hear the trolls asking what Liberty was endangered by the wall.
> 
> Strict enforcement of the Hitler style National ID law is a threat to our Liberty and it will jeopardize the Liberty to the point of nullifying the Fourth Amendment after the wall is built.
> 
> Then the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security with its 40.5 *BILLION Dollar a year* budget - you claim that as an update of immigration laws?   Well the National Socialists under Hitler had the Fatherland; Communist Russia was Motherland so the Socialist States of Amerika has the Dept. of "Homeland" (IN) Security.  I have an old link along those lines:
> 
> 'Homeland Security': The Trillion-Dollar Concept That No One Can Define
> 
> Amnesties addressed the immigration issue, how, exactly?  It made those people "legal" as you erroneously call it and now they are registered voters giving you the middle finger.
> 
> I won't pick them apart, but none of them change the major legislation that perpetuates a situation whereby it was REALLY easy to flip the right and make them take up socialist solutions - as you have so graciously pointed out.  I'm loving it.  You continue to prove my point.
> 
> There remains a question you still haven't gotten to.  I have a feeling I can count on you.  You've alerted your fellow build the wall advocates as to how much has already been available.  Are you SURE you aren't being played?  Maybe there is more to the story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does this individual “liberty” allow a foreign immigrant to break the law?  Should be a very simple question for you to answer, unless you want to ignore it with a question of your own.
> 
> Also for someone to talk about some form of “REAL ID” and throwing out Hitler, you really don’t know how much more information and individual liberty you give up with just your name and SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.
> 
> A Social Security Number allows someone to get information on address, bank accounts, school records, job history, history of where you live, parents names through birth records, their Social Security Information.  Can you get all that through some form of “REAL ID”?  Yet the ACLU doesn’t seem at all concerned. Does it?
Click to expand...



*  You could ask a rhetorical and stupid question just to say you finally made some idiotic post.  Well, sir, let us explore this.  There is a *REAL* question you won't ask.  

NOBODY has a right to break any law.  And so now you make the usual, sandard build the wall canard from the book of Trump 1: 1  in which  it says "Thou shalt not violate Title 8 of the United States Code and enter the United States without our (meaning the build the wall adherents) permission on pain of death."

Of course I remind you that Title 8 applies to Improper Entry and not, exactly an illegal or unlawful act.  For if it were, Congress would not have tried and *failed *to change that statute from improper to unlawful.

Then we can argue about it for the next 100 posts and nobody gives s rat's ass nor can they understand the precise language of what is being said.  So, excuse me, I'll pass on that UNLESS you want to take my challenge and meet me on a level playing field where only you and I participate on a level playing field.  I have a spot.  Then when it's over, allow the people who are interested see what you "won" or lost on.

*  See, you really DON'T know much about National ID and the Socialist Surveillance Number.  Long BEFORE the ACLU adopted that fight, it belonged to the right wing.  There were people in the John Birch Society and the Concerned Conservative Citizens League (just to mention a couple) who actively fought the misuses of the SSN and objected to it being used for identification.  I still refuse to use the SSN as identification when possible.

My late mother had her original SSN.  Across the top, the government had printed some words in bold that read: NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION

I continue to remind posters that *before* they started this build the wall B.S., the partiot and constitutionalist community had moved to stop National ID and the use of the SSN.  We tried various theories of law with the most successful being  the recession of contracts theory of law.  The left was trying their dead level best to institute National ID predicated on the SSN.  

One time the Georgia legislature passed legislation to force parents to give a child's SSN in order to enroll in school (to be assigned as their Student ID Number.)  I submitted a proposed lawsuit to the governor that was researched by myself and the Georgia Patriot Network.  The governor reconvened the legislature and added another part to the statute, allowing parents to object to the requirement whereupon the state would issue children a student ID without the SSN.  The John Birch Society had an entire chapter that helped us research and prepare that proposed case.

*BEFORE* the build the wall religion came about, constitutionalists and patriots were chipping away at the 16th Amendment.  In Congressman John Linder's district, where those groups were able to make the Georgia legislature reconvene a couple of decades earlier, they had enough clout so that Linder proposed the FAIR Tax.  That bill would have eliminated the 16th Amendment, the IRS, and the income tax.

*BEFORE* the build the wall guys came along, the government could not force you to have an SSN.  People were revoking them and it promised to be the battle of our times.  Without the SSN you were not subject to the income tax.  Linder floated his bill to take the forcus off the gains patriots were making.  I backed off then, because I was satisfied that we MIGHT get a fair hearing on it in the court of public opinion.

It was you dumb ass build the wall types that passed legislation *mandating *we use the SSN for identification.  Before your stupid strategies got the laws changed, you did not have to have an SSN and you could rescind the one you had if you argued fraud and duress.  

I'm well aware of the dangers of using the SSN as identification.  I've personally written thousands of pages on it and many newspaper articles that were published.  I tell people to never use your SSN for anything not related to the income tax.  Private companies cannot force you to give your SSN, so give any number you want if you don't have one.

But, bear in mind son, I've been in this one Hell of a lot longer than you and know a few people from the 70s that are still alive and were aware of the amounts of time I put into issues like this.  But, it was you build the wall guys that forced through National ID.  YOUR side took many wins away from the right.  You're so narrowly focused on that damn wall you cannot begin to fathom the damage you done to patriots and constitutionalists.  Your strategies won't work and you will have signed your name to global socialism due to the strategies you're using.

You're beginning to understand why there is no man alive that will stand up to me, face to face and call me a liberal.  Had you guys *NOT* gotten involved, we would have reversed enough bad laws that the immigration debacle would not exist.  We were active and succeeding in fights against the 14th and 16th Amendments, eminent domain abuse, and the assaults against private property Rights.  Your side reversed the gains we made - the left didn't do it; communists didn't do it; undocumented foreigners didn't do it.  Your side did.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you.  Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.
> 
> You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?
> 
> Go after illegal employers you’ll see a wall wasn’t necessary. Just saved us $5 billion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My response to that is if the government ever tried to tell me who I can and cannot hire, it's game on.  They tax us to death, regulate the Hell out of us, then expect you to pay people an amount that would drive a company into bankruptcy... and then when you have no other choices, they'd jail you for giving someone a job to feed their family and keep the business going?  Are you nucking futs?
> 
> What nobody seems to want to do is invest some of that money into taking the homeless welfarites with criminal records and cleaning them up, educating them, and getting them back into the workforce.  Hell no.  That makes too much sense.  Anybody who comes here telling me who I can and cannot hire or have on my property will be ignored.  If they don't like my response, they've just found my line in the sand.  I'm not losing what I own because some snowflake gets offended.  If you want a job, quit drinking, smoking, doing drugs, wasting your money on tattoos, and body piercings.  Invest in an education, some skill sets, your dental health / general hygiene and learn how to dress for an interview - then APPLY FOR THE DAMN JOB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Follow the law..........use the E-verify and/or a reliable verification program to make sure they LEGALLY CAN WORK..........
> 
> End of discussion............You would have to hire LEGAL WORKERS.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to obey any law that contradicts the Constitution:
> 
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> *An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.*
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> *No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."*
> 
> _*— *Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
> 
> Forfeiting property Rights just so you can have a happy ending over the concept of a wall doesn't change my mind.  You are advocating a society that makes Orwell's futuristic novel look tame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court is your avenue if you disagree.  Now isnt it?
> 
> Feel free to hire any LEGAL worker available.  If you dont like it move to Mexico.
Click to expand...


I will hire whomever I like.  But, again, if an American wants a job, you have to apply for it.  You help create a complete class of disenfranchised Americans that now don't want to work and of those that are willing to work, they can't due to their past - which YOU make sure they cannot get beyond.  

You then use their numbers as justification to screw with some pissant foreigner trying to feed their family.  Could you be any more screwed up!


----------



## danielpalos

sealybobo said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you.  Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.
> 
> You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?
> 
> Go after illegal employers you’ll see a wall wasn’t necessary. Just saved us $5 billion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My response to that is if the government ever tried to tell me who I can and cannot hire, it's game on.  They tax us to death, regulate the Hell out of us, then expect you to pay people an amount that would drive a company into bankruptcy... and then when you have no other choices, they'd jail you for giving someone a job to feed their family and keep the business going?  Are you nucking futs?
> 
> What nobody seems to want to do is invest some of that money into taking the homeless welfarites with criminal records and cleaning them up, educating them, and getting them back into the workforce.  Hell no.  That makes too much sense.  Anybody who comes here telling me who I can and cannot hire or have on my property will be ignored.  If they don't like my response, they've just found my line in the sand.  I'm not losing what I own because some snowflake gets offended.  If you want a job, quit drinking, smoking, doing drugs, wasting your money on tattoos, and body piercings.  Invest in an education, some skill sets, your dental health / general hygiene and learn how to dress for an interview - then APPLY FOR THE DAMN JOB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Follow the law..........use the E-verify and/or a reliable verification program to make sure they LEGALLY CAN WORK..........
> 
> End of discussion............You would have to hire LEGAL WORKERS.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to obey any law that contradicts the Constitution:
> 
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> *An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.*
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> *No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."*
> 
> _*— *Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
> 
> Forfeiting property Rights just so you can have a happy ending over the concept of a wall doesn't change my mind.  You are advocating a society that makes Orwell's futuristic novel look tame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe the income tax is unconstitutional but get caught not paying you’ll go to jail
Click to expand...

why do you believe it is unconstitutional?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

sealybobo said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tyranny.............LOL
> 
> When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.
> 
> VIVA LA MEHICO...............
> 
> That isn't the proper forms sir........
> 
> I Demand Entry............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEXT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years.  You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you.  Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.
> 
> You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?
> 
> Go after illegal employers you’ll see a wall wasn’t necessary. Just saved us $5 billion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My response to that is if the government ever tried to tell me who I can and cannot hire, it's game on.  They tax us to death, regulate the Hell out of us, then expect you to pay people an amount that would drive a company into bankruptcy... and then when you have no other choices, they'd jail you for giving someone a job to feed their family and keep the business going?  Are you nucking futs?
> 
> What nobody seems to want to do is invest some of that money into taking the homeless welfarites with criminal records and cleaning them up, educating them, and getting them back into the workforce.  Hell no.  That makes too much sense.  Anybody who comes here telling me who I can and cannot hire or have on my property will be ignored.  If they don't like my response, they've just found my line in the sand.  I'm not losing what I own because some snowflake gets offended.  If you want a job, quit drinking, smoking, doing drugs, wasting your money on tattoos, and body piercings.  Invest in an education, some skill sets, your dental health / general hygiene and learn how to dress for an interview - then APPLY FOR THE DAMN JOB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think you have the right to hire illegal immigrants? And what is your argument that you would make to the judge? You may feel justified but the community you live in doesn’t agree.
> 
> Ever try cleaning up a drug addict or alcoholic? I know a guy who’s on the cusp. He’s a bum but he works. He is a loser. Good luck wasting money trying to fix all the people who don’t want to be fixed.
> 
> If he wanted to clean himself up he would. The government can’t help him
Click to expand...


Currently my work DOES consist of trying to help drug addicts and alcoholics and IF they want to be fixed, I take the time for it.  I've also shown in this thread how many of them are *created* by their parents, the government, doctors / mental health officials and / or Big Pharma - where we need to focus some of our efforts on understanding.  No sir, addicts, disenfranchised, and the downtrodden can't fix themselves without help.

My argument before any court would be that by limiting my access to qualified labor, they are denying me the equal protection of the laws that they guarantee in the 14th Amendment (although that was illegally ratified.)  They are infringing on my Liberty as being a LEO is not my responsibility.  If XYZ company can hire a foreigner, so can I.

Furthermore, while you fret over poor people from south of the border, the white collar has a good game.  They advertise for people to do really specialized jobs.  The requirements might be you need three years experience in this new technology, but the technology is only two years old.  Nobody is qualified.  So, they argue some rag from another country is qualified and they get a waiver.  

Anyway, as with all things constitutional, there is a process to follow that leads to the final showdown, but you exhaust all your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before considering extraordinary measures.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you stop illegal entry without a wall. Shoot them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our northern border is even less secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Canadians are cool and don’t even want to come here to live. Unlike greasy beaners who look like they haven’t heard of soap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> should we ask the Mexicans to apply for British Dominion status so they can get Dominion rates and go through Canada?
Click to expand...

It's too cold for beaners in Canada, not many of them there.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

sealybobo said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they haven't changed much..........because they don't want to fix it.......and neither do you.  Got news for you ........if they wanted to do it ......that border would be secure right now..........and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.
> 
> You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?
> 
> Go after illegal employers you’ll see a wall wasn’t necessary. Just saved us $5 billion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My response to that is if the government ever tried to tell me who I can and cannot hire, it's game on.  They tax us to death, regulate the Hell out of us, then expect you to pay people an amount that would drive a company into bankruptcy... and then when you have no other choices, they'd jail you for giving someone a job to feed their family and keep the business going?  Are you nucking futs?
> 
> What nobody seems to want to do is invest some of that money into taking the homeless welfarites with criminal records and cleaning them up, educating them, and getting them back into the workforce.  Hell no.  That makes too much sense.  Anybody who comes here telling me who I can and cannot hire or have on my property will be ignored.  If they don't like my response, they've just found my line in the sand.  I'm not losing what I own because some snowflake gets offended.  If you want a job, quit drinking, smoking, doing drugs, wasting your money on tattoos, and body piercings.  Invest in an education, some skill sets, your dental health / general hygiene and learn how to dress for an interview - then APPLY FOR THE DAMN JOB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Follow the law..........use the E-verify and/or a reliable verification program to make sure they LEGALLY CAN WORK..........
> 
> End of discussion............You would have to hire LEGAL WORKERS.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to obey any law that contradicts the Constitution:
> 
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> *An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.*
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> *No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."*
> 
> _*— *Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
> 
> Forfeiting property Rights just so you can have a happy ending over the concept of a wall doesn't change my mind.  You are advocating a society that makes Orwell's futuristic novel look tame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe the income tax is unconstitutional but get caught not paying you’ll go to jail
Click to expand...


Read my response to Shackles of Government or whatever his name is... it's my long post for the day.  I have to go to work so I'll respond later.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always thought that a secure border, including a barrier, is necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you stop illegal entry without a wall. Shoot them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our northern border is even less secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't have poverty stricken people with no job skills crossing the northern border in the thousands like we do the southern border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> capitalism should be saving us, not a wall.
Click to expand...

Capitalism only saves rich people, not uneducated beaner losers.


----------



## LilOlLady

A wall would pay for itself by creating jobs and stopping the flow of illegals that is costing this country over $200 billion a year.


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you stop illegal entry without a wall. Shoot them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our northern border is even less secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Canadians are cool and don’t even want to come here to live. Unlike greasy beaners who look like they haven’t heard of soap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> should we ask the Mexicans to apply for British Dominion status so they can get Dominion rates and go through Canada?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's too cold for beaners in Canada, not many of them there.
Click to expand...

i heard they can learn how to ski.


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you stop illegal entry without a wall. Shoot them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our northern border is even less secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't have poverty stricken people with no job skills crossing the northern border in the thousands like we do the southern border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> capitalism should be saving us, not a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism only saves rich people, not uneducated beaner losers.
Click to expand...

only lousy right wing management does that.

we should not be losing money on public policies under capitalism.  only socialism does that.


----------



## danielpalos

LilOlLady said:


> A wall would pay for itself by creating jobs and stopping the flow of illegals that is costing this country over $200 billion a year.


we should have no illegals Because we have an express naturalization clause not any form of immigration clause. lousy right wing management is the problem, like usual.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if we went after illegal employers most illegals would pack up and go home.
> 
> You guys don’t want to go after the people luring them here?
> 
> Go after illegal employers you’ll see a wall wasn’t necessary. Just saved us $5 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My response to that is if the government ever tried to tell me who I can and cannot hire, it's game on.  They tax us to death, regulate the Hell out of us, then expect you to pay people an amount that would drive a company into bankruptcy... and then when you have no other choices, they'd jail you for giving someone a job to feed their family and keep the business going?  Are you nucking futs?
> 
> What nobody seems to want to do is invest some of that money into taking the homeless welfarites with criminal records and cleaning them up, educating them, and getting them back into the workforce.  Hell no.  That makes too much sense.  Anybody who comes here telling me who I can and cannot hire or have on my property will be ignored.  If they don't like my response, they've just found my line in the sand.  I'm not losing what I own because some snowflake gets offended.  If you want a job, quit drinking, smoking, doing drugs, wasting your money on tattoos, and body piercings.  Invest in an education, some skill sets, your dental health / general hygiene and learn how to dress for an interview - then APPLY FOR THE DAMN JOB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Follow the law..........use the E-verify and/or a reliable verification program to make sure they LEGALLY CAN WORK..........
> 
> End of discussion............You would have to hire LEGAL WORKERS.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to obey any law that contradicts the Constitution:
> 
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> *An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.*
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> *No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."*
> 
> _*— *Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
> 
> Forfeiting property Rights just so you can have a happy ending over the concept of a wall doesn't change my mind.  You are advocating a society that makes Orwell's futuristic novel look tame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court is your avenue if you disagree.  Now isnt it?
> 
> Feel free to hire any LEGAL worker available.  If you dont like it move to Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will hire whomever I like.  But, again, if an American wants a job, you have to apply for it.  You help create a complete class of disenfranchised Americans that now don't want to work and of those that are willing to work, they can't due to their past - which YOU make sure they cannot get beyond.
> 
> You then use their numbers as justification to screw with some pissant foreigner trying to feed their family.  Could you be any more screwed up!
Click to expand...

Sponsor them.  Pay the fees.  Do it legal or not at all.  You are trying to justify breaking the law.  Pound sand.


----------



## Taz

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you stop illegal entry without a wall. Shoot them?
> 
> 
> 
> our northern border is even less secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Canadians are cool and don’t even want to come here to live. Unlike greasy beaners who look like they haven’t heard of soap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> should we ask the Mexicans to apply for British Dominion status so they can get Dominion rates and go through Canada?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's too cold for beaners in Canada, not many of them there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i heard they can learn how to ski.
Click to expand...

I've NEVER seen a beaner on a ski slope in Canada or the US.


----------



## Taz

Of course we're losing money


danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you stop illegal entry without a wall. Shoot them?
> 
> 
> 
> our northern border is even less secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't have poverty stricken people with no job skills crossing the northern border in the thousands like we do the southern border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> capitalism should be saving us, not a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism only saves rich people, not uneducated beaner losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only lousy right wing management does that.
> 
> we should not be losing money on public policies under capitalism.  only socialism does that.
Click to expand...

 feeding and housing all the illegals. Plus the courts, border guards... What do beaners bring? A lack of education, no money, no skills... Can't make money off of such massive losers.


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> Of course we're losing money
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> our northern border is even less secure.
> 
> 
> 
> we don't have poverty stricken people with no job skills crossing the northern border in the thousands like we do the southern border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> capitalism should be saving us, not a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism only saves rich people, not uneducated beaner losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only lousy right wing management does that.
> 
> we should not be losing money on public policies under capitalism.  only socialism does that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> feeding and housing all the illegals. Plus the courts, border guards... What do beaners bring? A lack of education, no money, no skills... Can't make money off of such massive losers.
Click to expand...

Capitalism; What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing.  Capital opportunities can happen every day for true capitalists.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> My response to that is if the government ever tried to tell me who I can and cannot hire, it's game on.  They tax us to death, regulate the Hell out of us, then expect you to pay people an amount that would drive a company into bankruptcy... and then when you have no other choices, they'd jail you for giving someone a job to feed their family and keep the business going?  Are you nucking futs?
> 
> What nobody seems to want to do is invest some of that money into taking the homeless welfarites with criminal records and cleaning them up, educating them, and getting them back into the workforce.  Hell no.  That makes too much sense.  Anybody who comes here telling me who I can and cannot hire or have on my property will be ignored.  If they don't like my response, they've just found my line in the sand.  I'm not losing what I own because some snowflake gets offended.  If you want a job, quit drinking, smoking, doing drugs, wasting your money on tattoos, and body piercings.  Invest in an education, some skill sets, your dental health / general hygiene and learn how to dress for an interview - then APPLY FOR THE DAMN JOB.
> 
> 
> 
> Follow the law..........use the E-verify and/or a reliable verification program to make sure they LEGALLY CAN WORK..........
> 
> End of discussion............You would have to hire LEGAL WORKERS.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to obey any law that contradicts the Constitution:
> 
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> *An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.*
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> *No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."*
> 
> _*— *Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
> 
> Forfeiting property Rights just so you can have a happy ending over the concept of a wall doesn't change my mind.  You are advocating a society that makes Orwell's futuristic novel look tame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court is your avenue if you disagree.  Now isnt it?
> 
> Feel free to hire any LEGAL worker available.  If you dont like it move to Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will hire whomever I like.  But, again, if an American wants a job, you have to apply for it.  You help create a complete class of disenfranchised Americans that now don't want to work and of those that are willing to work, they can't due to their past - which YOU make sure they cannot get beyond.
> 
> You then use their numbers as justification to screw with some pissant foreigner trying to feed their family.  Could you be any more screwed up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sponsor them.  Pay the fees.  Do it legal or not at all.  You are trying to justify breaking the law.  Pound sand.
Click to expand...


Unlike you, I refuse to screw this country any further than you've caused it to be.  The bogus "legal" pretext is code for citizenship.  I don't believe in it.  There is a question you should be asking instead of encouraging me to destroy the last vestiges of our culture.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Follow the law..........use the E-verify and/or a reliable verification program to make sure they LEGALLY CAN WORK..........
> 
> End of discussion............You would have to hire LEGAL WORKERS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to obey any law that contradicts the Constitution:
> 
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> *An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.*
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> *No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."*
> 
> _*— *Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
> 
> Forfeiting property Rights just so you can have a happy ending over the concept of a wall doesn't change my mind.  You are advocating a society that makes Orwell's futuristic novel look tame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court is your avenue if you disagree.  Now isnt it?
> 
> Feel free to hire any LEGAL worker available.  If you dont like it move to Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will hire whomever I like.  But, again, if an American wants a job, you have to apply for it.  You help create a complete class of disenfranchised Americans that now don't want to work and of those that are willing to work, they can't due to their past - which YOU make sure they cannot get beyond.
> 
> You then use their numbers as justification to screw with some pissant foreigner trying to feed their family.  Could you be any more screwed up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sponsor them.  Pay the fees.  Do it legal or not at all.  You are trying to justify breaking the law.  Pound sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I refuse to screw this country any further than you've caused it to be.  The bogus "legal" pretext is code for citizenship.  I don't believe in it.  There is a question you should be asking instead of encouraging me to destroy the last vestiges of our culture.
Click to expand...

Baloney


----------



## sealybobo

Taz said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for a secure border.  I can't believe it's possible for people to cross it illegally.  We need to figure out a way to stop this.  A wall isn't the answer.  A 5 TRILLION dollar wall.  Don't let Trump lie to you again.  $5 billion is nothing.  He knows a wall will cost way more than that.  But if he can get Pelosi to give him $5 billion he can say he won and it'll help him get re elected in 2020 but it won't solve our illegal EMPLOYER problem.
> 
> Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"
> 
> This is what we were saying in 2006 back when you guys loved illegals doing jobs Americans wouldn't do.
> 
> Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
> 
> So we don't disagree with you.  We need to stop illegal employers from hiring illegals.  Then they'll stop crossing.
> 
> We didn't have a problem until the 1980's.  Back when you were worshiping Reagan the Republicans were fucking you and you didn't even know it.
> 
> This is one way the gap between rich and poor widened.  It hurt workers and the rich benefited from the cheap labor.
> 
> 
> 
> We wasted about 80 trillion fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for nothing. Now you don't want to spend money for something that is actually necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not god damn necessary.  And I wasn't happy we wasted 80 trillion in Iraq.
> 
> For once I'd like you Trump supporters to admit when Trump has a bad idea.
> 
> But thanks for now at least finally admitting it's going to be a lot more than $5 billion and we are going to pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I vote Libertarian, which is way better than you having voted for Hillderbeast. And I don’t care how much the border wall costs, it’s something we need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Texas needs a wall Texas should build a wall. Build one all around Texas for all we care. Arizona too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Borders are a Fed responsibility.
Click to expand...

They can't stop Texas from building a wall on their border.  States rights.


----------



## Taz

sealybobo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We wasted about 80 trillion fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for nothing. Now you don't want to spend money for something that is actually necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not god damn necessary.  And I wasn't happy we wasted 80 trillion in Iraq.
> 
> For once I'd like you Trump supporters to admit when Trump has a bad idea.
> 
> But thanks for now at least finally admitting it's going to be a lot more than $5 billion and we are going to pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I vote Libertarian, which is way better than you having voted for Hillderbeast. And I don’t care how much the border wall costs, it’s something we need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Texas needs a wall Texas should build a wall. Build one all around Texas for all we care. Arizona too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Borders are a Fed responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can't stop Texas from building a wall on their border.  States rights.
Click to expand...

Ya, all the states are going to wall themselves off.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tyranny.............LOL
> 
> When entering the U.S. you must enter through the legal points of entry........and have the proper papers to enter......Passport.......work visa.....Green card.
> 
> VIVA LA MEHICO...............
> 
> That isn't the proper forms sir........
> 
> I Demand Entry............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEXT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years.  You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually immigration laws have been updated 10 times since 1986. The latest in 2012.
> 
> List of United States immigration laws - Wikipedia
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for such a terrific laugh.  For almost 15 years I debated, discussed, and argued the National ID / REAL ID Act as being an immigration measure.  Build the wall guys DENIED it!  Even on this thread, you would hear the trolls asking what Liberty was endangered by the wall.
> 
> Strict enforcement of the Hitler style National ID law is a threat to our Liberty and it will jeopardize the Liberty to the point of nullifying the Fourth Amendment after the wall is built.
> 
> Then the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security with its 40.5 *BILLION Dollar a year* budget - you claim that as an update of immigration laws?   Well the National Socialists under Hitler had the Fatherland; Communist Russia was Motherland so the Socialist States of Amerika has the Dept. of "Homeland" (IN) Security.  I have an old link along those lines:
> 
> 'Homeland Security': The Trillion-Dollar Concept That No One Can Define
> 
> Amnesties addressed the immigration issue, how, exactly?  It made those people "legal" as you erroneously call it and now they are registered voters giving you the middle finger.
> 
> I won't pick them apart, but none of them change the major legislation that perpetuates a situation whereby it was REALLY easy to flip the right and make them take up socialist solutions - as you have so graciously pointed out.  I'm loving it.  You continue to prove my point.
> 
> There remains a question you still haven't gotten to.  I have a feeling I can count on you.  You've alerted your fellow build the wall advocates as to how much has already been available.  Are you SURE you aren't being played?  Maybe there is more to the story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that was a long article that could be summed up in a few words, "the feds waste money". GO FIGURE! I'm sure the average American is unaware of this fact. LMAO
> 
> BTW it was wiki that characterized those as changes to immigration law. I sure with your brief writing ability you'll have no problem getting the fix that oversight. Also your invocation of Hitler just put your credibility down a few notches.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, easy out.  You didn't like the Hitler reference?  I will give the build the wall guys one thing: they have the people so programmed that people like you automatically try to ridicule the truth.  The* FACT* is, from the genesis to the revelation of your build the wall ideology, it was  *founded*, f*inanced*, and *had its talking points* made by National Socialists.
> 
> Now, you can lie about it or admit that you *REALLY* don't know as much as you claim.
Click to expand...



Feel free to name them with credible links and you have to do better than a reprint of some dudes blog that didn't source his numbers.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to obey any law that contradicts the Constitution:
> 
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> *An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.*
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> *No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."*
> 
> _*— *Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
> 
> Forfeiting property Rights just so you can have a happy ending over the concept of a wall doesn't change my mind.  You are advocating a society that makes Orwell's futuristic novel look tame.
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is your avenue if you disagree.  Now isnt it?
> 
> Feel free to hire any LEGAL worker available.  If you dont like it move to Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will hire whomever I like.  But, again, if an American wants a job, you have to apply for it.  You help create a complete class of disenfranchised Americans that now don't want to work and of those that are willing to work, they can't due to their past - which YOU make sure they cannot get beyond.
> 
> You then use their numbers as justification to screw with some pissant foreigner trying to feed their family.  Could you be any more screwed up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sponsor them.  Pay the fees.  Do it legal or not at all.  You are trying to justify breaking the law.  Pound sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I refuse to screw this country any further than you've caused it to be.  The bogus "legal" pretext is code for citizenship.  I don't believe in it.  There is a question you should be asking instead of encouraging me to destroy the last vestiges of our culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baloney
Click to expand...


You're are full of it - on that we agree.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds good on paper, but the immigration laws have not been updated for over 50 years.  You guys dance all around it, but refuse to ask the most obvious question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually immigration laws have been updated 10 times since 1986. The latest in 2012.
> 
> List of United States immigration laws - Wikipedia
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for such a terrific laugh.  For almost 15 years I debated, discussed, and argued the National ID / REAL ID Act as being an immigration measure.  Build the wall guys DENIED it!  Even on this thread, you would hear the trolls asking what Liberty was endangered by the wall.
> 
> Strict enforcement of the Hitler style National ID law is a threat to our Liberty and it will jeopardize the Liberty to the point of nullifying the Fourth Amendment after the wall is built.
> 
> Then the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security with its 40.5 *BILLION Dollar a year* budget - you claim that as an update of immigration laws?   Well the National Socialists under Hitler had the Fatherland; Communist Russia was Motherland so the Socialist States of Amerika has the Dept. of "Homeland" (IN) Security.  I have an old link along those lines:
> 
> 'Homeland Security': The Trillion-Dollar Concept That No One Can Define
> 
> Amnesties addressed the immigration issue, how, exactly?  It made those people "legal" as you erroneously call it and now they are registered voters giving you the middle finger.
> 
> I won't pick them apart, but none of them change the major legislation that perpetuates a situation whereby it was REALLY easy to flip the right and make them take up socialist solutions - as you have so graciously pointed out.  I'm loving it.  You continue to prove my point.
> 
> There remains a question you still haven't gotten to.  I have a feeling I can count on you.  You've alerted your fellow build the wall advocates as to how much has already been available.  Are you SURE you aren't being played?  Maybe there is more to the story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that was a long article that could be summed up in a few words, "the feds waste money". GO FIGURE! I'm sure the average American is unaware of this fact. LMAO
> 
> BTW it was wiki that characterized those as changes to immigration law. I sure with your brief writing ability you'll have no problem getting the fix that oversight. Also your invocation of Hitler just put your credibility down a few notches.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, easy out.  You didn't like the Hitler reference?  I will give the build the wall guys one thing: they have the people so programmed that people like you automatically try to ridicule the truth.  The* FACT* is, from the genesis to the revelation of your build the wall ideology, it was  *founded*, f*inanced*, and *had its talking points* made by National Socialists.
> 
> Now, you can lie about it or admit that you *REALLY* don't know as much as you claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to name them with credible links and you have to do better than a reprint of some dudes blog that didn't source his numbers.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You wish my work were some other guy's blog.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually immigration laws have been updated 10 times since 1986. The latest in 2012.
> 
> List of United States immigration laws - Wikipedia
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for such a terrific laugh.  For almost 15 years I debated, discussed, and argued the National ID / REAL ID Act as being an immigration measure.  Build the wall guys DENIED it!  Even on this thread, you would hear the trolls asking what Liberty was endangered by the wall.
> 
> Strict enforcement of the Hitler style National ID law is a threat to our Liberty and it will jeopardize the Liberty to the point of nullifying the Fourth Amendment after the wall is built.
> 
> Then the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security with its 40.5 *BILLION Dollar a year* budget - you claim that as an update of immigration laws?   Well the National Socialists under Hitler had the Fatherland; Communist Russia was Motherland so the Socialist States of Amerika has the Dept. of "Homeland" (IN) Security.  I have an old link along those lines:
> 
> 'Homeland Security': The Trillion-Dollar Concept That No One Can Define
> 
> Amnesties addressed the immigration issue, how, exactly?  It made those people "legal" as you erroneously call it and now they are registered voters giving you the middle finger.
> 
> I won't pick them apart, but none of them change the major legislation that perpetuates a situation whereby it was REALLY easy to flip the right and make them take up socialist solutions - as you have so graciously pointed out.  I'm loving it.  You continue to prove my point.
> 
> There remains a question you still haven't gotten to.  I have a feeling I can count on you.  You've alerted your fellow build the wall advocates as to how much has already been available.  Are you SURE you aren't being played?  Maybe there is more to the story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that was a long article that could be summed up in a few words, "the feds waste money". GO FIGURE! I'm sure the average American is unaware of this fact. LMAO
> 
> BTW it was wiki that characterized those as changes to immigration law. I sure with your brief writing ability you'll have no problem getting the fix that oversight. Also your invocation of Hitler just put your credibility down a few notches.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, easy out.  You didn't like the Hitler reference?  I will give the build the wall guys one thing: they have the people so programmed that people like you automatically try to ridicule the truth.  The* FACT* is, from the genesis to the revelation of your build the wall ideology, it was  *founded*, f*inanced*, and *had its talking points* made by National Socialists.
> 
> Now, you can lie about it or admit that you *REALLY* don't know as much as you claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to name them with credible links and you have to do better than a reprint of some dudes blog that didn't source his numbers.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wish my work were some other guy's blog.
Click to expand...



You really can't read. Your link to The Nation was a reprint from TomDispatch.com. They threw out many numbers with thin or no sourcing.

Now you're making claims about National Socialist, with no names or sources. Stop using generalize bogymen and buzz words, name names and give sources.

.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is your avenue if you disagree.  Now isnt it?
> 
> Feel free to hire any LEGAL worker available.  If you dont like it move to Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will hire whomever I like.  But, again, if an American wants a job, you have to apply for it.  You help create a complete class of disenfranchised Americans that now don't want to work and of those that are willing to work, they can't due to their past - which YOU make sure they cannot get beyond.
> 
> You then use their numbers as justification to screw with some pissant foreigner trying to feed their family.  Could you be any more screwed up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sponsor them.  Pay the fees.  Do it legal or not at all.  You are trying to justify breaking the law.  Pound sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I refuse to screw this country any further than you've caused it to be.  The bogus "legal" pretext is code for citizenship.  I don't believe in it.  There is a question you should be asking instead of encouraging me to destroy the last vestiges of our culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baloney
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're are full of it - on that we agree.
Click to expand...

We agree to disagree.  You dont get to pick and choose laws you will Obey.  Hiring illegals is ILLEGAL


----------



## sealybobo

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to obey any law that contradicts the Constitution:
> 
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> *An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.*
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> *No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."*
> 
> _*— *Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
> 
> Forfeiting property Rights just so you can have a happy ending over the concept of a wall doesn't change my mind.  You are advocating a society that makes Orwell's futuristic novel look tame.
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is your avenue if you disagree.  Now isnt it?
> 
> Feel free to hire any LEGAL worker available.  If you dont like it move to Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will hire whomever I like.  But, again, if an American wants a job, you have to apply for it.  You help create a complete class of disenfranchised Americans that now don't want to work and of those that are willing to work, they can't due to their past - which YOU make sure they cannot get beyond.
> 
> You then use their numbers as justification to screw with some pissant foreigner trying to feed their family.  Could you be any more screwed up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sponsor them.  Pay the fees.  Do it legal or not at all.  You are trying to justify breaking the law.  Pound sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I refuse to screw this country any further than you've caused it to be.  The bogus "legal" pretext is code for citizenship.  I don't believe in it.  There is a question you should be asking instead of encouraging me to destroy the last vestiges of our culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baloney
Click to expand...


----------



## Daryl Hunt

sealybobo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We wasted about 80 trillion fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for nothing. Now you don't want to spend money for something that is actually necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not god damn necessary.  And I wasn't happy we wasted 80 trillion in Iraq.
> 
> For once I'd like you Trump supporters to admit when Trump has a bad idea.
> 
> But thanks for now at least finally admitting it's going to be a lot more than $5 billion and we are going to pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I vote Libertarian, which is way better than you having voted for Hillderbeast. And I don’t care how much the border wall costs, it’s something we need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Texas needs a wall Texas should build a wall. Build one all around Texas for all we care. Arizona too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Borders are a Fed responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can't stop Texas from building a wall on their border.  States rights.
Click to expand...


Except Texas Mayors don't seem to think a wall in necessary but the increase in the boots on the ground and sensors are.  If you can't stop Texas from building a wall, why are you forcing one on them.


----------



## sealybobo

Daryl Hunt said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not god damn necessary.  And I wasn't happy we wasted 80 trillion in Iraq.
> 
> For once I'd like you Trump supporters to admit when Trump has a bad idea.
> 
> But thanks for now at least finally admitting it's going to be a lot more than $5 billion and we are going to pay for it.
> 
> 
> 
> I vote Libertarian, which is way better than you having voted for Hillderbeast. And I don’t care how much the border wall costs, it’s something we need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Texas needs a wall Texas should build a wall. Build one all around Texas for all we care. Arizona too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Borders are a Fed responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can't stop Texas from building a wall on their border.  States rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except Texas Mayors don't seem to think a wall in necessary but the increase in the boots on the ground and sensors are.  If you can't stop Texas from building a wall, why are you forcing one on them.
Click to expand...

I'm not forcing one on them Trump is.  And I agree more boots on the ground and more sensors and fix the problems with the system.  This morning I saw what happens to a group seeking asylum.  If there is no where to put them then they put an ankle bracelet on them and set them free in America and they are asked to show up at court.  Pretty please.  Fuck that.  Figure out a way to quickly determine if they should get asylum or not and if they don't then send them back asap.


----------



## eagle1462010

sealybobo said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I vote Libertarian, which is way better than you having voted for Hillderbeast. And I don’t care how much the border wall costs, it’s something we need.
> 
> 
> 
> If Texas needs a wall Texas should build a wall. Build one all around Texas for all we care. Arizona too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Borders are a Fed responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can't stop Texas from building a wall on their border.  States rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except Texas Mayors don't seem to think a wall in necessary but the increase in the boots on the ground and sensors are.  If you can't stop Texas from building a wall, why are you forcing one on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not forcing one on them Trump is.  And I agree more boots on the ground and more sensors and fix the problems with the system.  This morning I saw what happens to a group seeking asylum.  If there is no where to put them then they put an ankle bracelet on them and set them free in America and they are asked to show up at court.  Pretty please.  Fuck that.  Figure out a way to quickly determine if they should get asylum or not and if they don't then send them back asap.
Click to expand...

Trump requested more court staffing.  It was denied.


----------



## sealybobo

eagle1462010 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Texas needs a wall Texas should build a wall. Build one all around Texas for all we care. Arizona too.
> 
> 
> 
> Borders are a Fed responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can't stop Texas from building a wall on their border.  States rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except Texas Mayors don't seem to think a wall in necessary but the increase in the boots on the ground and sensors are.  If you can't stop Texas from building a wall, why are you forcing one on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not forcing one on them Trump is.  And I agree more boots on the ground and more sensors and fix the problems with the system.  This morning I saw what happens to a group seeking asylum.  If there is no where to put them then they put an ankle bracelet on them and set them free in America and they are asked to show up at court.  Pretty please.  Fuck that.  Figure out a way to quickly determine if they should get asylum or not and if they don't then send them back asap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump requested more court staffing.  It was denied.
Click to expand...

Can you show me that?  I'm having trouble finding if this is true or not.

One potential area for compromise among the two sides could be the hiring of nearly 2,000 immigration officers and 275 new Border Patrol agents. 


However, the border enforcement agency has endured well-documented struggles to meet its recruitment goals and retain employees, despite having the money to the hire more border agents. It has about 7,500 vacancies nationwide. 

Similarly, Immigration and Customs Enforcement are still under mandate to hire the 10,000 immigration officers that Trump directed in an executive order he signed days after taking office.

More judges, tech and agents: Bargaining tools for Trump's border wall?


----------



## eagle1462010

sealybobo said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Borders are a Fed responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> They can't stop Texas from building a wall on their border.  States rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except Texas Mayors don't seem to think a wall in necessary but the increase in the boots on the ground and sensors are.  If you can't stop Texas from building a wall, why are you forcing one on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not forcing one on them Trump is.  And I agree more boots on the ground and more sensors and fix the problems with the system.  This morning I saw what happens to a group seeking asylum.  If there is no where to put them then they put an ankle bracelet on them and set them free in America and they are asked to show up at court.  Pretty please.  Fuck that.  Figure out a way to quickly determine if they should get asylum or not and if they don't then send them back asap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump requested more court staffing.  It was denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you show me that?  I'm having trouble finding if this is true or not.
> 
> One potential area for compromise among the two sides could be the hiring of nearly 2,000 immigration officers and 275 new Border Patrol agents.
> 
> 
> However, the border enforcement agency has endured well-documented struggles to meet its recruitment goals and retain employees, despite having the money to the hire more border agents. It has about 7,500 vacancies nationwide.
> 
> Similarly, Immigration and Customs Enforcement are still under mandate to hire the 10,000 immigration officers that Trump directed in an executive order he signed days after taking office.
> 
> More judges, tech and agents: Bargaining tools for Trump's border wall?
Click to expand...

On my phone.  2017 budget proposal or 2018 from the WH


----------



## Daryl Hunt

sealybobo said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I vote Libertarian, which is way better than you having voted for Hillderbeast. And I don’t care how much the border wall costs, it’s something we need.
> 
> 
> 
> If Texas needs a wall Texas should build a wall. Build one all around Texas for all we care. Arizona too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Borders are a Fed responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can't stop Texas from building a wall on their border.  States rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except Texas Mayors don't seem to think a wall in necessary but the increase in the boots on the ground and sensors are.  If you can't stop Texas from building a wall, why are you forcing one on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not forcing one on them Trump is.  And I agree more boots on the ground and more sensors and fix the problems with the system.  This morning I saw what happens to a group seeking asylum.  If there is no where to put them then they put an ankle bracelet on them and set them free in America and they are asked to show up at court.  Pretty please.  Fuck that.  Figure out a way to quickly determine if they should get asylum or not and if they don't then send them back asap.
Click to expand...


The fix is to appoint more immigration judges and Trump just ain't hearin' it.  More Immigration Judges, the Dems AND the Reps on both sides of the house would support.  But it seems that the money for all that disappears into thin air right now.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

eagle1462010 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Texas needs a wall Texas should build a wall. Build one all around Texas for all we care. Arizona too.
> 
> 
> 
> Borders are a Fed responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can't stop Texas from building a wall on their border.  States rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except Texas Mayors don't seem to think a wall in necessary but the increase in the boots on the ground and sensors are.  If you can't stop Texas from building a wall, why are you forcing one on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not forcing one on them Trump is.  And I agree more boots on the ground and more sensors and fix the problems with the system.  This morning I saw what happens to a group seeking asylum.  If there is no where to put them then they put an ankle bracelet on them and set them free in America and they are asked to show up at court.  Pretty please.  Fuck that.  Figure out a way to quickly determine if they should get asylum or not and if they don't then send them back asap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump requested more court staffing.  It was denied.
Click to expand...


No he didn't.  He was offered that option Tuesday and went off on his physical wall and rejected the idea from Congress.  Trump rejects calls for more immigration judges: 'We have to have a real border, not judges'


*President Trump on Tuesday pushed back against efforts to hire more immigration judges to address the influx of migrants arriving at the Mexico-U.S. border.

Trump spent much of his speech at the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) railing against illegal immigration and emphasizing the need to close the southern border. During an aside on the need for border security, Trump declared judges are ineffective in combatting illegal immigration.

“Ultimately, we have to have a real border, not judges,” Trump said.

“Thousands and thousands of judges they want to hire. Who are these people?” Trump continued. “When we vet a single federal judge it goes through a big process.”

The president appeared to be referencing calls from Republicans and Democrats for additional immigration judges to be dispatched to the border to handle the backlog of illegal entry cases and more quickly adjudicate asylum claims.

"Seriously, what country does this? They said ‘sir, we’d like to hire 5,000 or 6,000 more judges,” Trump continued. “Now can you imagine the graft that must take place?”
*
Standard Strump denial.  When you step all over your private parts, say that someone else is doing it.  There is a name for this but you won't like it.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

sealybobo said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Borders are a Fed responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> They can't stop Texas from building a wall on their border.  States rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except Texas Mayors don't seem to think a wall in necessary but the increase in the boots on the ground and sensors are.  If you can't stop Texas from building a wall, why are you forcing one on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not forcing one on them Trump is.  And I agree more boots on the ground and more sensors and fix the problems with the system.  This morning I saw what happens to a group seeking asylum.  If there is no where to put them then they put an ankle bracelet on them and set them free in America and they are asked to show up at court.  Pretty please.  Fuck that.  Figure out a way to quickly determine if they should get asylum or not and if they don't then send them back asap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump requested more court staffing.  It was denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you show me that?  I'm having trouble finding if this is true or not.
> 
> One potential area for compromise among the two sides could be the hiring of nearly 2,000 immigration officers and 275 new Border Patrol agents.
> 
> 
> However, the border enforcement agency has endured well-documented struggles to meet its recruitment goals and retain employees, despite having the money to the hire more border agents. It has about 7,500 vacancies nationwide.
> 
> Similarly, Immigration and Customs Enforcement are still under mandate to hire the 10,000 immigration officers that Trump directed in an executive order he signed days after taking office.
> 
> More judges, tech and agents: Bargaining tools for Trump's border wall?
Click to expand...


I already gave a link that shows Trump was offered more Immigration Judges but he turned it down.  It's the Wall or Nothing.  What he fails to comprehend or say to his "Followers" is that the figure of 1.3 billion that was offered complies with a Law that passed in 2006 signed into law by President Bush from a Bill passed by both sides of Congress.  The 1.3 billion is for building additional wall units and upkeep on the current wall.  The House has also added money for the other things that the Border Patrol and Homeland Security has said it needs in the form of sensors, hiring more Immigration Judges, more Equipment and so on, again, in compliance with the law from 2006 and expanded by Obama.The only President that hasn't built any South of the Border Walls or expanded security for the last 12 years is Trump.  That money is there and the House is trying to spend it like the  law says they should.  The law allocates 1.3 billion per year, not 5.3 billion for expanding the Wall or Security Fencing and upkeep on the existing wall.   When Trump took office there was 733 miles of wall or heavy security fencing.  Do you know how many miles it is after 2 years?  733 miles today.  The Orange one is not following the House and Senate Bill that was signed into a law in 2006.  Instead, he is throwing this temper tantrum and the wall expansion that is already paid for can't seem to get to the field to be utilized.


----------



## eagle1462010

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf


_*Invest in Law Enforcement. *_The Budget provides critical resources for DOJ

to confront terrorism, reduce violent crime, tackle the Nation’s opioid epidemic, and combat illegal immigration. *Additional spending is provided for DOJ to enhance public safety and law enforcement including $214 million above current levels for immigration enforcement—allowing DOJ to hire 75 additional immigration judge teams, bringing the total number of funded immigration judge teams to 449.* In addition, $84 million more is provided for increases in the Federal detainee population. Increases of $188 million are included to address violent and gun-related crime in communities across the Nation and to target transnational criminal organizations and drug traffickers. As part of this increase, $103 million is added to maintain and expand capacity to fight against opioids and other illicit drugs. Further, DOJ will take steps to mitigate the risk that sanctuary jurisdictions pose to public safety.

It’s not just programs for the poor. Trump’s budget calls for vast changes to government.

Not all of the budget is red ink, though.

In its $27.7 billion budget request, the Justice Department asked for $26 million for 300 new prosecutors in U.S. attorney's offices nationwide to support Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s emphasis on targeting violent criminals and prosecuting illegal immigrants. *An additional $75 million was requested for 75 more immigration judges to adjudicate removal proceedings for people in the United States illegally*. About $80 million was sought to fully open an underused federal prison in Thomson, Ill., which was once considered as a possible facility to hold Guantánamo prisoners and would provide the Bureau of Prisons with 1,500 to 2,000 more beds.


----------



## eagle1462010

Justice Department Releases Statistics on the Impact of Immigration Judge Surge

The Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today released statistics on the impact of Executive Order (EO) 13767: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, which called for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to assign immigration judges to immigration detention facilities.



Pursuant to the President’s Executive Order, over one hundred immigration judges have been mobilized to Department of Homeland Security detention facilities across the country, including along the southern border. This mobilization includes both in-person assignments and dockets heard via video teleconferencing (VTC).



Comparing the results of the surge to historical scheduling and outcome data, EOIR has projected that the mobilized immigration judges have completed approximately 2,700 more cases than expected if the immigration judges had not been detailed. This means that completed cases by detailed immigration judges have outpaced expected home court deferrals, resulting in a positive net effect on the nationwide caseload. Also, immigration judges mobilized to surge sites completed approximately 21 percent more cases on detail than the historical, expected performance of nondetailed immigration judges at the same base locations.



“EOIR is pleased with the results of the surge of immigration judges to detention facilities and the potential impact it has on the pending caseload nationwide,” said Acting Director James McHenry. “The Justice Department will continue to identify ways in which it can further improve immigration judge productivity without compromising due process.”


----------



## eagle1462010

The U.S. will increase the number of immigration judges by 50 percent to take on ballooning backlog | Daily Mail Online

The number of immigration cases on hold in the U.S. has risen 38 percent since Trump took office, with 746,049 pending immigration cases as of July 31, up from 542,411 at the end of January 2017, according to an analysis of government data by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

Sessions asserted his authority on Monday during remarks welcoming * 44 newly hired immigration judges* - the largest class in U.S. history - noting that they must operate under his supervision and perform the duties that he prescribes.


----------



## eagle1462010

If You Don't Fund Judges, Don't Complain About Backlogs

If the Democrats refuse these funding demands, they and their media allies will lose some of their best talking points. For example, a November 2018 opinion piece in the _Los Angeles Times_ begins:

You have to give credit to the Trump administration when it's due. The increased pace of arrests of people living in the country illegally, combined with the order to reopen suspended cases, has pushed the backlog of pending immigration court cases to nearly 1.1 million, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse [TRAC] at Syracuse University.

*That's more than double the backlog when Trump took office, and comes despite a 30% increase in the number of immigration judges.*

No president in history has overseen such a huge buildup in cases. President Obama? The best he could do was 630,000 cases. Trump is so #WINNING when it comes to gumming up the immigration courts.

Oh, wait, that's not a good thing.

Fair enough. So how do you get rid of backlogs? More immigration judges, as I have explained numerous times in the past. *Then-Attorney General (AG) Jeff Sessions hired 128 new immigration judges (IJs) in just two years (a fact alluded to in the screed above), bolstering a drastically underfunded IJ corps*, but this doesn't even come close to the number of IJs our nation's immigration courts currently need.

The website of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the Department of Justice (DOJ) component responsible for the immigration courts notes that there are "approximately 400 immigration judges located in 62 immigration courts throughout the Nation." TRAC's latest report states that there were 809,041 pending cases before the immigration courts as of November 2018. That is more than 2,022 cases per IJ. An additional 75 immigration judges would bring that down 1,703, or 16 percent. Not perfect, but a start.

Democrats will no longer be able to complain about backlogs, or even alien respondents' access to justice, if they don't pay for more IJs


----------



## eagle1462010

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/About Us/Budget, Planning and Performance/FY2017.pdf


$347 million for the Criminal Alien Program to support ICE in the apprehension and removal of both at-large and incarcerated convicted criminals. These resources include funding for an additional 100 officers to support ICE in this mission area.


x $268 million to support the Office of Principal Legal Advisor, which represents the U.S. Government in removal proceedings and litigated over 400,000 immigration related cases


*
FY 2017 Highlights: 


Criminal Investigators…………………..……………………………$70.1M (307 FTE) 
*
The budget requests an increase of $6.9M (for a total of $70.1M) to provide additional support to the Investigative Operations Division (IOD). IOD investigates alleged criminal and serious, non-criminal misconduct involving CBP employees, as well as fatal or significant use of force incidents. This request would provide funding to allow CBP to hire an additional 30 criminal investigators, which will increase the rate at which internal investigations of use of force are completed and enhance CBP’s capacity to identify and address misconduct, and integrity issues. The requested funds are critical to CBP’s ability to investigate and resolve the investigations previously handled by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). Historically, ICE OPR opened an average of 200 criminal investigations involving CBP employees each fiscal year.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

eagle1462010 said:


> https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf
> 
> 
> _*Invest in Law Enforcement. *_The Budget provides critical resources for DOJ
> 
> to confront terrorism, reduce violent crime, tackle the Nation’s opioid epidemic, and combat illegal immigration. *Additional spending is provided for DOJ to enhance public safety and law enforcement including $214 million above current levels for immigration enforcement—allowing DOJ to hire 75 additional immigration judge teams, bringing the total number of funded immigration judge teams to 449.* In addition, $84 million more is provided for increases in the Federal detainee population. Increases of $188 million are included to address violent and gun-related crime in communities across the Nation and to target transnational criminal organizations and drug traffickers. As part of this increase, $103 million is added to maintain and expand capacity to fight against opioids and other illicit drugs. Further, DOJ will take steps to mitigate the risk that sanctuary jurisdictions pose to public safety.
> 
> It’s not just programs for the poor. Trump’s budget calls for vast changes to government.
> 
> Not all of the budget is red ink, though.
> 
> In its $27.7 billion budget request, the Justice Department asked for $26 million for 300 new prosecutors in U.S. attorney's offices nationwide to support Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s emphasis on targeting violent criminals and prosecuting illegal immigrants. *An additional $75 million was requested for 75 more immigration judges to adjudicate removal proceedings for people in the United States illegally*. About $80 million was sought to fully open an underused federal prison in Thomson, Ill., which was once considered as a possible facility to hold Guantánamo prisoners and would provide the Bureau of Prisons with 1,500 to 2,000 more beds.



Did you read the title?  It's a Trump PR site that has enough lies in it to choke a healthy horse.  No Government Site would read "A New Foundation For American Greatness"  That whole things is stricken with BS.

One exception.  It contradicts your figures.  Sessions sent 18 Immigration Judges, not the 75 you are claiming.  And the House already offered to add more money for more Immigration Judges and Prosecutors to the tune of 300 Judges. The good news is that those 300 judges would be temporary.  That would have broken the stalemate on the border.  Mexico is currently deporting those that fail to meet immigration standards into the US back across their own southern border if they won't take a job in Mexico.  The Mexicans are also deporting those that tried to force their way across the  US border as well.  The Mexicans won't allow a 3rd wave cross their borders again.  And they have only a few hundred miles to close up on their southern border and an Army to do it.  

The potential Immigrants already had their 15 minutes of fame.  Now if Trump would just shut up and allow those funds that have been offered above and beyond the 1.3 billion that must be spent on Border Security according to the 2006 Border Security Law then we could get back to business, the Government could reopen and the panic would no longer be there.  But Trump wants us all to stay in a constant state of Panic.  I have a Sister like that and every family has a relative like that that we all avoid like the plaque.  There is a name for that condition but you won't like it.


----------



## eagle1462010

EOIR Announces Largest Ever Immigration Judge Investiture

*The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) announces the investiture of 46 immigration judges, including two assistant chief immigration judges, marking for the second month in a row the largest class in the agency’s history.*

“At this point in history your work is vitally important.  The case backlog has reached more than 760,000. Great effort is surely needed,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions at today’s investiture. “This situation is unacceptable. It cannot continue. Our nation’s chief executive supports you and all who strive to make our immigration system work.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed these new judges after a thorough application process and welcomed them during a ceremony held Sept. 28, 2018. Chief Immigration Judge MaryBeth Keller presided over the investiture held at the Department of Justice’s Great Hall in Washington, D.C.

“EOIR continues to make great progress in hiring the immigration judges needed to reduce a backlog of more than 760,000 pending immigration court cases,” said James McHenry, Director of EOIR. “Alongside our efforts to improve immigration judge productivity and modernize our information technology systems, growing our immigration judge corps remains a top agency priority.”

In 2017, Attorney General Sessions announced a “streamlined hiring plan” promoting the use of clear deadlines and efficient hiring processes, resulting in a reduction of 74 percent in the time it takes to onboard immigration judges since then. *Since the end of January 2017, 128 immigration judges have been sworn in. EOIR anticipates two additional hiring classes this fall which will make for over 100 immigration judges hired during 2018.*

*“EOIR now has 395 immigration judges, an increase of 30 percent since January 2017,”* said McHenry. “While we are pleased to welcome this historic class of judges, we are not done and expect additional hiring before the end of this year.”

Subject Listing - News Releases & Fact Sheets

List's all the judges sworn in here.




Trump wanted 449 ........we are at 395.  Now he is looking for another 75.  Ted Cruz wanted to double the number to stop the back log.  Those that say efforts by Trump to get more Judges..........are either MISINFORMED OR LYING.


----------



## eagle1462010

Daryl Hunt said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf
> 
> 
> _*Invest in Law Enforcement. *_The Budget provides critical resources for DOJ
> 
> to confront terrorism, reduce violent crime, tackle the Nation’s opioid epidemic, and combat illegal immigration. *Additional spending is provided for DOJ to enhance public safety and law enforcement including $214 million above current levels for immigration enforcement—allowing DOJ to hire 75 additional immigration judge teams, bringing the total number of funded immigration judge teams to 449.* In addition, $84 million more is provided for increases in the Federal detainee population. Increases of $188 million are included to address violent and gun-related crime in communities across the Nation and to target transnational criminal organizations and drug traffickers. As part of this increase, $103 million is added to maintain and expand capacity to fight against opioids and other illicit drugs. Further, DOJ will take steps to mitigate the risk that sanctuary jurisdictions pose to public safety.
> 
> It’s not just programs for the poor. Trump’s budget calls for vast changes to government.
> 
> Not all of the budget is red ink, though.
> 
> In its $27.7 billion budget request, the Justice Department asked for $26 million for 300 new prosecutors in U.S. attorney's offices nationwide to support Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s emphasis on targeting violent criminals and prosecuting illegal immigrants. *An additional $75 million was requested for 75 more immigration judges to adjudicate removal proceedings for people in the United States illegally*. About $80 million was sought to fully open an underused federal prison in Thomson, Ill., which was once considered as a possible facility to hold Guantánamo prisoners and would provide the Bureau of Prisons with 1,500 to 2,000 more beds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the title?  It's a Trump PR site that has enough lies in it to choke a healthy horse.  No Government Site would read "A New Foundation For American Greatness"  That whole things is stricken with BS.
> 
> One exception.  It contradicts your figures.  Sessions sent 18 Immigration Judges, not the 75 you are claiming.  And the House already offered to add more money for more Immigration Judges and Prosecutors to the tune of 300 Judges. The good news is that those 300 judges would be temporary.  That would have broken the stalemate on the border.  Mexico is currently deporting those that fail to meet immigration standards into the US back across their own southern border if they won't take a job in Mexico.  The Mexicans are also deporting those that tried to force their way across the  US border as well.  The Mexicans won't allow a 3rd wave cross their borders again.  And they have only a few hundred miles to close up on their southern border and an Army to do it.
> 
> The potential Immigrants already had their 15 minutes of fame.  Now if Trump would just shut up and allow those funds that have been offered above and beyond the 1.3 billion that must be spent on Border Security according to the 2006 Border Security Law then we could get back to business, the Government could reopen and the panic would no longer be there.  But Trump wants us all to stay in a constant state of Panic.  I have a Sister like that and every family has a relative like that that we all avoid like the plaque.  There is a name for that condition but you won't like it.
Click to expand...

Baloney..........your lying or you are misinformed.  I just cited the DOJs hiring Immigration Judges............

Move along or go play in traffic.........your saying shit doesn't refute the facts I post.......buzz off.


----------



## eagle1462010

Subject Listing - News Releases & Fact Sheets

Read the ones you want to read..............DISPROVE IT...........or STFU


----------



## Daryl Hunt

eagle1462010 said:


> EOIR Announces Largest Ever Immigration Judge Investiture
> 
> *The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) announces the investiture of 46 immigration judges, including two assistant chief immigration judges, marking for the second month in a row the largest class in the agency’s history.*
> 
> “At this point in history your work is vitally important.  The case backlog has reached more than 760,000. Great effort is surely needed,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions at today’s investiture. “This situation is unacceptable. It cannot continue. Our nation’s chief executive supports you and all who strive to make our immigration system work.”
> 
> Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed these new judges after a thorough application process and welcomed them during a ceremony held Sept. 28, 2018. Chief Immigration Judge MaryBeth Keller presided over the investiture held at the Department of Justice’s Great Hall in Washington, D.C.
> 
> “EOIR continues to make great progress in hiring the immigration judges needed to reduce a backlog of more than 760,000 pending immigration court cases,” said James McHenry, Director of EOIR. “Alongside our efforts to improve immigration judge productivity and modernize our information technology systems, growing our immigration judge corps remains a top agency priority.”
> 
> In 2017, Attorney General Sessions announced a “streamlined hiring plan” promoting the use of clear deadlines and efficient hiring processes, resulting in a reduction of 74 percent in the time it takes to onboard immigration judges since then. *Since the end of January 2017, 128 immigration judges have been sworn in. EOIR anticipates two additional hiring classes this fall which will make for over 100 immigration judges hired during 2018.*
> 
> *“EOIR now has 395 immigration judges, an increase of 30 percent since January 2017,”* said McHenry. “While we are pleased to welcome this historic class of judges, we are not done and expect additional hiring before the end of this year.”
> 
> Subject Listing - News Releases & Fact Sheets
> 
> List's all the judges sworn in here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump wanted 449 ........we are at 395.  Now he is looking for another 75.  Ted Cruz wanted to double the number to stop the back log.  Those that say efforts by Trump to get more Judges..........are either MISINFORMED OR LYING.



The time stamp on your article is last june.  Since then, it's been offered by the House to increase the budget to get even more judges.  Trump turned it down flat this week.  It's the Wall or nothing.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

eagle1462010 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf
> 
> 
> _*Invest in Law Enforcement. *_The Budget provides critical resources for DOJ
> 
> to confront terrorism, reduce violent crime, tackle the Nation’s opioid epidemic, and combat illegal immigration. *Additional spending is provided for DOJ to enhance public safety and law enforcement including $214 million above current levels for immigration enforcement—allowing DOJ to hire 75 additional immigration judge teams, bringing the total number of funded immigration judge teams to 449.* In addition, $84 million more is provided for increases in the Federal detainee population. Increases of $188 million are included to address violent and gun-related crime in communities across the Nation and to target transnational criminal organizations and drug traffickers. As part of this increase, $103 million is added to maintain and expand capacity to fight against opioids and other illicit drugs. Further, DOJ will take steps to mitigate the risk that sanctuary jurisdictions pose to public safety.
> 
> It’s not just programs for the poor. Trump’s budget calls for vast changes to government.
> 
> Not all of the budget is red ink, though.
> 
> In its $27.7 billion budget request, the Justice Department asked for $26 million for 300 new prosecutors in U.S. attorney's offices nationwide to support Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s emphasis on targeting violent criminals and prosecuting illegal immigrants. *An additional $75 million was requested for 75 more immigration judges to adjudicate removal proceedings for people in the United States illegally*. About $80 million was sought to fully open an underused federal prison in Thomson, Ill., which was once considered as a possible facility to hold Guantánamo prisoners and would provide the Bureau of Prisons with 1,500 to 2,000 more beds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the title?  It's a Trump PR site that has enough lies in it to choke a healthy horse.  No Government Site would read "A New Foundation For American Greatness"  That whole things is stricken with BS.
> 
> One exception.  It contradicts your figures.  Sessions sent 18 Immigration Judges, not the 75 you are claiming.  And the House already offered to add more money for more Immigration Judges and Prosecutors to the tune of 300 Judges. The good news is that those 300 judges would be temporary.  That would have broken the stalemate on the border.  Mexico is currently deporting those that fail to meet immigration standards into the US back across their own southern border if they won't take a job in Mexico.  The Mexicans are also deporting those that tried to force their way across the  US border as well.  The Mexicans won't allow a 3rd wave cross their borders again.  And they have only a few hundred miles to close up on their southern border and an Army to do it.
> 
> The potential Immigrants already had their 15 minutes of fame.  Now if Trump would just shut up and allow those funds that have been offered above and beyond the 1.3 billion that must be spent on Border Security according to the 2006 Border Security Law then we could get back to business, the Government could reopen and the panic would no longer be there.  But Trump wants us all to stay in a constant state of Panic.  I have a Sister like that and every family has a relative like that that we all avoid like the plaque.  There is a name for that condition but you won't like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baloney..........your lying or you are misinformed.  I just cited the DOJs hiring Immigration Judges............
> 
> Move along or go play in traffic.........your saying shit doesn't refute the facts I post.......buzz off.
Click to expand...


You cited a Trump PR site that happens to be on a Government Server.  Your cite is right up there with the National Inquirer.


----------



## eagle1462010

Daryl Hunt said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> EOIR Announces Largest Ever Immigration Judge Investiture
> 
> *The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) announces the investiture of 46 immigration judges, including two assistant chief immigration judges, marking for the second month in a row the largest class in the agency’s history.*
> 
> “At this point in history your work is vitally important.  The case backlog has reached more than 760,000. Great effort is surely needed,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions at today’s investiture. “This situation is unacceptable. It cannot continue. Our nation’s chief executive supports you and all who strive to make our immigration system work.”
> 
> Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed these new judges after a thorough application process and welcomed them during a ceremony held Sept. 28, 2018. Chief Immigration Judge MaryBeth Keller presided over the investiture held at the Department of Justice’s Great Hall in Washington, D.C.
> 
> “EOIR continues to make great progress in hiring the immigration judges needed to reduce a backlog of more than 760,000 pending immigration court cases,” said James McHenry, Director of EOIR. “Alongside our efforts to improve immigration judge productivity and modernize our information technology systems, growing our immigration judge corps remains a top agency priority.”
> 
> In 2017, Attorney General Sessions announced a “streamlined hiring plan” promoting the use of clear deadlines and efficient hiring processes, resulting in a reduction of 74 percent in the time it takes to onboard immigration judges since then. *Since the end of January 2017, 128 immigration judges have been sworn in. EOIR anticipates two additional hiring classes this fall which will make for over 100 immigration judges hired during 2018.*
> 
> *“EOIR now has 395 immigration judges, an increase of 30 percent since January 2017,”* said McHenry. “While we are pleased to welcome this historic class of judges, we are not done and expect additional hiring before the end of this year.”
> 
> Subject Listing - News Releases & Fact Sheets
> 
> List's all the judges sworn in here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump wanted 449 ........we are at 395.  Now he is looking for another 75.  Ted Cruz wanted to double the number to stop the back log.  Those that say efforts by Trump to get more Judges..........are either MISINFORMED OR LYING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The time stamp on your article is last june.  Since then, it's been offered by the House to increase the budget to get even more judges.  Trump turned it down flat this week.  It's the Wall or nothing.
Click to expand...

He hasn't turned it down............he wants more judges............That is Baloney......The Shut down is over the Border Security Funding...........which is a hell of a lot more than more judges............

He wants them too............stop lying.


----------



## eagle1462010

Daryl Hunt said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf
> 
> 
> _*Invest in Law Enforcement. *_The Budget provides critical resources for DOJ
> 
> to confront terrorism, reduce violent crime, tackle the Nation’s opioid epidemic, and combat illegal immigration. *Additional spending is provided for DOJ to enhance public safety and law enforcement including $214 million above current levels for immigration enforcement—allowing DOJ to hire 75 additional immigration judge teams, bringing the total number of funded immigration judge teams to 449.* In addition, $84 million more is provided for increases in the Federal detainee population. Increases of $188 million are included to address violent and gun-related crime in communities across the Nation and to target transnational criminal organizations and drug traffickers. As part of this increase, $103 million is added to maintain and expand capacity to fight against opioids and other illicit drugs. Further, DOJ will take steps to mitigate the risk that sanctuary jurisdictions pose to public safety.
> 
> It’s not just programs for the poor. Trump’s budget calls for vast changes to government.
> 
> Not all of the budget is red ink, though.
> 
> In its $27.7 billion budget request, the Justice Department asked for $26 million for 300 new prosecutors in U.S. attorney's offices nationwide to support Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s emphasis on targeting violent criminals and prosecuting illegal immigrants. *An additional $75 million was requested for 75 more immigration judges to adjudicate removal proceedings for people in the United States illegally*. About $80 million was sought to fully open an underused federal prison in Thomson, Ill., which was once considered as a possible facility to hold Guantánamo prisoners and would provide the Bureau of Prisons with 1,500 to 2,000 more beds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the title?  It's a Trump PR site that has enough lies in it to choke a healthy horse.  No Government Site would read "A New Foundation For American Greatness"  That whole things is stricken with BS.
> 
> One exception.  It contradicts your figures.  Sessions sent 18 Immigration Judges, not the 75 you are claiming.  And the House already offered to add more money for more Immigration Judges and Prosecutors to the tune of 300 Judges. The good news is that those 300 judges would be temporary.  That would have broken the stalemate on the border.  Mexico is currently deporting those that fail to meet immigration standards into the US back across their own southern border if they won't take a job in Mexico.  The Mexicans are also deporting those that tried to force their way across the  US border as well.  The Mexicans won't allow a 3rd wave cross their borders again.  And they have only a few hundred miles to close up on their southern border and an Army to do it.
> 
> The potential Immigrants already had their 15 minutes of fame.  Now if Trump would just shut up and allow those funds that have been offered above and beyond the 1.3 billion that must be spent on Border Security according to the 2006 Border Security Law then we could get back to business, the Government could reopen and the panic would no longer be there.  But Trump wants us all to stay in a constant state of Panic.  I have a Sister like that and every family has a relative like that that we all avoid like the plaque.  There is a name for that condition but you won't like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baloney..........your lying or you are misinformed.  I just cited the DOJs hiring Immigration Judges............
> 
> Move along or go play in traffic.........your saying shit doesn't refute the facts I post.......buzz off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cited a Trump PR site that happens to be on a Government Server.  Your cite is right up there with the National Inquirer.
Click to expand...

Prove the DOJ articles wrong then.............go ahead..........Many listed on the site I gave you............Go ahead and disprove them............

Waiting.


----------



## eagle1462010

Executive Office for Immigration Review Announces Largest Immigration Judge Investiture Since At Least 2010, Hiring Times Reduced by More Than 50%

*Executive Office for Immigration Review Announces Largest Immigration Judge Investiture Since At Least 2010, Hiring Times Reduced by More Than 50%*
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) on Friday held the investiture of 23 new immigration judges, which increases the total number of immigration judges to 351. Since the end of January 2017, 82 immigration judges have been sworn in, and EOIR anticipates three additional hiring classes this fall that will total at least 75 more immigration judges.

As part of a series of common-sense reforms to the immigration court system, Attorney General Jeff Sessions last year introduced a “streamlined hiring plan” emphasizing clear deadlines for ensuring immigration judge candidates move efficiently through the hiring process. Due to this effort, some of the immigration judges sworn-in on Friday were hired in approximately 266 days, down from an average of 742 days just one year ago.



There you go.........Disprove that.........LOL


----------



## Daryl Hunt

eagle1462010 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> EOIR Announces Largest Ever Immigration Judge Investiture
> 
> *The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) announces the investiture of 46 immigration judges, including two assistant chief immigration judges, marking for the second month in a row the largest class in the agency’s history.*
> 
> “At this point in history your work is vitally important.  The case backlog has reached more than 760,000. Great effort is surely needed,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions at today’s investiture. “This situation is unacceptable. It cannot continue. Our nation’s chief executive supports you and all who strive to make our immigration system work.”
> 
> Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed these new judges after a thorough application process and welcomed them during a ceremony held Sept. 28, 2018. Chief Immigration Judge MaryBeth Keller presided over the investiture held at the Department of Justice’s Great Hall in Washington, D.C.
> 
> “EOIR continues to make great progress in hiring the immigration judges needed to reduce a backlog of more than 760,000 pending immigration court cases,” said James McHenry, Director of EOIR. “Alongside our efforts to improve immigration judge productivity and modernize our information technology systems, growing our immigration judge corps remains a top agency priority.”
> 
> In 2017, Attorney General Sessions announced a “streamlined hiring plan” promoting the use of clear deadlines and efficient hiring processes, resulting in a reduction of 74 percent in the time it takes to onboard immigration judges since then. *Since the end of January 2017, 128 immigration judges have been sworn in. EOIR anticipates two additional hiring classes this fall which will make for over 100 immigration judges hired during 2018.*
> 
> *“EOIR now has 395 immigration judges, an increase of 30 percent since January 2017,”* said McHenry. “While we are pleased to welcome this historic class of judges, we are not done and expect additional hiring before the end of this year.”
> 
> Subject Listing - News Releases & Fact Sheets
> 
> List's all the judges sworn in here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump wanted 449 ........we are at 395.  Now he is looking for another 75.  Ted Cruz wanted to double the number to stop the back log.  Those that say efforts by Trump to get more Judges..........are either MISINFORMED OR LYING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The time stamp on your article is last june.  Since then, it's been offered by the House to increase the budget to get even more judges.  Trump turned it down flat this week.  It's the Wall or nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He hasn't turned it down............he wants more judges............That is Baloney......The Shut down is over the Border Security Funding...........which is a hell of a lot more than more judges............
> 
> He wants them too............stop lying.
Click to expand...


He turned it down because it didn't give him the 5.3 billion he demands.  It only gives him the 1.6 billion offered by the House.  BTW, according to the law signed into law in 2006, the actual allocation is 1.3 billion per year for expansion, upkeep, etc. for border security.  You honestly believe Congress made that number up to start the negotiation?  In 2006, both the Senate and the House presented the Bill to Bush, Jr who signed it into a law.  And for the last 2 years, that money has NOT been spent on the  expansion and upkeep of the Security Fencing and Walls that are already there.  Bush started the building of the Border Security, Obama Expanded on it.  Between the two of them, the border security Fence/Wall stretches 733 miles.  2 years into office, do you know how many miles the Security Fence/Wall is today?  If you guessed 733 you would be correct.  If you also guess that much of it is in need of repair then you would also be correct.  That 1.3 billion isn't being spent for what it's intended for.  It's supposed to be an automatic Allocation but with the budget not passing, that money cannot be allocated.  You really want to explain why the border security fence/Wall is still 733 miles and much of it is in disrepair?


----------



## danielpalos

eagle1462010 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf
> 
> 
> _*Invest in Law Enforcement. *_The Budget provides critical resources for DOJ
> 
> to confront terrorism, reduce violent crime, tackle the Nation’s opioid epidemic, and combat illegal immigration. *Additional spending is provided for DOJ to enhance public safety and law enforcement including $214 million above current levels for immigration enforcement—allowing DOJ to hire 75 additional immigration judge teams, bringing the total number of funded immigration judge teams to 449.* In addition, $84 million more is provided for increases in the Federal detainee population. Increases of $188 million are included to address violent and gun-related crime in communities across the Nation and to target transnational criminal organizations and drug traffickers. As part of this increase, $103 million is added to maintain and expand capacity to fight against opioids and other illicit drugs. Further, DOJ will take steps to mitigate the risk that sanctuary jurisdictions pose to public safety.
> 
> It’s not just programs for the poor. Trump’s budget calls for vast changes to government.
> 
> Not all of the budget is red ink, though.
> 
> In its $27.7 billion budget request, the Justice Department asked for $26 million for 300 new prosecutors in U.S. attorney's offices nationwide to support Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s emphasis on targeting violent criminals and prosecuting illegal immigrants. *An additional $75 million was requested for 75 more immigration judges to adjudicate removal proceedings for people in the United States illegally*. About $80 million was sought to fully open an underused federal prison in Thomson, Ill., which was once considered as a possible facility to hold Guantánamo prisoners and would provide the Bureau of Prisons with 1,500 to 2,000 more beds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the title?  It's a Trump PR site that has enough lies in it to choke a healthy horse.  No Government Site would read "A New Foundation For American Greatness"  That whole things is stricken with BS.
> 
> One exception.  It contradicts your figures.  Sessions sent 18 Immigration Judges, not the 75 you are claiming.  And the House already offered to add more money for more Immigration Judges and Prosecutors to the tune of 300 Judges. The good news is that those 300 judges would be temporary.  That would have broken the stalemate on the border.  Mexico is currently deporting those that fail to meet immigration standards into the US back across their own southern border if they won't take a job in Mexico.  The Mexicans are also deporting those that tried to force their way across the  US border as well.  The Mexicans won't allow a 3rd wave cross their borders again.  And they have only a few hundred miles to close up on their southern border and an Army to do it.
> 
> The potential Immigrants already had their 15 minutes of fame.  Now if Trump would just shut up and allow those funds that have been offered above and beyond the 1.3 billion that must be spent on Border Security according to the 2006 Border Security Law then we could get back to business, the Government could reopen and the panic would no longer be there.  But Trump wants us all to stay in a constant state of Panic.  I have a Sister like that and every family has a relative like that that we all avoid like the plaque.  There is a name for that condition but you won't like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baloney..........your lying or you are misinformed.  I just cited the DOJs hiring Immigration Judges............
> 
> Move along or go play in traffic.........your saying shit doesn't refute the facts I post.......buzz off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cited a Trump PR site that happens to be on a Government Server.  Your cite is right up there with the National Inquirer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove the DOJ articles wrong then.............go ahead..........Many listed on the site I gave you............Go ahead and disprove them............
> 
> Waiting.
Click to expand...

we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause; there is no express wall building power or an express immigration clause.  we do have an express naturalization clause.  we should have no illegal problem.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

eagle1462010 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf
> 
> 
> _*Invest in Law Enforcement. *_The Budget provides critical resources for DOJ
> 
> to confront terrorism, reduce violent crime, tackle the Nation’s opioid epidemic, and combat illegal immigration. *Additional spending is provided for DOJ to enhance public safety and law enforcement including $214 million above current levels for immigration enforcement—allowing DOJ to hire 75 additional immigration judge teams, bringing the total number of funded immigration judge teams to 449.* In addition, $84 million more is provided for increases in the Federal detainee population. Increases of $188 million are included to address violent and gun-related crime in communities across the Nation and to target transnational criminal organizations and drug traffickers. As part of this increase, $103 million is added to maintain and expand capacity to fight against opioids and other illicit drugs. Further, DOJ will take steps to mitigate the risk that sanctuary jurisdictions pose to public safety.
> 
> It’s not just programs for the poor. Trump’s budget calls for vast changes to government.
> 
> Not all of the budget is red ink, though.
> 
> In its $27.7 billion budget request, the Justice Department asked for $26 million for 300 new prosecutors in U.S. attorney's offices nationwide to support Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s emphasis on targeting violent criminals and prosecuting illegal immigrants. *An additional $75 million was requested for 75 more immigration judges to adjudicate removal proceedings for people in the United States illegally*. About $80 million was sought to fully open an underused federal prison in Thomson, Ill., which was once considered as a possible facility to hold Guantánamo prisoners and would provide the Bureau of Prisons with 1,500 to 2,000 more beds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the title?  It's a Trump PR site that has enough lies in it to choke a healthy horse.  No Government Site would read "A New Foundation For American Greatness"  That whole things is stricken with BS.
> 
> One exception.  It contradicts your figures.  Sessions sent 18 Immigration Judges, not the 75 you are claiming.  And the House already offered to add more money for more Immigration Judges and Prosecutors to the tune of 300 Judges. The good news is that those 300 judges would be temporary.  That would have broken the stalemate on the border.  Mexico is currently deporting those that fail to meet immigration standards into the US back across their own southern border if they won't take a job in Mexico.  The Mexicans are also deporting those that tried to force their way across the  US border as well.  The Mexicans won't allow a 3rd wave cross their borders again.  And they have only a few hundred miles to close up on their southern border and an Army to do it.
> 
> The potential Immigrants already had their 15 minutes of fame.  Now if Trump would just shut up and allow those funds that have been offered above and beyond the 1.3 billion that must be spent on Border Security according to the 2006 Border Security Law then we could get back to business, the Government could reopen and the panic would no longer be there.  But Trump wants us all to stay in a constant state of Panic.  I have a Sister like that and every family has a relative like that that we all avoid like the plaque.  There is a name for that condition but you won't like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baloney..........your lying or you are misinformed.  I just cited the DOJs hiring Immigration Judges............
> 
> Move along or go play in traffic.........your saying shit doesn't refute the facts I post.......buzz off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cited a Trump PR site that happens to be on a Government Server.  Your cite is right up there with the National Inquirer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove the DOJ articles wrong then.............go ahead..........Many listed on the site I gave you............Go ahead and disprove them............
> 
> Waiting.
Click to expand...


The site is NOT DOJ.  It's a site that Trump had created to put out his BS.  I imagine that whomever the next President is, whether it be a Dem or a Rep, will take that stupid thing down.  Read the Title of it.  It says it all.  But one thing it's doing is making crap up.  Now get me a DOJ cite and not one by a crackpot that's selling snake oil.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for such a terrific laugh.  For almost 15 years I debated, discussed, and argued the National ID / REAL ID Act as being an immigration measure.  Build the wall guys DENIED it!  Even on this thread, you would hear the trolls asking what Liberty was endangered by the wall.
> 
> Strict enforcement of the Hitler style National ID law is a threat to our Liberty and it will jeopardize the Liberty to the point of nullifying the Fourth Amendment after the wall is built.
> 
> Then the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security with its 40.5 *BILLION Dollar a year* budget - you claim that as an update of immigration laws?   Well the National Socialists under Hitler had the Fatherland; Communist Russia was Motherland so the Socialist States of Amerika has the Dept. of "Homeland" (IN) Security.  I have an old link along those lines:
> 
> 'Homeland Security': The Trillion-Dollar Concept That No One Can Define
> 
> Amnesties addressed the immigration issue, how, exactly?  It made those people "legal" as you erroneously call it and now they are registered voters giving you the middle finger.
> 
> I won't pick them apart, but none of them change the major legislation that perpetuates a situation whereby it was REALLY easy to flip the right and make them take up socialist solutions - as you have so graciously pointed out.  I'm loving it.  You continue to prove my point.
> 
> There remains a question you still haven't gotten to.  I have a feeling I can count on you.  You've alerted your fellow build the wall advocates as to how much has already been available.  Are you SURE you aren't being played?  Maybe there is more to the story?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that was a long article that could be summed up in a few words, "the feds waste money". GO FIGURE! I'm sure the average American is unaware of this fact. LMAO
> 
> BTW it was wiki that characterized those as changes to immigration law. I sure with your brief writing ability you'll have no problem getting the fix that oversight. Also your invocation of Hitler just put your credibility down a few notches.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, easy out.  You didn't like the Hitler reference?  I will give the build the wall guys one thing: they have the people so programmed that people like you automatically try to ridicule the truth.  The* FACT* is, from the genesis to the revelation of your build the wall ideology, it was  *founded*, f*inanced*, and *had its talking points* made by National Socialists.
> 
> Now, you can lie about it or admit that you *REALLY* don't know as much as you claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to name them with credible links and you have to do better than a reprint of some dudes blog that didn't source his numbers.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wish my work were some other guy's blog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read. Your link to The Nation was a reprint from TomDispatch.com. They threw out many numbers with thin or no sourcing.
> 
> Now you're making claims about National Socialist, with no names or sources. Stop using generalize bogymen and buzz words, name names and give sources.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Well where do we start?  Some names and sources.  It would be more amazing if you could watch me in person deliver this from the top of my head, but I can verify it with those all important links that you think will make a difference.  You and I both realize that you'll attack the links, but bear in mind *I AM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE*.  This reflects what I've lived, the people I've known, activities I've participated in, and /or activities I have first hand knowledge of.  The links are simply for your amusement.  Use of their links only proves that certain actions happened.  They do not necessarily mean I believe in or endorse their ideology.

The whole border B.S. of modern starts with David Duke and *Border Watch*.  In the 1970s the neo - nazi who founded his own version of the Ku Klux Klan brought attention to the issue:

That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…

David Duke began rubbing elbows with rich fat cats that were connected to the *Pioneer Fund*.  Since I am persona non grata with the NS, I have to rely on the left to make the connection, but their facts are verifiable:

That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…

Through the Pioneer Fund, David Duke met and became friends with *John Tanton*, a eugenics activist:

 It {John Tanton's organizations}  has funded Anglo-American race scientists as well as anti-immigration groups such as the* Federation for American Immigration Reform* (FAIR)

Pioneer Fund - SourceWatch

John Tanton founded and financed nonprofits like the *Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA*, and a few more that build the wall guys love to cite.

John Tanton - Wikipedia

John Tanton supplied David Duke with his basic talking points when he did the Border Watch thing.  I'd bet Duke still promotes the same rhetoric.

Duke's people went underground with the advent of *Louis Beam* and his efforts to dust off Col. Ulius Louis Amoss old thesis on *Leaderless Resistance*.

*AFTER* the left engineered the events that led up to 9 / 11, they conned the right into supporting the* multi billion dollar* creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security.  I won't document that since you have already claimed that one.  Tea Party Republicans introduced the so - called "Patriot Act",  National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify - ALL of which had been vehemently opposed by conservatives (it was in the days when all right wing organizations were selling Orwell's 1984 novel.)

BTW, as mentioned to you before Russia (communist) was the Motherland, Nazi Germany was the Fatherland and when this immigration issue came to light, America became the Fatherland.

Now, we fast forward to the creation of the current leadership.  John Tanton would be the man responsible for the talking points of the so - called Minutemen - the generation of nazis, inspired by the same man whose talking points appealed to David Duke.

Of those was one of the co - founders, Jim Gilchrist.  Gilchrist was outed from his own organization, but not before being exposed by the left as just a racist:

"Gilchrist and Chris Simcox are widely recognized as the founders of the Minuteman Project."

Jim Gilchrist - Wikipedia

Jim Gilchrist: Discredited & Defunct Minuteman Project Busted for Lies and Defamation

Chris Simcox, Gilchrist's second in command was proven to be a nazi as was Simcox's next in command:

Jim Gilchrist: Discredited & Defunct Minuteman Project Busted for Lies and Defamation

5 of Arizona's Most Notorious  Racists and Their Crimes

Of course by now, if you read your precious links, you realize that one of the founders of the current build a wall - border patrol people J.T. Ready was a mass murderer and the other (Simcox) a pedophile:

Neo-Nazi Killed Family During 911 Call

Then there was neo nazi Shawna Forde, recruited by Jim Gilchrist, another of the major founders and leaders of the political philosophy you follow:

Shawna Forde Sentenced To Death For Double Murder In Arizona | HuffPost

These ARE the movers and shakers of the "movement" to which you challenged me on.  Well... birds of a feather flock together.  And now the build the wall guys can cite John Tanton till Hell freezes over, but they cannot distance themselves from this one truth:  AMERICA HAS AN IMMIGRATION PROBLEM, BUT THE CURRENT CROP OF BUILD THE WALL ADVOCATES ARE THE RESULT OF LOBBYING BY NATIONAL SOCIALISTS.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will hire whomever I like.  But, again, if an American wants a job, you have to apply for it.  You help create a complete class of disenfranchised Americans that now don't want to work and of those that are willing to work, they can't due to their past - which YOU make sure they cannot get beyond.
> 
> You then use their numbers as justification to screw with some pissant foreigner trying to feed their family.  Could you be any more screwed up!
> 
> 
> 
> Sponsor them.  Pay the fees.  Do it legal or not at all.  You are trying to justify breaking the law.  Pound sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I refuse to screw this country any further than you've caused it to be.  The bogus "legal" pretext is code for citizenship.  I don't believe in it.  There is a question you should be asking instead of encouraging me to destroy the last vestiges of our culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baloney
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're are full of it - on that we agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We agree to disagree.  You dont get to pick and choose laws you will Obey.  Hiring illegals is ILLEGAL
Click to expand...


I have no duty to obey an unconstitutional law.  I've already cited the Supreme Court on this point.


----------



## eagle1462010

Daryl Hunt said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> EOIR Announces Largest Ever Immigration Judge Investiture
> 
> *The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) announces the investiture of 46 immigration judges, including two assistant chief immigration judges, marking for the second month in a row the largest class in the agency’s history.*
> 
> “At this point in history your work is vitally important.  The case backlog has reached more than 760,000. Great effort is surely needed,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions at today’s investiture. “This situation is unacceptable. It cannot continue. Our nation’s chief executive supports you and all who strive to make our immigration system work.”
> 
> Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed these new judges after a thorough application process and welcomed them during a ceremony held Sept. 28, 2018. Chief Immigration Judge MaryBeth Keller presided over the investiture held at the Department of Justice’s Great Hall in Washington, D.C.
> 
> “EOIR continues to make great progress in hiring the immigration judges needed to reduce a backlog of more than 760,000 pending immigration court cases,” said James McHenry, Director of EOIR. “Alongside our efforts to improve immigration judge productivity and modernize our information technology systems, growing our immigration judge corps remains a top agency priority.”
> 
> In 2017, Attorney General Sessions announced a “streamlined hiring plan” promoting the use of clear deadlines and efficient hiring processes, resulting in a reduction of 74 percent in the time it takes to onboard immigration judges since then. *Since the end of January 2017, 128 immigration judges have been sworn in. EOIR anticipates two additional hiring classes this fall which will make for over 100 immigration judges hired during 2018.*
> 
> *“EOIR now has 395 immigration judges, an increase of 30 percent since January 2017,”* said McHenry. “While we are pleased to welcome this historic class of judges, we are not done and expect additional hiring before the end of this year.”
> 
> Subject Listing - News Releases & Fact Sheets
> 
> List's all the judges sworn in here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump wanted 449 ........we are at 395.  Now he is looking for another 75.  Ted Cruz wanted to double the number to stop the back log.  Those that say efforts by Trump to get more Judges..........are either MISINFORMED OR LYING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The time stamp on your article is last june.  Since then, it's been offered by the House to increase the budget to get even more judges.  Trump turned it down flat this week.  It's the Wall or nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He hasn't turned it down............he wants more judges............That is Baloney......The Shut down is over the Border Security Funding...........which is a hell of a lot more than more judges............
> 
> He wants them too............stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He turned it down because it didn't give him the 5.3 billion he demands.  It only gives him the 1.6 billion offered by the House.  BTW, according to the law signed into law in 2006, the actual allocation is 1.3 billion per year for expansion, upkeep, etc. for border security.  You honestly believe Congress made that number up to start the negotiation?  In 2006, both the Senate and the House presented the Bill to Bush, Jr who signed it into a law.  And for the last 2 years, that money has NOT been spent on the  expansion and upkeep of the Security Fencing and Walls that are already there.  Bush started the building of the Border Security, Obama Expanded on it.  Between the two of them, the border security Fence/Wall stretches 733 miles.  2 years into office, do you know how many miles the Security Fence/Wall is today?  If you guessed 733 you would be correct.  If you also guess that much of it is in need of repair then you would also be correct.  That 1.3 billion isn't being spent for what it's intended for.  It's supposed to be an automatic Allocation but with the budget not passing, that money cannot be allocated.  You really want to explain why the border security fence/Wall is still 733 miles and much of it is in disrepair?
Click to expand...

Career politicians like Pelosi and Schumer didn't give it enough funding.......PERIOD........If it is in disrepair it happened over time.............Trump's been there 2 years...........and now you want to blame him for the fence they built. 

LOL

Too funny...........It was their responsibility to maintain it...........they didn't..........where it is being repaired......it's to the new standards of construction at 30 feet.................

The Blame game...........LOL

The requests are well documented at CBP site of what projects they want funding for.......Priority based..........but it would be useless for me to spend my time educating you on it because you will not listen........Those requests were put to Congress so they are aware of it too..............

In San Diego...........that project has been asked for ..........for a decade........Trump hasn't been in office for a decade.  LOL

Spin bro........that's all you are doing


----------



## Daryl Hunt

eagle1462010 said:


> Executive Office for Immigration Review Announces Largest Immigration Judge Investiture Since At Least 2010, Hiring Times Reduced by More Than 50%
> 
> *Executive Office for Immigration Review Announces Largest Immigration Judge Investiture Since At Least 2010, Hiring Times Reduced by More Than 50%*
> The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) on Friday held the investiture of 23 new immigration judges, which increases the total number of immigration judges to 351. Since the end of January 2017, 82 immigration judges have been sworn in, and EOIR anticipates three additional hiring classes this fall that will total at least 75 more immigration judges.
> 
> As part of a series of common-sense reforms to the immigration court system, Attorney General Jeff Sessions last year introduced a “streamlined hiring plan” emphasizing clear deadlines for ensuring immigration judge candidates move efficiently through the hiring process. Due to this effort, some of the immigration judges sworn-in on Friday were hired in approximately 266 days, down from an average of 742 days just one year ago.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go.........Disprove that.........LOL



Don't you feel better now.  Now let's look at this one.  23 Judges.  Yes, not 75 like you have claimed.  And Trump was offered as part of the deal to reopen the Government a lot more money for even MORE Judges.  He turned them down flat.  The Wall or Nothing.  I already gave a decent cite on that one and I don't feel like repeating myself over and over again.


----------



## eagle1462010

Daryl Hunt said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf
> 
> 
> _*Invest in Law Enforcement. *_The Budget provides critical resources for DOJ
> 
> to confront terrorism, reduce violent crime, tackle the Nation’s opioid epidemic, and combat illegal immigration. *Additional spending is provided for DOJ to enhance public safety and law enforcement including $214 million above current levels for immigration enforcement—allowing DOJ to hire 75 additional immigration judge teams, bringing the total number of funded immigration judge teams to 449.* In addition, $84 million more is provided for increases in the Federal detainee population. Increases of $188 million are included to address violent and gun-related crime in communities across the Nation and to target transnational criminal organizations and drug traffickers. As part of this increase, $103 million is added to maintain and expand capacity to fight against opioids and other illicit drugs. Further, DOJ will take steps to mitigate the risk that sanctuary jurisdictions pose to public safety.
> 
> It’s not just programs for the poor. Trump’s budget calls for vast changes to government.
> 
> Not all of the budget is red ink, though.
> 
> In its $27.7 billion budget request, the Justice Department asked for $26 million for 300 new prosecutors in U.S. attorney's offices nationwide to support Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s emphasis on targeting violent criminals and prosecuting illegal immigrants. *An additional $75 million was requested for 75 more immigration judges to adjudicate removal proceedings for people in the United States illegally*. About $80 million was sought to fully open an underused federal prison in Thomson, Ill., which was once considered as a possible facility to hold Guantánamo prisoners and would provide the Bureau of Prisons with 1,500 to 2,000 more beds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the title?  It's a Trump PR site that has enough lies in it to choke a healthy horse.  No Government Site would read "A New Foundation For American Greatness"  That whole things is stricken with BS.
> 
> One exception.  It contradicts your figures.  Sessions sent 18 Immigration Judges, not the 75 you are claiming.  And the House already offered to add more money for more Immigration Judges and Prosecutors to the tune of 300 Judges. The good news is that those 300 judges would be temporary.  That would have broken the stalemate on the border.  Mexico is currently deporting those that fail to meet immigration standards into the US back across their own southern border if they won't take a job in Mexico.  The Mexicans are also deporting those that tried to force their way across the  US border as well.  The Mexicans won't allow a 3rd wave cross their borders again.  And they have only a few hundred miles to close up on their southern border and an Army to do it.
> 
> The potential Immigrants already had their 15 minutes of fame.  Now if Trump would just shut up and allow those funds that have been offered above and beyond the 1.3 billion that must be spent on Border Security according to the 2006 Border Security Law then we could get back to business, the Government could reopen and the panic would no longer be there.  But Trump wants us all to stay in a constant state of Panic.  I have a Sister like that and every family has a relative like that that we all avoid like the plaque.  There is a name for that condition but you won't like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baloney..........your lying or you are misinformed.  I just cited the DOJs hiring Immigration Judges............
> 
> Move along or go play in traffic.........your saying shit doesn't refute the facts I post.......buzz off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cited a Trump PR site that happens to be on a Government Server.  Your cite is right up there with the National Inquirer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove the DOJ articles wrong then.............go ahead..........Many listed on the site I gave you............Go ahead and disprove them............
> 
> Waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The site is NOT DOJ.  It's a site that Trump had created to put out his BS.  I imagine that whomever the next President is, whether it be a Dem or a Rep, will take that stupid thing down.  Read the Title of it.  It says it all.  But one thing it's doing is making crap up.  Now get me a DOJ cite and not one by a crackpot that's selling snake oil.
Click to expand...

Subject Listing - News Releases & Fact Sheets

Prove it........show me where that isn't the DOJ immigration court website.........

Good Luck


----------



## eagle1462010

Daryl Hunt said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Executive Office for Immigration Review Announces Largest Immigration Judge Investiture Since At Least 2010, Hiring Times Reduced by More Than 50%
> 
> *Executive Office for Immigration Review Announces Largest Immigration Judge Investiture Since At Least 2010, Hiring Times Reduced by More Than 50%*
> The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) on Friday held the investiture of 23 new immigration judges, which increases the total number of immigration judges to 351. Since the end of January 2017, 82 immigration judges have been sworn in, and EOIR anticipates three additional hiring classes this fall that will total at least 75 more immigration judges.
> 
> As part of a series of common-sense reforms to the immigration court system, Attorney General Jeff Sessions last year introduced a “streamlined hiring plan” emphasizing clear deadlines for ensuring immigration judge candidates move efficiently through the hiring process. Due to this effort, some of the immigration judges sworn-in on Friday were hired in approximately 266 days, down from an average of 742 days just one year ago.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go.........Disprove that.........LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you feel better now.  Now let's look at this one.  23 Judges.  Yes, not 75 like you have claimed.  And Trump was offered as part of the deal to reopen the Government a lot more money for even MORE Judges.  He turned them down flat.  The Wall or Nothing.  I already gave a decent cite on that one and I don't feel like repeating myself over and over again.
Click to expand...

LOL

That was one class graduating to become new judges............another one had 46...............you are off the reservation here.......Give it up.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that was a long article that could be summed up in a few words, "the feds waste money". GO FIGURE! I'm sure the average American is unaware of this fact. LMAO
> 
> BTW it was wiki that characterized those as changes to immigration law. I sure with your brief writing ability you'll have no problem getting the fix that oversight. Also your invocation of Hitler just put your credibility down a few notches.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, easy out.  You didn't like the Hitler reference?  I will give the build the wall guys one thing: they have the people so programmed that people like you automatically try to ridicule the truth.  The* FACT* is, from the genesis to the revelation of your build the wall ideology, it was  *founded*, f*inanced*, and *had its talking points* made by National Socialists.
> 
> 
> Now, you can lie about it or admit that you *REALLY* don't know as much as you claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to name them with credible links and you have to do better than a reprint of some dudes blog that didn't source his numbers.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wish my work were some other guy's blog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read. Your link to The Nation was a reprint from TomDispatch.com. They threw out many numbers with thin or no sourcing.
> 
> Now you're making claims about National Socialist, with no names or sources. Stop using generalize bogymen and buzz words, name names and give sources.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well where do we start?  Some names and sources.  It would be more amazing if you could watch me in person deliver this from the top of my head, but I can verify it with those all important links that you think will make a difference.  You and I both realize that you'll attack the links, but bear in mind *I AM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE*.  This reflects what I've lived, the people I've known, activities I've participated in, and /or activities I have first hand knowledge of.  The links are simply for your amusement.  Use of their links only proves that certain actions happened.  They do not necessarily mean I believe in or endorse their ideology.
> 
> The whole border B.S. of modern starts with David Duke and *Border Watch*.  In the 1970s the neo - nazi who founded his own version of the Ku Klux Klan brought attention to the issue:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> David Duke began rubbing elbows with rich fat cats that were connected to the *Pioneer Fund*.  Since I am persona non grata with the NS, I have to rely on the left to make the connection, but their facts are verifiable:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> Through the Pioneer Fund, David Duke met and became friends with *John Tanton*, a eugenics activist:
> 
> It {John Tanton's organizations}  has funded Anglo-American race scientists as well as anti-immigration groups such as the* Federation for American Immigration Reform* (FAIR)
> 
> Pioneer Fund - SourceWatch
> 
> John Tanton founded and financed nonprofits like the *Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA*, and a few more that build the wall guys love to cite.
> 
> John Tanton - Wikipedia
> 
> John Tanton supplied David Duke with his basic talking points when he did the Border Watch thing.  I'd bet Duke still promotes the same rhetoric.
> 
> Duke's people went underground with the advent of *Louis Beam* and his efforts to dust off Col. Ulius Louis Amoss old thesis on *Leaderless Resistance*.
> 
> *AFTER* the left engineered the events that led up to 9 / 11, they conned the right into supporting the* multi billion dollar* creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security.  I won't document that since you have already claimed that one.  Tea Party Republicans introduced the so - called "Patriot Act",  National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify - ALL of which had been vehemently opposed by conservatives (it was in the days when all right wing organizations were selling Orwell's 1984 novel.)
> 
> BTW, as mentioned to you before Russia (communist) was the Motherland, Nazi Germany was the Fatherland and when this immigration issue came to light, America became the Fatherland.
> 
> Now, we fast forward to the creation of the current leadership.  John Tanton would be the man responsible for the talking points of the so - called Minutemen - the generation of nazis, inspired by the same man whose talking points appealed to David Duke.
> 
> Of those was one of the co - founders, Jim Gilchrist.  Gilchrist was outed from his own organization, but not before being exposed by the left as just a racist:
> 
> "Gilchrist and Chris Simcox are widely recognized as the founders of the Minuteman Project."
> 
> Jim Gilchrist - Wikipedia
> 
> Jim Gilchrist: Discredited & Defunct Minuteman Project Busted for Lies and Defamation
> 
> Chris Simcox, Gilchrist's second in command was proven to be a nazi as was Simcox's next in command:
> 
> Jim Gilchrist: Discredited & Defunct Minuteman Project Busted for Lies and Defamation
> 
> 5 of Arizona's Most Notorious  Racists and Their Crimes
> 
> Of course by now, if you read your precious links, you realize that one of the founders of the current build a wall - border patrol people J.T. Ready was a mass murderer and the other (Simcox) a pedophile:
> 
> Neo-Nazi Killed Family During 911 Call
> 
> Then there was neo nazi Shawna Forde, recruited by Jim Gilchrist, another of the major founders and leaders of the political philosophy you follow:
> 
> Shawna Forde Sentenced To Death For Double Murder In Arizona | HuffPost
> 
> These ARE the movers and shakers of the "movement" to which you challenged me on.  Well... birds of a feather flock together.  And now the build the wall guys can cite John Tanton till Hell freezes over, but they cannot distance themselves from this one truth:  AMERICA HAS AN IMMIGRATION PROBLEM, BUT THE CURRENT CROP OF BUILD THE WALL ADVOCATES ARE THE RESULT OF LOBBYING BY NATIONAL SOCIALISTS.
Click to expand...


Once again, you can call anything a flower even if it smells like horse manure.  The Nationalist Socialists aren't socialists at all.  Fascists maybe, but not Socialists.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

eagle1462010 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Executive Office for Immigration Review Announces Largest Immigration Judge Investiture Since At Least 2010, Hiring Times Reduced by More Than 50%
> 
> *Executive Office for Immigration Review Announces Largest Immigration Judge Investiture Since At Least 2010, Hiring Times Reduced by More Than 50%*
> The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) on Friday held the investiture of 23 new immigration judges, which increases the total number of immigration judges to 351. Since the end of January 2017, 82 immigration judges have been sworn in, and EOIR anticipates three additional hiring classes this fall that will total at least 75 more immigration judges.
> 
> As part of a series of common-sense reforms to the immigration court system, Attorney General Jeff Sessions last year introduced a “streamlined hiring plan” emphasizing clear deadlines for ensuring immigration judge candidates move efficiently through the hiring process. Due to this effort, some of the immigration judges sworn-in on Friday were hired in approximately 266 days, down from an average of 742 days just one year ago.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go.........Disprove that.........LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you feel better now.  Now let's look at this one.  23 Judges.  Yes, not 75 like you have claimed.  And Trump was offered as part of the deal to reopen the Government a lot more money for even MORE Judges.  He turned them down flat.  The Wall or Nothing.  I already gave a decent cite on that one and I don't feel like repeating myself over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That was one class graduating to become new judges............another one had 46...............you are off the reservation here.......Give it up.
Click to expand...


Only 23 new slots have been created.  What you think is additions are to replace those that have left the bench.  Sessions only created 23 new slots.  And those slots had to come through Congress to be appointed.  The Executive Branch does not appoint federal Judges.  In order to increase the allocated slots, it would take an increase in the funding.  And guess who controls that funding?  Take a wild guess.  And they offered to increase funding but Trump, yesterday, turned them down flat because it would be part of the Budget that he won't sign.  It's the Wall or nothing.  Guess we get nothing.


----------



## eagle1462010

Daryl Hunt said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Executive Office for Immigration Review Announces Largest Immigration Judge Investiture Since At Least 2010, Hiring Times Reduced by More Than 50%
> 
> *Executive Office for Immigration Review Announces Largest Immigration Judge Investiture Since At Least 2010, Hiring Times Reduced by More Than 50%*
> The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) on Friday held the investiture of 23 new immigration judges, which increases the total number of immigration judges to 351. Since the end of January 2017, 82 immigration judges have been sworn in, and EOIR anticipates three additional hiring classes this fall that will total at least 75 more immigration judges.
> 
> As part of a series of common-sense reforms to the immigration court system, Attorney General Jeff Sessions last year introduced a “streamlined hiring plan” emphasizing clear deadlines for ensuring immigration judge candidates move efficiently through the hiring process. Due to this effort, some of the immigration judges sworn-in on Friday were hired in approximately 266 days, down from an average of 742 days just one year ago.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go.........Disprove that.........LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you feel better now.  Now let's look at this one.  23 Judges.  Yes, not 75 like you have claimed.  And Trump was offered as part of the deal to reopen the Government a lot more money for even MORE Judges.  He turned them down flat.  The Wall or Nothing.  I already gave a decent cite on that one and I don't feel like repeating myself over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That was one class graduating to become new judges............another one had 46...............you are off the reservation here.......Give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only 23 new slots have been created.  What you think is additions are to replace those that have left the bench.  Sessions only created 23 new slots.  And those slots had to come through Congress to be appointed.  The Executive Branch does not appoint federal Judges.  In order to increase the allocated slots, it would take an increase in the funding.  And guess who controls that funding?  Take a wild guess.  And they offered to increase funding but Trump, yesterday, turned them down flat because it would be part of the Budget that he won't sign.  It's the Wall or nothing.  Guess we get nothing.
Click to expand...

All those other judges just vanished...............LOL

Buzz off................Pony the fuck up on the funding...........or the Gov't stays shut down.

You LIED..........I called............buzz off.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

eagle1462010 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the title?  It's a Trump PR site that has enough lies in it to choke a healthy horse.  No Government Site would read "A New Foundation For American Greatness"  That whole things is stricken with BS.
> 
> One exception.  It contradicts your figures.  Sessions sent 18 Immigration Judges, not the 75 you are claiming.  And the House already offered to add more money for more Immigration Judges and Prosecutors to the tune of 300 Judges. The good news is that those 300 judges would be temporary.  That would have broken the stalemate on the border.  Mexico is currently deporting those that fail to meet immigration standards into the US back across their own southern border if they won't take a job in Mexico.  The Mexicans are also deporting those that tried to force their way across the  US border as well.  The Mexicans won't allow a 3rd wave cross their borders again.  And they have only a few hundred miles to close up on their southern border and an Army to do it.
> 
> The potential Immigrants already had their 15 minutes of fame.  Now if Trump would just shut up and allow those funds that have been offered above and beyond the 1.3 billion that must be spent on Border Security according to the 2006 Border Security Law then we could get back to business, the Government could reopen and the panic would no longer be there.  But Trump wants us all to stay in a constant state of Panic.  I have a Sister like that and every family has a relative like that that we all avoid like the plaque.  There is a name for that condition but you won't like it.
> 
> 
> 
> Baloney..........your lying or you are misinformed.  I just cited the DOJs hiring Immigration Judges............
> 
> Move along or go play in traffic.........your saying shit doesn't refute the facts I post.......buzz off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cited a Trump PR site that happens to be on a Government Server.  Your cite is right up there with the National Inquirer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove the DOJ articles wrong then.............go ahead..........Many listed on the site I gave you............Go ahead and disprove them............
> 
> Waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The site is NOT DOJ.  It's a site that Trump had created to put out his BS.  I imagine that whomever the next President is, whether it be a Dem or a Rep, will take that stupid thing down.  Read the Title of it.  It says it all.  But one thing it's doing is making crap up.  Now get me a DOJ cite and not one by a crackpot that's selling snake oil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject Listing - News Releases & Fact Sheets
> 
> Prove it........show me where that isn't the DOJ immigration court website.........
> 
> Good Luck
Click to expand...


Using your own cite, I stopped counting at 189 judges being sworn in under Sessions.  If that were the case, and all of them were additions then there would be more than enough judges to handle the load.  Most of them were appointed (by congress) to cover replacements.  Now, prove to me which ones are additions and which ones were replacements.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

eagle1462010 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Executive Office for Immigration Review Announces Largest Immigration Judge Investiture Since At Least 2010, Hiring Times Reduced by More Than 50%
> 
> *Executive Office for Immigration Review Announces Largest Immigration Judge Investiture Since At Least 2010, Hiring Times Reduced by More Than 50%*
> The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) on Friday held the investiture of 23 new immigration judges, which increases the total number of immigration judges to 351. Since the end of January 2017, 82 immigration judges have been sworn in, and EOIR anticipates three additional hiring classes this fall that will total at least 75 more immigration judges.
> 
> As part of a series of common-sense reforms to the immigration court system, Attorney General Jeff Sessions last year introduced a “streamlined hiring plan” emphasizing clear deadlines for ensuring immigration judge candidates move efficiently through the hiring process. Due to this effort, some of the immigration judges sworn-in on Friday were hired in approximately 266 days, down from an average of 742 days just one year ago.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go.........Disprove that.........LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you feel better now.  Now let's look at this one.  23 Judges.  Yes, not 75 like you have claimed.  And Trump was offered as part of the deal to reopen the Government a lot more money for even MORE Judges.  He turned them down flat.  The Wall or Nothing.  I already gave a decent cite on that one and I don't feel like repeating myself over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That was one class graduating to become new judges............another one had 46...............you are off the reservation here.......Give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only 23 new slots have been created.  What you think is additions are to replace those that have left the bench.  Sessions only created 23 new slots.  And those slots had to come through Congress to be appointed.  The Executive Branch does not appoint federal Judges.  In order to increase the allocated slots, it would take an increase in the funding.  And guess who controls that funding?  Take a wild guess.  And they offered to increase funding but Trump, yesterday, turned them down flat because it would be part of the Budget that he won't sign.  It's the Wall or nothing.  Guess we get nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those other judges just vanished...............LOL
> 
> Buzz off................Pony the fuck up on the funding...........or the Gov't stays shut down.
> 
> You LIED..........I called............buzz off.
Click to expand...


Actually, there were over 200 judges appointed (by congress) but sworn in by Sessions during 2017 and 2018.  I stopped tallying after 189.  Now, you tell me which ones were additions and which ones were replacements?  And this has ZERO to do with some Sociopath that wants to call himself President keeping the Government Closed and a Piece of Crap Speaker of the House that refuses to allow the House Bill to go to the Senate Floor where it would pass.  It was announced today that the bill would carry over 90 votes in the Senate.  But the POS won't allow it onto the open floor.  Congress could easily do a 2/3rds veto proof bill all but for one person.


----------



## eagle1462010

Sessions Welcomes 44 New US Immigration Judges

Though Sessions lauded the large number of incoming immigration judges, he warned them of the intense workload they would bear.

"I do not apologize for expecting you to perform at a high level, efficiently and effectively," he said. "Many of the cases present complex legal issues, but like anyone acting as a judge, you must manage your docket and support staff well. Cases must be moved to conclusion."

*The Department of Justice received funding for 100 new immigration judges and their teams during the 2018 fiscal year. With the new class, there are currently 351 immigration judges in the department, still less than the 384 allocated in the current budget. The Justice Department has requested funding for 150 new attorneys for the fiscal year beginning October 1*.



The Budget I showed earlier, which I'm sure you didn't look at, asked for a total of 449 immigration judges...............by Trump.....we are at 351........he was looking for more than that in his first year.......

You stated he didn't want more judges which is utter BS.

They offered another 100 immigration judges in the new CR..........he requested 150 to bring the number to 534 after the other positions are filled..............which would be an increase in judges of roughly 234 during his term.....Subtract 50 .......that they aren't allowing.........LOL


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Daryl Hunt said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, easy out.  You didn't like the Hitler reference?  I will give the build the wall guys one thing: they have the people so programmed that people like you automatically try to ridicule the truth.  The* FACT* is, from the genesis to the revelation of your build the wall ideology, it was  *founded*, f*inanced*, and *had its talking points* made by National Socialists.
> 
> 
> Now, you can lie about it or admit that you *REALLY* don't know as much as you claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to name them with credible links and you have to do better than a reprint of some dudes blog that didn't source his numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wish my work were some other guy's blog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read. Your link to The Nation was a reprint from TomDispatch.com. They threw out many numbers with thin or no sourcing.
> 
> Now you're making claims about National Socialist, with no names or sources. Stop using generalize bogymen and buzz words, name names and give sources.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well where do we start?  Some names and sources.  It would be more amazing if you could watch me in person deliver this from the top of my head, but I can verify it with those all important links that you think will make a difference.  You and I both realize that you'll attack the links, but bear in mind *I AM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE*.  This reflects what I've lived, the people I've known, activities I've participated in, and /or activities I have first hand knowledge of.  The links are simply for your amusement.  Use of their links only proves that certain actions happened.  They do not necessarily mean I believe in or endorse their ideology.
> 
> The whole border B.S. of modern starts with David Duke and *Border Watch*.  In the 1970s the neo - nazi who founded his own version of the Ku Klux Klan brought attention to the issue:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> David Duke began rubbing elbows with rich fat cats that were connected to the *Pioneer Fund*.  Since I am persona non grata with the NS, I have to rely on the left to make the connection, but their facts are verifiable:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> Through the Pioneer Fund, David Duke met and became friends with *John Tanton*, a eugenics activist:
> 
> It {John Tanton's organizations}  has funded Anglo-American race scientists as well as anti-immigration groups such as the* Federation for American Immigration Reform* (FAIR)
> 
> Pioneer Fund - SourceWatch
> 
> John Tanton founded and financed nonprofits like the *Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA*, and a few more that build the wall guys love to cite.
> 
> John Tanton - Wikipedia
> 
> John Tanton supplied David Duke with his basic talking points when he did the Border Watch thing.  I'd bet Duke still promotes the same rhetoric.
> 
> Duke's people went underground with the advent of *Louis Beam* and his efforts to dust off Col. Ulius Louis Amoss old thesis on *Leaderless Resistance*.
> 
> *AFTER* the left engineered the events that led up to 9 / 11, they conned the right into supporting the* multi billion dollar* creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security.  I won't document that since you have already claimed that one.  Tea Party Republicans introduced the so - called "Patriot Act",  National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify - ALL of which had been vehemently opposed by conservatives (it was in the days when all right wing organizations were selling Orwell's 1984 novel.)
> 
> BTW, as mentioned to you before Russia (communist) was the Motherland, Nazi Germany was the Fatherland and when this immigration issue came to light, America became the Fatherland.
> 
> Now, we fast forward to the creation of the current leadership.  John Tanton would be the man responsible for the talking points of the so - called Minutemen - the generation of nazis, inspired by the same man whose talking points appealed to David Duke.
> 
> Of those was one of the co - founders, Jim Gilchrist.  Gilchrist was outed from his own organization, but not before being exposed by the left as just a racist:
> 
> "Gilchrist and Chris Simcox are widely recognized as the founders of the Minuteman Project."
> 
> Jim Gilchrist - Wikipedia
> 
> Jim Gilchrist: Discredited & Defunct Minuteman Project Busted for Lies and Defamation
> 
> Chris Simcox, Gilchrist's second in command was proven to be a nazi as was Simcox's next in command:
> 
> Jim Gilchrist: Discredited & Defunct Minuteman Project Busted for Lies and Defamation
> 
> 5 of Arizona's Most Notorious  Racists and Their Crimes
> 
> Of course by now, if you read your precious links, you realize that one of the founders of the current build a wall - border patrol people J.T. Ready was a mass murderer and the other (Simcox) a pedophile:
> 
> Neo-Nazi Killed Family During 911 Call
> 
> Then there was neo nazi Shawna Forde, recruited by Jim Gilchrist, another of the major founders and leaders of the political philosophy you follow:
> 
> Shawna Forde Sentenced To Death For Double Murder In Arizona | HuffPost
> 
> These ARE the movers and shakers of the "movement" to which you challenged me on.  Well... birds of a feather flock together.  And now the build the wall guys can cite John Tanton till Hell freezes over, but they cannot distance themselves from this one truth:  AMERICA HAS AN IMMIGRATION PROBLEM, BUT THE CURRENT CROP OF BUILD THE WALL ADVOCATES ARE THE RESULT OF LOBBYING BY NATIONAL SOCIALISTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you can call anything a flower even if it smells like horse manure.  The Nationalist Socialists aren't socialists at all.  Fascists maybe, but not Socialists.
Click to expand...


I call them????  Some of you guys need to leave the hard core drugs alone and pay attention.  The people I cited SELF DESCRIBED themselves either directly and / or by lending their name to associations that call themselves nazi.

To me, I don't give a rip.  *THE SOLUTIONS PROFFERED BY THE BUILD THE WALL GUYS WERE COOKED UP BY NATIONAL SOCIALISTS*.

In what language do I have to post that in for you to understand.  I admit, agree, concede, believe - whatever it takes to make dumb ass build the wallers acknowledge I understand there is an immigration debacle?  I simply disagree with the *proposed socialist solutions*.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

eagle1462010 said:


> Sessions Welcomes 44 New US Immigration Judges
> 
> Though Sessions lauded the large number of incoming immigration judges, he warned them of the intense workload they would bear.
> 
> "I do not apologize for expecting you to perform at a high level, efficiently and effectively," he said. "Many of the cases present complex legal issues, but like anyone acting as a judge, you must manage your docket and support staff well. Cases must be moved to conclusion."
> 
> *The Department of Justice received funding for 100 new immigration judges and their teams during the 2018 fiscal year. With the new class, there are currently 351 immigration judges in the department, still less than the 384 allocated in the current budget. The Justice Department has requested funding for 150 new attorneys for the fiscal year beginning October 1*.



They can request till they're blue in the face.  No Budget, no Judges.  NO support staff, no court reporters, etc..  Right now, there is only two people that are tying up the proposed House Budget.  Trump with his Veto and that POS Majority Leader in the Senate not allowing it to reach the open floor for vote.  It was announced that over 90 Senators would vote in favor of it in the Senate to break the logjam.  And it does have the funds for the increases in Immigration Judges and staff as well as 1.6 billion for Border Security.  The system is broken when only two people can hold the nation up for ransom.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Porter Rockwell said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to name them with credible links and you have to do better than a reprint of some dudes blog that didn't source his numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wish my work were some other guy's blog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read. Your link to The Nation was a reprint from TomDispatch.com. They threw out many numbers with thin or no sourcing.
> 
> Now you're making claims about National Socialist, with no names or sources. Stop using generalize bogymen and buzz words, name names and give sources.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well where do we start?  Some names and sources.  It would be more amazing if you could watch me in person deliver this from the top of my head, but I can verify it with those all important links that you think will make a difference.  You and I both realize that you'll attack the links, but bear in mind *I AM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE*.  This reflects what I've lived, the people I've known, activities I've participated in, and /or activities I have first hand knowledge of.  The links are simply for your amusement.  Use of their links only proves that certain actions happened.  They do not necessarily mean I believe in or endorse their ideology.
> 
> The whole border B.S. of modern starts with David Duke and *Border Watch*.  In the 1970s the neo - nazi who founded his own version of the Ku Klux Klan brought attention to the issue:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> David Duke began rubbing elbows with rich fat cats that were connected to the *Pioneer Fund*.  Since I am persona non grata with the NS, I have to rely on the left to make the connection, but their facts are verifiable:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> Through the Pioneer Fund, David Duke met and became friends with *John Tanton*, a eugenics activist:
> 
> It {John Tanton's organizations}  has funded Anglo-American race scientists as well as anti-immigration groups such as the* Federation for American Immigration Reform* (FAIR)
> 
> Pioneer Fund - SourceWatch
> 
> John Tanton founded and financed nonprofits like the *Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA*, and a few more that build the wall guys love to cite.
> 
> John Tanton - Wikipedia
> 
> John Tanton supplied David Duke with his basic talking points when he did the Border Watch thing.  I'd bet Duke still promotes the same rhetoric.
> 
> Duke's people went underground with the advent of *Louis Beam* and his efforts to dust off Col. Ulius Louis Amoss old thesis on *Leaderless Resistance*.
> 
> *AFTER* the left engineered the events that led up to 9 / 11, they conned the right into supporting the* multi billion dollar* creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security.  I won't document that since you have already claimed that one.  Tea Party Republicans introduced the so - called "Patriot Act",  National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify - ALL of which had been vehemently opposed by conservatives (it was in the days when all right wing organizations were selling Orwell's 1984 novel.)
> 
> BTW, as mentioned to you before Russia (communist) was the Motherland, Nazi Germany was the Fatherland and when this immigration issue came to light, America became the Fatherland.
> 
> Now, we fast forward to the creation of the current leadership.  John Tanton would be the man responsible for the talking points of the so - called Minutemen - the generation of nazis, inspired by the same man whose talking points appealed to David Duke.
> 
> Of those was one of the co - founders, Jim Gilchrist.  Gilchrist was outed from his own organization, but not before being exposed by the left as just a racist:
> 
> "Gilchrist and Chris Simcox are widely recognized as the founders of the Minuteman Project."
> 
> Jim Gilchrist - Wikipedia
> 
> Jim Gilchrist: Discredited & Defunct Minuteman Project Busted for Lies and Defamation
> 
> Chris Simcox, Gilchrist's second in command was proven to be a nazi as was Simcox's next in command:
> 
> Jim Gilchrist: Discredited & Defunct Minuteman Project Busted for Lies and Defamation
> 
> 5 of Arizona's Most Notorious  Racists and Their Crimes
> 
> Of course by now, if you read your precious links, you realize that one of the founders of the current build a wall - border patrol people J.T. Ready was a mass murderer and the other (Simcox) a pedophile:
> 
> Neo-Nazi Killed Family During 911 Call
> 
> Then there was neo nazi Shawna Forde, recruited by Jim Gilchrist, another of the major founders and leaders of the political philosophy you follow:
> 
> Shawna Forde Sentenced To Death For Double Murder In Arizona | HuffPost
> 
> These ARE the movers and shakers of the "movement" to which you challenged me on.  Well... birds of a feather flock together.  And now the build the wall guys can cite John Tanton till Hell freezes over, but they cannot distance themselves from this one truth:  AMERICA HAS AN IMMIGRATION PROBLEM, BUT THE CURRENT CROP OF BUILD THE WALL ADVOCATES ARE THE RESULT OF LOBBYING BY NATIONAL SOCIALISTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you can call anything a flower even if it smells like horse manure.  The Nationalist Socialists aren't socialists at all.  Fascists maybe, but not Socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call them????  Some of you guys need to leave the hard core drugs alone and pay attention.  The people I cited SELF DESCRIBED themselves either directly and / or by lending their name to associations that call themselves nazi.
> 
> To me, I don't give a rip.  *THE SOLUTIONS PROFFERED BY THE BUILD THE WALL GUYS WERE COOKED UP BY NATIONAL SOCIALISTS*.
> 
> In what language do I have to post that in for you to understand.  I admit, agree, concede, believe - whatever it takes to make dumb ass build the wallers acknowledge I understand there is an immigration debacle?  I simply disagree with the *proposed socialist solutions*.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that Trump and the Senate Majority Leader are both Socialists?


----------



## eagle1462010

Daryl Hunt said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sessions Welcomes 44 New US Immigration Judges
> 
> Though Sessions lauded the large number of incoming immigration judges, he warned them of the intense workload they would bear.
> 
> "I do not apologize for expecting you to perform at a high level, efficiently and effectively," he said. "Many of the cases present complex legal issues, but like anyone acting as a judge, you must manage your docket and support staff well. Cases must be moved to conclusion."
> 
> *The Department of Justice received funding for 100 new immigration judges and their teams during the 2018 fiscal year. With the new class, there are currently 351 immigration judges in the department, still less than the 384 allocated in the current budget. The Justice Department has requested funding for 150 new attorneys for the fiscal year beginning October 1*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can request till they're blue in the face.  No Budget, no Judges.  NO support staff, no court reporters, etc..  Right now, there is only two people that are tying up the proposed House Budget.  Trump with his Veto and that POS Majority Leader in the Senate not allowing it to reach the open floor for vote.  It was announced that over 90 Senators would vote in favor of it in the Senate to break the logjam.  And it does have the funds for the increases in Immigration Judges and staff as well as 1.6 billion for Border Security.  The system is broken when only two people can hold the nation up for ransom.
Click to expand...

50 less than requested..............And you said he didn't want them...........You lied....

Name the 90 Senators that are ready to fold.........back up your comments for once.............

Trump WILL VETO IT...............and you don't have the numbers there....................


----------



## Daryl Hunt

eagle1462010 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sessions Welcomes 44 New US Immigration Judges
> 
> Though Sessions lauded the large number of incoming immigration judges, he warned them of the intense workload they would bear.
> 
> "I do not apologize for expecting you to perform at a high level, efficiently and effectively," he said. "Many of the cases present complex legal issues, but like anyone acting as a judge, you must manage your docket and support staff well. Cases must be moved to conclusion."
> 
> *The Department of Justice received funding for 100 new immigration judges and their teams during the 2018 fiscal year. With the new class, there are currently 351 immigration judges in the department, still less than the 384 allocated in the current budget. The Justice Department has requested funding for 150 new attorneys for the fiscal year beginning October 1*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can request till they're blue in the face.  No Budget, no Judges.  NO support staff, no court reporters, etc..  Right now, there is only two people that are tying up the proposed House Budget.  Trump with his Veto and that POS Majority Leader in the Senate not allowing it to reach the open floor for vote.  It was announced that over 90 Senators would vote in favor of it in the Senate to break the logjam.  And it does have the funds for the increases in Immigration Judges and staff as well as 1.6 billion for Border Security.  The system is broken when only two people can hold the nation up for ransom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 50 less than requested..............And you said he didn't want them...........You lied....
> 
> Name the 90 Senators that are ready to fold.........back up your comments for once.............
> 
> Trump WILL VETO IT...............and you don't have the numbers there....................
Click to expand...


It came out in the news today.  But also that the House Majority Leader refused to allow it go to the open floor.


----------



## eagle1462010

Daryl Hunt said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sessions Welcomes 44 New US Immigration Judges
> 
> Though Sessions lauded the large number of incoming immigration judges, he warned them of the intense workload they would bear.
> 
> "I do not apologize for expecting you to perform at a high level, efficiently and effectively," he said. "Many of the cases present complex legal issues, but like anyone acting as a judge, you must manage your docket and support staff well. Cases must be moved to conclusion."
> 
> *The Department of Justice received funding for 100 new immigration judges and their teams during the 2018 fiscal year. With the new class, there are currently 351 immigration judges in the department, still less than the 384 allocated in the current budget. The Justice Department has requested funding for 150 new attorneys for the fiscal year beginning October 1*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can request till they're blue in the face.  No Budget, no Judges.  NO support staff, no court reporters, etc..  Right now, there is only two people that are tying up the proposed House Budget.  Trump with his Veto and that POS Majority Leader in the Senate not allowing it to reach the open floor for vote.  It was announced that over 90 Senators would vote in favor of it in the Senate to break the logjam.  And it does have the funds for the increases in Immigration Judges and staff as well as 1.6 billion for Border Security.  The system is broken when only two people can hold the nation up for ransom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 50 less than requested..............And you said he didn't want them...........You lied....
> 
> Name the 90 Senators that are ready to fold.........back up your comments for once.............
> 
> Trump WILL VETO IT...............and you don't have the numbers there....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It came out in the news today.  But also that the House Majority Leader refused to allow it go to the open floor.
Click to expand...

Elections have consequences...............Dems don't have the House...........too bad.............

5.6 Billion isn't jack squat to the overall Federal Budget..............compared to the BS they spend on all the time........Pony the fuck up or it stays down.


----------



## skye




----------



## Daryl Hunt

eagle1462010 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sessions Welcomes 44 New US Immigration Judges
> 
> Though Sessions lauded the large number of incoming immigration judges, he warned them of the intense workload they would bear.
> 
> "I do not apologize for expecting you to perform at a high level, efficiently and effectively," he said. "Many of the cases present complex legal issues, but like anyone acting as a judge, you must manage your docket and support staff well. Cases must be moved to conclusion."
> 
> *The Department of Justice received funding for 100 new immigration judges and their teams during the 2018 fiscal year. With the new class, there are currently 351 immigration judges in the department, still less than the 384 allocated in the current budget. The Justice Department has requested funding for 150 new attorneys for the fiscal year beginning October 1*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can request till they're blue in the face.  No Budget, no Judges.  NO support staff, no court reporters, etc..  Right now, there is only two people that are tying up the proposed House Budget.  Trump with his Veto and that POS Majority Leader in the Senate not allowing it to reach the open floor for vote.  It was announced that over 90 Senators would vote in favor of it in the Senate to break the logjam.  And it does have the funds for the increases in Immigration Judges and staff as well as 1.6 billion for Border Security.  The system is broken when only two people can hold the nation up for ransom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 50 less than requested..............And you said he didn't want them...........You lied....
> 
> Name the 90 Senators that are ready to fold.........back up your comments for once.............
> 
> Trump WILL VETO IT...............and you don't have the numbers there....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It came out in the news today.  But also that the House Majority Leader refused to allow it go to the open floor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Elections have consequences...............Dems don't have the House...........too bad.............
> 
> 5.6 Billion isn't jack squat to the overall Federal Budget..............compared to the BS they spend on all the time........Pony the fuck up or it stays down.
Click to expand...


Dems have the House and the Senate is getting real worried about 2020.  The general public isn't buying the Trump Snake Oil on this one.  The next step might be a change in the Senate Majority Leader to break the stalemate.


----------



## eagle1462010

Daryl Hunt said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sessions Welcomes 44 New US Immigration Judges
> 
> Though Sessions lauded the large number of incoming immigration judges, he warned them of the intense workload they would bear.
> 
> "I do not apologize for expecting you to perform at a high level, efficiently and effectively," he said. "Many of the cases present complex legal issues, but like anyone acting as a judge, you must manage your docket and support staff well. Cases must be moved to conclusion."
> 
> *The Department of Justice received funding for 100 new immigration judges and their teams during the 2018 fiscal year. With the new class, there are currently 351 immigration judges in the department, still less than the 384 allocated in the current budget. The Justice Department has requested funding for 150 new attorneys for the fiscal year beginning October 1*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can request till they're blue in the face.  No Budget, no Judges.  NO support staff, no court reporters, etc..  Right now, there is only two people that are tying up the proposed House Budget.  Trump with his Veto and that POS Majority Leader in the Senate not allowing it to reach the open floor for vote.  It was announced that over 90 Senators would vote in favor of it in the Senate to break the logjam.  And it does have the funds for the increases in Immigration Judges and staff as well as 1.6 billion for Border Security.  The system is broken when only two people can hold the nation up for ransom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 50 less than requested..............And you said he didn't want them...........You lied....
> 
> Name the 90 Senators that are ready to fold.........back up your comments for once.............
> 
> Trump WILL VETO IT...............and you don't have the numbers there....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It came out in the news today.  But also that the House Majority Leader refused to allow it go to the open floor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Elections have consequences...............Dems don't have the House...........too bad.............
> 
> 5.6 Billion isn't jack squat to the overall Federal Budget..............compared to the BS they spend on all the time........Pony the fuck up or it stays down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dems have the House and the Senate is getting real worried about 2020.  The general public isn't buying the Trump Snake Oil on this one.  The next step might be a change in the Senate Majority Leader to break the stalemate.
Click to expand...

You are flat out wrong...........Border Security is high in the minds of the people when it's time to vote...............Why the Dems act tough on it come election time............their actions don't do the same.........

They have been backed into a corner and now their true colors are coming out..........They DON'T WANT BORDER SECURITY.


----------



## H B Lowrie

skye said:


>




MS-13 was founded/organized in america love.

*Arrests For Illegal Border Crossings Hit 46-Year Low*
December 5, 201711:10 AM ET
Arrests For Illegal Border Crossings Hit 46-Year Low


----------



## H B Lowrie

eagle1462010 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can request till they're blue in the face.  No Budget, no Judges.  NO support staff, no court reporters, etc..  Right now, there is only two people that are tying up the proposed House Budget.  Trump with his Veto and that POS Majority Leader in the Senate not allowing it to reach the open floor for vote.  It was announced that over 90 Senators would vote in favor of it in the Senate to break the logjam.  And it does have the funds for the increases in Immigration Judges and staff as well as 1.6 billion for Border Security.  The system is broken when only two people can hold the nation up for ransom.
> 
> 
> 
> 50 less than requested..............And you said he didn't want them...........You lied....
> 
> Name the 90 Senators that are ready to fold.........back up your comments for once.............
> 
> Trump WILL VETO IT...............and you don't have the numbers there....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It came out in the news today.  But also that the House Majority Leader refused to allow it go to the open floor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Elections have consequences...............Dems don't have the House...........too bad.............
> 
> 5.6 Billion isn't jack squat to the overall Federal Budget..............compared to the BS they spend on all the time........Pony the fuck up or it stays down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dems have the House and the Senate is getting real worried about 2020.  The general public isn't buying the Trump Snake Oil on this one.  The next step might be a change in the Senate Majority Leader to break the stalemate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are flat out wrong...........Border Security is high in the minds of the people when it's time to vote...............Why the Dems act tough on it come election time............their actions don't do the same.........
> 
> They have been backed into a corner and now their true colors are coming out..........They DON'T WANT BORDER SECURITY.
Click to expand...

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn, ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......................................

"Illegals" would never have been here without the requests, lobbying, cajoling, and think tank drafted legislative efforts of your Wall Street/donor/"job creator" class OR without the consumption efforts and spending behaviors of all of the rest of us.

Get real.


----------



## dblack

skye said:


>



Ooooh! I'm afraid! They clearly have no taste in tattoos.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

skye said:


>



The problem is, the Walls will only stop a small percentage of the illegal drugs coming in.  Here is how the majority of the drugs come in.

1.  Mixed in with legal cargo in Semis through the border crossings.  Maybe 20,000 lbs at a time

2.  Hidden places in other vehicles like light trucks and Vans through the border Crossings.  They look for cars and trucks riding sort of low but the bad guys beef up the suspension to make them appear empty.  We are talking about 500 lbs or more.

3.  Transported through tunnels 40 feet below the ground under the border  There has been over  240 tunnels with lights, ventilation capable of driving light trucks through them discovered in the San Diego area alone.  The daily output will be in Tonnage not Lbs or Kilos.

4.  Hidden in shipping containers coming in through the sea ports.  This is measured by Tonnage, not lbs or Kilo.

5.  Illegal Flights where they know the Aircraft will be found and impounded but with 80,000 lbs of cargo whisked away before the DEA can get to that bird, they really don't care.  There are hundreds of WWII DC-3 Era Cargo Planes throughout South America that can be had cheap.  So what if it get's seized as long as they get the drugs out of it before the DEA bags it.  Maybe, they can even take off again and head back south with it.  The Caribbean Islands don't have a problem refueling them.

6.  Private Boats and Ships including Submarines.  We aren't talking about 10 or 20 or even 50 lbs.  We are talking about tons.  

7.  Then there is the bargain basement that's been caught on surveillance camera where they toss kilo bundles across the Wall or Fence and someone on the other side catches it and gets the hell out of there.  This is not the preferred method since it might only do 200 lbs or so at a time.  But on a dry day, it might be worth it.

You are talking about the drug mules.  They are pretty well a thing of the past.  Besides, that extra 4 kilos of weight is better served carrying survival things like water, food and a warm blanket.  Anyone trying to make a few bucks by being a drug mule is just too stupid to succeed except in a very, very minor exception.  Now, those might be slowed down by your wall but they won't be stopped.  

How to defeat a wall without anything else.

1.  If it's a 30 or a 50 foot wall, bring a collapsible 31 or 51 foot ladder.  They are already doing this with the 20 foot walls.  Make sure you have a blanket to throw over the barbed wire at the top.  And enough rope to tie off so you can transverse down to the ground.  If you doubt this works, ask any convict.  

2.  If it's made out of Steel Slats bring a portable Blow Torch.  I own one of those myself.  

3.  Bring a Shovel, Pick, a bucket and some shoring materials.  If the wall is buried 5 feet, go down 6. If, like the Trump wall, it goes down 10 feet, go down 11.  If they built the wall out in the middle of nowhere, just dig at the base, tunnel barely under it and up the other side. No shoring required.  Seeing that the Desert is made up of sand and soft clay, you shouln't be more than a couple of hours if you bring friends.

4.  Learn the Snorkel Dive.  Self Explanatory.  In my younger days, a 12 mile swim was more than a little possible if I had the right equipment.  

5.  Seeing as I used to live in the back country in the Mountains of Colorado and was 50 years younger, I could come in through the Rocky Mountain Chain.  They call it something else but that's exactly what it is really.  And there will be NO sensors, no Border Patrol, no Fences and certainly NO Walls.  Chances of a normal person making it that way is almost zero.

There are two most effective border security systems that work, boots on the ground and sensors.  In places you can't have sensors, have boots on the ground because that is the MOST effective method.

Now, tell me that if I were even 30 years younger that the wall would stop me.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell —
> “You're probably right. *I've only been involved in court cases* surrounding the 14th Amendment for 35 or so years and *have written maybe 250 court briefs* on the topic.“
> 
> You are the liar, and I can point to the exact page reference if you like. Don’t think I will ever ease up on your “claims” of your apparent knowledge (laughable) of the Constitution.
> 
> If you read the Supreme Court case - *Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875) *it clearly gives reason and support to Congress having the authority OVER the state surrounding the issue of immigration.
> 
> You can play the clueless ignorant if you like.  As I have said, I’ve done the research FAR more than you on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still doesn't say what you claim, does it?
> 
> I clearly read Chy Lung many times.  The defendants did not petition the Court for any ruling on the jurisdiction of federal over states rights on immigration.
> 
> Yeah, bro.  You're a legend in your own mind that puffs himself up and attempts to make his case on the basis of lies and flat out misinterpretations of the facts.  I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
> 
> If the day ever comes that you and I meet face to face around people we both know, they are going to laugh at you so hard, you'll *NEVER* post again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it DOES say clearly that the state does not have authority on the issue of immigration, but that Congress does OVER the state.  Right there in red for anyone to see.
> 
> *“ has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to LEAVE IT IN THE POWER OF THE STATES TO PASS LAWS WHOSE ENFORCEMENT RENDERS THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT LIABLE to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?*
> 
> *The passage of LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE ADMISSION OF CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS TO OUR SHORES BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND NOT TO THE STATES. *“
> 
> 
> How about you try showing some backed up RESEARCH on this thread.  I don’t know what more I can do as the decision and views of a Supreme Court Justice is crystal clear with little room of a “grey area”. (some with an emphasis of bold and red).  To be honest you haven’t proven a thing contrary to THEIR interpretation of the Constitution regarding immigration.  No RESEARCH rebuttals, no detailed historic opinions of Court cases - nothing.
> 
> Instead I get this “meet you out in the parking lot after school” kind of public crap. Now if you care to bring yourself down to reliving some child-like adolescence ... no one here is really interested in your childish antics.  Seriously ... Grow up bud, this is a political thread forum for more mature adults than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn son, you *ARE* stupid.  I'm not disputing what the SCOTUS ruled.  It's just that the SCOTUS did not have the *AUTHORITY* to take power and grant it to Congress.  That is *NOT* interpretation; that is legislation from the bench.
> 
> When the courts can legislate from the bench; when the SCOTUS can change their own precedents, then we are no longer living in the Republic guaranteed in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing written in the Constitution that grants states the authority over the Federal Government on immigration.  We have been down this road before.  It’s the same damn thing as you never being able to PROVE the ratification of the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional.
> 
> *Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.*
> The *Migration* *or Importation of such Persons as any of the States* now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year* one thousand eight hundred and eight  *[ 1808 ]*.
> 
> The provision covered both slaves and free immigrants. The Supreme Court case - *Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 *was in *1875*.
> 
> HOW many ways do you want to be proven wrong?
> 
> Again.  Provide me a Constitutional Case or researched evidence that you can back up, that proves me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've yet to prove me wrong.  Repeating errors in logic do not prove your point.  CONGRESS DID NOT PASS ANY SUCH LAW BETWEEN 1808 AND 1924.  Period.  The SCOTUS granted plenary powers in 1875 when they had no such AUTHORITY to do so.
> 
> Sir, we are done with this argument.  If you want to take a complete class in this, PM me and I'll be happy to teach you both legal research and constitutional interpretation.  But, you need to change gears.
> 
> You're a legend in your own mind AND you are wrong.
Click to expand...


You need to first be able to provide some actual *evidence* and include *researched* *SOURCES* when considering a proven argumentative statement. You have a lot to learn about conducting historical and research deliberated judicial opinions and facts.  All I’ve really been able to see through your responses is unsupported opinion that you can’t back up at all.  If it’s this is going to be about 250 court briefs, even a simple paralegal knows enough that you can’t win a case without conducting extensive research and providing resourced material with sufficient enough evidence to back up your claims. 

Just like your unConstitutionally ratified 14th Amendment, you’re always proving yourself to be empty handed on supportive *documented* *evidence*.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Daryl Hunt said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wish my work were some other guy's blog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read. Your link to The Nation was a reprint from TomDispatch.com. They threw out many numbers with thin or no sourcing.
> 
> Now you're making claims about National Socialist, with no names or sources. Stop using generalize bogymen and buzz words, name names and give sources.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well where do we start?  Some names and sources.  It would be more amazing if you could watch me in person deliver this from the top of my head, but I can verify it with those all important links that you think will make a difference.  You and I both realize that you'll attack the links, but bear in mind *I AM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE*.  This reflects what I've lived, the people I've known, activities I've participated in, and /or activities I have first hand knowledge of.  The links are simply for your amusement.  Use of their links only proves that certain actions happened.  They do not necessarily mean I believe in or endorse their ideology.
> 
> The whole border B.S. of modern starts with David Duke and *Border Watch*.  In the 1970s the neo - nazi who founded his own version of the Ku Klux Klan brought attention to the issue:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> David Duke began rubbing elbows with rich fat cats that were connected to the *Pioneer Fund*.  Since I am persona non grata with the NS, I have to rely on the left to make the connection, but their facts are verifiable:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> Through the Pioneer Fund, David Duke met and became friends with *John Tanton*, a eugenics activist:
> 
> It {John Tanton's organizations}  has funded Anglo-American race scientists as well as anti-immigration groups such as the* Federation for American Immigration Reform* (FAIR)
> 
> Pioneer Fund - SourceWatch
> 
> John Tanton founded and financed nonprofits like the *Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA*, and a few more that build the wall guys love to cite.
> 
> John Tanton - Wikipedia
> 
> John Tanton supplied David Duke with his basic talking points when he did the Border Watch thing.  I'd bet Duke still promotes the same rhetoric.
> 
> Duke's people went underground with the advent of *Louis Beam* and his efforts to dust off Col. Ulius Louis Amoss old thesis on *Leaderless Resistance*.
> 
> *AFTER* the left engineered the events that led up to 9 / 11, they conned the right into supporting the* multi billion dollar* creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security.  I won't document that since you have already claimed that one.  Tea Party Republicans introduced the so - called "Patriot Act",  National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify - ALL of which had been vehemently opposed by conservatives (it was in the days when all right wing organizations were selling Orwell's 1984 novel.)
> 
> BTW, as mentioned to you before Russia (communist) was the Motherland, Nazi Germany was the Fatherland and when this immigration issue came to light, America became the Fatherland.
> 
> Now, we fast forward to the creation of the current leadership.  John Tanton would be the man responsible for the talking points of the so - called Minutemen - the generation of nazis, inspired by the same man whose talking points appealed to David Duke.
> 
> Of those was one of the co - founders, Jim Gilchrist.  Gilchrist was outed from his own organization, but not before being exposed by the left as just a racist:
> 
> "Gilchrist and Chris Simcox are widely recognized as the founders of the Minuteman Project."
> 
> Jim Gilchrist - Wikipedia
> 
> Jim Gilchrist: Discredited & Defunct Minuteman Project Busted for Lies and Defamation
> 
> Chris Simcox, Gilchrist's second in command was proven to be a nazi as was Simcox's next in command:
> 
> Jim Gilchrist: Discredited & Defunct Minuteman Project Busted for Lies and Defamation
> 
> 5 of Arizona's Most Notorious  Racists and Their Crimes
> 
> Of course by now, if you read your precious links, you realize that one of the founders of the current build a wall - border patrol people J.T. Ready was a mass murderer and the other (Simcox) a pedophile:
> 
> Neo-Nazi Killed Family During 911 Call
> 
> Then there was neo nazi Shawna Forde, recruited by Jim Gilchrist, another of the major founders and leaders of the political philosophy you follow:
> 
> Shawna Forde Sentenced To Death For Double Murder In Arizona | HuffPost
> 
> These ARE the movers and shakers of the "movement" to which you challenged me on.  Well... birds of a feather flock together.  And now the build the wall guys can cite John Tanton till Hell freezes over, but they cannot distance themselves from this one truth:  AMERICA HAS AN IMMIGRATION PROBLEM, BUT THE CURRENT CROP OF BUILD THE WALL ADVOCATES ARE THE RESULT OF LOBBYING BY NATIONAL SOCIALISTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you can call anything a flower even if it smells like horse manure.  The Nationalist Socialists aren't socialists at all.  Fascists maybe, but not Socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call them????  Some of you guys need to leave the hard core drugs alone and pay attention.  The people I cited SELF DESCRIBED themselves either directly and / or by lending their name to associations that call themselves nazi.
> 
> To me, I don't give a rip.  *THE SOLUTIONS PROFFERED BY THE BUILD THE WALL GUYS WERE COOKED UP BY NATIONAL SOCIALISTS*.
> 
> In what language do I have to post that in for you to understand.  I admit, agree, concede, believe - whatever it takes to make dumb ass build the wallers acknowledge I understand there is an immigration debacle?  I simply disagree with the *proposed socialist solutions*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that Trump and the Senate Majority Leader are both Socialists?
Click to expand...


Trump is a globalist that belongs to the Democrats.  

Donald Trump talks to Rupert Murdoch every week to discuss strategy

Report: Rupert Murdoch Called Trump a ‘F*cking Idiot’

Despite what Trump isn't telling us, he and Rupert are friends.  But, you have to hand it to Trump, he's got the right eating out of his hand as he helps the globalists take over America.  And, when Trump jacks up the number of foreigners he lets in "legally" as the uninformed call it, you won't mind - even as they become registered voters and make this entire discussion moot.

We accepted Trump's bump stock ban and it violated the Constitution three ways.  The bottom line is that the build the wall guys have been played.  They refuse to consider that the globalists ran a Hegelian Dialectics game on and got the results they wanted.

On Mitch McConnell, he's an anomaly that gets low ratings, still gets elected and supported Rand Paul for president.  I don't know where his heart is in regards to the wall, but bear in mind, McConnell is one of the most politically influential forces in the world.  

Just because people adopt socialist solutions does not make them socialists.  At the same time, once they've been informed then if they continue (as many stubborn build the wall people are), they then may as well be socialists if they cannot get angry over being played.

The wall, as I have said many times here is a diversionary tactic to take your Liberties.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still doesn't say what you claim, does it?
> 
> I clearly read Chy Lung many times.  The defendants did not petition the Court for any ruling on the jurisdiction of federal over states rights on immigration.
> 
> Yeah, bro.  You're a legend in your own mind that puffs himself up and attempts to make his case on the basis of lies and flat out misinterpretations of the facts.  I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
> 
> If the day ever comes that you and I meet face to face around people we both know, they are going to laugh at you so hard, you'll *NEVER* post again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it DOES say clearly that the state does not have authority on the issue of immigration, but that Congress does OVER the state.  Right there in red for anyone to see.
> 
> *“ has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to LEAVE IT IN THE POWER OF THE STATES TO PASS LAWS WHOSE ENFORCEMENT RENDERS THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT LIABLE to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?*
> 
> *The passage of LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE ADMISSION OF CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS TO OUR SHORES BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND NOT TO THE STATES. *“
> 
> 
> How about you try showing some backed up RESEARCH on this thread.  I don’t know what more I can do as the decision and views of a Supreme Court Justice is crystal clear with little room of a “grey area”. (some with an emphasis of bold and red).  To be honest you haven’t proven a thing contrary to THEIR interpretation of the Constitution regarding immigration.  No RESEARCH rebuttals, no detailed historic opinions of Court cases - nothing.
> 
> Instead I get this “meet you out in the parking lot after school” kind of public crap. Now if you care to bring yourself down to reliving some child-like adolescence ... no one here is really interested in your childish antics.  Seriously ... Grow up bud, this is a political thread forum for more mature adults than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn son, you *ARE* stupid.  I'm not disputing what the SCOTUS ruled.  It's just that the SCOTUS did not have the *AUTHORITY* to take power and grant it to Congress.  That is *NOT* interpretation; that is legislation from the bench.
> 
> When the courts can legislate from the bench; when the SCOTUS can change their own precedents, then we are no longer living in the Republic guaranteed in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing written in the Constitution that grants states the authority over the Federal Government on immigration.  We have been down this road before.  It’s the same damn thing as you never being able to PROVE the ratification of the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional.
> 
> *Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.*
> The *Migration* *or Importation of such Persons as any of the States* now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year* one thousand eight hundred and eight  *[ 1808 ]*.
> 
> The provision covered both slaves and free immigrants. The Supreme Court case - *Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 *was in *1875*.
> 
> HOW many ways do you want to be proven wrong?
> 
> Again.  Provide me a Constitutional Case or researched evidence that you can back up, that proves me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've yet to prove me wrong.  Repeating errors in logic do not prove your point.  CONGRESS DID NOT PASS ANY SUCH LAW BETWEEN 1808 AND 1924.  Period.  The SCOTUS granted plenary powers in 1875 when they had no such AUTHORITY to do so.
> 
> Sir, we are done with this argument.  If you want to take a complete class in this, PM me and I'll be happy to teach you both legal research and constitutional interpretation.  But, you need to change gears.
> 
> You're a legend in your own mind AND you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to first be able to provide some actual *evidence* and include *researched* *SOURCES* when considering a proven argumentative statement. You have a lot to learn about conducting historical and research deliberated judicial opinions and facts.  All I’ve really been able to see through your responses is unsupported opinion that you can’t back up at all.  If it’s this is going to be about 250 court briefs, even a simple paralegal knows enough that you can’t win a case without conducting extensive research and providing resourced material with sufficient enough evidence to back up your claims.
> 
> Feel free to attend a college course where you are required investigate a subject, annotated with footnotes of referenced material, that allows you to back key points in your statements when drawing your conclusion.  When you are capable of writing a graduate level term paper, where you have some idea how that works, get back to me and then maybe you’ll finally have an argumentative statement you can actually backup and prove.
> 
> Just like your unConstitutionally ratified 14th Amendment, you’re always proving yourself to be empty handed on supportive documented evidence.
Click to expand...


You are a blowhard with an IQ that is lower than your shoe size.  You haven't done a damn thing except whine and bloviate about your supposed intelligence.  You have not refuted a damn thing I've said; you have not provided anything that contradicts my replies to you; you didn't even accept my open challenge.

What you need to understand is that this is a* discussion forum*.  Sufficient evidence has been posted to establish the facts presented.  The one place I can assure every poster on this board, the one place you will NEVER be is on an actual debate forum.  You might have a few underachievers believing the horseshit you post, but you are so full of yourself that calling you narcissistic would be an insult to the word.

IF you have anything, post it.  The next time you want to play this penis measuring contest, I'll remind you that you are not Perry Mason and this is no debate forum AND the last place you will EVER set foot is in an actual debate forum.

You ask philosophical questions, get a philosophical answer and then demand those meet some standard not required by any rules.

You ask a political question, get a political answer and you counter with a legal objection as if we were addressing a legal topic.

When you ask a legal question and get a legal answer, you change the goalposts back to philosophy.  

Since you can't dazzle us with brilliance, you try baffling everybody with bullshit.  

Until people like you got involved, the patriot and constitutionalist types were chipping away at the 14th Amendment.  You and I know what the courts would say if you fought the battle outright - that is why you like to crow about it all the damn time (it kind of exposes your socialist leanings or maybe your abject stupidity.)  Fighting for Liberty and the restoration of Rights is a long term battle.  Then you have to work every day to maintain them.  

When you don't get instant gratification, you harp on the way the de facto forces ruling as if they had the* authority* to do so.   Your understanding OR maybe your attempts to appeal to idiots with your line of reasoning isn't fooling those who graduated fifth grade.  So climb off that soapbox, take off the halo and get your head out of your ass.  I did not come to this forum to be harassed by you, so pardon the Hell out of me if I put you on ignore the next time you want a personality contest.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that was a long article that could be summed up in a few words, "the feds waste money". GO FIGURE! I'm sure the average American is unaware of this fact. LMAO
> 
> BTW it was wiki that characterized those as changes to immigration law. I sure with your brief writing ability you'll have no problem getting the fix that oversight. Also your invocation of Hitler just put your credibility down a few notches.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, easy out.  You didn't like the Hitler reference?  I will give the build the wall guys one thing: they have the people so programmed that people like you automatically try to ridicule the truth.  The* FACT* is, from the genesis to the revelation of your build the wall ideology, it was  *founded*, f*inanced*, and *had its talking points* made by National Socialists.
> 
> Now, you can lie about it or admit that you *REALLY* don't know as much as you claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to name them with credible links and you have to do better than a reprint of some dudes blog that didn't source his numbers.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wish my work were some other guy's blog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read. Your link to The Nation was a reprint from TomDispatch.com. They threw out many numbers with thin or no sourcing.
> 
> Now you're making claims about National Socialist, with no names or sources. Stop using generalize bogymen and buzz words, name names and give sources.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well where do we start?  Some names and sources.  It would be more amazing if you could watch me in person deliver this from the top of my head, but I can verify it with those all important links that you think will make a difference.  You and I both realize that you'll attack the links, but bear in mind *I AM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE*.  This reflects what I've lived, the people I've known, activities I've participated in, and /or activities I have first hand knowledge of.  The links are simply for your amusement.  Use of their links only proves that certain actions happened.  They do not necessarily mean I believe in or endorse their ideology.
> 
> The whole border B.S. of modern starts with David Duke and *Border Watch*.  In the 1970s the neo - nazi who founded his own version of the Ku Klux Klan brought attention to the issue:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> David Duke began rubbing elbows with rich fat cats that were connected to the *Pioneer Fund*.  Since I am persona non grata with the NS, I have to rely on the left to make the connection, but their facts are verifiable:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> Through the Pioneer Fund, David Duke met and became friends with *John Tanton*, a eugenics activist:
> 
> It {John Tanton's organizations}  has funded Anglo-American race scientists as well as anti-immigration groups such as the* Federation for American Immigration Reform* (FAIR)
> 
> Pioneer Fund - SourceWatch
> 
> John Tanton founded and financed nonprofits like the *Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA*, and a few more that build the wall guys love to cite.
> 
> John Tanton - Wikipedia
> 
> John Tanton supplied David Duke with his basic talking points when he did the Border Watch thing.  I'd bet Duke still promotes the same rhetoric.
> 
> Duke's people went underground with the advent of *Louis Beam* and his efforts to dust off Col. Ulius Louis Amoss old thesis on *Leaderless Resistance*.
> 
> *AFTER* the left engineered the events that led up to 9 / 11, they conned the right into supporting the* multi billion dollar* creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security.  I won't document that since you have already claimed that one.  Tea Party Republicans introduced the so - called "Patriot Act",  National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify - ALL of which had been vehemently opposed by conservatives (it was in the days when all right wing organizations were selling Orwell's 1984 novel.)
> 
> BTW, as mentioned to you before Russia (communist) was the Motherland, Nazi Germany was the Fatherland and when this immigration issue came to light, America became the Fatherland.
> 
> Now, we fast forward to the creation of the current leadership.  John Tanton would be the man responsible for the talking points of the so - called Minutemen - the generation of nazis, inspired by the same man whose talking points appealed to David Duke.
> 
> Of those was one of the co - founders, Jim Gilchrist.  Gilchrist was outed from his own organization, but not before being exposed by the left as just a racist:
> 
> "Gilchrist and Chris Simcox are widely recognized as the founders of the Minuteman Project."
> 
> Jim Gilchrist - Wikipedia
> 
> Jim Gilchrist: Discredited & Defunct Minuteman Project Busted for Lies and Defamation
> 
> Chris Simcox, Gilchrist's second in command was proven to be a nazi as was Simcox's next in command:
> 
> Jim Gilchrist: Discredited & Defunct Minuteman Project Busted for Lies and Defamation
> 
> 5 of Arizona's Most Notorious  Racists and Their Crimes
> 
> Of course by now, if you read your precious links, you realize that one of the founders of the current build a wall - border patrol people J.T. Ready was a mass murderer and the other (Simcox) a pedophile:
> 
> Neo-Nazi Killed Family During 911 Call
> 
> Then there was neo nazi Shawna Forde, recruited by Jim Gilchrist, another of the major founders and leaders of the political philosophy you follow:
> 
> Shawna Forde Sentenced To Death For Double Murder In Arizona | HuffPost
> 
> These ARE the movers and shakers of the "movement" to which you challenged me on.  Well... birds of a feather flock together.  And now the build the wall guys can cite John Tanton till Hell freezes over, but they cannot distance themselves from this one truth:  AMERICA HAS AN IMMIGRATION PROBLEM, BUT THE CURRENT CROP OF BUILD THE WALL ADVOCATES ARE THE RESULT OF LOBBYING BY NATIONAL SOCIALISTS.
Click to expand...



Wow, the lunatic fringe, and now you're saying everyone of the 64 million who voted for Trump for a variety of reasons, including border security, are now part of that fringe. Got it.

Actually I don't know anyone who would align themselves with the freaks you outlined above. I also have never heard the US being referred to as the Fatherland.

I don't know about the other folks, but I've been proposing solutions to my congresscritters long before Trump came along. Including a ways to end visa overstays. In my view a wall where needed is only one minor component of the overall solution.

Personally, I would have no problem getting face to face with the asshole that wrote your fist link and busting him in the mouth.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Daryl Hunt said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sessions Welcomes 44 New US Immigration Judges
> 
> Though Sessions lauded the large number of incoming immigration judges, he warned them of the intense workload they would bear.
> 
> "I do not apologize for expecting you to perform at a high level, efficiently and effectively," he said. "Many of the cases present complex legal issues, but like anyone acting as a judge, you must manage your docket and support staff well. Cases must be moved to conclusion."
> 
> *The Department of Justice received funding for 100 new immigration judges and their teams during the 2018 fiscal year. With the new class, there are currently 351 immigration judges in the department, still less than the 384 allocated in the current budget. The Justice Department has requested funding for 150 new attorneys for the fiscal year beginning October 1*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can request till they're blue in the face.  No Budget, no Judges.  NO support staff, no court reporters, etc..  Right now, there is only two people that are tying up the proposed House Budget.  Trump with his Veto and that POS Majority Leader in the Senate not allowing it to reach the open floor for vote.  It was announced that over 90 Senators would vote in favor of it in the Senate to break the logjam.  And it does have the funds for the increases in Immigration Judges and staff as well as 1.6 billion for Border Security.  The system is broken when only two people can hold the nation up for ransom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 50 less than requested..............And you said he didn't want them...........You lied....
> 
> Name the 90 Senators that are ready to fold.........back up your comments for once.............
> 
> Trump WILL VETO IT...............and you don't have the numbers there....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It came out in the news today.  But also that the House Majority Leader refused to allow it go to the open floor.
Click to expand...



You need to get yourself a program so you can figure out the players. This is the second time you screwed them up. The speaker has nothing to do with what the senate does and it's the senate majority leader that is blocking bills passed by the house from going to the floor of the senate.

.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

OKTexas said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sessions Welcomes 44 New US Immigration Judges
> 
> Though Sessions lauded the large number of incoming immigration judges, he warned them of the intense workload they would bear.
> 
> "I do not apologize for expecting you to perform at a high level, efficiently and effectively," he said. "Many of the cases present complex legal issues, but like anyone acting as a judge, you must manage your docket and support staff well. Cases must be moved to conclusion."
> 
> *The Department of Justice received funding for 100 new immigration judges and their teams during the 2018 fiscal year. With the new class, there are currently 351 immigration judges in the department, still less than the 384 allocated in the current budget. The Justice Department has requested funding for 150 new attorneys for the fiscal year beginning October 1*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can request till they're blue in the face.  No Budget, no Judges.  NO support staff, no court reporters, etc..  Right now, there is only two people that are tying up the proposed House Budget.  Trump with his Veto and that POS Majority Leader in the Senate not allowing it to reach the open floor for vote.  It was announced that over 90 Senators would vote in favor of it in the Senate to break the logjam.  And it does have the funds for the increases in Immigration Judges and staff as well as 1.6 billion for Border Security.  The system is broken when only two people can hold the nation up for ransom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 50 less than requested..............And you said he didn't want them...........You lied....
> 
> Name the 90 Senators that are ready to fold.........back up your comments for once.............
> 
> Trump WILL VETO IT...............and you don't have the numbers there....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It came out in the news today.  But also that the House Majority Leader refused to allow it go to the open floor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to get yourself a program so you can figure out the players. This is the second time you screwed them up. The speaker has nothing to do with what the senate does and it's the senate majority leader that is blocking bills passed by the house from going to the floor of the senate.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So I mistyped.  So what.  McConnel is blocking it right now and there is a damned good chance if it's voted on in the next few days that it will be a veto proof bill.  Is that the best defense you can come up with?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

eagle1462010 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can request till they're blue in the face.  No Budget, no Judges.  NO support staff, no court reporters, etc..  Right now, there is only two people that are tying up the proposed House Budget.  Trump with his Veto and that POS Majority Leader in the Senate not allowing it to reach the open floor for vote.  It was announced that over 90 Senators would vote in favor of it in the Senate to break the logjam.  And it does have the funds for the increases in Immigration Judges and staff as well as 1.6 billion for Border Security.  The system is broken when only two people can hold the nation up for ransom.
> 
> 
> 
> 50 less than requested..............And you said he didn't want them...........You lied....
> 
> Name the 90 Senators that are ready to fold.........back up your comments for once.............
> 
> Trump WILL VETO IT...............and you don't have the numbers there....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It came out in the news today.  But also that the House Majority Leader refused to allow it go to the open floor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Elections have consequences...............Dems don't have the House...........too bad.............
> 
> 5.6 Billion isn't jack squat to the overall Federal Budget..............compared to the BS they spend on all the time........Pony the fuck up or it stays down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dems have the House and the Senate is getting real worried about 2020.  The general public isn't buying the Trump Snake Oil on this one.  The next step might be a change in the Senate Majority Leader to break the stalemate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are flat out wrong...........Border Security is high in the minds of the people when it's time to vote...............Why the Dems act tough on it come election time............their actions don't do the same.........
> 
> They have been backed into a corner and now their true colors are coming out..........They DON'T WANT BORDER SECURITY.
Click to expand...


You keep using Border Security for the word Wall.  Yah, I know, you can't tell the difference.  And Obama had most of the 733 miles of Border Fence and Wall built in his 8 years.  Trump has built Zero in 2 years even though he was obligated by law to add on to it.  You can't count the concertina wire strung up at the entry point as building on the border security.  It appears that Trump is screaming his head off yet nothing real is getting done.  Once again, he is selling more snake oil and you are buying it.


----------



## sealybobo

eagle1462010 said:


> The U.S. will increase the number of immigration judges by 50 percent to take on ballooning backlog | Daily Mail Online
> 
> The number of immigration cases on hold in the U.S. has risen 38 percent since Trump took office, with 746,049 pending immigration cases as of July 31, up from 542,411 at the end of January 2017, according to an analysis of government data by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.
> 
> Sessions asserted his authority on Monday during remarks welcoming * 44 newly hired immigration judges* - the largest class in U.S. history - noting that they must operate under his supervision and perform the duties that he prescribes.


Yea but what else is he asking for? Probably why they said no.


----------



## danielpalos

There is no express wall building clause.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, easy out.  You didn't like the Hitler reference?  I will give the build the wall guys one thing: they have the people so programmed that people like you automatically try to ridicule the truth.  The* FACT* is, from the genesis to the revelation of your build the wall ideology, it was  *founded*, f*inanced*, and *had its talking points* made by National Socialists.
> 
> Now, you can lie about it or admit that you *REALLY* don't know as much as you claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to name them with credible links and you have to do better than a reprint of some dudes blog that didn't source his numbers.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wish my work were some other guy's blog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read. Your link to The Nation was a reprint from TomDispatch.com. They threw out many numbers with thin or no sourcing.
> 
> Now you're making claims about National Socialist, with no names or sources. Stop using generalize bogymen and buzz words, name names and give sources.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well where do we start?  Some names and sources.  It would be more amazing if you could watch me in person deliver this from the top of my head, but I can verify it with those all important links that you think will make a difference.  You and I both realize that you'll attack the links, but bear in mind *I AM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE*.  This reflects what I've lived, the people I've known, activities I've participated in, and /or activities I have first hand knowledge of.  The links are simply for your amusement.  Use of their links only proves that certain actions happened.  They do not necessarily mean I believe in or endorse their ideology.
> 
> The whole border B.S. of modern starts with David Duke and *Border Watch*.  In the 1970s the neo - nazi who founded his own version of the Ku Klux Klan brought attention to the issue:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> David Duke began rubbing elbows with rich fat cats that were connected to the *Pioneer Fund*.  Since I am persona non grata with the NS, I have to rely on the left to make the connection, but their facts are verifiable:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> Through the Pioneer Fund, David Duke met and became friends with *John Tanton*, a eugenics activist:
> 
> It {John Tanton's organizations}  has funded Anglo-American race scientists as well as anti-immigration groups such as the* Federation for American Immigration Reform* (FAIR)
> 
> Pioneer Fund - SourceWatch
> 
> John Tanton founded and financed nonprofits like the *Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA*, and a few more that build the wall guys love to cite.
> 
> John Tanton - Wikipedia
> 
> John Tanton supplied David Duke with his basic talking points when he did the Border Watch thing.  I'd bet Duke still promotes the same rhetoric.
> 
> Duke's people went underground with the advent of *Louis Beam* and his efforts to dust off Col. Ulius Louis Amoss old thesis on *Leaderless Resistance*.
> 
> *AFTER* the left engineered the events that led up to 9 / 11, they conned the right into supporting the* multi billion dollar* creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security.  I won't document that since you have already claimed that one.  Tea Party Republicans introduced the so - called "Patriot Act",  National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify - ALL of which had been vehemently opposed by conservatives (it was in the days when all right wing organizations were selling Orwell's 1984 novel.)
> 
> BTW, as mentioned to you before Russia (communist) was the Motherland, Nazi Germany was the Fatherland and when this immigration issue came to light, America became the Fatherland.
> 
> Now, we fast forward to the creation of the current leadership.  John Tanton would be the man responsible for the talking points of the so - called Minutemen - the generation of nazis, inspired by the same man whose talking points appealed to David Duke.
> 
> Of those was one of the co - founders, Jim Gilchrist.  Gilchrist was outed from his own organization, but not before being exposed by the left as just a racist:
> 
> "Gilchrist and Chris Simcox are widely recognized as the founders of the Minuteman Project."
> 
> Jim Gilchrist - Wikipedia
> 
> Jim Gilchrist: Discredited & Defunct Minuteman Project Busted for Lies and Defamation
> 
> Chris Simcox, Gilchrist's second in command was proven to be a nazi as was Simcox's next in command:
> 
> Jim Gilchrist: Discredited & Defunct Minuteman Project Busted for Lies and Defamation
> 
> 5 of Arizona's Most Notorious  Racists and Their Crimes
> 
> Of course by now, if you read your precious links, you realize that one of the founders of the current build a wall - border patrol people J.T. Ready was a mass murderer and the other (Simcox) a pedophile:
> 
> Neo-Nazi Killed Family During 911 Call
> 
> Then there was neo nazi Shawna Forde, recruited by Jim Gilchrist, another of the major founders and leaders of the political philosophy you follow:
> 
> Shawna Forde Sentenced To Death For Double Murder In Arizona | HuffPost
> 
> These ARE the movers and shakers of the "movement" to which you challenged me on.  Well... birds of a feather flock together.  And now the build the wall guys can cite John Tanton till Hell freezes over, but they cannot distance themselves from this one truth:  AMERICA HAS AN IMMIGRATION PROBLEM, BUT THE CURRENT CROP OF BUILD THE WALL ADVOCATES ARE THE RESULT OF LOBBYING BY NATIONAL SOCIALISTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, the lunatic fringe, and now you're saying everyone of the 64 million who voted for Trump for a variety of reasons, including border security, are now part of that fringe. Got it.
> 
> Actually I don't know anyone who would align themselves with the freaks you outlined above. I also have never heard the US being referred to as the Fatherland.
> 
> I don't know about the other folks, but I've been proposing solutions to my congresscritters long before Trump came along. Including a ways to end visa overstays. In my view a wall where needed is only one minor component of the overall solution.
> 
> Personally, I would have no problem getting face to face with the asshole that wrote your fist link and busting him in the mouth.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The idiocy by which you approach others is childish, stupid and would not be made by any sane adult.  YOU are part of a lunatic fringe.  You are absolutely delusional and I'm going to start treating you like you treat others.

Just because people vote for candidate A or candidate B does not make them part a parcel of everything that candidate is or stands for.  If you were a mature adult, I wouldn't have to be telling you these things.  Politicians are liars.  How many people would have voted for Trump if they knew, for a fact, that before he left office he would sign major gun control legislation?  The wall versus gun Rights.  We'll never know how that would turn out.

Donald Trump is a rich boy that, when speaking yesterday, did not know what to call duct tape; he did not know that MS13 was founded in America by Americans and that most of those had parents who entered the United States "legally" as you would erroneously call it.

A life long friend of mine and I were having a discussion about this because I'm contacting all my congresscritters about some ideas  I've been working on.  My friend says, "you've been working on this since the 10th grade."  Since I'm 62 now, I've had four decades to research the history, learn the legalities, and hear every excuse under God's green earth as to why something will or will not work.  I've discussed it with historians, politicians, lawyers, immigration officials, and hashed out many points in think tanks.

Over those four plus decades I have talked with many people of whom you are left of center of.  They see the problem and, like me, reject the wall idea as a solution.  I've listed some of the major ones and the next time some jackass tells me I did not list reasons that the wall jeopardizes our Liberty, I'm going to do another list to add to the one I have and keep reposting the post numbers on every page of this thread so that everyone who joins this conversation will see them.

Make no mistake.  America was founded by white Christians on the twin pillars of race and religion.  The bulk of the non-white world looks at America and they hate, loathe and despise the whites and that culture they built.  They have been programmed, Pavlovian style, to blame us for all their problems.  They want to tear down your monuments, statues, and memorials.  They want to erase your history.  I should have said they're doing it.  In Georgia, they take down a statue of a white man, and replace it with that of a black "Reverend" (what a joke) that spent his last hours on this earth cheating on his wife with some whores in a motel room.

There are better ideas than the proposed solutions being proffered by the nazis.  If you ever watched the movie Betrayed that stars Tom Berenger, you see that Costa - Gavras did a fairly accurate portrayal of the political differences between nazis, klan, and the right wing patriots.  Of course, Gavras had to portray the entire patriot community as murderers, but he did capture the tensions that existed back then  between the most extreme groups.

Today, the nazis are in control of the talking points on this issue.  I will remind you that Hitler died a defeated man.  Our forefathers fought, bled and died having created the greatest nation in the annals of history.  I prefer their solutions over those I KNOW will not work.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Daryl Hunt said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 less than requested..............And you said he didn't want them...........You lied....
> 
> Name the 90 Senators that are ready to fold.........back up your comments for once.............
> 
> Trump WILL VETO IT...............and you don't have the numbers there....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It came out in the news today.  But also that the House Majority Leader refused to allow it go to the open floor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Elections have consequences...............Dems don't have the House...........too bad.............
> 
> 5.6 Billion isn't jack squat to the overall Federal Budget..............compared to the BS they spend on all the time........Pony the fuck up or it stays down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dems have the House and the Senate is getting real worried about 2020.  The general public isn't buying the Trump Snake Oil on this one.  The next step might be a change in the Senate Majority Leader to break the stalemate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are flat out wrong...........Border Security is high in the minds of the people when it's time to vote...............Why the Dems act tough on it come election time............their actions don't do the same.........
> 
> They have been backed into a corner and now their true colors are coming out..........They DON'T WANT BORDER SECURITY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep using Border Security for the word Wall.  Yah, I know, you can't tell the difference.  And Obama had most of the 733 miles of Border Fence and Wall built in his 8 years.  Trump has built Zero in 2 years even though he was obligated by law to add on to it.  You can't count the concertina wire strung up at the entry point as building on the border security.  It appears that Trump is screaming his head off yet nothing real is getting done.  Once again, he is selling more snake oil and you are buying it.
Click to expand...


Mexico's check bounced.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

danielpalos said:


> There is no express wall building clause.



Is there an implied clause?


----------



## danielpalos

Porter Rockwell said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no express wall building clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there an implied clause?
Click to expand...

we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.


----------



## OKTexas

Daryl Hunt said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sessions Welcomes 44 New US Immigration Judges
> 
> Though Sessions lauded the large number of incoming immigration judges, he warned them of the intense workload they would bear.
> 
> "I do not apologize for expecting you to perform at a high level, efficiently and effectively," he said. "Many of the cases present complex legal issues, but like anyone acting as a judge, you must manage your docket and support staff well. Cases must be moved to conclusion."
> 
> *The Department of Justice received funding for 100 new immigration judges and their teams during the 2018 fiscal year. With the new class, there are currently 351 immigration judges in the department, still less than the 384 allocated in the current budget. The Justice Department has requested funding for 150 new attorneys for the fiscal year beginning October 1*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can request till they're blue in the face.  No Budget, no Judges.  NO support staff, no court reporters, etc..  Right now, there is only two people that are tying up the proposed House Budget.  Trump with his Veto and that POS Majority Leader in the Senate not allowing it to reach the open floor for vote.  It was announced that over 90 Senators would vote in favor of it in the Senate to break the logjam.  And it does have the funds for the increases in Immigration Judges and staff as well as 1.6 billion for Border Security.  The system is broken when only two people can hold the nation up for ransom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 50 less than requested..............And you said he didn't want them...........You lied....
> 
> Name the 90 Senators that are ready to fold.........back up your comments for once.............
> 
> Trump WILL VETO IT...............and you don't have the numbers there....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It came out in the news today.  But also that the House Majority Leader refused to allow it go to the open floor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to get yourself a program so you can figure out the players. This is the second time you screwed them up. The speaker has nothing to do with what the senate does and it's the senate majority leader that is blocking bills passed by the house from going to the floor of the senate.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I mistyped.  So what.  McConnel is blocking it right now and there is a damned good chance if it's voted on in the next few days that it will be a veto proof bill.  Is that the best defense you can come up with?
Click to expand...



Yeah, OK.


.


----------



## eagle1462010

Daryl Hunt said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 less than requested..............And you said he didn't want them...........You lied....
> 
> Name the 90 Senators that are ready to fold.........back up your comments for once.............
> 
> Trump WILL VETO IT...............and you don't have the numbers there....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It came out in the news today.  But also that the House Majority Leader refused to allow it go to the open floor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Elections have consequences...............Dems don't have the House...........too bad.............
> 
> 5.6 Billion isn't jack squat to the overall Federal Budget..............compared to the BS they spend on all the time........Pony the fuck up or it stays down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dems have the House and the Senate is getting real worried about 2020.  The general public isn't buying the Trump Snake Oil on this one.  The next step might be a change in the Senate Majority Leader to break the stalemate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are flat out wrong...........Border Security is high in the minds of the people when it's time to vote...............Why the Dems act tough on it come election time............their actions don't do the same.........
> 
> They have been backed into a corner and now their true colors are coming out..........They DON'T WANT BORDER SECURITY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep using Border Security for the word Wall.  Yah, I know, you can't tell the difference.  And Obama had most of the 733 miles of Border Fence and Wall built in his 8 years.  Trump has built Zero in 2 years even though he was obligated by law to add on to it.  You can't count the concertina wire strung up at the entry point as building on the border security.  It appears that Trump is screaming his head off yet nothing real is getting done.  Once again, he is selling more snake oil and you are buying it.
Click to expand...

When you get a clue on this get back with me.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to name them with credible links and you have to do better than a reprint of some dudes blog that didn't source his numbers.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wish my work were some other guy's blog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read. Your link to The Nation was a reprint from TomDispatch.com. They threw out many numbers with thin or no sourcing.
> 
> Now you're making claims about National Socialist, with no names or sources. Stop using generalize bogymen and buzz words, name names and give sources.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well where do we start?  Some names and sources.  It would be more amazing if you could watch me in person deliver this from the top of my head, but I can verify it with those all important links that you think will make a difference.  You and I both realize that you'll attack the links, but bear in mind *I AM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE*.  This reflects what I've lived, the people I've known, activities I've participated in, and /or activities I have first hand knowledge of.  The links are simply for your amusement.  Use of their links only proves that certain actions happened.  They do not necessarily mean I believe in or endorse their ideology.
> 
> The whole border B.S. of modern starts with David Duke and *Border Watch*.  In the 1970s the neo - nazi who founded his own version of the Ku Klux Klan brought attention to the issue:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> David Duke began rubbing elbows with rich fat cats that were connected to the *Pioneer Fund*.  Since I am persona non grata with the NS, I have to rely on the left to make the connection, but their facts are verifiable:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> Through the Pioneer Fund, David Duke met and became friends with *John Tanton*, a eugenics activist:
> 
> It {John Tanton's organizations}  has funded Anglo-American race scientists as well as anti-immigration groups such as the* Federation for American Immigration Reform* (FAIR)
> 
> Pioneer Fund - SourceWatch
> 
> John Tanton founded and financed nonprofits like the *Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA*, and a few more that build the wall guys love to cite.
> 
> John Tanton - Wikipedia
> 
> John Tanton supplied David Duke with his basic talking points when he did the Border Watch thing.  I'd bet Duke still promotes the same rhetoric.
> 
> Duke's people went underground with the advent of *Louis Beam* and his efforts to dust off Col. Ulius Louis Amoss old thesis on *Leaderless Resistance*.
> 
> *AFTER* the left engineered the events that led up to 9 / 11, they conned the right into supporting the* multi billion dollar* creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security.  I won't document that since you have already claimed that one.  Tea Party Republicans introduced the so - called "Patriot Act",  National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify - ALL of which had been vehemently opposed by conservatives (it was in the days when all right wing organizations were selling Orwell's 1984 novel.)
> 
> BTW, as mentioned to you before Russia (communist) was the Motherland, Nazi Germany was the Fatherland and when this immigration issue came to light, America became the Fatherland.
> 
> Now, we fast forward to the creation of the current leadership.  John Tanton would be the man responsible for the talking points of the so - called Minutemen - the generation of nazis, inspired by the same man whose talking points appealed to David Duke.
> 
> Of those was one of the co - founders, Jim Gilchrist.  Gilchrist was outed from his own organization, but not before being exposed by the left as just a racist:
> 
> "Gilchrist and Chris Simcox are widely recognized as the founders of the Minuteman Project."
> 
> Jim Gilchrist - Wikipedia
> 
> Jim Gilchrist: Discredited & Defunct Minuteman Project Busted for Lies and Defamation
> 
> Chris Simcox, Gilchrist's second in command was proven to be a nazi as was Simcox's next in command:
> 
> Jim Gilchrist: Discredited & Defunct Minuteman Project Busted for Lies and Defamation
> 
> 5 of Arizona's Most Notorious  Racists and Their Crimes
> 
> Of course by now, if you read your precious links, you realize that one of the founders of the current build a wall - border patrol people J.T. Ready was a mass murderer and the other (Simcox) a pedophile:
> 
> Neo-Nazi Killed Family During 911 Call
> 
> Then there was neo nazi Shawna Forde, recruited by Jim Gilchrist, another of the major founders and leaders of the political philosophy you follow:
> 
> Shawna Forde Sentenced To Death For Double Murder In Arizona | HuffPost
> 
> These ARE the movers and shakers of the "movement" to which you challenged me on.  Well... birds of a feather flock together.  And now the build the wall guys can cite John Tanton till Hell freezes over, but they cannot distance themselves from this one truth:  AMERICA HAS AN IMMIGRATION PROBLEM, BUT THE CURRENT CROP OF BUILD THE WALL ADVOCATES ARE THE RESULT OF LOBBYING BY NATIONAL SOCIALISTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, the lunatic fringe, and now you're saying everyone of the 64 million who voted for Trump for a variety of reasons, including border security, are now part of that fringe. Got it.
> 
> Actually I don't know anyone who would align themselves with the freaks you outlined above. I also have never heard the US being referred to as the Fatherland.
> 
> I don't know about the other folks, but I've been proposing solutions to my congresscritters long before Trump came along. Including a ways to end visa overstays. In my view a wall where needed is only one minor component of the overall solution.
> 
> Personally, I would have no problem getting face to face with the asshole that wrote your fist link and busting him in the mouth.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idiocy by which you approach others is childish, stupid and would not be made by any sane adult.  YOU are part of a lunatic fringe.  You are absolutely delusional and I'm going to start treating you like you treat others.
> 
> Just because people vote for candidate A or candidate B does not make them part a parcel of everything that candidate is or stands for.  If you were a mature adult, I wouldn't have to be telling you these things.  Politicians are liars.  How many people would have voted for Trump if they knew, for a fact, that before he left office he would sign major gun control legislation?  The wall versus gun Rights.  We'll never know how that would turn out.
> 
> Donald Trump is a rich boy that, when speaking yesterday, did not know what to call duct tape; he did not know that MS13 was founded in America by Americans and that most of those had parents who entered the United States "legally" as you would erroneously call it.
> 
> A life long friend of mine and I were having a discussion about this because I'm contacting all my congresscritters about some ideas  I've been working on.  My friend says, "you've been working on this since the 10th grade."  Since I'm 62 now, I've had four decades to research the history, learn the legalities, and hear every excuse under God's green earth as to why something will or will not work.  I've discussed it with historians, politicians, lawyers, immigration officials, and hashed out many points in think tanks.
> 
> Over those four plus decades I have talked with many people of whom you are left of center of.  They see the problem and, like me, reject the wall idea as a solution.  I've listed some of the major ones and the next time some jackass tells me I did not list reasons that the wall jeopardizes our Liberty, I'm going to do another list to add to the one I have and keep reposting the post numbers on every page of this thread so that everyone who joins this conversation will see them.
> 
> Make no mistake.  America was founded by white Christians on the twin pillars of race and religion.  The bulk of the non-white world looks at America and they hate, loathe and despise the whites and that culture they built.  They have been programmed, Pavlovian style, to blame us for all their problems.  They want to tear down your monuments, statues, and memorials.  They want to erase your history.  I should have said they're doing it.  In Georgia, they take down a statue of a white man, and replace it with that of a black "Reverend" (what a joke) that spent his last hours on this earth cheating on his wife with some whores in a motel room.
> 
> There are better ideas than the proposed solutions being proffered by the nazis.  If you ever watched the movie Betrayed that stars Tom Berenger, you see that Costa - Gavras did a fairly accurate portrayal of the political differences between nazis, klan, and the right wing patriots.  Of course, Gavras had to portray the entire patriot community as murderers, but he did capture the tensions that existed back then  between the most extreme groups.
> 
> Today, the nazis are in control of the talking points on this issue.  I will remind you that Hitler died a defeated man.  Our forefathers fought, bled and died having created the greatest nation in the annals of history.  I prefer their solutions over those I KNOW will not work.
Click to expand...





Porter Rockwell said:


> Just because people vote for candidate A or candidate B does not make them part a parcel of everything that candidate is or stands for.


From you're fist link:

Trump voters, though you can try all you want to rationalize that your vote was for “change,” your IQ test at the voting actually just confirmed that you—_yes *you*_—are in fact “okay” with racism. Which actually makes you a racist, too.

_It’s kinda like being a “little pregnant.” _Sorry!

That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…


Porter Rockwell said:


> Donald Trump is a rich boy that, when speaking yesterday, did not know what to call duct tape;


Actually what he described would have been painters tape, not duct tape.

Also you keep talking about a wall as a solution, I've never claimed it was a solution, I've said it's only one component of a solution. CNNs little jimmy acosta inadvertently proved that yesterday in his tranquility.

As for what the founder created, they created a new nation form what was radical ideas at the time. It was somewhat a compromise to get adequate numbers to go along with it. Like any good architect they used the tools and materials they had. Anyone who tries to judge our founders by todays standards is a fool.

But feel free to try to portray yourself as some kind of superior being. Your opinions are just that, as are mine. 

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wish my work were some other guy's blog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read. Your link to The Nation was a reprint from TomDispatch.com. They threw out many numbers with thin or no sourcing.
> 
> Now you're making claims about National Socialist, with no names or sources. Stop using generalize bogymen and buzz words, name names and give sources.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well where do we start?  Some names and sources.  It would be more amazing if you could watch me in person deliver this from the top of my head, but I can verify it with those all important links that you think will make a difference.  You and I both realize that you'll attack the links, but bear in mind *I AM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE*.  This reflects what I've lived, the people I've known, activities I've participated in, and /or activities I have first hand knowledge of.  The links are simply for your amusement.  Use of their links only proves that certain actions happened.  They do not necessarily mean I believe in or endorse their ideology.
> 
> The whole border B.S. of modern starts with David Duke and *Border Watch*.  In the 1970s the neo - nazi who founded his own version of the Ku Klux Klan brought attention to the issue:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> David Duke began rubbing elbows with rich fat cats that were connected to the *Pioneer Fund*.  Since I am persona non grata with the NS, I have to rely on the left to make the connection, but their facts are verifiable:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> Through the Pioneer Fund, David Duke met and became friends with *John Tanton*, a eugenics activist:
> 
> It {John Tanton's organizations}  has funded Anglo-American race scientists as well as anti-immigration groups such as the* Federation for American Immigration Reform* (FAIR)
> 
> Pioneer Fund - SourceWatch
> 
> John Tanton founded and financed nonprofits like the *Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA*, and a few more that build the wall guys love to cite.
> 
> John Tanton - Wikipedia
> 
> John Tanton supplied David Duke with his basic talking points when he did the Border Watch thing.  I'd bet Duke still promotes the same rhetoric.
> 
> Duke's people went underground with the advent of *Louis Beam* and his efforts to dust off Col. Ulius Louis Amoss old thesis on *Leaderless Resistance*.
> 
> *AFTER* the left engineered the events that led up to 9 / 11, they conned the right into supporting the* multi billion dollar* creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security.  I won't document that since you have already claimed that one.  Tea Party Republicans introduced the so - called "Patriot Act",  National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify - ALL of which had been vehemently opposed by conservatives (it was in the days when all right wing organizations were selling Orwell's 1984 novel.)
> 
> BTW, as mentioned to you before Russia (communist) was the Motherland, Nazi Germany was the Fatherland and when this immigration issue came to light, America became the Fatherland.
> 
> Now, we fast forward to the creation of the current leadership.  John Tanton would be the man responsible for the talking points of the so - called Minutemen - the generation of nazis, inspired by the same man whose talking points appealed to David Duke.
> 
> Of those was one of the co - founders, Jim Gilchrist.  Gilchrist was outed from his own organization, but not before being exposed by the left as just a racist:
> 
> "Gilchrist and Chris Simcox are widely recognized as the founders of the Minuteman Project."
> 
> Jim Gilchrist - Wikipedia
> 
> Jim Gilchrist: Discredited & Defunct Minuteman Project Busted for Lies and Defamation
> 
> Chris Simcox, Gilchrist's second in command was proven to be a nazi as was Simcox's next in command:
> 
> Jim Gilchrist: Discredited & Defunct Minuteman Project Busted for Lies and Defamation
> 
> 5 of Arizona's Most Notorious  Racists and Their Crimes
> 
> Of course by now, if you read your precious links, you realize that one of the founders of the current build a wall - border patrol people J.T. Ready was a mass murderer and the other (Simcox) a pedophile:
> 
> Neo-Nazi Killed Family During 911 Call
> 
> Then there was neo nazi Shawna Forde, recruited by Jim Gilchrist, another of the major founders and leaders of the political philosophy you follow:
> 
> Shawna Forde Sentenced To Death For Double Murder In Arizona | HuffPost
> 
> These ARE the movers and shakers of the "movement" to which you challenged me on.  Well... birds of a feather flock together.  And now the build the wall guys can cite John Tanton till Hell freezes over, but they cannot distance themselves from this one truth:  AMERICA HAS AN IMMIGRATION PROBLEM, BUT THE CURRENT CROP OF BUILD THE WALL ADVOCATES ARE THE RESULT OF LOBBYING BY NATIONAL SOCIALISTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, the lunatic fringe, and now you're saying everyone of the 64 million who voted for Trump for a variety of reasons, including border security, are now part of that fringe. Got it.
> 
> Actually I don't know anyone who would align themselves with the freaks you outlined above. I also have never heard the US being referred to as the Fatherland.
> 
> I don't know about the other folks, but I've been proposing solutions to my congresscritters long before Trump came along. Including a ways to end visa overstays. In my view a wall where needed is only one minor component of the overall solution.
> 
> Personally, I would have no problem getting face to face with the asshole that wrote your fist link and busting him in the mouth.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idiocy by which you approach others is childish, stupid and would not be made by any sane adult.  YOU are part of a lunatic fringe.  You are absolutely delusional and I'm going to start treating you like you treat others.
> 
> Just because people vote for candidate A or candidate B does not make them part a parcel of everything that candidate is or stands for.  If you were a mature adult, I wouldn't have to be telling you these things.  Politicians are liars.  How many people would have voted for Trump if they knew, for a fact, that before he left office he would sign major gun control legislation?  The wall versus gun Rights.  We'll never know how that would turn out.
> 
> Donald Trump is a rich boy that, when speaking yesterday, did not know what to call duct tape; he did not know that MS13 was founded in America by Americans and that most of those had parents who entered the United States "legally" as you would erroneously call it.
> 
> A life long friend of mine and I were having a discussion about this because I'm contacting all my congresscritters about some ideas  I've been working on.  My friend says, "you've been working on this since the 10th grade."  Since I'm 62 now, I've had four decades to research the history, learn the legalities, and hear every excuse under God's green earth as to why something will or will not work.  I've discussed it with historians, politicians, lawyers, immigration officials, and hashed out many points in think tanks.
> 
> Over those four plus decades I have talked with many people of whom you are left of center of.  They see the problem and, like me, reject the wall idea as a solution.  I've listed some of the major ones and the next time some jackass tells me I did not list reasons that the wall jeopardizes our Liberty, I'm going to do another list to add to the one I have and keep reposting the post numbers on every page of this thread so that everyone who joins this conversation will see them.
> 
> Make no mistake.  America was founded by white Christians on the twin pillars of race and religion.  The bulk of the non-white world looks at America and they hate, loathe and despise the whites and that culture they built.  They have been programmed, Pavlovian style, to blame us for all their problems.  They want to tear down your monuments, statues, and memorials.  They want to erase your history.  I should have said they're doing it.  In Georgia, they take down a statue of a white man, and replace it with that of a black "Reverend" (what a joke) that spent his last hours on this earth cheating on his wife with some whores in a motel room.
> 
> There are better ideas than the proposed solutions being proffered by the nazis.  If you ever watched the movie Betrayed that stars Tom Berenger, you see that Costa - Gavras did a fairly accurate portrayal of the political differences between nazis, klan, and the right wing patriots.  Of course, Gavras had to portray the entire patriot community as murderers, but he did capture the tensions that existed back then  between the most extreme groups.
> 
> Today, the nazis are in control of the talking points on this issue.  I will remind you that Hitler died a defeated man.  Our forefathers fought, bled and died having created the greatest nation in the annals of history.  I prefer their solutions over those I KNOW will not work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because people vote for candidate A or candidate B does not make them part a parcel of everything that candidate is or stands for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From you're fist link:
> 
> Trump voters, though you can try all you want to rationalize that your vote was for “change,” your IQ test at the voting actually just confirmed that you—_yes *you*_—are in fact “okay” with racism. Which actually makes you a racist, too.
> 
> _It’s kinda like being a “little pregnant.” _Sorry!
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump is a rich boy that, when speaking yesterday, did not know what to call duct tape;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually what he described would have been painters tape, not duct tape.
> 
> Also you keep talking about a wall as a solution, I've never claimed it was a solution, I've said it's only one component of a solution. CNNs little jimmy acosta inadvertently proved that yesterday in his tranquility.
> 
> As for what the founder created, they created a new nation form what was radical ideas at the time. It was somewhat a compromise to get adequate numbers to go along with it. Like any good architect they used the tools and materials they had. Anyone who tries to judge our founders by todays standards is a fool.
> 
> But feel free to try to portray yourself as some kind of superior being. Your opinions are just that, as are mine.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Let me clue you in on a few things:

1)  I came here asking questions so I could determine how to answer the question why building a wall is wrong.  We cannot have a discussion about what wrong means without a meeting of the minds

2)  There is no reason you should be getting into personality contests with people.  As you say, this is opinions; it's not a debate forum and nobody is running for public office here - not as far as can be seen by reading the posts here

3)  When it comes to racism, *IMO*, it's simply a scare word to divert people's attention and keep them off balance.  For example, I have brought up the Chinese and their wall, reminding you that they are 92 plus percent one people (one race.)  Zimbabwe is 99.7 percent black.  Japan is over 98 percent Japanese and they tout their racial purity.  North Korea is over 98 percent one race.  Are you whining about that?  Does that "racism" bother you?  Does it concern you that there are a LOT of countries where no white man holds ANY public office?

By your standards, it would appear that Trump is a racist.  So, tell me where is the sin, the "wrong" of the racist part?  If it makes you feel good to think of me as a racist, go for it.  With or without a wall, the majority of the non-white world sees you as their enemy.  They will take your country with or without human registration papers.

I'm committed to preserving my culture, but not at the expense of another person's Liberty.  I am capable of doing both.If the build the wall guys learned that secret, they could resolve the immigration issue without a wall, without socialism, and without all the emotion laden appeals to the misguided emotions of the masses.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't read. Your link to The Nation was a reprint from TomDispatch.com. They threw out many numbers with thin or no sourcing.
> 
> Now you're making claims about National Socialist, with no names or sources. Stop using generalize bogymen and buzz words, name names and give sources.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well where do we start?  Some names and sources.  It would be more amazing if you could watch me in person deliver this from the top of my head, but I can verify it with those all important links that you think will make a difference.  You and I both realize that you'll attack the links, but bear in mind *I AM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE*.  This reflects what I've lived, the people I've known, activities I've participated in, and /or activities I have first hand knowledge of.  The links are simply for your amusement.  Use of their links only proves that certain actions happened.  They do not necessarily mean I believe in or endorse their ideology.
> 
> The whole border B.S. of modern starts with David Duke and *Border Watch*.  In the 1970s the neo - nazi who founded his own version of the Ku Klux Klan brought attention to the issue:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> David Duke began rubbing elbows with rich fat cats that were connected to the *Pioneer Fund*.  Since I am persona non grata with the NS, I have to rely on the left to make the connection, but their facts are verifiable:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> Through the Pioneer Fund, David Duke met and became friends with *John Tanton*, a eugenics activist:
> 
> It {John Tanton's organizations}  has funded Anglo-American race scientists as well as anti-immigration groups such as the* Federation for American Immigration Reform* (FAIR)
> 
> Pioneer Fund - SourceWatch
> 
> John Tanton founded and financed nonprofits like the *Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA*, and a few more that build the wall guys love to cite.
> 
> John Tanton - Wikipedia
> 
> John Tanton supplied David Duke with his basic talking points when he did the Border Watch thing.  I'd bet Duke still promotes the same rhetoric.
> 
> Duke's people went underground with the advent of *Louis Beam* and his efforts to dust off Col. Ulius Louis Amoss old thesis on *Leaderless Resistance*.
> 
> *AFTER* the left engineered the events that led up to 9 / 11, they conned the right into supporting the* multi billion dollar* creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security.  I won't document that since you have already claimed that one.  Tea Party Republicans introduced the so - called "Patriot Act",  National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify - ALL of which had been vehemently opposed by conservatives (it was in the days when all right wing organizations were selling Orwell's 1984 novel.)
> 
> BTW, as mentioned to you before Russia (communist) was the Motherland, Nazi Germany was the Fatherland and when this immigration issue came to light, America became the Fatherland.
> 
> Now, we fast forward to the creation of the current leadership.  John Tanton would be the man responsible for the talking points of the so - called Minutemen - the generation of nazis, inspired by the same man whose talking points appealed to David Duke.
> 
> Of those was one of the co - founders, Jim Gilchrist.  Gilchrist was outed from his own organization, but not before being exposed by the left as just a racist:
> 
> "Gilchrist and Chris Simcox are widely recognized as the founders of the Minuteman Project."
> 
> Jim Gilchrist - Wikipedia
> 
> Jim Gilchrist: Discredited & Defunct Minuteman Project Busted for Lies and Defamation
> 
> Chris Simcox, Gilchrist's second in command was proven to be a nazi as was Simcox's next in command:
> 
> Jim Gilchrist: Discredited & Defunct Minuteman Project Busted for Lies and Defamation
> 
> 5 of Arizona's Most Notorious  Racists and Their Crimes
> 
> Of course by now, if you read your precious links, you realize that one of the founders of the current build a wall - border patrol people J.T. Ready was a mass murderer and the other (Simcox) a pedophile:
> 
> Neo-Nazi Killed Family During 911 Call
> 
> Then there was neo nazi Shawna Forde, recruited by Jim Gilchrist, another of the major founders and leaders of the political philosophy you follow:
> 
> Shawna Forde Sentenced To Death For Double Murder In Arizona | HuffPost
> 
> These ARE the movers and shakers of the "movement" to which you challenged me on.  Well... birds of a feather flock together.  And now the build the wall guys can cite John Tanton till Hell freezes over, but they cannot distance themselves from this one truth:  AMERICA HAS AN IMMIGRATION PROBLEM, BUT THE CURRENT CROP OF BUILD THE WALL ADVOCATES ARE THE RESULT OF LOBBYING BY NATIONAL SOCIALISTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, the lunatic fringe, and now you're saying everyone of the 64 million who voted for Trump for a variety of reasons, including border security, are now part of that fringe. Got it.
> 
> Actually I don't know anyone who would align themselves with the freaks you outlined above. I also have never heard the US being referred to as the Fatherland.
> 
> I don't know about the other folks, but I've been proposing solutions to my congresscritters long before Trump came along. Including a ways to end visa overstays. In my view a wall where needed is only one minor component of the overall solution.
> 
> Personally, I would have no problem getting face to face with the asshole that wrote your fist link and busting him in the mouth.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idiocy by which you approach others is childish, stupid and would not be made by any sane adult.  YOU are part of a lunatic fringe.  You are absolutely delusional and I'm going to start treating you like you treat others.
> 
> Just because people vote for candidate A or candidate B does not make them part a parcel of everything that candidate is or stands for.  If you were a mature adult, I wouldn't have to be telling you these things.  Politicians are liars.  How many people would have voted for Trump if they knew, for a fact, that before he left office he would sign major gun control legislation?  The wall versus gun Rights.  We'll never know how that would turn out.
> 
> Donald Trump is a rich boy that, when speaking yesterday, did not know what to call duct tape; he did not know that MS13 was founded in America by Americans and that most of those had parents who entered the United States "legally" as you would erroneously call it.
> 
> A life long friend of mine and I were having a discussion about this because I'm contacting all my congresscritters about some ideas  I've been working on.  My friend says, "you've been working on this since the 10th grade."  Since I'm 62 now, I've had four decades to research the history, learn the legalities, and hear every excuse under God's green earth as to why something will or will not work.  I've discussed it with historians, politicians, lawyers, immigration officials, and hashed out many points in think tanks.
> 
> Over those four plus decades I have talked with many people of whom you are left of center of.  They see the problem and, like me, reject the wall idea as a solution.  I've listed some of the major ones and the next time some jackass tells me I did not list reasons that the wall jeopardizes our Liberty, I'm going to do another list to add to the one I have and keep reposting the post numbers on every page of this thread so that everyone who joins this conversation will see them.
> 
> Make no mistake.  America was founded by white Christians on the twin pillars of race and religion.  The bulk of the non-white world looks at America and they hate, loathe and despise the whites and that culture they built.  They have been programmed, Pavlovian style, to blame us for all their problems.  They want to tear down your monuments, statues, and memorials.  They want to erase your history.  I should have said they're doing it.  In Georgia, they take down a statue of a white man, and replace it with that of a black "Reverend" (what a joke) that spent his last hours on this earth cheating on his wife with some whores in a motel room.
> 
> There are better ideas than the proposed solutions being proffered by the nazis.  If you ever watched the movie Betrayed that stars Tom Berenger, you see that Costa - Gavras did a fairly accurate portrayal of the political differences between nazis, klan, and the right wing patriots.  Of course, Gavras had to portray the entire patriot community as murderers, but he did capture the tensions that existed back then  between the most extreme groups.
> 
> Today, the nazis are in control of the talking points on this issue.  I will remind you that Hitler died a defeated man.  Our forefathers fought, bled and died having created the greatest nation in the annals of history.  I prefer their solutions over those I KNOW will not work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because people vote for candidate A or candidate B does not make them part a parcel of everything that candidate is or stands for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From you're fist link:
> 
> Trump voters, though you can try all you want to rationalize that your vote was for “change,” your IQ test at the voting actually just confirmed that you—_yes *you*_—are in fact “okay” with racism. Which actually makes you a racist, too.
> 
> _It’s kinda like being a “little pregnant.” _Sorry!
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump is a rich boy that, when speaking yesterday, did not know what to call duct tape;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually what he described would have been painters tape, not duct tape.
> 
> Also you keep talking about a wall as a solution, I've never claimed it was a solution, I've said it's only one component of a solution. CNNs little jimmy acosta inadvertently proved that yesterday in his tranquility.
> 
> As for what the founder created, they created a new nation form what was radical ideas at the time. It was somewhat a compromise to get adequate numbers to go along with it. Like any good architect they used the tools and materials they had. Anyone who tries to judge our founders by todays standards is a fool.
> 
> But feel free to try to portray yourself as some kind of superior being. Your opinions are just that, as are mine.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me clue you in on a few things:
> 
> 1)  I came here asking questions so I could determine how to answer the question why building a wall is wrong.  We cannot have a discussion about what wrong means without a meeting of the minds
> 
> 2)  There is no reason you should be getting into personality contests with people.  As you say, this is opinions; it's not a debate forum and nobody is running for public office here - not as far as can be seen by reading the posts here
> 
> 3)  When it comes to racism, *IMO*, it's simply a scare word to divert people's attention and keep them off balance.  For example, I have brought up the Chinese and their wall, reminding you that they are 92 plus percent one people (one race.)  Zimbabwe is 99.7 percent black.  Japan is over 98 percent Japanese and they tout their racial purity.  North Korea is over 98 percent one race.  Are you whining about that?  Does that "racism" bother you?  Does it concern you that there are a LOT of countries where no white man holds ANY public office?
> 
> By your standards, it would appear that Trump is a racist.  So, tell me where is the sin, the "wrong" of the racist part?  If it makes you feel good to think of me as a racist, go for it.  With or without a wall, the majority of the non-white world sees you as their enemy.  They will take your country with or without human registration papers.
> 
> I'm committed to preserving my culture, but not at the expense of another person's Liberty.  I am capable of doing both.If the build the wall guys learned that secret, they could resolve the immigration issue without a wall, without socialism, and without all the emotion laden appeals to the misguided emotions of the masses.
Click to expand...



After giving you post some serious thought, I don't see us agreeing on any aspect of this topic. So carry on.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well where do we start?  Some names and sources.  It would be more amazing if you could watch me in person deliver this from the top of my head, but I can verify it with those all important links that you think will make a difference.  You and I both realize that you'll attack the links, but bear in mind *I AM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE*.  This reflects what I've lived, the people I've known, activities I've participated in, and /or activities I have first hand knowledge of.  The links are simply for your amusement.  Use of their links only proves that certain actions happened.  They do not necessarily mean I believe in or endorse their ideology.
> 
> The whole border B.S. of modern starts with David Duke and *Border Watch*.  In the 1970s the neo - nazi who founded his own version of the Ku Klux Klan brought attention to the issue:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> David Duke began rubbing elbows with rich fat cats that were connected to the *Pioneer Fund*.  Since I am persona non grata with the NS, I have to rely on the left to make the connection, but their facts are verifiable:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> Through the Pioneer Fund, David Duke met and became friends with *John Tanton*, a eugenics activist:
> 
> It {John Tanton's organizations}  has funded Anglo-American race scientists as well as anti-immigration groups such as the* Federation for American Immigration Reform* (FAIR)
> 
> Pioneer Fund - SourceWatch
> 
> John Tanton founded and financed nonprofits like the *Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA*, and a few more that build the wall guys love to cite.
> 
> John Tanton - Wikipedia
> 
> John Tanton supplied David Duke with his basic talking points when he did the Border Watch thing.  I'd bet Duke still promotes the same rhetoric.
> 
> Duke's people went underground with the advent of *Louis Beam* and his efforts to dust off Col. Ulius Louis Amoss old thesis on *Leaderless Resistance*.
> 
> *AFTER* the left engineered the events that led up to 9 / 11, they conned the right into supporting the* multi billion dollar* creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security.  I won't document that since you have already claimed that one.  Tea Party Republicans introduced the so - called "Patriot Act",  National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify - ALL of which had been vehemently opposed by conservatives (it was in the days when all right wing organizations were selling Orwell's 1984 novel.)
> 
> BTW, as mentioned to you before Russia (communist) was the Motherland, Nazi Germany was the Fatherland and when this immigration issue came to light, America became the Fatherland.
> 
> Now, we fast forward to the creation of the current leadership.  John Tanton would be the man responsible for the talking points of the so - called Minutemen - the generation of nazis, inspired by the same man whose talking points appealed to David Duke.
> 
> Of those was one of the co - founders, Jim Gilchrist.  Gilchrist was outed from his own organization, but not before being exposed by the left as just a racist:
> 
> "Gilchrist and Chris Simcox are widely recognized as the founders of the Minuteman Project."
> 
> Jim Gilchrist - Wikipedia
> 
> Jim Gilchrist: Discredited & Defunct Minuteman Project Busted for Lies and Defamation
> 
> Chris Simcox, Gilchrist's second in command was proven to be a nazi as was Simcox's next in command:
> 
> Jim Gilchrist: Discredited & Defunct Minuteman Project Busted for Lies and Defamation
> 
> 5 of Arizona's Most Notorious  Racists and Their Crimes
> 
> Of course by now, if you read your precious links, you realize that one of the founders of the current build a wall - border patrol people J.T. Ready was a mass murderer and the other (Simcox) a pedophile:
> 
> Neo-Nazi Killed Family During 911 Call
> 
> Then there was neo nazi Shawna Forde, recruited by Jim Gilchrist, another of the major founders and leaders of the political philosophy you follow:
> 
> Shawna Forde Sentenced To Death For Double Murder In Arizona | HuffPost
> 
> These ARE the movers and shakers of the "movement" to which you challenged me on.  Well... birds of a feather flock together.  And now the build the wall guys can cite John Tanton till Hell freezes over, but they cannot distance themselves from this one truth:  AMERICA HAS AN IMMIGRATION PROBLEM, BUT THE CURRENT CROP OF BUILD THE WALL ADVOCATES ARE THE RESULT OF LOBBYING BY NATIONAL SOCIALISTS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, the lunatic fringe, and now you're saying everyone of the 64 million who voted for Trump for a variety of reasons, including border security, are now part of that fringe. Got it.
> 
> Actually I don't know anyone who would align themselves with the freaks you outlined above. I also have never heard the US being referred to as the Fatherland.
> 
> I don't know about the other folks, but I've been proposing solutions to my congresscritters long before Trump came along. Including a ways to end visa overstays. In my view a wall where needed is only one minor component of the overall solution.
> 
> Personally, I would have no problem getting face to face with the asshole that wrote your fist link and busting him in the mouth.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idiocy by which you approach others is childish, stupid and would not be made by any sane adult.  YOU are part of a lunatic fringe.  You are absolutely delusional and I'm going to start treating you like you treat others.
> 
> Just because people vote for candidate A or candidate B does not make them part a parcel of everything that candidate is or stands for.  If you were a mature adult, I wouldn't have to be telling you these things.  Politicians are liars.  How many people would have voted for Trump if they knew, for a fact, that before he left office he would sign major gun control legislation?  The wall versus gun Rights.  We'll never know how that would turn out.
> 
> Donald Trump is a rich boy that, when speaking yesterday, did not know what to call duct tape; he did not know that MS13 was founded in America by Americans and that most of those had parents who entered the United States "legally" as you would erroneously call it.
> 
> A life long friend of mine and I were having a discussion about this because I'm contacting all my congresscritters about some ideas  I've been working on.  My friend says, "you've been working on this since the 10th grade."  Since I'm 62 now, I've had four decades to research the history, learn the legalities, and hear every excuse under God's green earth as to why something will or will not work.  I've discussed it with historians, politicians, lawyers, immigration officials, and hashed out many points in think tanks.
> 
> Over those four plus decades I have talked with many people of whom you are left of center of.  They see the problem and, like me, reject the wall idea as a solution.  I've listed some of the major ones and the next time some jackass tells me I did not list reasons that the wall jeopardizes our Liberty, I'm going to do another list to add to the one I have and keep reposting the post numbers on every page of this thread so that everyone who joins this conversation will see them.
> 
> Make no mistake.  America was founded by white Christians on the twin pillars of race and religion.  The bulk of the non-white world looks at America and they hate, loathe and despise the whites and that culture they built.  They have been programmed, Pavlovian style, to blame us for all their problems.  They want to tear down your monuments, statues, and memorials.  They want to erase your history.  I should have said they're doing it.  In Georgia, they take down a statue of a white man, and replace it with that of a black "Reverend" (what a joke) that spent his last hours on this earth cheating on his wife with some whores in a motel room.
> 
> There are better ideas than the proposed solutions being proffered by the nazis.  If you ever watched the movie Betrayed that stars Tom Berenger, you see that Costa - Gavras did a fairly accurate portrayal of the political differences between nazis, klan, and the right wing patriots.  Of course, Gavras had to portray the entire patriot community as murderers, but he did capture the tensions that existed back then  between the most extreme groups.
> 
> Today, the nazis are in control of the talking points on this issue.  I will remind you that Hitler died a defeated man.  Our forefathers fought, bled and died having created the greatest nation in the annals of history.  I prefer their solutions over those I KNOW will not work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because people vote for candidate A or candidate B does not make them part a parcel of everything that candidate is or stands for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From you're fist link:
> 
> Trump voters, though you can try all you want to rationalize that your vote was for “change,” your IQ test at the voting actually just confirmed that you—_yes *you*_—are in fact “okay” with racism. Which actually makes you a racist, too.
> 
> _It’s kinda like being a “little pregnant.” _Sorry!
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump is a rich boy that, when speaking yesterday, did not know what to call duct tape;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually what he described would have been painters tape, not duct tape.
> 
> Also you keep talking about a wall as a solution, I've never claimed it was a solution, I've said it's only one component of a solution. CNNs little jimmy acosta inadvertently proved that yesterday in his tranquility.
> 
> As for what the founder created, they created a new nation form what was radical ideas at the time. It was somewhat a compromise to get adequate numbers to go along with it. Like any good architect they used the tools and materials they had. Anyone who tries to judge our founders by todays standards is a fool.
> 
> But feel free to try to portray yourself as some kind of superior being. Your opinions are just that, as are mine.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me clue you in on a few things:
> 
> 1)  I came here asking questions so I could determine how to answer the question why building a wall is wrong.  We cannot have a discussion about what wrong means without a meeting of the minds
> 
> 2)  There is no reason you should be getting into personality contests with people.  As you say, this is opinions; it's not a debate forum and nobody is running for public office here - not as far as can be seen by reading the posts here
> 
> 3)  When it comes to racism, *IMO*, it's simply a scare word to divert people's attention and keep them off balance.  For example, I have brought up the Chinese and their wall, reminding you that they are 92 plus percent one people (one race.)  Zimbabwe is 99.7 percent black.  Japan is over 98 percent Japanese and they tout their racial purity.  North Korea is over 98 percent one race.  Are you whining about that?  Does that "racism" bother you?  Does it concern you that there are a LOT of countries where no white man holds ANY public office?
> 
> By your standards, it would appear that Trump is a racist.  So, tell me where is the sin, the "wrong" of the racist part?  If it makes you feel good to think of me as a racist, go for it.  With or without a wall, the majority of the non-white world sees you as their enemy.  They will take your country with or without human registration papers.
> 
> I'm committed to preserving my culture, but not at the expense of another person's Liberty.  I am capable of doing both.If the build the wall guys learned that secret, they could resolve the immigration issue without a wall, without socialism, and without all the emotion laden appeals to the misguided emotions of the masses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> After giving you post some serious thought, I don't see us agreeing on any aspect of this topic. So carry on.
> 
> .
Click to expand...





   Have a nice day.


----------



## eagle1462010

sealybobo said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. will increase the number of immigration judges by 50 percent to take on ballooning backlog | Daily Mail Online
> 
> The number of immigration cases on hold in the U.S. has risen 38 percent since Trump took office, with 746,049 pending immigration cases as of July 31, up from 542,411 at the end of January 2017, according to an analysis of government data by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.
> 
> Sessions asserted his authority on Monday during remarks welcoming * 44 newly hired immigration judges* - the largest class in U.S. history - noting that they must operate under his supervision and perform the duties that he prescribes.
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but what else is he asking for? Probably why they said no.
Click to expand...

Perhaps.


----------



## Slyhunter

It's not Trumps wall, it's America's Wall. Build the damn wall.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> It's not Trumps wall, it's America's Wall. Build the damn wall.



Let's waste Billions if not TRILLONS of dollars on a freaking wall that, under the next liberal will be defunded.  Then you will have miles and miles of walls with graffiti on them with broken cameras and the JBTs assigned to watch the wall will be patrolling and controlling those who suffer from TDS.  Careful of what you wish for.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not Trumps wall, it's America's Wall. Build the damn wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's waste Billions if not TRILLONS of dollars on a freaking wall that, under the next liberal will be defunded.  Then you will have miles and miles of walls with graffiti on them with broken cameras and the JBTs assigned to watch the wall will be patrolling and controlling those who suffer from TDS.  Careful of what you wish for.
Click to expand...

You need decaf coffee.............Trillions..........you are off your rocker.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Daryl Hunt said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 less than requested..............And you said he didn't want them...........You lied....
> 
> Name the 90 Senators that are ready to fold.........back up your comments for once.............
> 
> Trump WILL VETO IT...............and you don't have the numbers there....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It came out in the news today.  But also that the House Majority Leader refused to allow it go to the open floor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Elections have consequences...............Dems don't have the House...........too bad.............
> 
> 5.6 Billion isn't jack squat to the overall Federal Budget..............compared to the BS they spend on all the time........Pony the fuck up or it stays down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dems have the House and the Senate is getting real worried about 2020.  The general public isn't buying the Trump Snake Oil on this one.  The next step might be a change in the Senate Majority Leader to break the stalemate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are flat out wrong...........Border Security is high in the minds of the people when it's time to vote...............Why the Dems act tough on it come election time............their actions don't do the same.........
> 
> They have been backed into a corner and now their true colors are coming out..........They DON'T WANT BORDER SECURITY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep using Border Security for the word Wall.  Yah, I know, you can't tell the difference.  And Obama had most of the 733 miles of Border Fence and Wall built in his 8 years.  Trump has built Zero in 2 years even though he was obligated by law to add on to it.  You can't count the concertina wire strung up at the entry point as building on the border security.  It appears that Trump is screaming his head off yet nothing real is getting done.  Once again, he is selling more snake oil and you are buying it.
Click to expand...


You can’t be obligated by law to add to any wall when Chuck Shummer and Nancy Pelosi flatly reject any deal that includes the wall.  Shummer himself said for any shutdown to end Trump must give up the wall.  So where is the real proof of democrats and border security?  Meanwhile the Democrats botched gun tracking with Fast and Furious under Eric Holder, we have Mexican gang violence (MS-13) entering the United States. We believe in airport security after 9-11, but no strict border enforcement from a clear obvious *illegal* crossing of immigrants?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It came out in the news today.  But also that the House Majority Leader refused to allow it go to the open floor.
> 
> 
> 
> Elections have consequences...............Dems don't have the House...........too bad.............
> 
> 5.6 Billion isn't jack squat to the overall Federal Budget..............compared to the BS they spend on all the time........Pony the fuck up or it stays down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dems have the House and the Senate is getting real worried about 2020.  The general public isn't buying the Trump Snake Oil on this one.  The next step might be a change in the Senate Majority Leader to break the stalemate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are flat out wrong...........Border Security is high in the minds of the people when it's time to vote...............Why the Dems act tough on it come election time............their actions don't do the same.........
> 
> They have been backed into a corner and now their true colors are coming out..........They DON'T WANT BORDER SECURITY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep using Border Security for the word Wall.  Yah, I know, you can't tell the difference.  And Obama had most of the 733 miles of Border Fence and Wall built in his 8 years.  Trump has built Zero in 2 years even though he was obligated by law to add on to it.  You can't count the concertina wire strung up at the entry point as building on the border security.  It appears that Trump is screaming his head off yet nothing real is getting done.  Once again, he is selling more snake oil and you are buying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can’t be obligated by law to add to any wall when Chuck Shummer and Nancy Pelosi flatly reject any deal that includes the wall.  Shummer himself said for any shutdown to end Trump must give up the wall.  So where is the real proof of democrats and border security?  Meanwhile the Democrats botched gun tracking with Fast and Furious under Eric Holder, we have Mexican gang violence (MS-13) entering the United States. We believe in airport security after 9-11, but no strict border enforcement from a clear obvious *illegal* crossing of immigrants?
Click to expand...


Once the hold is lifted, the budget must include 1.3 billion for Border Security.  It's the law.  This is why the Dems started the negotiations at that figure.  Trump lied out his ass about the border security not being funded without him approving it.  It became law as of 2006 in the Border Security Law passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by Bush, Jr..  The Budget automatically includes that 1.3 billion.  But you listen to your Orange Diety who lies out his ass and says no money is allocated for the wall.  it's been there since 2006.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not Trumps wall, it's America's Wall. Build the damn wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's waste Billions if not TRILLONS of dollars on a freaking wall that, under the next liberal will be defunded.  Then you will have miles and miles of walls with graffiti on them with broken cameras and the JBTs assigned to watch the wall will be patrolling and controlling those who suffer from TDS.  Careful of what you wish for.
Click to expand...

It's not going to cost Trillions.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not Trumps wall, it's America's Wall. Build the damn wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's waste Billions if not TRILLONS of dollars on a freaking wall that, under the next liberal will be defunded.  Then you will have miles and miles of walls with graffiti on them with broken cameras and the JBTs assigned to watch the wall will be patrolling and controlling those who suffer from TDS.  Careful of what you wish for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need decaf coffee.............Trillions..........you are off your rocker.
Click to expand...


You've obviously forgotten the costs of implementing National ID and the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security that were started to justify "border security.  Build the wall, the drones, the manpower, the sensors, the motion detectors, etc. - naw that stuff is cheap... NOT


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not Trumps wall, it's America's Wall. Build the damn wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's waste Billions if not TRILLONS of dollars on a freaking wall that, under the next liberal will be defunded.  Then you will have miles and miles of walls with graffiti on them with broken cameras and the JBTs assigned to watch the wall will be patrolling and controlling those who suffer from TDS.  Careful of what you wish for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need decaf coffee.............Trillions..........you are off your rocker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've obviously forgotten the costs of implementing National ID and the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security that were started to justify "border security.  Build the wall, the drones, the manpower, the sensors, the motion detectors, etc. - naw that stuff is cheap... NOT
Click to expand...

I've looked at the proposals and budget and equipment.......it's not a Trillion........geesh............


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not Trumps wall, it's America's Wall. Build the damn wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's waste Billions if not TRILLONS of dollars on a freaking wall that, under the next liberal will be defunded.  Then you will have miles and miles of walls with graffiti on them with broken cameras and the JBTs assigned to watch the wall will be patrolling and controlling those who suffer from TDS.  Careful of what you wish for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not going to cost Trillions.
Click to expand...


I was being conservative in the final analysis.  America has blown a couple of trillion on border security since 9 / 11 and  you still don't have a wall... just a lot of tyrannical measures that affect more Americans than foreigners.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not Trumps wall, it's America's Wall. Build the damn wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's waste Billions if not TRILLONS of dollars on a freaking wall that, under the next liberal will be defunded.  Then you will have miles and miles of walls with graffiti on them with broken cameras and the JBTs assigned to watch the wall will be patrolling and controlling those who suffer from TDS.  Careful of what you wish for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need decaf coffee.............Trillions..........you are off your rocker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've obviously forgotten the costs of implementing National ID and the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security that were started to justify "border security.  Build the wall, the drones, the manpower, the sensors, the motion detectors, etc. - naw that stuff is cheap... NOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've looked at the proposals and budget and equipment.......it's not a Trillion........geesh............
Click to expand...


You've looked at estimates and those stop at building your precious wall.  I don't particularly like to discuss the costs in dollars and cents.  Trillions have been spent already and you still aren't satisfied.  I'm concerned about the costs relative to Liberty and the strategy that will end in defeat within a generation.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not Trumps wall, it's America's Wall. Build the damn wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's waste Billions if not TRILLONS of dollars on a freaking wall that, under the next liberal will be defunded.  Then you will have miles and miles of walls with graffiti on them with broken cameras and the JBTs assigned to watch the wall will be patrolling and controlling those who suffer from TDS.  Careful of what you wish for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need decaf coffee.............Trillions..........you are off your rocker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've obviously forgotten the costs of implementing National ID and the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security that were started to justify "border security.  Build the wall, the drones, the manpower, the sensors, the motion detectors, etc. - naw that stuff is cheap... NOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've looked at the proposals and budget and equipment.......it's not a Trillion........geesh............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've looked at estimates and those stop at building your precious wall.  I don't particularly like to discuss the costs in dollars and cents.  Trillions have been spent already and you still aren't satisfied.  I'm concerned about the costs relative to Liberty and the strategy that will end in defeat within a generation.
Click to expand...

You need to be more specific .......how so.......on the wall that is BS.........And not all CBP work on the Southern Border.....They are customs enforcement too at POE's and Airports and Sea Ports............Are you trying to imply the total bill for manpower over time.........or just the Wall.

If it's just the Wall......then you are WAY OFF.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's waste Billions if not TRILLONS of dollars on a freaking wall that, under the next liberal will be defunded.  Then you will have miles and miles of walls with graffiti on them with broken cameras and the JBTs assigned to watch the wall will be patrolling and controlling those who suffer from TDS.  Careful of what you wish for.
> 
> 
> 
> You need decaf coffee.............Trillions..........you are off your rocker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've obviously forgotten the costs of implementing National ID and the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security that were started to justify "border security.  Build the wall, the drones, the manpower, the sensors, the motion detectors, etc. - naw that stuff is cheap... NOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've looked at the proposals and budget and equipment.......it's not a Trillion........geesh............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've looked at estimates and those stop at building your precious wall.  I don't particularly like to discuss the costs in dollars and cents.  Trillions have been spent already and you still aren't satisfied.  I'm concerned about the costs relative to Liberty and the strategy that will end in defeat within a generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to be more specific .......how so.......on the wall that is BS.........And not all CBP work on the Southern Border.....They are customs enforcement too at POE's and Airports and Sea Ports............Are you trying to imply the total bill for manpower over time.........or just the Wall.
> 
> If it's just the Wall......then you are WAY OFF.
Click to expand...


You cannot separate the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, etc. from the wall.  The cost of the wall is immaterial - UNLESS you're agreeing with me that once the liberals get back in power, the wall would just be an eyesore covered in graffiti and be a symbol of the stupidity of modern Americans.

Trying to tie the build the wall guys is like trying go grip a handful of slime.  All the manpower, maintenance, uniforms, firearms, etc. are all a part of this equation.  Don't you recall in 2013 how the DHS bought 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammunition?  

You're so blinded by the wall, you can't see the forest for the wall.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need decaf coffee.............Trillions..........you are off your rocker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've obviously forgotten the costs of implementing National ID and the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security that were started to justify "border security.  Build the wall, the drones, the manpower, the sensors, the motion detectors, etc. - naw that stuff is cheap... NOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've looked at the proposals and budget and equipment.......it's not a Trillion........geesh............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've looked at estimates and those stop at building your precious wall.  I don't particularly like to discuss the costs in dollars and cents.  Trillions have been spent already and you still aren't satisfied.  I'm concerned about the costs relative to Liberty and the strategy that will end in defeat within a generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to be more specific .......how so.......on the wall that is BS.........And not all CBP work on the Southern Border.....They are customs enforcement too at POE's and Airports and Sea Ports............Are you trying to imply the total bill for manpower over time.........or just the Wall.
> 
> If it's just the Wall......then you are WAY OFF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot separate the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, etc. from the wall.  The cost of the wall is immaterial - UNLESS you're agreeing with me that once the liberals get back in power, the wall would just be an eyesore covered in graffiti and be a symbol of the stupidity of modern Americans.
> 
> Trying to tie the build the wall guys is like trying go grip a handful of slime.  All the manpower, maintenance, uniforms, firearms, etc. are all a part of this equation.  Don't you recall in 2013 how the DHS bought 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammunition?
> 
> You're so blinded by the wall, you can't see the forest for the wall.
Click to expand...

You are full of it..........I've been putting the data all over threads on the aspects of this............I asked for clarity on the Trillions.......where is it.......


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've obviously forgotten the costs of implementing National ID and the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security that were started to justify "border security.  Build the wall, the drones, the manpower, the sensors, the motion detectors, etc. - naw that stuff is cheap... NOT
> 
> 
> 
> I've looked at the proposals and budget and equipment.......it's not a Trillion........geesh............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've looked at estimates and those stop at building your precious wall.  I don't particularly like to discuss the costs in dollars and cents.  Trillions have been spent already and you still aren't satisfied.  I'm concerned about the costs relative to Liberty and the strategy that will end in defeat within a generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to be more specific .......how so.......on the wall that is BS.........And not all CBP work on the Southern Border.....They are customs enforcement too at POE's and Airports and Sea Ports............Are you trying to imply the total bill for manpower over time.........or just the Wall.
> 
> If it's just the Wall......then you are WAY OFF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot separate the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, etc. from the wall.  The cost of the wall is immaterial - UNLESS you're agreeing with me that once the liberals get back in power, the wall would just be an eyesore covered in graffiti and be a symbol of the stupidity of modern Americans.
> 
> Trying to tie the build the wall guys is like trying go grip a handful of slime.  All the manpower, maintenance, uniforms, firearms, etc. are all a part of this equation.  Don't you recall in 2013 how the DHS bought 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammunition?
> 
> You're so blinded by the wall, you can't see the forest for the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are full of it..........I've been putting the data all over threads on the aspects of this............I asked for clarity on the Trillions.......where is it.......
Click to expand...


Your posts with endless ellipsis are idiotic and look like the ravings of a freaking lunatic.  Try reading the posts.  The higher dollar items are listed for you.

The Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security which oversees "border security" has a budget of $40.6 BILLION DOLLARS a year.  That department is 17 years old.  A quick swag tells me that in 24 years DHS will spend a TRILLION DOLLARS.  In 8 more years, that agency ALONE will have cost a TRILLION DOLLARS. 

Ah, yes, we see your objection now.  A lot of that money is being spent on things OTHER THAN border security at the southern border, but the lion's share is being invested in the place where the build the wall guys worship.  And that is just ONE AGENCY.

So, what exactly, is your point or do you even have one?  Complete sentences in English appreciated.

BTW, I guess you don't understand that the $5.7 BILLION dollars (which will be significantly more only costs the building of the wall.)  Buying private property, fighting private property owners that don't want to sale and lawsuits filed by various people - like environmentalists have to be included.

Your silly posts presume that the drones, ninja clad mercenaries with their perks (time off, uniforms, insurance, weapons, etc.) along with cameras, motion sensors, etc. will be donated for free and replaced / maintained at no cost.  

Proving that you are already in this for Trillions is child's play.  It is of little concern to me.  I AM MORE FOCUSED ON THE COSTS TO OUR LIBERTIES... A COST YOU CONVENIENTLY AVOID.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've looked at the proposals and budget and equipment.......it's not a Trillion........geesh............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've looked at estimates and those stop at building your precious wall.  I don't particularly like to discuss the costs in dollars and cents.  Trillions have been spent already and you still aren't satisfied.  I'm concerned about the costs relative to Liberty and the strategy that will end in defeat within a generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to be more specific .......how so.......on the wall that is BS.........And not all CBP work on the Southern Border.....They are customs enforcement too at POE's and Airports and Sea Ports............Are you trying to imply the total bill for manpower over time.........or just the Wall.
> 
> If it's just the Wall......then you are WAY OFF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot separate the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, etc. from the wall.  The cost of the wall is immaterial - UNLESS you're agreeing with me that once the liberals get back in power, the wall would just be an eyesore covered in graffiti and be a symbol of the stupidity of modern Americans.
> 
> Trying to tie the build the wall guys is like trying go grip a handful of slime.  All the manpower, maintenance, uniforms, firearms, etc. are all a part of this equation.  Don't you recall in 2013 how the DHS bought 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammunition?
> 
> You're so blinded by the wall, you can't see the forest for the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are full of it..........I've been putting the data all over threads on the aspects of this............I asked for clarity on the Trillions.......where is it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts with endless ellipsis are idiotic and look like the ravings of a freaking lunatic.  Try reading the posts.  The higher dollar items are listed for you.
> 
> The Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security which oversees "border security" has a budget of $40.6 BILLION DOLLARS a year.  That department is 17 years old.  A quick swag tells me that in 24 years DHS will spend a TRILLION DOLLARS.  In 8 more years, that agency ALONE will have cost a TRILLION DOLLARS.
> 
> Ah, yes, we see your objection now.  A lot of that money is being spent on things OTHER THAN border security at the southern border, but the lion's share is being invested in the place where the build the wall guys worship.  And that is just ONE AGENCY.
> 
> So, what exactly, is your point or do you even have one?  Complete sentences in English appreciated.
Click to expand...

That is 974.4 Billion in 24 years..........Is your calculator broken...........That hasn't reached a Trillion yet.............You said TRILLIONS.......PLURAL.......then didn't specify from what........and their entire budget takes 25 years to reach a TRILLION............singular..........

So you don't CLARIFY your TRILLIONS REMARK......and then try to back it up with today's numbers.......which are higher than previous years.....and then can't even use a calculator to know how many years at that amount makes the 1st Trillion

Did you drop out of school.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Timmy said:


> It’s a waste of money .   .



More importantly, "a wall is an immorality" therefore we should tear down the existing wall and put our money toward "border security".


----------



## Geaux4it

I want the wall as a symbol to the illegal, non law abiding rapist and terrorist in he group that they are not wanted or welcome here. Go back to the cardboard box you lived in and quit trying to make America look like the shit holes you left

-Geaux


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've looked at estimates and those stop at building your precious wall.  I don't particularly like to discuss the costs in dollars and cents.  Trillions have been spent already and you still aren't satisfied.  I'm concerned about the costs relative to Liberty and the strategy that will end in defeat within a generation.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to be more specific .......how so.......on the wall that is BS.........And not all CBP work on the Southern Border.....They are customs enforcement too at POE's and Airports and Sea Ports............Are you trying to imply the total bill for manpower over time.........or just the Wall.
> 
> If it's just the Wall......then you are WAY OFF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot separate the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, etc. from the wall.  The cost of the wall is immaterial - UNLESS you're agreeing with me that once the liberals get back in power, the wall would just be an eyesore covered in graffiti and be a symbol of the stupidity of modern Americans.
> 
> Trying to tie the build the wall guys is like trying go grip a handful of slime.  All the manpower, maintenance, uniforms, firearms, etc. are all a part of this equation.  Don't you recall in 2013 how the DHS bought 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammunition?
> 
> You're so blinded by the wall, you can't see the forest for the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are full of it..........I've been putting the data all over threads on the aspects of this............I asked for clarity on the Trillions.......where is it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts with endless ellipsis are idiotic and look like the ravings of a freaking lunatic.  Try reading the posts.  The higher dollar items are listed for you.
> 
> The Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security which oversees "border security" has a budget of $40.6 BILLION DOLLARS a year.  That department is 17 years old.  A quick swag tells me that in 24 years DHS will spend a TRILLION DOLLARS.  In 8 more years, that agency ALONE will have cost a TRILLION DOLLARS.
> 
> Ah, yes, we see your objection now.  A lot of that money is being spent on things OTHER THAN border security at the southern border, but the lion's share is being invested in the place where the build the wall guys worship.  And that is just ONE AGENCY.
> 
> So, what exactly, is your point or do you even have one?  Complete sentences in English appreciated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is 974.4 Billion in 24 years..........Is your calculator broken...........That hasn't reached a Trillion yet.............You said TRILLIONS.......PLURAL.......then didn't specify from what........and their entire budget takes 25 years to reach a TRILLION............singular..........
> 
> So you don't CLARIFY your TRILLIONS REMARK......and then try to back it up with today's numbers.......which are higher than previous years.....and then can't even use a calculator to know how many years at that amount makes the 1st Trillion
> 
> Did you drop out of school.
Click to expand...


If your asking him to take the time to back up his responses with resources, links to figures, and actual evidence to prove that his information is accurate, you’re going to be in for a very ... very long wait.  You’re talking about someone who says he’s prepped 250 cases but cant be bothered with simple research.  Don’t be surprised if he only bloviates, provides none of the linked resource evidence you only BEEN asking for the last 3 responses, yet thinks everyone else is the idiot.

Just watch.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've looked at estimates and those stop at building your precious wall.  I don't particularly like to discuss the costs in dollars and cents.  Trillions have been spent already and you still aren't satisfied.  I'm concerned about the costs relative to Liberty and the strategy that will end in defeat within a generation.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to be more specific .......how so.......on the wall that is BS.........And not all CBP work on the Southern Border.....They are customs enforcement too at POE's and Airports and Sea Ports............Are you trying to imply the total bill for manpower over time.........or just the Wall.
> 
> If it's just the Wall......then you are WAY OFF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot separate the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, etc. from the wall.  The cost of the wall is immaterial - UNLESS you're agreeing with me that once the liberals get back in power, the wall would just be an eyesore covered in graffiti and be a symbol of the stupidity of modern Americans.
> 
> Trying to tie the build the wall guys is like trying go grip a handful of slime.  All the manpower, maintenance, uniforms, firearms, etc. are all a part of this equation.  Don't you recall in 2013 how the DHS bought 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammunition?
> 
> You're so blinded by the wall, you can't see the forest for the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are full of it..........I've been putting the data all over threads on the aspects of this............I asked for clarity on the Trillions.......where is it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts with endless ellipsis are idiotic and look like the ravings of a freaking lunatic.  Try reading the posts.  The higher dollar items are listed for you.
> 
> The Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security which oversees "border security" has a budget of $40.6 BILLION DOLLARS a year.  That department is 17 years old.  A quick swag tells me that in 24 years DHS will spend a TRILLION DOLLARS.  In 8 more years, that agency ALONE will have cost a TRILLION DOLLARS.
> 
> Ah, yes, we see your objection now.  A lot of that money is being spent on things OTHER THAN border security at the southern border, but the lion's share is being invested in the place where the build the wall guys worship.  And that is just ONE AGENCY.
> 
> So, what exactly, is your point or do you even have one?  Complete sentences in English appreciated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is 974.4 Billion in 24 years..........Is your calculator broken...........That hasn't reached a Trillion yet.............You said TRILLIONS.......PLURAL.......then didn't specify from what........and their entire budget takes 25 years to reach a TRILLION............singular..........
> 
> So you don't CLARIFY your TRILLIONS REMARK......and then try to back it up with today's numbers.......which are higher than previous years.....and then can't even use a calculator to know how many years at that amount makes the 1st Trillion
> 
> Did you drop out of school.
Click to expand...


Did you not READ my post?  Are you stupid or simply a troll?  I told you the figure was a swag that I did off the top of my head.  I didn't use a calculator.  

More of your dumbassery is that I cited *ONE AREA OF BUREAUCRACY RELATED TO THIS ISSUE*.  WTF?  Are you that stupid or do you assume all those with TDS are as idiotic as you?


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to be more specific .......how so.......on the wall that is BS.........And not all CBP work on the Southern Border.....They are customs enforcement too at POE's and Airports and Sea Ports............Are you trying to imply the total bill for manpower over time.........or just the Wall.
> 
> If it's just the Wall......then you are WAY OFF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot separate the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, etc. from the wall.  The cost of the wall is immaterial - UNLESS you're agreeing with me that once the liberals get back in power, the wall would just be an eyesore covered in graffiti and be a symbol of the stupidity of modern Americans.
> 
> Trying to tie the build the wall guys is like trying go grip a handful of slime.  All the manpower, maintenance, uniforms, firearms, etc. are all a part of this equation.  Don't you recall in 2013 how the DHS bought 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammunition?
> 
> You're so blinded by the wall, you can't see the forest for the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are full of it..........I've been putting the data all over threads on the aspects of this............I asked for clarity on the Trillions.......where is it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts with endless ellipsis are idiotic and look like the ravings of a freaking lunatic.  Try reading the posts.  The higher dollar items are listed for you.
> 
> The Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security which oversees "border security" has a budget of $40.6 BILLION DOLLARS a year.  That department is 17 years old.  A quick swag tells me that in 24 years DHS will spend a TRILLION DOLLARS.  In 8 more years, that agency ALONE will have cost a TRILLION DOLLARS.
> 
> Ah, yes, we see your objection now.  A lot of that money is being spent on things OTHER THAN border security at the southern border, but the lion's share is being invested in the place where the build the wall guys worship.  And that is just ONE AGENCY.
> 
> So, what exactly, is your point or do you even have one?  Complete sentences in English appreciated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is 974.4 Billion in 24 years..........Is your calculator broken...........That hasn't reached a Trillion yet.............You said TRILLIONS.......PLURAL.......then didn't specify from what........and their entire budget takes 25 years to reach a TRILLION............singular..........
> 
> So you don't CLARIFY your TRILLIONS REMARK......and then try to back it up with today's numbers.......which are higher than previous years.....and then can't even use a calculator to know how many years at that amount makes the 1st Trillion
> 
> Did you drop out of school.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you not READ my post?  Are you stupid or simply a troll?  I told you the figure was a swag that I did off the top of my head.  I didn't use a calculator.
> 
> More of your dumbassery is that I cited *ONE AREA OF BUREAUCRACY RELATED TO THIS ISSUE*.  WTF?  Are you that stupid or do you assume all those with TDS are as idiotic as you?
Click to expand...

Your math doesn't back your numbers.......PERIOD........and you said Trillions........but your numbers and 24 years didn't add up to a Trillion.  

You didn't specify where the Trillions came from.  And when you tried to justify that comment you fell flat on your face.  LOL


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to be more specific .......how so.......on the wall that is BS.........And not all CBP work on the Southern Border.....They are customs enforcement too at POE's and Airports and Sea Ports............Are you trying to imply the total bill for manpower over time.........or just the Wall.
> 
> If it's just the Wall......then you are WAY OFF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot separate the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, etc. from the wall.  The cost of the wall is immaterial - UNLESS you're agreeing with me that once the liberals get back in power, the wall would just be an eyesore covered in graffiti and be a symbol of the stupidity of modern Americans.
> 
> Trying to tie the build the wall guys is like trying go grip a handful of slime.  All the manpower, maintenance, uniforms, firearms, etc. are all a part of this equation.  Don't you recall in 2013 how the DHS bought 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammunition?
> 
> You're so blinded by the wall, you can't see the forest for the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are full of it..........I've been putting the data all over threads on the aspects of this............I asked for clarity on the Trillions.......where is it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts with endless ellipsis are idiotic and look like the ravings of a freaking lunatic.  Try reading the posts.  The higher dollar items are listed for you.
> 
> The Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security which oversees "border security" has a budget of $40.6 BILLION DOLLARS a year.  That department is 17 years old.  A quick swag tells me that in 24 years DHS will spend a TRILLION DOLLARS.  In 8 more years, that agency ALONE will have cost a TRILLION DOLLARS.
> 
> Ah, yes, we see your objection now.  A lot of that money is being spent on things OTHER THAN border security at the southern border, but the lion's share is being invested in the place where the build the wall guys worship.  And that is just ONE AGENCY.
> 
> So, what exactly, is your point or do you even have one?  Complete sentences in English appreciated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is 974.4 Billion in 24 years..........Is your calculator broken...........That hasn't reached a Trillion yet.............You said TRILLIONS.......PLURAL.......then didn't specify from what........and their entire budget takes 25 years to reach a TRILLION............singular..........
> 
> So you don't CLARIFY your TRILLIONS REMARK......and then try to back it up with today's numbers.......which are higher than previous years.....and then can't even use a calculator to know how many years at that amount makes the 1st Trillion
> 
> Did you drop out of school.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your asking him to take the time to back up his responses with resources, links to figures, and actual evidence to prove that his information is accurate, you’re going to be in for a very ... very long wait.  You’re talking about someone who says he’s prepped 250 cases but cant be bothered with simple research.  Don’t be surprised if he only bloviates, provides none of the linked resource evidence you only BEEN asking for the last 3 responses, yet thinks everyone else is the idiot.
> 
> Just watch.
Click to expand...


You have been provided with walls of text wherein I've backed up the claims.  Unless you are going to pay me for research time, you are not due any legal brief for free.

If you insist on me making an ass out of you, I will give you a free sample.  Then you can kiss my ass and then stand down.

Let us revisit post # 4242.  *You* wrote:

"There is nothing written in the Constitution that grants states the authority over the Federal Government on immigration. We have been down this road before. It’s the same damn thing as you never being able to PROVE the ratification of the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional.

*Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.*
The *Migration* *or Importation of such Persons as any of the States* now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year* one thousand eight hundred and eight *[ 1808 ]*.

The provision covered both slaves and free immigrants. The Supreme Court case - *Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 *was in *1875*.

HOW many ways do you want to be proven wrong?

Again. Provide me a Constitutional Case or researched evidence that you can back up, that proves me wrong."

ME:  I don't owe you any free research; don't have to prove squat and am not your push button monkey.  It was not my intent to take sides; I was looking for the OP's standards that would allow us to define the terminology "wrong" so we'd be on the same page.  Build the wall freaks have made a religion out of a subject they don't understand.  You are one the most misguided, so here is your

*RESPONSE*:

I told you BEFORE and AFTER post # 4242 mentioned above that it was a tax issue and had NOTHING to do with immigration.  So, here we go:

*"Clause 1: *The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

*Explanation: *This clause relates to the slave trade. It prevented Congress from restricting the importation of slaves prior to 1808. It did allow Congress to levy a duty of up to 10 dollars for each slave. In 1807, the international slave trade was blocked and no more slaves were allowed to be imported into the US.

What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts

Also see this:

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

Bone up on your U.S. history Einstein.  Your cite has nothing to do with immigration.

It is still an irrefutable *FACT* that between 1808 and 1875 the states decided who came and went within their states.  It is an irrefutable *FACT* that:

"The House and Senate agreed on a bill, approved on March 2, 1807, called _*An Act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, from and after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eight.*_ The bound measure also regulated the coastwise slave trade. President Thomas Jefferson signed the bill into law on March 2, 1807."

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

In 1875, in the Chy Lung decision the SCOTUS gave to Congress a power they do not have in the Constitution.  That was legislating from the bench.  Odd how the SCOTUS waited until all the original founders AND the Supreme Court Justices were dead and gone before presuming to give Congress ANY power to do a damn thing.

*  The *fact* is the word immigration is not in the Constitution
*  The *fact* is, despite only whites being able to become citizens after the ratification of the Constitution, *MILLIONS* of non-whites still came to the United States to partake of opportunities willingly offered
*  The *fact *is, our Constitution specifically states that the Tenth Amendment provides:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The *fact *is since Congress has *no* authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY kind of power, most of the statutes you hide behind are illegal

The *fact* is, we have at least *TWO* separate and distinct governments operating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption.  One is the lawful / legal / constitutional / de jure Republic guaranteed in Article IV  Section 4 of the United States Constitution.  The OTHER government is an illegal / de facto / Federal -Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations.

The *fact* is, when you tell that illegal government they have over-stepped their authority, they *are* going to rule against you.  Most people who own a firearm and watch that illegal government take a giant dump on the Second Amendment can tell you horror stories about how the unconstitutional nature of the gun laws in America.

Despite how much you hate people from south of the border, and for whatever reason, the bottom line is, they either have inherent, natural, God given, unalienable, absolute, and irrevocable Rights or they don't.  If your contention is that they don't have Rights, you would shoot them in the streets because you don't think they have Rights.  Either they do or they do not.  If they don't, then you can shoot them any time you get tired of being a bloviating blowhard.

But, you won't.  It's because they do have Rights.  And if they have a Right to Life, they damn well have a Right to Liberty.  Those are unalienable Rights that the founders intended to be above the law.

Your problem is that you are so hung up on wall worship, you don't understand that most Americans *WILLINGLY* invite the foreigners here.  Does it cause us problems?  YES.  But, you cannot improve your lot in life violating the original intent of the Constitution.  You cannot resolve the issue by attacking the Rights of others.  At some point you have to get off your high horse and realize that are people in this world that have just as much experience as you do.  I've only taken ONE of your examples to show that you're wrong.  How much more of an ass whipping do you want to take before realizing that maybe there are better options to be put on the table?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot separate the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, etc. from the wall.  The cost of the wall is immaterial - UNLESS you're agreeing with me that once the liberals get back in power, the wall would just be an eyesore covered in graffiti and be a symbol of the stupidity of modern Americans.
> 
> Trying to tie the build the wall guys is like trying go grip a handful of slime.  All the manpower, maintenance, uniforms, firearms, etc. are all a part of this equation.  Don't you recall in 2013 how the DHS bought 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammunition?
> 
> You're so blinded by the wall, you can't see the forest for the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> You are full of it..........I've been putting the data all over threads on the aspects of this............I asked for clarity on the Trillions.......where is it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts with endless ellipsis are idiotic and look like the ravings of a freaking lunatic.  Try reading the posts.  The higher dollar items are listed for you.
> 
> The Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security which oversees "border security" has a budget of $40.6 BILLION DOLLARS a year.  That department is 17 years old.  A quick swag tells me that in 24 years DHS will spend a TRILLION DOLLARS.  In 8 more years, that agency ALONE will have cost a TRILLION DOLLARS.
> 
> Ah, yes, we see your objection now.  A lot of that money is being spent on things OTHER THAN border security at the southern border, but the lion's share is being invested in the place where the build the wall guys worship.  And that is just ONE AGENCY.
> 
> So, what exactly, is your point or do you even have one?  Complete sentences in English appreciated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is 974.4 Billion in 24 years..........Is your calculator broken...........That hasn't reached a Trillion yet.............You said TRILLIONS.......PLURAL.......then didn't specify from what........and their entire budget takes 25 years to reach a TRILLION............singular..........
> 
> So you don't CLARIFY your TRILLIONS REMARK......and then try to back it up with today's numbers.......which are higher than previous years.....and then can't even use a calculator to know how many years at that amount makes the 1st Trillion
> 
> Did you drop out of school.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you not READ my post?  Are you stupid or simply a troll?  I told you the figure was a swag that I did off the top of my head.  I didn't use a calculator.
> 
> More of your dumbassery is that I cited *ONE AREA OF BUREAUCRACY RELATED TO THIS ISSUE*.  WTF?  Are you that stupid or do you assume all those with TDS are as idiotic as you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your math doesn't back your numbers.......PERIOD........and you said Trillions........but your numbers and 24 years didn't add up to a Trillion.
> 
> You didn't specify where the Trillions came from.  And when you tried to justify that comment you fell flat on your face.  LOL
Click to expand...


I took the numbers of *ONE* agency among many and *you* used a calculator to come out with* $974 BILLION DOLLARS*.  The talking heads on talk radio say that $5.7 Billion more dollars are a drop in the bucket.  But we all realize that is just for building the wall.  So come on.  Quit the damn trolling and tell me how much it will cost, once the wall is built to arm the JBTs.   How much for their pay, insurance, uniforms, benefits, etc.?  How much for the drones, sensors, monitors and maintenance (cleaning off graffiti, damage to equipment, stolen equipment, etc.?)  What's your budget for lawsuits and how much are you allowing for costs above the estimates?  You've only considered the wall.  You will also have to pay the landowners at the border for their land - or are you going to keep screwing us out of our Rights and just TAKE that property without just compensation?

And, while all of this is going on that *ONE AGENCY* is spending  $40. 6 BILLION dollars a year.  That's not going to stop.  That is a yearly expense.

You asked me if I dropped out of school.  My question to you is, did you ever even go to school?    Again, I don't give a rip about the financial costs.  *MY INTEREST IN ASKING QUESTIONS IS I WANT TO KNOW HOW FAR YOU WILL GO IN SCREWING US OUT OF OUR LIBERTIES*.????


----------



## Geaux4it

Yet over a 3 year period Planned Murderhood raked in 1.5 billion of tax payer dollars

-Geaux

A recent government report has revealed that Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, received over $1.5 billion in taxpayer funds from 2013 to 2015.

In 2016, over 120 House and Senate members sent a letter to Government Accountability Office requesting information on federal funding for certain organizations involved in health related activities.

The report was made public last week, and the findings are astounding.

Over a three-year period, Planned Parenthood and its affiliates spent $288 million in federal funds. They also received $1.2 billion in funding from Medicaid, which combines federal and state funds.

That adds up to a whopping total of $1.5 billion in taxpayer funds from federal health programs.

Yet despite receiving billions in taxpayer funds over the course of three years, Planned Parenthood’s scope and services have both declined.


New Report Shows Planned Parenthood Raked in $1.5 Billion in Taxpayer Funds Over 3 Years


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Geaux4it said:


> Yet over a 3 year period Planned Murderhood raked in 1.5 billion of tax payer dollars
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> A recent government report has revealed that Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, received over $1.5 billion in taxpayer funds from 2013 to 2015.
> 
> In 2016, over 120 House and Senate members sent a letter to Government Accountability Office requesting information on federal funding for certain organizations involved in health related activities.
> 
> The report was made public last week, and the findings are astounding.
> 
> Over a three-year period, Planned Parenthood and its affiliates spent $288 million in federal funds. They also received $1.2 billion in funding from Medicaid, which combines federal and state funds.
> 
> That adds up to a whopping total of $1.5 billion in taxpayer funds from federal health programs.
> 
> Yet despite receiving billions in taxpayer funds over the course of three years, Planned Parenthood’s scope and services have both declined.
> 
> 
> New Report Shows Planned Parenthood Raked in $1.5 Billion in Taxpayer Funds Over 3 Years




Don't know what relevance that has to this subject, but FWIW, every judge, politician, lobbyist and supporter of abortion WILL be held accountable for the shedding of the blood of man in the hereafter - and that is my opinion.


----------



## LilOlLady

https://theweek.com/captured/683638/border-wall-that-already-exists
In some parts of Texas, California and Arizona, there is *already a wall.* Let Trump the fuck alone and let him finish what the Dumcrates have already started. What is really needed is more border agents, drones, and the military if necessary and no more catch and release and more deportation. Enforce our existing immigration laws.


----------



## LilOlLady

*Mexicans caught scaling wall into US...*


----------



## Porter Rockwell

LilOlLady said:


> In some parts of Texas, California and Arizona, there is *already a wall.* Let Trump the fuck alone and let him finish what the Dumcrates have already started. What is really needed is more border agents, drones, and the military if necessary and no more catch and release and more deportation. Enforce our existing immigration laws.
> https://theweek.com/captured/683638/border-wall-that-already-exists



"Our" immigration laws?  You're getting close to asking that question I dared all the build the wall folks like you continue to dance around.

More border agents?  More drones?  Us the military to enforce domestic laws?  Are you even aware of the fact that it is illegal to use the military to enforce domestic law OR are you now admitting that the bulk of the build the wall advocates are actually socialists?

What are you going to do when that manpower and technology gets into the hands of those who oppose YOU politically and YOU become the target?


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some parts of Texas, California and Arizona, there is *already a wall.* Let Trump the fuck alone and let him finish what the Dumcrates have already started. What is really needed is more border agents, drones, and the military if necessary and no more catch and release and more deportation. Enforce our existing immigration laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Our" immigration laws?  You're getting close to asking that question I dared all the build the wall folks like you continue to dance around.
> 
> More border agents?  More drones?  Us the military to enforce domestic laws?  Are you even aware of the fact that it is illegal to use the military to enforce domestic law OR are you now admitting that the bulk of the build the wall advocates are actually socialists?
> 
> What are you going to do when that manpower and technology gets into the hands of those who oppose YOU politically and YOU become the target?
Click to expand...

It's the Military's job to defend our border.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some parts of Texas, California and Arizona, there is *already a wall.* Let Trump the fuck alone and let him finish what the Dumcrates have already started. What is really needed is more border agents, drones, and the military if necessary and no more catch and release and more deportation. Enforce our existing immigration laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Our" immigration laws?  You're getting close to asking that question I dared all the build the wall folks like you continue to dance around.
> 
> More border agents?  More drones?  Us the military to enforce domestic laws?  Are you even aware of the fact that it is illegal to use the military to enforce domestic law OR are you now admitting that the bulk of the build the wall advocates are actually socialists?
> 
> What are you going to do when that manpower and technology gets into the hands of those who oppose YOU politically and YOU become the target?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the Military's job to defend our border.
Click to expand...


Trying to tie you to a REASON you want a wall is like squeezing slime.  Most of these build the wall guys are throwing domestic law NOT National Security as the basis for their lobbying.  They keep yapping about legal v. illegal and saying "illegal immigrants."  That is domestic law, NOT a National Security issue - and under the de jure / lawful / legal/ constitutional interpretation of our law, the military cannot get involved in enforcing domestic laws.


----------



## LilOlLady

As of January 2009, U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported that it had more than 580 miles (930 km) of barriers in place. The total length of the continental border is 1,954miles (3,145 km). Why is continuing the wall a problem? Is it because Trumps wants it that the Democrats are against it? They refuse to call the existing wall a wall but a barrier. It works but more wall would work even better.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some parts of Texas, California and Arizona, there is *already a wall.* Let Trump the fuck alone and let him finish what the Dumcrates have already started. What is really needed is more border agents, drones, and the military if necessary and no more catch and release and more deportation. Enforce our existing immigration laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Our" immigration laws?  You're getting close to asking that question I dared all the build the wall folks like you continue to dance around.
> 
> More border agents?  More drones?  Us the military to enforce domestic laws?  Are you even aware of the fact that it is illegal to use the military to enforce domestic law OR are you now admitting that the bulk of the build the wall advocates are actually socialists?
> 
> What are you going to do when that manpower and technology gets into the hands of those who oppose YOU politically and YOU become the target?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the Military's job to defend our border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to tie you to a REASON you want a wall is like squeezing slime.  Most of these build the wall guys are throwing domestic law NOT National Security as the basis for their lobbying.  They keep yapping about legal v. illegal and saying "illegal immigrants."  That is domestic law, NOT a National Security issue - and under the de jure / lawful / legal/ constitutional interpretation of our law, the military cannot get involved in enforcing domestic laws.
Click to expand...

I've explained this to you.
It's to keep out the trash.
The poverty stricken desperado willing to do anything for almost nothing.
It's national interest to keep out a foreign invading army, whatever form it takes.
Those who want immigration reform simply want to make these illegals legally able to migrate to America. We don't need more poor people. Migration should be based on our countries needs not the immigrants needs.
Build the damn wall and slam the door shut.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

LilOlLady said:


> As of January 2009, U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported that it had more than 580 miles (930 km) of barriers in place. The total length of the continental border is 1,954miles (3,145 km). Why is continuing the wall a problem? Is it because Trumps wants it that the Democrats are against it? They refuse to call the existing wall a wall but a barrier. It works but more wall would work even better.



Do you want ALL the reasons we, the people, ought to be against both the left, those with TDS AND the wall?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some parts of Texas, California and Arizona, there is *already a wall.* Let Trump the fuck alone and let him finish what the Dumcrates have already started. What is really needed is more border agents, drones, and the military if necessary and no more catch and release and more deportation. Enforce our existing immigration laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Our" immigration laws?  You're getting close to asking that question I dared all the build the wall folks like you continue to dance around.
> 
> More border agents?  More drones?  Us the military to enforce domestic laws?  Are you even aware of the fact that it is illegal to use the military to enforce domestic law OR are you now admitting that the bulk of the build the wall advocates are actually socialists?
> 
> What are you going to do when that manpower and technology gets into the hands of those who oppose YOU politically and YOU become the target?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the Military's job to defend our border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to tie you to a REASON you want a wall is like squeezing slime.  Most of these build the wall guys are throwing domestic law NOT National Security as the basis for their lobbying.  They keep yapping about legal v. illegal and saying "illegal immigrants."  That is domestic law, NOT a National Security issue - and under the de jure / lawful / legal/ constitutional interpretation of our law, the military cannot get involved in enforcing domestic laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've explained this to you.
> It's to keep out the trash.
> The poverty stricken desperado willing to do anything for almost nothing.
> It's national interest to keep out a foreign invading army, whatever form it takes.
> Those who want immigration reform simply want to make these illegals legally able to migrate to America. We don't need more poor people. Migration should be based on our countries needs not the immigrants needs.
> Build the damn wall and slam the door shut.
Click to expand...


What an education you could get if you only READ this thread!

Not everybody shares your reasons - or pretexts for wanting a wall.  You are extremely obstinate.  If I show you the inherent weakness of your argument, you will swear and be damned I'm some kind of heretic ("for" open borders, liberal, left wing - despite Trump telling you the left was for this wall crap before the build the wall guys came along.)

Anyway, *ALL* the government figures show that improper entry was consistently going down, thereby destroying any argument in favor of a "National Emergency."  Since most people, including you, are *willingly* doing business with the undocumented foreigners and they aren't coming here with guns, intending to forcibly take anything, your emotional laden invasion language is dishonest and inaccurate.  

"Legal" migration leads to citizenship - point I clearly do not understand coming from you.  The feds have no authority over immigration, only NATURALIZATION.  Coming here "legally" is inadvertent code for citizenship since the states (constitutionally speaking) decide who comes and goes.  

Your buddy Trump says he will build a wall and then *increase* the numbers of people he would allow to come in a be citizens.  The BIG picture eludes you, doesn't it?


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some parts of Texas, California and Arizona, there is *already a wall.* Let Trump the fuck alone and let him finish what the Dumcrates have already started. What is really needed is more border agents, drones, and the military if necessary and no more catch and release and more deportation. Enforce our existing immigration laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Our" immigration laws?  You're getting close to asking that question I dared all the build the wall folks like you continue to dance around.
> 
> More border agents?  More drones?  Us the military to enforce domestic laws?  Are you even aware of the fact that it is illegal to use the military to enforce domestic law OR are you now admitting that the bulk of the build the wall advocates are actually socialists?
> 
> What are you going to do when that manpower and technology gets into the hands of those who oppose YOU politically and YOU become the target?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the Military's job to defend our border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to tie you to a REASON you want a wall is like squeezing slime.  Most of these build the wall guys are throwing domestic law NOT National Security as the basis for their lobbying.  They keep yapping about legal v. illegal and saying "illegal immigrants."  That is domestic law, NOT a National Security issue - and under the de jure / lawful / legal/ constitutional interpretation of our law, the military cannot get involved in enforcing domestic laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've explained this to you.
> It's to keep out the trash.
> The poverty stricken desperado willing to do anything for almost nothing.
> It's national interest to keep out a foreign invading army, whatever form it takes.
> Those who want immigration reform simply want to make these illegals legally able to migrate to America. We don't need more poor people. Migration should be based on our countries needs not the immigrants needs.
> Build the damn wall and slam the door shut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What an education you could get if you only READ this thread!
> 
> Not everybody shares your reasons - or pretexts for wanting a wall.  You are extremely obstinate.  If I show you the inherent weakness of your argument, you will swear and be damned I'm some kind of heretic ("for" open borders, liberal, left wing - despite Trump telling you the left was for this wall crap before the build the wall guys came along.)
> 
> Anyway, *ALL* the government figures show that improper entry was consistently going down, thereby destroying any argument in favor of a "National Emergency."  Since most people, including you, are *willingly* doing business with the undocumented foreigners and they aren't coming here with guns, intending to forcibly take anything, your emotional laden invasion language is dishonest and inaccurate.
> 
> "Legal" migration leads to citizenship - point I clearly do not understand coming from you.  The feds have no authority over immigration, only NATURALIZATION.  Coming here "legally" is inadvertent code for citizenship since the states (constitutionally speaking) decide who comes and goes.
> 
> Your buddy Trump says he will build a wall and then *increase* the numbers of people he would allow to come in a be citizens.  The BIG picture eludes you, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

1. Illegal Immigration By Families Hits All-Time Record In September
Found out we can't legally imprison families longer than 20 days they rush the border.
2. Trump would increase migrants based on merit. Means only accept those we need vs those without job skills.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

LilOlLady said:


> In some parts of Texas, California and Arizona, there is *already a wall.* Let Trump the fuck alone and let him finish what the Dumcrates have already started. What is really needed is more border agents, drones, and the military if necessary and no more catch and release and more deportation. Enforce our existing immigration laws.
> https://theweek.com/captured/683638/border-wall-that-already-exists



Nice.  You are buying into the Snake Oil.  The Walls that were built went into the Metro Areas that had the highest entry.  The walls funnel down to the entry points.  It's a bit difficult to determine who is and who isn't supposed to be there when there is a high degree of population around.  So walls are used and there is no room for the better multi layered Security Fence that actually works better.  Also, in that area, the requirement for the most dense border patrol and security devices are needed.  Those are already built.  

Here is a bit of info that while I type it, you can hold your hands over your eyes and ears (assuming you are a 4 handed freak of nature) and loudly yell "LaLaLa" over and over.  In the Fiscal Years of 2017 and 2018, there was 1.3 billion dollars allocated for Wall/Security Fence maintenance and additions.  During those two years, not one single inch of additional wall or security fence has been added.  And the only place that the Wall/Security Fence has been replaced is  just outside San Diego at one of the lowest  intrusion areas all along the border.  That part was NEVER run down.  But it sure does look purty for the Richest Neighborhood in Mexico to look at.  

Meanwhile, there are places along the border that are more intruded that the Wall (yes, I said wall) is falling down and just about ready to fall down.  After 10 years, mother nature has been harsh to the steel walls and through rust, corrosion and people tearing at them, they are falling down.  But Trump decides to doll up the part that is in good repair and works well so his Mexican Billionaires won't complain about the eyesore.

Believe it or not, you stated fixes closer to the Democrats solutions and completely foreign to Trumps way of thinking.  Trump is a Carny Operator.  How's it feel to be a Rube.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Our" immigration laws?  You're getting close to asking that question I dared all the build the wall folks like you continue to dance around.
> 
> More border agents?  More drones?  Us the military to enforce domestic laws?  Are you even aware of the fact that it is illegal to use the military to enforce domestic law OR are you now admitting that the bulk of the build the wall advocates are actually socialists?
> 
> What are you going to do when that manpower and technology gets into the hands of those who oppose YOU politically and YOU become the target?
> 
> 
> 
> It's the Military's job to defend our border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to tie you to a REASON you want a wall is like squeezing slime.  Most of these build the wall guys are throwing domestic law NOT National Security as the basis for their lobbying.  They keep yapping about legal v. illegal and saying "illegal immigrants."  That is domestic law, NOT a National Security issue - and under the de jure / lawful / legal/ constitutional interpretation of our law, the military cannot get involved in enforcing domestic laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've explained this to you.
> It's to keep out the trash.
> The poverty stricken desperado willing to do anything for almost nothing.
> It's national interest to keep out a foreign invading army, whatever form it takes.
> Those who want immigration reform simply want to make these illegals legally able to migrate to America. We don't need more poor people. Migration should be based on our countries needs not the immigrants needs.
> Build the damn wall and slam the door shut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What an education you could get if you only READ this thread!
> 
> Not everybody shares your reasons - or pretexts for wanting a wall.  You are extremely obstinate.  If I show you the inherent weakness of your argument, you will swear and be damned I'm some kind of heretic ("for" open borders, liberal, left wing - despite Trump telling you the left was for this wall crap before the build the wall guys came along.)
> 
> Anyway, *ALL* the government figures show that improper entry was consistently going down, thereby destroying any argument in favor of a "National Emergency."  Since most people, including you, are *willingly* doing business with the undocumented foreigners and they aren't coming here with guns, intending to forcibly take anything, your emotional laden invasion language is dishonest and inaccurate.
> 
> "Legal" migration leads to citizenship - point I clearly do not understand coming from you.  The feds have no authority over immigration, only NATURALIZATION.  Coming here "legally" is inadvertent code for citizenship since the states (constitutionally speaking) decide who comes and goes.
> 
> Your buddy Trump says he will build a wall and then *increase* the numbers of people he would allow to come in a be citizens.  The BIG picture eludes you, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Illegal Immigration By Families Hits All-Time Record In September
> Found out we can't legally imprison families longer than 20 days they rush the border.
> 2. Trump would increase migrants based on merit. Means only accept those we need vs those without job skills.
Click to expand...


As I continue to repeatedly point out, if foreigners had no unalienable Rights, it would be perfectly acceptable for you to go out and put a bullet in them.  The reality is, they DO have unalienable Rights.  As the Declaration of Independence puts it:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*."

Unalienable Rights are those Rights that you are born with.  NO government can take them from you - not Donald Trump, not you, not anyone.  And who is welcome in America?  Have you ever seen the words at the base of the Statue of Liberty?  

""Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

That is the welcome mat to come into the United States.  The arguments you make are socialist arguments.  But, don't despair.  There are *constitutional ways *that will give you most of what you look for without a wall; without socialism; without Donald Trump.  It won't keep all of the little brown people you don't like out, but even in Jesus time Canaanites came in despite there being THREE WALLS. The caravans are a political stunt to make you react, Pavlovian style, like a hungry dog when his master calls out here boy.


----------



## danielpalos

LilOlLady said:


> *Mexicans caught scaling wall into US...*


just, our little test; 10USC246 was meant to ensure we can always muster an army group in reserve.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the Military's job to defend our border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to tie you to a REASON you want a wall is like squeezing slime.  Most of these build the wall guys are throwing domestic law NOT National Security as the basis for their lobbying.  They keep yapping about legal v. illegal and saying "illegal immigrants."  That is domestic law, NOT a National Security issue - and under the de jure / lawful / legal/ constitutional interpretation of our law, the military cannot get involved in enforcing domestic laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've explained this to you.
> It's to keep out the trash.
> The poverty stricken desperado willing to do anything for almost nothing.
> It's national interest to keep out a foreign invading army, whatever form it takes.
> Those who want immigration reform simply want to make these illegals legally able to migrate to America. We don't need more poor people. Migration should be based on our countries needs not the immigrants needs.
> Build the damn wall and slam the door shut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What an education you could get if you only READ this thread!
> 
> Not everybody shares your reasons - or pretexts for wanting a wall.  You are extremely obstinate.  If I show you the inherent weakness of your argument, you will swear and be damned I'm some kind of heretic ("for" open borders, liberal, left wing - despite Trump telling you the left was for this wall crap before the build the wall guys came along.)
> 
> Anyway, *ALL* the government figures show that improper entry was consistently going down, thereby destroying any argument in favor of a "National Emergency."  Since most people, including you, are *willingly* doing business with the undocumented foreigners and they aren't coming here with guns, intending to forcibly take anything, your emotional laden invasion language is dishonest and inaccurate.
> 
> "Legal" migration leads to citizenship - point I clearly do not understand coming from you.  The feds have no authority over immigration, only NATURALIZATION.  Coming here "legally" is inadvertent code for citizenship since the states (constitutionally speaking) decide who comes and goes.
> 
> Your buddy Trump says he will build a wall and then *increase* the numbers of people he would allow to come in a be citizens.  The BIG picture eludes you, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Illegal Immigration By Families Hits All-Time Record In September
> Found out we can't legally imprison families longer than 20 days they rush the border.
> 2. Trump would increase migrants based on merit. Means only accept those we need vs those without job skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I continue to repeatedly point out, if foreigners had no unalienable Rights, it would be perfectly acceptable for you to go out and put a bullet in them.  The reality is, they DO have unalienable Rights.  As the Declaration of Independence puts it:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*."
> 
> Unalienable Rights are those Rights that you are born with.  NO government can take them from you - not Donald Trump, not you, not anyone.  And who is welcome in America?  Have you ever seen the words at the base of the Statue of Liberty?
> 
> ""Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> That is the welcome mat to come into the United States.  The arguments you make are socialist arguments.  But, don't despair.  There are *constitutional ways *that will give you most of what you look for without a wall; without socialism; without Donald Trump.  It won't keep all of the little brown people you don't like out, but even in Jesus time Canaanites came in despite there being THREE WALLS. The caravans are a political stunt to make you react, Pavlovian style, like a hungry dog when his master calls out here boy.
Click to expand...

Not anymore.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the Military's job to defend our border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to tie you to a REASON you want a wall is like squeezing slime.  Most of these build the wall guys are throwing domestic law NOT National Security as the basis for their lobbying.  They keep yapping about legal v. illegal and saying "illegal immigrants."  That is domestic law, NOT a National Security issue - and under the de jure / lawful / legal/ constitutional interpretation of our law, the military cannot get involved in enforcing domestic laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've explained this to you.
> It's to keep out the trash.
> The poverty stricken desperado willing to do anything for almost nothing.
> It's national interest to keep out a foreign invading army, whatever form it takes.
> Those who want immigration reform simply want to make these illegals legally able to migrate to America. We don't need more poor people. Migration should be based on our countries needs not the immigrants needs.
> Build the damn wall and slam the door shut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What an education you could get if you only READ this thread!
> 
> Not everybody shares your reasons - or pretexts for wanting a wall.  You are extremely obstinate.  If I show you the inherent weakness of your argument, you will swear and be damned I'm some kind of heretic ("for" open borders, liberal, left wing - despite Trump telling you the left was for this wall crap before the build the wall guys came along.)
> 
> Anyway, *ALL* the government figures show that improper entry was consistently going down, thereby destroying any argument in favor of a "National Emergency."  Since most people, including you, are *willingly* doing business with the undocumented foreigners and they aren't coming here with guns, intending to forcibly take anything, your emotional laden invasion language is dishonest and inaccurate.
> 
> "Legal" migration leads to citizenship - point I clearly do not understand coming from you.  The feds have no authority over immigration, only NATURALIZATION.  Coming here "legally" is inadvertent code for citizenship since the states (constitutionally speaking) decide who comes and goes.
> 
> Your buddy Trump says he will build a wall and then *increase* the numbers of people he would allow to come in a be citizens.  The BIG picture eludes you, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Illegal Immigration By Families Hits All-Time Record In September
> Found out we can't legally imprison families longer than 20 days they rush the border.
> 2. Trump would increase migrants based on merit. Means only accept those we need vs those without job skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I continue to repeatedly point out, if foreigners had no unalienable Rights, it would be perfectly acceptable for you to go out and put a bullet in them.  The reality is, they DO have unalienable Rights.  As the Declaration of Independence puts it:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*."
> 
> Unalienable Rights are those Rights that you are born with.  NO government can take them from you - not Donald Trump, not you, not anyone.  And who is welcome in America?  Have you ever seen the words at the base of the Statue of Liberty?
> 
> ""Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> That is the welcome mat to come into the United States.  The arguments you make are socialist arguments.  But, don't despair.  There are *constitutional ways *that will give you most of what you look for without a wall; without socialism; without Donald Trump.  It won't keep all of the little brown people you don't like out, but even in Jesus time Canaanites came in despite there being THREE WALLS. The caravans are a political stunt to make you react, Pavlovian style, like a hungry dog when his master calls out here boy.
Click to expand...


Has the Constitution been nullified?  

I just had a similar discussion on another thread.  But, the way I see it, that GoFundMe page collapsed and the recipients have had their money refunded.  That  $5.7 BILLION DOLLAR price tag for a wall needs to be put into perspective for you:

There are 350 plus million Americans.  If half of the American population donated toward the wall, it would be $34 each.  Let's be honest here:

The build the wall guys have lied to the people about health care for years.  IF medical costs and the undocumented were a burden on the health care community, they alone would have underwritten your wall.  

Physicians have a base pay of $189,000 per year

The Best- And Worst-Paying Jobs For Doctors

There are over 1 million physicians in the United States

Topic: Physicians

Let's talk drops in a bucket.  If the medical community were on board, physicians have a total net yearly income of 189 BILLION DOLLARS in the United States.  IF what your side has alleged all along were true, the doctors of America would have already built the wall themselves.  Who, in their right mind, would not want to be treating fewer patients each day?  What doctor would not want more than the 8 minutes per patient during a visit they are currently allotted? 

This has been fun, but there simply is no support for the wall.  You still have a problem.  You still need a solution.


----------



## Moonglow

*Trump quotes racist article by man he previously called a 'Hitler lover', in effort to justify his border wall*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Daryl Hunt said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some parts of Texas, California and Arizona, there is *already a wall.* Let Trump the fuck alone and let him finish what the Dumcrates have already started. What is really needed is more border agents, drones, and the military if necessary and no more catch and release and more deportation. Enforce our existing immigration laws.
> https://theweek.com/captured/683638/border-wall-that-already-exists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice.  You are buying into the Snake Oil.  The Walls that were built went into the Metro Areas that had the highest entry.  The walls funnel down to the entry points.  It's a bit difficult to determine who is and who isn't supposed to be there when there is a high degree of population around.  So walls are used and there is no room for the better multi layered Security Fence that actually works better.  Also, in that area, the requirement for the most dense border patrol and security devices are needed.  Those are already built.
> 
> Here is a bit of info that while I type it, you can hold your hands over your eyes and ears (assuming you are a 4 handed freak of nature) and loudly yell "LaLaLa" over and over.  In the Fiscal Years of 2017 and 2018, there was 1.3 billion dollars allocated for Wall/Security Fence maintenance and additions.  During those two years, not one single inch of additional wall or security fence has been added.  And the only place that the Wall/Security Fence has been replaced is  just outside San Diego at one of the lowest  intrusion areas all along the border.  That part was NEVER run down.  But it sure does look purty for the Richest Neighborhood in Mexico to look at.
> 
> Meanwhile, there are places along the border that are more intruded that the Wall (yes, I said wall) is falling down and just about ready to fall down.  After 10 years, mother nature has been harsh to the steel walls and through rust, corrosion and people tearing at them, they are falling down.  But Trump decides to doll up the part that is in good repair and works well so his Mexican Billionaires won't complain about the eyesore.
> 
> Believe it or not, you stated fixes closer to the Democrats solutions and completely foreign to Trumps way of thinking.  Trump is a Carny Operator.  How's it feel to be a Rube.
Click to expand...


What you fail to mention is that none of the 1.6 billion is allowed to be used for the wall.  Need the Politifact link, let me know and I’ll post it as soon as I get home.   


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to tie you to a REASON you want a wall is like squeezing slime.  Most of these build the wall guys are throwing domestic law NOT National Security as the basis for their lobbying.  They keep yapping about legal v. illegal and saying "illegal immigrants."  That is domestic law, NOT a National Security issue - and under the de jure / lawful / legal/ constitutional interpretation of our law, the military cannot get involved in enforcing domestic laws.
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained this to you.
> It's to keep out the trash.
> The poverty stricken desperado willing to do anything for almost nothing.
> It's national interest to keep out a foreign invading army, whatever form it takes.
> Those who want immigration reform simply want to make these illegals legally able to migrate to America. We don't need more poor people. Migration should be based on our countries needs not the immigrants needs.
> Build the damn wall and slam the door shut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What an education you could get if you only READ this thread!
> 
> Not everybody shares your reasons - or pretexts for wanting a wall.  You are extremely obstinate.  If I show you the inherent weakness of your argument, you will swear and be damned I'm some kind of heretic ("for" open borders, liberal, left wing - despite Trump telling you the left was for this wall crap before the build the wall guys came along.)
> 
> Anyway, *ALL* the government figures show that improper entry was consistently going down, thereby destroying any argument in favor of a "National Emergency."  Since most people, including you, are *willingly* doing business with the undocumented foreigners and they aren't coming here with guns, intending to forcibly take anything, your emotional laden invasion language is dishonest and inaccurate.
> 
> "Legal" migration leads to citizenship - point I clearly do not understand coming from you.  The feds have no authority over immigration, only NATURALIZATION.  Coming here "legally" is inadvertent code for citizenship since the states (constitutionally speaking) decide who comes and goes.
> 
> Your buddy Trump says he will build a wall and then *increase* the numbers of people he would allow to come in a be citizens.  The BIG picture eludes you, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Illegal Immigration By Families Hits All-Time Record In September
> Found out we can't legally imprison families longer than 20 days they rush the border.
> 2. Trump would increase migrants based on merit. Means only accept those we need vs those without job skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I continue to repeatedly point out, if foreigners had no unalienable Rights, it would be perfectly acceptable for you to go out and put a bullet in them.  The reality is, they DO have unalienable Rights.  As the Declaration of Independence puts it:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*."
> 
> Unalienable Rights are those Rights that you are born with.  NO government can take them from you - not Donald Trump, not you, not anyone.  And who is welcome in America?  Have you ever seen the words at the base of the Statue of Liberty?
> 
> ""Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> That is the welcome mat to come into the United States.  The arguments you make are socialist arguments.  But, don't despair.  There are *constitutional ways *that will give you most of what you look for without a wall; without socialism; without Donald Trump.  It won't keep all of the little brown people you don't like out, but even in Jesus time Canaanites came in despite there being THREE WALLS. The caravans are a political stunt to make you react, Pavlovian style, like a hungry dog when his master calls out here boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution been nullified?
> 
> I just had a similar discussion on another thread.  But, the way I see it, that GoFundMe page collapsed and the recipients have had their money refunded.  That  $5.7 BILLION DOLLAR price tag for a wall needs to be put into perspective for you:
> 
> There are 350 plus million Americans.  If half of the American population donated toward the wall, it would be $34 each.  Let's be honest here:
> 
> The build the wall guys have lied to the people about health care for years.  IF medical costs and the undocumented were a burden on the health care community, they alone would have underwritten your wall.
> 
> Physicians have a base pay of $189,000 per year
> 
> The Best- And Worst-Paying Jobs For Doctors
> 
> There are over 1 million physicians in the United States
> 
> Topic: Physicians
> 
> Let's talk drops in a bucket.  If the medical community were on board, physicians have a total net yearly income of 189 BILLION DOLLARS in the United States.  IF what your side has alleged all along were true, the doctors of America would have already built the wall themselves.  Who, in their right mind, would not want to be treating fewer patients each day?  What doctor would not want more than the 8 minutes per patient during a visit they are currently allotted?
> 
> This has been fun, but there simply is no support for the wall.  You still have a problem.  You still need a solution.
Click to expand...

It's less than the handout we are giving Honduras.
It's much less than the handouts we are giving all foreign countries, which is 54 Billion.
Cust them off before we cut off the wall.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained this to you.
> It's to keep out the trash.
> The poverty stricken desperado willing to do anything for almost nothing.
> It's national interest to keep out a foreign invading army, whatever form it takes.
> Those who want immigration reform simply want to make these illegals legally able to migrate to America. We don't need more poor people. Migration should be based on our countries needs not the immigrants needs.
> Build the damn wall and slam the door shut.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What an education you could get if you only READ this thread!
> 
> Not everybody shares your reasons - or pretexts for wanting a wall.  You are extremely obstinate.  If I show you the inherent weakness of your argument, you will swear and be damned I'm some kind of heretic ("for" open borders, liberal, left wing - despite Trump telling you the left was for this wall crap before the build the wall guys came along.)
> 
> Anyway, *ALL* the government figures show that improper entry was consistently going down, thereby destroying any argument in favor of a "National Emergency."  Since most people, including you, are *willingly* doing business with the undocumented foreigners and they aren't coming here with guns, intending to forcibly take anything, your emotional laden invasion language is dishonest and inaccurate.
> 
> "Legal" migration leads to citizenship - point I clearly do not understand coming from you.  The feds have no authority over immigration, only NATURALIZATION.  Coming here "legally" is inadvertent code for citizenship since the states (constitutionally speaking) decide who comes and goes.
> 
> Your buddy Trump says he will build a wall and then *increase* the numbers of people he would allow to come in a be citizens.  The BIG picture eludes you, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Illegal Immigration By Families Hits All-Time Record In September
> Found out we can't legally imprison families longer than 20 days they rush the border.
> 2. Trump would increase migrants based on merit. Means only accept those we need vs those without job skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I continue to repeatedly point out, if foreigners had no unalienable Rights, it would be perfectly acceptable for you to go out and put a bullet in them.  The reality is, they DO have unalienable Rights.  As the Declaration of Independence puts it:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*."
> 
> Unalienable Rights are those Rights that you are born with.  NO government can take them from you - not Donald Trump, not you, not anyone.  And who is welcome in America?  Have you ever seen the words at the base of the Statue of Liberty?
> 
> ""Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> That is the welcome mat to come into the United States.  The arguments you make are socialist arguments.  But, don't despair.  There are *constitutional ways *that will give you most of what you look for without a wall; without socialism; without Donald Trump.  It won't keep all of the little brown people you don't like out, but even in Jesus time Canaanites came in despite there being THREE WALLS. The caravans are a political stunt to make you react, Pavlovian style, like a hungry dog when his master calls out here boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution been nullified?
> 
> I just had a similar discussion on another thread.  But, the way I see it, that GoFundMe page collapsed and the recipients have had their money refunded.  That  $5.7 BILLION DOLLAR price tag for a wall needs to be put into perspective for you:
> 
> There are 350 plus million Americans.  If half of the American population donated toward the wall, it would be $34 each.  Let's be honest here:
> 
> The build the wall guys have lied to the people about health care for years.  IF medical costs and the undocumented were a burden on the health care community, they alone would have underwritten your wall.
> 
> Physicians have a base pay of $189,000 per year
> 
> The Best- And Worst-Paying Jobs For Doctors
> 
> There are over 1 million physicians in the United States
> 
> Topic: Physicians
> 
> Let's talk drops in a bucket.  If the medical community were on board, physicians have a total net yearly income of 189 BILLION DOLLARS in the United States.  IF what your side has alleged all along were true, the doctors of America would have already built the wall themselves.  Who, in their right mind, would not want to be treating fewer patients each day?  What doctor would not want more than the 8 minutes per patient during a visit they are currently allotted?
> 
> This has been fun, but there simply is no support for the wall.  You still have a problem.  You still need a solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's less than the handout we are giving Honduras.
> It's much less than the handouts we are giving all foreign countries, which is 54 Billion.
> Cust them off before we cut off the wall.
Click to expand...


What is cust them off?

IIRC, you said you wanted "all of them" out of the U.S.  What are you going to do with their USDA approved, National ID Card carrying, Socialist Surveillance Number owning relatives that subjects of America's NEW WORLD ORDER?


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What an education you could get if you only READ this thread!
> 
> Not everybody shares your reasons - or pretexts for wanting a wall.  You are extremely obstinate.  If I show you the inherent weakness of your argument, you will swear and be damned I'm some kind of heretic ("for" open borders, liberal, left wing - despite Trump telling you the left was for this wall crap before the build the wall guys came along.)
> 
> Anyway, *ALL* the government figures show that improper entry was consistently going down, thereby destroying any argument in favor of a "National Emergency."  Since most people, including you, are *willingly* doing business with the undocumented foreigners and they aren't coming here with guns, intending to forcibly take anything, your emotional laden invasion language is dishonest and inaccurate.
> 
> "Legal" migration leads to citizenship - point I clearly do not understand coming from you.  The feds have no authority over immigration, only NATURALIZATION.  Coming here "legally" is inadvertent code for citizenship since the states (constitutionally speaking) decide who comes and goes.
> 
> Your buddy Trump says he will build a wall and then *increase* the numbers of people he would allow to come in a be citizens.  The BIG picture eludes you, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Illegal Immigration By Families Hits All-Time Record In September
> Found out we can't legally imprison families longer than 20 days they rush the border.
> 2. Trump would increase migrants based on merit. Means only accept those we need vs those without job skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I continue to repeatedly point out, if foreigners had no unalienable Rights, it would be perfectly acceptable for you to go out and put a bullet in them.  The reality is, they DO have unalienable Rights.  As the Declaration of Independence puts it:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*."
> 
> Unalienable Rights are those Rights that you are born with.  NO government can take them from you - not Donald Trump, not you, not anyone.  And who is welcome in America?  Have you ever seen the words at the base of the Statue of Liberty?
> 
> ""Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> That is the welcome mat to come into the United States.  The arguments you make are socialist arguments.  But, don't despair.  There are *constitutional ways *that will give you most of what you look for without a wall; without socialism; without Donald Trump.  It won't keep all of the little brown people you don't like out, but even in Jesus time Canaanites came in despite there being THREE WALLS. The caravans are a political stunt to make you react, Pavlovian style, like a hungry dog when his master calls out here boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution been nullified?
> 
> I just had a similar discussion on another thread.  But, the way I see it, that GoFundMe page collapsed and the recipients have had their money refunded.  That  $5.7 BILLION DOLLAR price tag for a wall needs to be put into perspective for you:
> 
> There are 350 plus million Americans.  If half of the American population donated toward the wall, it would be $34 each.  Let's be honest here:
> 
> The build the wall guys have lied to the people about health care for years.  IF medical costs and the undocumented were a burden on the health care community, they alone would have underwritten your wall.
> 
> Physicians have a base pay of $189,000 per year
> 
> The Best- And Worst-Paying Jobs For Doctors
> 
> There are over 1 million physicians in the United States
> 
> Topic: Physicians
> 
> Let's talk drops in a bucket.  If the medical community were on board, physicians have a total net yearly income of 189 BILLION DOLLARS in the United States.  IF what your side has alleged all along were true, the doctors of America would have already built the wall themselves.  Who, in their right mind, would not want to be treating fewer patients each day?  What doctor would not want more than the 8 minutes per patient during a visit they are currently allotted?
> 
> This has been fun, but there simply is no support for the wall.  You still have a problem.  You still need a solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's less than the handout we are giving Honduras.
> It's much less than the handouts we are giving all foreign countries, which is 54 Billion.
> Cust them off before we cut off the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is cust them off?
> 
> IIRC, you said you wanted "all of them" out of the U.S.  What are you going to do with their USDA approved, National ID Card carrying, Socialist Surveillance Number owning relatives that subjects of America's NEW WORLD ORDER?
Click to expand...

Typo; cut them off.

I have neuropathy and my pinkies don't feel the keys of the keyboard and I make typos from time to time.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Illegal Immigration By Families Hits All-Time Record In September
> Found out we can't legally imprison families longer than 20 days they rush the border.
> 2. Trump would increase migrants based on merit. Means only accept those we need vs those without job skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I continue to repeatedly point out, if foreigners had no unalienable Rights, it would be perfectly acceptable for you to go out and put a bullet in them.  The reality is, they DO have unalienable Rights.  As the Declaration of Independence puts it:
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*."
> 
> Unalienable Rights are those Rights that you are born with.  NO government can take them from you - not Donald Trump, not you, not anyone.  And who is welcome in America?  Have you ever seen the words at the base of the Statue of Liberty?
> 
> ""Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> That is the welcome mat to come into the United States.  The arguments you make are socialist arguments.  But, don't despair.  There are *constitutional ways *that will give you most of what you look for without a wall; without socialism; without Donald Trump.  It won't keep all of the little brown people you don't like out, but even in Jesus time Canaanites came in despite there being THREE WALLS. The caravans are a political stunt to make you react, Pavlovian style, like a hungry dog when his master calls out here boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution been nullified?
> 
> I just had a similar discussion on another thread.  But, the way I see it, that GoFundMe page collapsed and the recipients have had their money refunded.  That  $5.7 BILLION DOLLAR price tag for a wall needs to be put into perspective for you:
> 
> There are 350 plus million Americans.  If half of the American population donated toward the wall, it would be $34 each.  Let's be honest here:
> 
> The build the wall guys have lied to the people about health care for years.  IF medical costs and the undocumented were a burden on the health care community, they alone would have underwritten your wall.
> 
> Physicians have a base pay of $189,000 per year
> 
> The Best- And Worst-Paying Jobs For Doctors
> 
> There are over 1 million physicians in the United States
> 
> Topic: Physicians
> 
> Let's talk drops in a bucket.  If the medical community were on board, physicians have a total net yearly income of 189 BILLION DOLLARS in the United States.  IF what your side has alleged all along were true, the doctors of America would have already built the wall themselves.  Who, in their right mind, would not want to be treating fewer patients each day?  What doctor would not want more than the 8 minutes per patient during a visit they are currently allotted?
> 
> This has been fun, but there simply is no support for the wall.  You still have a problem.  You still need a solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's less than the handout we are giving Honduras.
> It's much less than the handouts we are giving all foreign countries, which is 54 Billion.
> Cust them off before we cut off the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is cust them off?
> 
> IIRC, you said you wanted "all of them" out of the U.S.  What are you going to do with their USDA approved, National ID Card carrying, Socialist Surveillance Number owning relatives that subjects of America's NEW WORLD ORDER?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typo; cut them off.
> 
> I have neuropathy and my pinkies don't feel the keys of the keyboard and I make typos from time to time.
Click to expand...


 I thought you were trying to say cussed.  My bad.  Most of my posts are edited a couple of times due to typos.  I never do one without at least one mistake.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Moonglow said:


> *Trump quotes racist article by man he previously called a 'Hitler lover', in effort to justify his border wall*



In one post here I showed how the wall idea began and has been under the control of nazis.  I think the word racist is used as a scare word, but politically speaking the proposed wall solution is socialist from its very beginnings.

I'm not fighting people over their racial ideology.  It's the socialism that they need to consider.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump quotes racist article by man he previously called a 'Hitler lover', in effort to justify his border wall*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one post here I showed how the wall idea began and has been under the control of nazis.  I think the word racist is used as a scare word, but politically speaking the proposed wall solution is socialist from its very beginnings.
> 
> I'm not fighting people over their racial ideology.  It's the socialism that they need to consider.
Click to expand...

Fair trade is not fair unless we are on equal trading fields. It isn't fair that Americans have to compete with third worlders for American jobs. 
It isn't fair that China uses slave labor to make their products cheaper than we can make them here thus tariffs are needed.
And it isn't fair that everything our ancestors worked for, for their children, is going to crap in the name of Globalism.


----------



## Moonglow

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump quotes racist article by man he previously called a 'Hitler lover', in effort to justify his border wall*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one post here I showed how the wall idea began and has been under the control of nazis.  I think the word racist is used as a scare word, but politically speaking the proposed wall solution is socialist from its very beginnings.
> 
> I'm not fighting people over their racial ideology.  It's the socialism that they need to consider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fair trade is not fair unless we are on equal trading fields. It isn't fair that Americans have to compete with third worlders for American jobs.
> It isn't fair that China uses slave labor to make their products cheaper than we can make them here thus tariffs are needed.
> And it isn't fair that everything our ancestors worked for, for their children, is going to crap in the name of Globalism.
Click to expand...

You can thanks the rich for globalism..


----------



## dblack

Slyhunter said:


> Fair trade is not fair unless we are on equal trading fields. It isn't fair that Americans have to compete with third worlders for American jobs.
> It isn't fair that China uses slave labor to make their products cheaper than we can make them here thus tariffs are needed.
> And it isn't fair that everything our ancestors worked for, for their children, is going to crap in the name of Globalism.



"Fair trade" is a socialist concept in the first place, meant to replace free trade with government "wisdom".


----------



## LilOlLady

Daryl Hunt said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some parts of Texas, California and Arizona, there is *already a wall.* Let Trump the fuck alone and let him finish what the Dumcrates have already started. What is really needed is more border agents, drones, and the military if necessary and no more catch and release and more deportation. Enforce our existing immigration laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice.  You are buying into the Snake Oil.  The Walls that were built went into the Metro Areas that had the highest entry.  The walls funnel down to the entry points.  It's a bit difficult to determine who is and who isn't supposed to be there when there is a high degree of population around.  So walls are used and there is no room for the better multi layered Security Fence that actually works better.  Also, in that area, the requirement for the most dense border patrol and security devices are needed.  Those are already built.
> 
> Here is a bit of info that while I type it, you can hold your hands over your eyes and ears (assuming you are a 4 handed freak of nature) and loudly yell "LaLaLa" over and over.  In the Fiscal Years of 2017 and 2018, there was 1.3 billion dollars allocated for Wall/Security Fence maintenance and additions.  During those two years, not one single inch of additional wall or security fence has been added.  And the only place that the Wall/Security Fence has been replaced is  just outside San Diego at one of the lowest  intrusion areas all along the border.  That part was NEVER run down.  But it sure does look purty for the Richest Neighborhood in Mexico to look at.
> 
> Meanwhile, there are places along the border that are more intruded that the Wall (yes, I said wall) is falling down and just about ready to fall down.  After 10 years, mother nature has been harsh to the steel walls and through rust, corrosion and people tearing at them, they are falling down.  But Trump decides to doll up the part that is in good repair and works well so his Mexican Billionaires won't complain about the eyesore.
> 
> Believe it or not, you stated fixes closer to the Democrats solutions and completely foreign to Trumps way of thinking.  Trump is a Carny Operator.  How's it feel to be a Rube.
Click to expand...




 "LaLaLa"


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some parts of Texas, California and Arizona, there is *already a wall.* Let Trump the fuck alone and let him finish what the Dumcrates have already started. What is really needed is more border agents, drones, and the military if necessary and no more catch and release and more deportation. Enforce our existing immigration laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice.  You are buying into the Snake Oil.  The Walls that were built went into the Metro Areas that had the highest entry.  The walls funnel down to the entry points.  It's a bit difficult to determine who is and who isn't supposed to be there when there is a high degree of population around.  So walls are used and there is no room for the better multi layered Security Fence that actually works better.  Also, in that area, the requirement for the most dense border patrol and security devices are needed.  Those are already built.
> 
> Here is a bit of info that while I type it, you can hold your hands over your eyes and ears (assuming you are a 4 handed freak of nature) and loudly yell "LaLaLa" over and over.  In the Fiscal Years of 2017 and 2018, there was 1.3 billion dollars allocated for Wall/Security Fence maintenance and additions.  During those two years, not one single inch of additional wall or security fence has been added.  And the only place that the Wall/Security Fence has been replaced is  just outside San Diego at one of the lowest  intrusion areas all along the border.  That part was NEVER run down.  But it sure does look purty for the Richest Neighborhood in Mexico to look at.
> 
> Meanwhile, there are places along the border that are more intruded that the Wall (yes, I said wall) is falling down and just about ready to fall down.  After 10 years, mother nature has been harsh to the steel walls and through rust, corrosion and people tearing at them, they are falling down.  But Trump decides to doll up the part that is in good repair and works well so his Mexican Billionaires won't complain about the eyesore.
> 
> Believe it or not, you stated fixes closer to the Democrats solutions and completely foreign to Trumps way of thinking.  Trump is a Carny Operator.  How's it feel to be a Rube.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you fail to mention is that none of the 1.6 billion is allowed to be used for the wall.  Need the Politifact link, let me know and I’ll post it as soon as I get home.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...


Your info is wrong once again.  Last month, the Dems offered the 1.6.  The 1.3 was included and they offered to increase it to 1.6.  It's not that it's need or not, it's the figure that was offered.  Trump turned it down flat now he doesn't get the 1.3.  But he's been misappropriating that all along anyway so does he really need it for the "Wall"?


----------



## danielpalos

...we subscribe to Capitalism not national socialism.  Capitalism should solve all of our problems not Government; 

only the Right Wing, 

never gets it.


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> ...we subscribe to Capitalism not national socialism.  Capitalism should solve all of our problems not Government;
> 
> only the Right Wing,
> 
> never gets it.


You're not making any sense. You want employment at will, where everyone who doesn't have a job receives unemployment benefits for being unemployed. How is that a Capitalistic solution?


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...we subscribe to Capitalism not national socialism.  Capitalism should solve all of our problems not Government;
> 
> only the Right Wing,
> 
> never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not making any sense. You want employment at will, where everyone who doesn't have a job receives unemployment benefits for being unemployed. How is that a Capitalistic solution?
Click to expand...

It is Capitalism's _natural_ rate of unemployment; socialism calls it Capitalism's _natural_ rate of inefficiency.


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...we subscribe to Capitalism not national socialism.  Capitalism should solve all of our problems not Government;
> 
> only the Right Wing,
> 
> never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not making any sense. You want employment at will, where everyone who doesn't have a job receives unemployment benefits for being unemployed. How is that a Capitalistic solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is Capitalism's _natural_ rate of unemployment; socialism calls it Capitalism's _natural_ rate of inefficiency.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, You are too stupid to be here, or I am. You make absolutely no sense at all.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...we subscribe to Capitalism not national socialism.  Capitalism should solve all of our problems not Government;
> 
> only the Right Wing,
> 
> never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not making any sense. You want employment at will, where everyone who doesn't have a job receives unemployment benefits for being unemployed. How is that a Capitalistic solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is Capitalism's _natural_ rate of unemployment; socialism calls it Capitalism's _natural_ rate of inefficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry, You are too stupid to be here, or I am. You make absolutely no sense at all.
Click to expand...

not dumb enough for the right wing?  Capitalism creates the problem.  Socialism solves it.


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...we subscribe to Capitalism not national socialism.  Capitalism should solve all of our problems not Government;
> 
> only the Right Wing,
> 
> never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not making any sense. You want employment at will, where everyone who doesn't have a job receives unemployment benefits for being unemployed. How is that a Capitalistic solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is Capitalism's _natural_ rate of unemployment; socialism calls it Capitalism's _natural_ rate of inefficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry, You are too stupid to be here, or I am. You make absolutely no sense at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not dumb enough for the right wing?  Capitalism creates the problem.  Socialism solves it.
Click to expand...

For the first time in 50 years I'm going to put someone on ignore. Congratulations.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...we subscribe to Capitalism not national socialism.  Capitalism should solve all of our problems not Government;
> 
> only the Right Wing,
> 
> never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not making any sense. You want employment at will, where everyone who doesn't have a job receives unemployment benefits for being unemployed. How is that a Capitalistic solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is Capitalism's _natural_ rate of unemployment; socialism calls it Capitalism's _natural_ rate of inefficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry, You are too stupid to be here, or I am. You make absolutely no sense at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not dumb enough for the right wing?  Capitalism creates the problem.  Socialism solves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the first time in 50 years I'm going to put someone on ignore. Congratulations.
Click to expand...

how ordinary and usual for the right wing to appeal to ignorance instead of coming up with a valid argument.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump quotes racist article by man he previously called a 'Hitler lover', in effort to justify his border wall*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one post here I showed how the wall idea began and has been under the control of nazis.  I think the word racist is used as a scare word, but politically speaking the proposed wall solution is socialist from its very beginnings.
> 
> I'm not fighting people over their racial ideology.  It's the socialism that they need to consider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fair trade is not fair unless we are on equal trading fields. It isn't fair that Americans have to compete with third worlders for American jobs.
> It isn't fair that China uses slave labor to make their products cheaper than we can make them here thus tariffs are needed.
> And it isn't fair that everything our ancestors worked for, for their children, is going to crap in the name of Globalism.
Click to expand...


You are dealing with half an equation.  When Americans are forced to hire foreigners because the American's prices are too high and the work too shoddy, it is the American's fault.

We make our decisions based on our own experiences.  My brother in law knows how to do remodeling work and so forth.  He said that he'd do some work for me for about 25 percent less than the big box guys that charge, essentially, $300 an hour.  The gutters he put up leak; the siding he put on the front of the house is not what he was supposed to pick up.  So, the siding don't match the rest of the house.

A car load of Mexicans come over, do the job for about 40 percent of what the big box people wanted and it worked out to $35 an hour for them.  Of course, we both realize the head honcho made a lot per hour and his buddies were paid $15 or so dollars.  It's free enterprise and those guys made good money while I was able not to take a soaking on trying to fix the place up.  I agree with you on the tariffs, but you're side has a lot of learning to do.

Foreigners did not subject you to the income tax.  The Democrats conned the Republicans into passing that plank out of the Communist Manifesto.  If you don't like the NEW WORLD ORDER and communism / globalism / One World Government, then quit criticizing me and help me.  Support an American's Right to do with their private property what they want to do with it.  Jobs created in the private sector do not belong to the citizenry.  They belong to the person who created the job.

If the build the wall advocates would quityerbitching and start businesses, ignoring the unconstitutional laws where they tell you who to hire and you hire from among those complaining, all of you would have a job, but less time to come here and wail about so - called "illegal immigrants."


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump quotes racist article by man he previously called a 'Hitler lover', in effort to justify his border wall*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one post here I showed how the wall idea began and has been under the control of nazis.  I think the word racist is used as a scare word, but politically speaking the proposed wall solution is socialist from its very beginnings.
> 
> I'm not fighting people over their racial ideology.  It's the socialism that they need to consider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fair trade is not fair unless we are on equal trading fields. It isn't fair that Americans have to compete with third worlders for American jobs.
> It isn't fair that China uses slave labor to make their products cheaper than we can make them here thus tariffs are needed.
> And it isn't fair that everything our ancestors worked for, for their children, is going to crap in the name of Globalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are dealing with half an equation.  When Americans are forced to hire foreigners because the American's prices are too high and the work too shoddy, it is the American's fault.
> 
> We make our decisions based on our own experiences.  My brother in law knows how to do remodeling work and so forth.  He said that he'd do some work for me for about 25 percent less than the big box guys that charge, essentially, $300 an hour.  The gutters he put up leak; the siding he put on the front of the house is not what he was supposed to pick up.  So, the siding don't match the rest of the house.
> 
> A car load of Mexicans come over, do the job for about 40 percent of what the big box people wanted and it worked out to $35 an hour for them.  Of course, we both realize the head honcho made a lot per hour and his buddies were paid $15 or so dollars.  It's free enterprise and those guys made good money while I was able not to take a soaking on trying to fix the place up.  I agree with you on the tariffs, but you're side has a lot of learning to do.
> 
> Foreigners did not subject you to the income tax.  The Democrats conned the Republicans into passing that plank out of the Communist Manifesto.  If you don't like the NEW WORLD ORDER and communism / globalism / One World Government, then quit criticizing me and help me.  Support an American's Right to do with their private property what they want to do with it.  Jobs created in the private sector do not belong to the citizenry.  They belong to the person who created the job.
> 
> If the build the wall advocates would quityerbitching and start businesses, ignoring the unconstitutional laws where they tell you who to hire and you hire from among those complaining, all of you would have a job, but less time to come here and wail about so - called "illegal immigrants."
Click to expand...

More important than that I support my "need" to earn enough money to support my family without becoming a workaholic.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...we subscribe to Capitalism not national socialism.  Capitalism should solve all of our problems not Government;
> 
> only the Right Wing,
> 
> never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not making any sense. You want employment at will, where everyone who doesn't have a job receives unemployment benefits for being unemployed. How is that a Capitalistic solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is Capitalism's _natural_ rate of unemployment; socialism calls it Capitalism's _natural_ rate of inefficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry, You are too stupid to be here, or I am. You make absolutely no sense at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not dumb enough for the right wing?  Capitalism creates the problem.  Socialism solves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the first time in 50 years I'm going to put someone on ignore. Congratulations.
Click to expand...



Capitalism creates the problem - you know economic prosperity and jobs

Socialism solves that problem - it gives you unemployment, misery and the excuse to stay on the computer all day.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Daryl Hunt said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some parts of Texas, California and Arizona, there is *already a wall.* Let Trump the fuck alone and let him finish what the Dumcrates have already started. What is really needed is more border agents, drones, and the military if necessary and no more catch and release and more deportation. Enforce our existing immigration laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice.  You are buying into the Snake Oil.  The Walls that were built went into the Metro Areas that had the highest entry.  The walls funnel down to the entry points.  It's a bit difficult to determine who is and who isn't supposed to be there when there is a high degree of population around.  So walls are used and there is no room for the better multi layered Security Fence that actually works better.  Also, in that area, the requirement for the most dense border patrol and security devices are needed.  Those are already built.
> 
> Here is a bit of info that while I type it, you can hold your hands over your eyes and ears (assuming you are a 4 handed freak of nature) and loudly yell "LaLaLa" over and over.  In the Fiscal Years of 2017 and 2018, there was 1.3 billion dollars allocated for Wall/Security Fence maintenance and additions.  During those two years, not one single inch of additional wall or security fence has been added.  And the only place that the Wall/Security Fence has been replaced is  just outside San Diego at one of the lowest  intrusion areas all along the border.  That part was NEVER run down.  But it sure does look purty for the Richest Neighborhood in Mexico to look at.
> 
> Meanwhile, there are places along the border that are more intruded that the Wall (yes, I said wall) is falling down and just about ready to fall down.  After 10 years, mother nature has been harsh to the steel walls and through rust, corrosion and people tearing at them, they are falling down.  But Trump decides to doll up the part that is in good repair and works well so his Mexican Billionaires won't complain about the eyesore.
> 
> Believe it or not, you stated fixes closer to the Democrats solutions and completely foreign to Trumps way of thinking.  Trump is a Carny Operator.  How's it feel to be a Rube.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you fail to mention is that none of the 1.6 billion is allowed to be used for the wall.  Need the Politifact link, let me know and I’ll post it as soon as I get home.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your info is wrong once again.  Last month, the Dems offered the 1.6.  The 1.3 was included and they offered to increase it to 1.6.  It's not that it's need or not, it's the figure that was offered.  Trump turned it down flat now he doesn't get the 1.3.  But he's been misappropriating that all along anyway so does he really need it for the "Wall"?
Click to expand...


No, there is what was passed last month and what the Dems are offering now.  5.6 isn’t even enough.  Trump originally wanted 30 billion.  He scaled that down and the Dems still won’t approve it. 

Now Cruz wants to re-introduce the el chapo bill to pay for the wall.  That means it won’t cost the taxpayers one red cent.  Watch how Democrats still won’t allow it. 


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## LilOlLady

Daryl Hunt said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some parts of Texas, California and Arizona, there is *already a wall.* Let Trump the fuck alone and let him finish what the Dumcrates have already started. What is really needed is more border agents, drones, and the military if necessary and no more catch and release and more deportation. Enforce our existing immigration laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice.  You are buying into the Snake Oil.  The Walls that were built went into the Metro Areas that had the highest entry.  The walls funnel down to the entry points.  It's a bit difficult to determine who is and who isn't supposed to be there when there is a high degree of population around.  So walls are used and there is no room for the better multi layered Security Fence that actually works better.  Also, in that area, the requirement for the most dense border patrol and security devices are needed.  Those are already built.
> 
> Here is a bit of info that while I type it, you can hold your hands over your eyes and ears (assuming you are a 4 handed freak of nature) and loudly yell "LaLaLa" over and over.  In the Fiscal Years of 2017 and 2018, there was 1.3 billion dollars allocated for Wall/Security Fence maintenance and additions.  During those two years, not one single inch of additional wall or security fence has been added.  And the only place that the Wall/Security Fence has been replaced is  just outside San Diego at one of the lowest  intrusion areas all along the border.  That part was NEVER run down.  But it sure does look purty for the Richest Neighborhood in Mexico to look at.
> 
> Meanwhile, there are places along the border that are more intruded that the Wall (yes, I said wall) is falling down and just about ready to fall down.  After 10 years, mother nature has been harsh to the steel walls and through rust, corrosion and people tearing at them, they are falling down.  But Trump decides to doll up the part that is in good repair and works well so his Mexican Billionaires won't complain about the eyesore.
> 
> Believe it or not, you stated fixes closer to the Democrats solutions and completely foreign to Trumps way of thinking.  Trump is a Carny Operator.  How's it feel to be a Rube.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you fail to mention is that none of the 1.6 billion is allowed to be used for the wall.  Need the Politifact link, let me know and I’ll post it as soon as I get home.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your info is wrong once again.  Last month, the Dems offered the 1.6.  The 1.3 was included and they offered to increase it to 1.6.  It's not that it's need or not, it's the figure that was offered.  Trump turned it down flat now he doesn't get the 1.3.  But he's been misappropriating that all along anyway so does he really need it for the "Wall"?
Click to expand...

And I hope he keeps turning down the little tokens offered from the Democrats. There is a lot more than a wall needed to secure the border and probably much more the $5 billion needed and he should hold out for it. All or none. We are spending $trillions n the middle east so spend whatever is necessar to secure our borders.  But he will settle because he does not have to cajones to hold out for what is needed. And Pelosi and Schumer have even less. We are screwed on matter what happens.


----------



## dblack

Slyhunter said:


> More important than that I support my "need" to earn enough money to support my family without becoming a workaholic.



Nothing personal, but yes. Liberty and keeping the power of government in check is more important than anyone's personal needs.


----------



## Slyhunter

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some parts of Texas, California and Arizona, there is *already a wall.* Let Trump the fuck alone and let him finish what the Dumcrates have already started. What is really needed is more border agents, drones, and the military if necessary and no more catch and release and more deportation. Enforce our existing immigration laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice.  You are buying into the Snake Oil.  The Walls that were built went into the Metro Areas that had the highest entry.  The walls funnel down to the entry points.  It's a bit difficult to determine who is and who isn't supposed to be there when there is a high degree of population around.  So walls are used and there is no room for the better multi layered Security Fence that actually works better.  Also, in that area, the requirement for the most dense border patrol and security devices are needed.  Those are already built.
> 
> Here is a bit of info that while I type it, you can hold your hands over your eyes and ears (assuming you are a 4 handed freak of nature) and loudly yell "LaLaLa" over and over.  In the Fiscal Years of 2017 and 2018, there was 1.3 billion dollars allocated for Wall/Security Fence maintenance and additions.  During those two years, not one single inch of additional wall or security fence has been added.  And the only place that the Wall/Security Fence has been replaced is  just outside San Diego at one of the lowest  intrusion areas all along the border.  That part was NEVER run down.  But it sure does look purty for the Richest Neighborhood in Mexico to look at.
> 
> Meanwhile, there are places along the border that are more intruded that the Wall (yes, I said wall) is falling down and just about ready to fall down.  After 10 years, mother nature has been harsh to the steel walls and through rust, corrosion and people tearing at them, they are falling down.  But Trump decides to doll up the part that is in good repair and works well so his Mexican Billionaires won't complain about the eyesore.
> 
> Believe it or not, you stated fixes closer to the Democrats solutions and completely foreign to Trumps way of thinking.  Trump is a Carny Operator.  How's it feel to be a Rube.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you fail to mention is that none of the 1.6 billion is allowed to be used for the wall.  Need the Politifact link, let me know and I’ll post it as soon as I get home.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your info is wrong once again.  Last month, the Dems offered the 1.6.  The 1.3 was included and they offered to increase it to 1.6.  It's not that it's need or not, it's the figure that was offered.  Trump turned it down flat now he doesn't get the 1.3.  But he's been misappropriating that all along anyway so does he really need it for the "Wall"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is what was passed last month and what the Dems are offering now.  5.6 isn’t even enough.  Trump originally wanted 30 billion.  He scaled that down and the Dems still won’t approve it.
> 
> Now Cruz wants to re-introduce the el chapo bill to pay for the wall.  That means it won’t cost the taxpayers one red cent.  Watch how Democrats still won’t allow it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...

El Chapo bill?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some parts of Texas, California and Arizona, there is *already a wall.* Let Trump the fuck alone and let him finish what the Dumcrates have already started. What is really needed is more border agents, drones, and the military if necessary and no more catch and release and more deportation. Enforce our existing immigration laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice.  You are buying into the Snake Oil.  The Walls that were built went into the Metro Areas that had the highest entry.  The walls funnel down to the entry points.  It's a bit difficult to determine who is and who isn't supposed to be there when there is a high degree of population around.  So walls are used and there is no room for the better multi layered Security Fence that actually works better.  Also, in that area, the requirement for the most dense border patrol and security devices are needed.  Those are already built.
> 
> Here is a bit of info that while I type it, you can hold your hands over your eyes and ears (assuming you are a 4 handed freak of nature) and loudly yell "LaLaLa" over and over.  In the Fiscal Years of 2017 and 2018, there was 1.3 billion dollars allocated for Wall/Security Fence maintenance and additions.  During those two years, not one single inch of additional wall or security fence has been added.  And the only place that the Wall/Security Fence has been replaced is  just outside San Diego at one of the lowest  intrusion areas all along the border.  That part was NEVER run down.  But it sure does look purty for the Richest Neighborhood in Mexico to look at.
> 
> Meanwhile, there are places along the border that are more intruded that the Wall (yes, I said wall) is falling down and just about ready to fall down.  After 10 years, mother nature has been harsh to the steel walls and through rust, corrosion and people tearing at them, they are falling down.  But Trump decides to doll up the part that is in good repair and works well so his Mexican Billionaires won't complain about the eyesore.
> 
> Believe it or not, you stated fixes closer to the Democrats solutions and completely foreign to Trumps way of thinking.  Trump is a Carny Operator.  How's it feel to be a Rube.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you fail to mention is that none of the 1.6 billion is allowed to be used for the wall.  Need the Politifact link, let me know and I’ll post it as soon as I get home.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your info is wrong once again.  Last month, the Dems offered the 1.6.  The 1.3 was included and they offered to increase it to 1.6.  It's not that it's need or not, it's the figure that was offered.  Trump turned it down flat now he doesn't get the 1.3.  But he's been misappropriating that all along anyway so does he really need it for the "Wall"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is what was passed last month and what the Dems are offering now.  5.6 isn’t even enough.  Trump originally wanted 30 billion.  He scaled that down and the Dems still won’t approve it.
> 
> Now Cruz wants to re-introduce the el chapo bill to pay for the wall.  That means it won’t cost the taxpayers one red cent.  Watch how Democrats still won’t allow it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...


Now 5.6 isn't enough.  Just how much will be enough if Trump has squandered 2.6 billion in the last 2 years that was supposed to go to wall/secure fencing.  The whole idea of the 2006 Border Security Law was to get the job done over a period of years, not months.  In 10 years, half has been built.  It was build with due diligence during the Bush Jr and the Obama years.  70 miles per year.  The time period for completion was 20 years.  That's not outlandish and the US Taxpayer can easily afford it.  What Trump wants to do is put everyone in a state of panic.  Since he has had 2.6 billion to expand on the wall/security fence in the last 2 years and he hasn't added one single inch to it he's remiss and not following the law.  On top of that, he's misappropriating funds.  Now, you want us to turn 30 billion over to him all at once?  Not going to happen.  30 billion this year, another 30 billion next year, we have to put a stop to it and put it back to a fiscal responsible expenditure.  I keep waiting for the Fiscal Conservatives to wake the hell up and start doing what they are supposed to do.  

I really don't lay a lot of blame on Trump on this one.  He's like the scorpion and the Frog.  It's just in his nature.  But I do lay the real blame on the Congress.  The House has the votes to pass a Veto Free bill to restart the government with the original 1.3 billion as per the 2006 law.  The Senate also has the support for a Veto proof bill.  Now for the crux and the showing of REAL misspent power.  Even though the votes are there in the senate to do a veto free bill, one man won't allow it.  Mitch McConnel will not allow it to go onto the floor for a vote.  And the other Republicans in the Senate, although they would vote to restart the Government, won't either pressure him or replace him.  The GOP in the Senate needs to grow a pair.  Just because a President wants some willy nilly thing is no reason to give it to him.  We are supposed to have 3 branches of Government.  We don't have.  Congress either does exactly what Trump wants, no matter how crazy that can be, or he brings the government down to it's knees.  So, we expect this from Trump but we need Congress to override him when he goes off the deep end just like we need them to do for any President that goes off the deep end.  Otherwise, we will see more and more insane EOs because Congress isn't doing it's job.  

How about joining in with me and getting Congress to actually do something instead of just blaming the Democrats.  In this case, it's not the Democrats or even the Republicans in the House, it's the Republicans in the Senate that allow McConnel to wield so much power.  Hell, he has ended up with more real power than even the President.


----------



## Slyhunter

Daryl Hunt said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some parts of Texas, California and Arizona, there is *already a wall.* Let Trump the fuck alone and let him finish what the Dumcrates have already started. What is really needed is more border agents, drones, and the military if necessary and no more catch and release and more deportation. Enforce our existing immigration laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice.  You are buying into the Snake Oil.  The Walls that were built went into the Metro Areas that had the highest entry.  The walls funnel down to the entry points.  It's a bit difficult to determine who is and who isn't supposed to be there when there is a high degree of population around.  So walls are used and there is no room for the better multi layered Security Fence that actually works better.  Also, in that area, the requirement for the most dense border patrol and security devices are needed.  Those are already built.
> 
> Here is a bit of info that while I type it, you can hold your hands over your eyes and ears (assuming you are a 4 handed freak of nature) and loudly yell "LaLaLa" over and over.  In the Fiscal Years of 2017 and 2018, there was 1.3 billion dollars allocated for Wall/Security Fence maintenance and additions.  During those two years, not one single inch of additional wall or security fence has been added.  And the only place that the Wall/Security Fence has been replaced is  just outside San Diego at one of the lowest  intrusion areas all along the border.  That part was NEVER run down.  But it sure does look purty for the Richest Neighborhood in Mexico to look at.
> 
> Meanwhile, there are places along the border that are more intruded that the Wall (yes, I said wall) is falling down and just about ready to fall down.  After 10 years, mother nature has been harsh to the steel walls and through rust, corrosion and people tearing at them, they are falling down.  But Trump decides to doll up the part that is in good repair and works well so his Mexican Billionaires won't complain about the eyesore.
> 
> Believe it or not, you stated fixes closer to the Democrats solutions and completely foreign to Trumps way of thinking.  Trump is a Carny Operator.  How's it feel to be a Rube.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you fail to mention is that none of the 1.6 billion is allowed to be used for the wall.  Need the Politifact link, let me know and I’ll post it as soon as I get home.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your info is wrong once again.  Last month, the Dems offered the 1.6.  The 1.3 was included and they offered to increase it to 1.6.  It's not that it's need or not, it's the figure that was offered.  Trump turned it down flat now he doesn't get the 1.3.  But he's been misappropriating that all along anyway so does he really need it for the "Wall"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is what was passed last month and what the Dems are offering now.  5.6 isn’t even enough.  Trump originally wanted 30 billion.  He scaled that down and the Dems still won’t approve it.
> 
> Now Cruz wants to re-introduce the el chapo bill to pay for the wall.  That means it won’t cost the taxpayers one red cent.  Watch how Democrats still won’t allow it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now 5.6 isn't enough.  Just how much will be enough if Trump has squandered 2.6 billion in the last 2 years that was supposed to go to wall/secure fencing.  The whole idea of the 2006 Border Security Law was to get the job done over a period of years, not months.  In 10 years, half has been built.  It was build with due diligence during the Bush Jr and the Obama years.  70 miles per year.  The time period for completion was 20 years.  That's not outlandish and the US Taxpayer can easily afford it.  What Trump wants to do is put everyone in a state of panic.  Since he has had 2.6 billion to expand on the wall/security fence in the last 2 years and he hasn't added one single inch to it he's remiss and not following the law.
Click to expand...

That's a lie
https://nypost.com/2018/06/02/trumps-border-wall-breaks-ground-in-san-diego/



Daryl Hunt said:


> On top of that, he's misappropriating funds.  Now, you want us to turn 30 billion over to him all at once?  Not going to happen.  30 billion this year, another 30 billion next year, we have to put a stop to it and put it back to a fiscal responsible expenditure.  I keep waiting for the Fiscal Conservatives to wake the hell up and start doing what they are supposed to do.
> 
> I really don't lay a lot of blame on Trump on this one.  He's like the scorpion and the Frog.  It's just in his nature.  But I do lay the real blame on the Congress.  The House has the votes to pass a Veto Free bill to restart the government with the original 1.3 billion as per the 2006 law.  The Senate also has the support for a Veto proof bill.  Now for the crux and the showing of REAL misspent power.  Even though the votes are there in the senate to do a veto free bill, one man won't allow it.  Mitch McConnel will not allow it to go onto the floor for a vote.  And the other Republicans in the Senate, although they would vote to restart the Government, won't either pressure him or replace him.  The GOP in the Senate needs to grow a pair.  Just because a President wants some willy nilly thing is no reason to give it to him.  We are supposed to have 3 branches of Government.  We don't have.  Congress either does exactly what Trump wants, no matter how crazy that can be, or he brings the government down to it's knees.  So, we expect this from Trump but we need Congress to override him when he goes off the deep end just like we need them to do for any President that goes off the deep end.  Otherwise, we will see more and more insane EOs because Congress isn't doing it's job.
> 
> How about joining in with me and getting Congress to actually do something instead of just blaming the Democrats.  In this case, it's not the Democrats or even the Republicans in the House, it's the Republicans in the Senate that allow McConnel to wield so much power.  Hell, he has ended up with more real power than even the President.


You gave Honduras 7 million and that hasn't stopped them from sending caravans to the US. Talk about misappropriation of funds. Spend that money on the wall instead. At least then we'll be able to see what our money bought us.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump quotes racist article by man he previously called a 'Hitler lover', in effort to justify his border wall*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one post here I showed how the wall idea began and has been under the control of nazis.  I think the word racist is used as a scare word, but politically speaking the proposed wall solution is socialist from its very beginnings.
> 
> I'm not fighting people over their racial ideology.  It's the socialism that they need to consider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fair trade is not fair unless we are on equal trading fields. It isn't fair that Americans have to compete with third worlders for American jobs.
> It isn't fair that China uses slave labor to make their products cheaper than we can make them here thus tariffs are needed.
> And it isn't fair that everything our ancestors worked for, for their children, is going to crap in the name of Globalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are dealing with half an equation.  When Americans are forced to hire foreigners because the American's prices are too high and the work too shoddy, it is the American's fault.
> 
> We make our decisions based on our own experiences.  My brother in law knows how to do remodeling work and so forth.  He said that he'd do some work for me for about 25 percent less than the big box guys that charge, essentially, $300 an hour.  The gutters he put up leak; the siding he put on the front of the house is not what he was supposed to pick up.  So, the siding don't match the rest of the house.
> 
> A car load of Mexicans come over, do the job for about 40 percent of what the big box people wanted and it worked out to $35 an hour for them.  Of course, we both realize the head honcho made a lot per hour and his buddies were paid $15 or so dollars.  It's free enterprise and those guys made good money while I was able not to take a soaking on trying to fix the place up.  I agree with you on the tariffs, but you're side has a lot of learning to do.
> 
> Foreigners did not subject you to the income tax.  The Democrats conned the Republicans into passing that plank out of the Communist Manifesto.  If you don't like the NEW WORLD ORDER and communism / globalism / One World Government, then quit criticizing me and help me.  Support an American's Right to do with their private property what they want to do with it.  Jobs created in the private sector do not belong to the citizenry.  They belong to the person who created the job.
> 
> If the build the wall advocates would quityerbitching and start businesses, ignoring the unconstitutional laws where they tell you who to hire and you hire from among those complaining, all of you would have a job, but less time to come here and wail about so - called "illegal immigrants."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More important than that I support my "need" to earn enough money to support my family without becoming a workaholic.
Click to expand...


Then you should budget your time and learn all about an issue before jumping onto anyone's bandwagon.  The build the wall guys and the liberal Democrats are both going to the same destination by way of different routes.


----------



## eagle1462010

Daryl Hunt said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some parts of Texas, California and Arizona, there is *already a wall.* Let Trump the fuck alone and let him finish what the Dumcrates have already started. What is really needed is more border agents, drones, and the military if necessary and no more catch and release and more deportation. Enforce our existing immigration laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice.  You are buying into the Snake Oil.  The Walls that were built went into the Metro Areas that had the highest entry.  The walls funnel down to the entry points.  It's a bit difficult to determine who is and who isn't supposed to be there when there is a high degree of population around.  So walls are used and there is no room for the better multi layered Security Fence that actually works better.  Also, in that area, the requirement for the most dense border patrol and security devices are needed.  Those are already built.
> 
> Here is a bit of info that while I type it, you can hold your hands over your eyes and ears (assuming you are a 4 handed freak of nature) and loudly yell "LaLaLa" over and over.  In the Fiscal Years of 2017 and 2018, there was 1.3 billion dollars allocated for Wall/Security Fence maintenance and additions.  During those two years, not one single inch of additional wall or security fence has been added.  And the only place that the Wall/Security Fence has been replaced is  just outside San Diego at one of the lowest  intrusion areas all along the border.  That part was NEVER run down.  But it sure does look purty for the Richest Neighborhood in Mexico to look at.
> 
> Meanwhile, there are places along the border that are more intruded that the Wall (yes, I said wall) is falling down and just about ready to fall down.  After 10 years, mother nature has been harsh to the steel walls and through rust, corrosion and people tearing at them, they are falling down.  But Trump decides to doll up the part that is in good repair and works well so his Mexican Billionaires won't complain about the eyesore.
> 
> Believe it or not, you stated fixes closer to the Democrats solutions and completely foreign to Trumps way of thinking.  Trump is a Carny Operator.  How's it feel to be a Rube.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you fail to mention is that none of the 1.6 billion is allowed to be used for the wall.  Need the Politifact link, let me know and I’ll post it as soon as I get home.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your info is wrong once again.  Last month, the Dems offered the 1.6.  The 1.3 was included and they offered to increase it to 1.6.  It's not that it's need or not, it's the figure that was offered.  Trump turned it down flat now he doesn't get the 1.3.  But he's been misappropriating that all along anyway so does he really need it for the "Wall"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is what was passed last month and what the Dems are offering now.  5.6 isn’t even enough.  Trump originally wanted 30 billion.  He scaled that down and the Dems still won’t approve it.
> 
> Now Cruz wants to re-introduce the el chapo bill to pay for the wall.  That means it won’t cost the taxpayers one red cent.  Watch how Democrats still won’t allow it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now 5.6 isn't enough.  Just how much will be enough if Trump has squandered 2.6 billion in the last 2 years that was supposed to go to wall/secure fencing.  The whole idea of the 2006 Border Security Law was to get the job done over a period of years, not months.  In 10 years, half has been built.  It was build with due diligence during the Bush Jr and the Obama years.  70 miles per year.  The time period for completion was 20 years.  That's not outlandish and the US Taxpayer can easily afford it.  What Trump wants to do is put everyone in a state of panic.  Since he has had 2.6 billion to expand on the wall/security fence in the last 2 years and he hasn't added one single inch to it he's remiss and not following the law.  On top of that, he's misappropriating funds.  Now, you want us to turn 30 billion over to him all at once?  Not going to happen.  30 billion this year, another 30 billion next year, we have to put a stop to it and put it back to a fiscal responsible expenditure.  I keep waiting for the Fiscal Conservatives to wake the hell up and start doing what they are supposed to do.
> 
> I really don't lay a lot of blame on Trump on this one.  He's like the scorpion and the Frog.  It's just in his nature.  But I do lay the real blame on the Congress.  The House has the votes to pass a Veto Free bill to restart the government with the original 1.3 billion as per the 2006 law.  The Senate also has the support for a Veto proof bill.  Now for the crux and the showing of REAL misspent power.  Even though the votes are there in the senate to do a veto free bill, one man won't allow it.  Mitch McConnel will not allow it to go onto the floor for a vote.  And the other Republicans in the Senate, although they would vote to restart the Government, won't either pressure him or replace him.  The GOP in the Senate needs to grow a pair.  Just because a President wants some willy nilly thing is no reason to give it to him.  We are supposed to have 3 branches of Government.  We don't have.  Congress either does exactly what Trump wants, no matter how crazy that can be, or he brings the government down to it's knees.  So, we expect this from Trump but we need Congress to override him when he goes off the deep end just like we need them to do for any President that goes off the deep end.  Otherwise, we will see more and more insane EOs because Congress isn't doing it's job.
> 
> How about joining in with me and getting Congress to actually do something instead of just blaming the Democrats.  In this case, it's not the Democrats or even the Republicans in the House, it's the Republicans in the Senate that allow McConnel to wield so much power.  Hell, he has ended up with more real power than even the President.
Click to expand...

The Lies continue.  I posted numerous times where that money was spent.  cbp site shows it.  

Nothing but Lies here.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump quotes racist article by man he previously called a 'Hitler lover', in effort to justify his border wall*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one post here I showed how the wall idea began and has been under the control of nazis.  I think the word racist is used as a scare word, but politically speaking the proposed wall solution is socialist from its very beginnings.
> 
> I'm not fighting people over their racial ideology.  It's the socialism that they need to consider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fair trade is not fair unless we are on equal trading fields. It isn't fair that Americans have to compete with third worlders for American jobs.
> It isn't fair that China uses slave labor to make their products cheaper than we can make them here thus tariffs are needed.
> And it isn't fair that everything our ancestors worked for, for their children, is going to crap in the name of Globalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are dealing with half an equation.  When Americans are forced to hire foreigners because the American's prices are too high and the work too shoddy, it is the American's fault.
> 
> We make our decisions based on our own experiences.  My brother in law knows how to do remodeling work and so forth.  He said that he'd do some work for me for about 25 percent less than the big box guys that charge, essentially, $300 an hour.  The gutters he put up leak; the siding he put on the front of the house is not what he was supposed to pick up.  So, the siding don't match the rest of the house.
> 
> A car load of Mexicans come over, do the job for about 40 percent of what the big box people wanted and it worked out to $35 an hour for them.  Of course, we both realize the head honcho made a lot per hour and his buddies were paid $15 or so dollars.  It's free enterprise and those guys made good money while I was able not to take a soaking on trying to fix the place up.  I agree with you on the tariffs, but you're side has a lot of learning to do.
> 
> Foreigners did not subject you to the income tax.  The Democrats conned the Republicans into passing that plank out of the Communist Manifesto.  If you don't like the NEW WORLD ORDER and communism / globalism / One World Government, then quit criticizing me and help me.  Support an American's Right to do with their private property what they want to do with it.  Jobs created in the private sector do not belong to the citizenry.  They belong to the person who created the job.
> 
> If the build the wall advocates would quityerbitching and start businesses, ignoring the unconstitutional laws where they tell you who to hire and you hire from among those complaining, all of you would have a job, but less time to come here and wail about so - called "illegal immigrants."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More important than that I support my "need" to earn enough money to support my family without becoming a workaholic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should budget your time and learn all about an issue before jumping onto anyone's bandwagon.  The build the wall guys and the liberal Democrats are both going to the same destination by way of different routes.
Click to expand...

I have roasted your butts with information on what has been built and what the budget is for.

You just want your illegal labor.  You have proven that.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump quotes racist article by man he previously called a 'Hitler lover', in effort to justify his border wall*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one post here I showed how the wall idea began and has been under the control of nazis.  I think the word racist is used as a scare word, but politically speaking the proposed wall solution is socialist from its very beginnings.
> 
> I'm not fighting people over their racial ideology.  It's the socialism that they need to consider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fair trade is not fair unless we are on equal trading fields. It isn't fair that Americans have to compete with third worlders for American jobs.
> It isn't fair that China uses slave labor to make their products cheaper than we can make them here thus tariffs are needed.
> And it isn't fair that everything our ancestors worked for, for their children, is going to crap in the name of Globalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are dealing with half an equation.  When Americans are forced to hire foreigners because the American's prices are too high and the work too shoddy, it is the American's fault.
> 
> We make our decisions based on our own experiences.  My brother in law knows how to do remodeling work and so forth.  He said that he'd do some work for me for about 25 percent less than the big box guys that charge, essentially, $300 an hour.  The gutters he put up leak; the siding he put on the front of the house is not what he was supposed to pick up.  So, the siding don't match the rest of the house.
> 
> A car load of Mexicans come over, do the job for about 40 percent of what the big box people wanted and it worked out to $35 an hour for them.  Of course, we both realize the head honcho made a lot per hour and his buddies were paid $15 or so dollars.  It's free enterprise and those guys made good money while I was able not to take a soaking on trying to fix the place up.  I agree with you on the tariffs, but you're side has a lot of learning to do.
> 
> Foreigners did not subject you to the income tax.  The Democrats conned the Republicans into passing that plank out of the Communist Manifesto.  If you don't like the NEW WORLD ORDER and communism / globalism / One World Government, then quit criticizing me and help me.  Support an American's Right to do with their private property what they want to do with it.  Jobs created in the private sector do not belong to the citizenry.  They belong to the person who created the job.
> 
> If the build the wall advocates would quityerbitching and start businesses, ignoring the unconstitutional laws where they tell you who to hire and you hire from among those complaining, all of you would have a job, but less time to come here and wail about so - called "illegal immigrants."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More important than that I support my "need" to earn enough money to support my family without becoming a workaholic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should budget your time and learn all about an issue before jumping onto anyone's bandwagon.  The build the wall guys and the liberal Democrats are both going to the same destination by way of different routes.
Click to expand...

Without the wall we have uncontrolled immigration.
With the wall we have controlled immigration.
Controlled is better than uncontrolled. 
Fighting who will be allowed in to take our jobs can be fought after we solved the uncontrolled immigration problem.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

LilOlLady said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some parts of Texas, California and Arizona, there is *already a wall.* Let Trump the fuck alone and let him finish what the Dumcrates have already started. What is really needed is more border agents, drones, and the military if necessary and no more catch and release and more deportation. Enforce our existing immigration laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice.  You are buying into the Snake Oil.  The Walls that were built went into the Metro Areas that had the highest entry.  The walls funnel down to the entry points.  It's a bit difficult to determine who is and who isn't supposed to be there when there is a high degree of population around.  So walls are used and there is no room for the better multi layered Security Fence that actually works better.  Also, in that area, the requirement for the most dense border patrol and security devices are needed.  Those are already built.
> 
> Here is a bit of info that while I type it, you can hold your hands over your eyes and ears (assuming you are a 4 handed freak of nature) and loudly yell "LaLaLa" over and over.  In the Fiscal Years of 2017 and 2018, there was 1.3 billion dollars allocated for Wall/Security Fence maintenance and additions.  During those two years, not one single inch of additional wall or security fence has been added.  And the only place that the Wall/Security Fence has been replaced is  just outside San Diego at one of the lowest  intrusion areas all along the border.  That part was NEVER run down.  But it sure does look purty for the Richest Neighborhood in Mexico to look at.
> 
> Meanwhile, there are places along the border that are more intruded that the Wall (yes, I said wall) is falling down and just about ready to fall down.  After 10 years, mother nature has been harsh to the steel walls and through rust, corrosion and people tearing at them, they are falling down.  But Trump decides to doll up the part that is in good repair and works well so his Mexican Billionaires won't complain about the eyesore.
> 
> Believe it or not, you stated fixes closer to the Democrats solutions and completely foreign to Trumps way of thinking.  Trump is a Carny Operator.  How's it feel to be a Rube.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you fail to mention is that none of the 1.6 billion is allowed to be used for the wall.  Need the Politifact link, let me know and I’ll post it as soon as I get home.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your info is wrong once again.  Last month, the Dems offered the 1.6.  The 1.3 was included and they offered to increase it to 1.6.  It's not that it's need or not, it's the figure that was offered.  Trump turned it down flat now he doesn't get the 1.3.  But he's been misappropriating that all along anyway so does he really need it for the "Wall"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I hope he keeps turning down the little tokens offered from the Democrats. There is a lot more than a wall needed to secure the border and probably much more the $5 billion needed and he should hold out for it. All or none. We are spending $trillions n the middle east so spend whatever is necessar to secure our borders.  But he will settle because he does not have to cajones to hold out for what is needed. And Pelosi and Schumer have even less. We are screwed on matter what happens.
Click to expand...


hate to break it to you but 1.3 billion isn't chicken feed for any construction project.  Here is how budgeting works.  You get 1.3 billion.  You have to spend it all in the fiscal year or it reverts back to the general fund and then rolls over the next year.  But your project lost the balance.   Now, let's say you can build 90 miles of wall/security fence in one fiscal year.  That means it will cost, say, 1.6 billion and you can spend that.  But you received 30 billion.  You can't spend that 30 billion.  So you will lose 10 to 15 billion back into the general fund at the end of the fiscal year.  Well, you can't have that.  It's traditional to buy all the things you want no matter frivolous that may be.  You spend it all if you can.  

The cost per mile of the Wall/Security Fence to day has been about 178K per mile.  There has already been 13 billion spent on it total in expanding it.  Adjusting for inflation and for rougher terrain the whole thing that can be built (about 500 miles can't be built due to terrain problems) I would place the total completion to be about 20 billion and it can't be built in one fiscal year.  There is still something just under 800 miles to build.  Now, you get hundreds contractors working on it at the same time it might get done in a couple of years.  Or you can do it like it was designed to do and you can complete it in 10 years.  Trump has already cost us 2 years of those 10 because not one single inch has been built in the last 2 years yet for the fiscal years of 2017 and 2018, there was a total of 2.6 billion allocated for it.  That means, the wall should be about 140 miles longer and it should be finished in 8 years total.  

In 2009, money was allocated to replace that fence or wall that many of you have touted that is in such bad condition.  It was postponed.  Calico N.M. has one of the worst walls along the border. It's rusted, falling down and you can just about throw a cat through it.  Not a house pet but a Earth Mover made by Caterpillar.  It's one of the most favorite place to cross.  Instead of repairing that wall, Trump ordered the Double Multi Layered Fence just outside of San Diego to be replaced.  The fencing there is NOT rundown, it's been well maintained, and this is one of the lowest crossing points anywhere there is a barrier on the whole border.  Why did he pick there?  Simple.  He is trying to impress the Mexican Billionaires on the other side in the richest neighborhood in Mexico.  That Neighborhood has a very high degree of police and security guards and almost no one can reach the outside fence in the first place.  If they reach it and do breach the security fence, they have about 200 yds before they come to a 30 foot high security fence.  While they are crossing, there is listening and sensing devices along with a fully staff Border Patrol overlooking that area from a high Hill.  Then if they get past all that and get over that last wall, they are now in a Wet Lands area.  It's going to be really slow going across that.  It's more  a marsh.  All this time, the Border Patrol can pick them up and wait for them on the other side comfortably.  Yes, folks, he has spent that 2.6 billion bucks there on replacing security fencing that is in good shape along with the proper security personnel and electronic security measures.  And you want to turn 30 billion in one lump sum over to him?  Where are all the Fiscal Conservatives that once roamed the earth.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Slyhunter said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice.  You are buying into the Snake Oil.  The Walls that were built went into the Metro Areas that had the highest entry.  The walls funnel down to the entry points.  It's a bit difficult to determine who is and who isn't supposed to be there when there is a high degree of population around.  So walls are used and there is no room for the better multi layered Security Fence that actually works better.  Also, in that area, the requirement for the most dense border patrol and security devices are needed.  Those are already built.
> 
> Here is a bit of info that while I type it, you can hold your hands over your eyes and ears (assuming you are a 4 handed freak of nature) and loudly yell "LaLaLa" over and over.  In the Fiscal Years of 2017 and 2018, there was 1.3 billion dollars allocated for Wall/Security Fence maintenance and additions.  During those two years, not one single inch of additional wall or security fence has been added.  And the only place that the Wall/Security Fence has been replaced is  just outside San Diego at one of the lowest  intrusion areas all along the border.  That part was NEVER run down.  But it sure does look purty for the Richest Neighborhood in Mexico to look at.
> 
> Meanwhile, there are places along the border that are more intruded that the Wall (yes, I said wall) is falling down and just about ready to fall down.  After 10 years, mother nature has been harsh to the steel walls and through rust, corrosion and people tearing at them, they are falling down.  But Trump decides to doll up the part that is in good repair and works well so his Mexican Billionaires won't complain about the eyesore.
> 
> Believe it or not, you stated fixes closer to the Democrats solutions and completely foreign to Trumps way of thinking.  Trump is a Carny Operator.  How's it feel to be a Rube.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you fail to mention is that none of the 1.6 billion is allowed to be used for the wall.  Need the Politifact link, let me know and I’ll post it as soon as I get home.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your info is wrong once again.  Last month, the Dems offered the 1.6.  The 1.3 was included and they offered to increase it to 1.6.  It's not that it's need or not, it's the figure that was offered.  Trump turned it down flat now he doesn't get the 1.3.  But he's been misappropriating that all along anyway so does he really need it for the "Wall"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is what was passed last month and what the Dems are offering now.  5.6 isn’t even enough.  Trump originally wanted 30 billion.  He scaled that down and the Dems still won’t approve it.
> 
> Now Cruz wants to re-introduce the el chapo bill to pay for the wall.  That means it won’t cost the taxpayers one red cent.  Watch how Democrats still won’t allow it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now 5.6 isn't enough.  Just how much will be enough if Trump has squandered 2.6 billion in the last 2 years that was supposed to go to wall/secure fencing.  The whole idea of the 2006 Border Security Law was to get the job done over a period of years, not months.  In 10 years, half has been built.  It was build with due diligence during the Bush Jr and the Obama years.  70 miles per year.  The time period for completion was 20 years.  That's not outlandish and the US Taxpayer can easily afford it.  What Trump wants to do is put everyone in a state of panic.  Since he has had 2.6 billion to expand on the wall/security fence in the last 2 years and he hasn't added one single inch to it he's remiss and not following the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a lie
> https://nypost.com/2018/06/02/trumps-border-wall-breaks-ground-in-san-diego/
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> On top of that, he's misappropriating funds.  Now, you want us to turn 30 billion over to him all at once?  Not going to happen.  30 billion this year, another 30 billion next year, we have to put a stop to it and put it back to a fiscal responsible expenditure.  I keep waiting for the Fiscal Conservatives to wake the hell up and start doing what they are supposed to do.
> 
> I really don't lay a lot of blame on Trump on this one.  He's like the scorpion and the Frog.  It's just in his nature.  But I do lay the real blame on the Congress.  The House has the votes to pass a Veto Free bill to restart the government with the original 1.3 billion as per the 2006 law.  The Senate also has the support for a Veto proof bill.  Now for the crux and the showing of REAL misspent power.  Even though the votes are there in the senate to do a veto free bill, one man won't allow it.  Mitch McConnel will not allow it to go onto the floor for a vote.  And the other Republicans in the Senate, although they would vote to restart the Government, won't either pressure him or replace him.  The GOP in the Senate needs to grow a pair.  Just because a President wants some willy nilly thing is no reason to give it to him.  We are supposed to have 3 branches of Government.  We don't have.  Congress either does exactly what Trump wants, no matter how crazy that can be, or he brings the government down to it's knees.  So, we expect this from Trump but we need Congress to override him when he goes off the deep end just like we need them to do for any President that goes off the deep end.  Otherwise, we will see more and more insane EOs because Congress isn't doing it's job.
> 
> How about joining in with me and getting Congress to actually do something instead of just blaming the Democrats.  In this case, it's not the Democrats or even the Republicans in the House, it's the Republicans in the Senate that allow McConnel to wield so much power.  Hell, he has ended up with more real power than even the President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You gave Honduras 7 million and that hasn't stopped them from sending caravans to the US. Talk about misappropriation of funds. Spend that money on the wall instead. At least then we'll be able to see what our money bought us.
Click to expand...


REally now, you mean that it's part of the 1.6 billion that isn't allocated?  That's what the article says.  I can stage a bunch of construction equipment and call it anything I want as well.  But until it's funded, it can't be started.  It tells you what you want to hear, nothing more.  If Trump were really spending the 2.6 billion he already received, that wall would already be built since it's a replacement for a run down wall.  It's still run down, still there and still needs to be funded.  Again, not one single inch of wall expansion has been done in the last 2 years.  Here, let me repeat that.  Not one single inch of wall or border security fence has been done in the past 2 years.  And the most run down areas are still run down.  He wants you to feel sorry for him when in reality, the funds for repair/replacement for those areas have already been allocated in fiscal years 2017 and 2018.


----------



## eagle1462010

Daryl Hunt said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you fail to mention is that none of the 1.6 billion is allowed to be used for the wall.  Need the Politifact link, let me know and I’ll post it as soon as I get home.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your info is wrong once again.  Last month, the Dems offered the 1.6.  The 1.3 was included and they offered to increase it to 1.6.  It's not that it's need or not, it's the figure that was offered.  Trump turned it down flat now he doesn't get the 1.3.  But he's been misappropriating that all along anyway so does he really need it for the "Wall"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is what was passed last month and what the Dems are offering now.  5.6 isn’t even enough.  Trump originally wanted 30 billion.  He scaled that down and the Dems still won’t approve it.
> 
> Now Cruz wants to re-introduce the el chapo bill to pay for the wall.  That means it won’t cost the taxpayers one red cent.  Watch how Democrats still won’t allow it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now 5.6 isn't enough.  Just how much will be enough if Trump has squandered 2.6 billion in the last 2 years that was supposed to go to wall/secure fencing.  The whole idea of the 2006 Border Security Law was to get the job done over a period of years, not months.  In 10 years, half has been built.  It was build with due diligence during the Bush Jr and the Obama years.  70 miles per year.  The time period for completion was 20 years.  That's not outlandish and the US Taxpayer can easily afford it.  What Trump wants to do is put everyone in a state of panic.  Since he has had 2.6 billion to expand on the wall/security fence in the last 2 years and he hasn't added one single inch to it he's remiss and not following the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a lie
> https://nypost.com/2018/06/02/trumps-border-wall-breaks-ground-in-san-diego/
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> On top of that, he's misappropriating funds.  Now, you want us to turn 30 billion over to him all at once?  Not going to happen.  30 billion this year, another 30 billion next year, we have to put a stop to it and put it back to a fiscal responsible expenditure.  I keep waiting for the Fiscal Conservatives to wake the hell up and start doing what they are supposed to do.
> 
> I really don't lay a lot of blame on Trump on this one.  He's like the scorpion and the Frog.  It's just in his nature.  But I do lay the real blame on the Congress.  The House has the votes to pass a Veto Free bill to restart the government with the original 1.3 billion as per the 2006 law.  The Senate also has the support for a Veto proof bill.  Now for the crux and the showing of REAL misspent power.  Even though the votes are there in the senate to do a veto free bill, one man won't allow it.  Mitch McConnel will not allow it to go onto the floor for a vote.  And the other Republicans in the Senate, although they would vote to restart the Government, won't either pressure him or replace him.  The GOP in the Senate needs to grow a pair.  Just because a President wants some willy nilly thing is no reason to give it to him.  We are supposed to have 3 branches of Government.  We don't have.  Congress either does exactly what Trump wants, no matter how crazy that can be, or he brings the government down to it's knees.  So, we expect this from Trump but we need Congress to override him when he goes off the deep end just like we need them to do for any President that goes off the deep end.  Otherwise, we will see more and more insane EOs because Congress isn't doing it's job.
> 
> How about joining in with me and getting Congress to actually do something instead of just blaming the Democrats.  In this case, it's not the Democrats or even the Republicans in the House, it's the Republicans in the Senate that allow McConnel to wield so much power.  Hell, he has ended up with more real power than even the President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You gave Honduras 7 million and that hasn't stopped them from sending caravans to the US. Talk about misappropriation of funds. Spend that money on the wall instead. At least then we'll be able to see what our money bought us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> REally now, you mean that it's part of the 1.6 billion that isn't allocated?  That's what the article says.  I can stage a bunch of construction equipment and call it anything I want as well.  But until it's funded, it can't be started.  It tells you what you want to hear, nothing more.  If Trump were really spending the 2.6 billion he already received, that wall would already be built since it's a replacement for a run down wall.  It's still run down, still there and still needs to be funded.  Again, not one single inch of wall expansion has been done in the last 2 years.  Here, let me repeat that.  Not one single inch of wall or border security fence has been done in the past 2 years.  And the most run down areas are still run down.  He wants you to feel sorry for him when in reality, the funds for repair/replacement for those areas have already been allocated in fiscal years 2017 and 2018.
Click to expand...

Cbp contracts show how it was spent. Soe of it for Levees with New 30 foot fencing on top.  Why the levees???  Flooding in the areas in 2016 put cities like Nagales under water.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

eagle1462010 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your info is wrong once again.  Last month, the Dems offered the 1.6.  The 1.3 was included and they offered to increase it to 1.6.  It's not that it's need or not, it's the figure that was offered.  Trump turned it down flat now he doesn't get the 1.3.  But he's been misappropriating that all along anyway so does he really need it for the "Wall"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is what was passed last month and what the Dems are offering now.  5.6 isn’t even enough.  Trump originally wanted 30 billion.  He scaled that down and the Dems still won’t approve it.
> 
> Now Cruz wants to re-introduce the el chapo bill to pay for the wall.  That means it won’t cost the taxpayers one red cent.  Watch how Democrats still won’t allow it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now 5.6 isn't enough.  Just how much will be enough if Trump has squandered 2.6 billion in the last 2 years that was supposed to go to wall/secure fencing.  The whole idea of the 2006 Border Security Law was to get the job done over a period of years, not months.  In 10 years, half has been built.  It was build with due diligence during the Bush Jr and the Obama years.  70 miles per year.  The time period for completion was 20 years.  That's not outlandish and the US Taxpayer can easily afford it.  What Trump wants to do is put everyone in a state of panic.  Since he has had 2.6 billion to expand on the wall/security fence in the last 2 years and he hasn't added one single inch to it he's remiss and not following the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a lie
> https://nypost.com/2018/06/02/trumps-border-wall-breaks-ground-in-san-diego/
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> On top of that, he's misappropriating funds.  Now, you want us to turn 30 billion over to him all at once?  Not going to happen.  30 billion this year, another 30 billion next year, we have to put a stop to it and put it back to a fiscal responsible expenditure.  I keep waiting for the Fiscal Conservatives to wake the hell up and start doing what they are supposed to do.
> 
> I really don't lay a lot of blame on Trump on this one.  He's like the scorpion and the Frog.  It's just in his nature.  But I do lay the real blame on the Congress.  The House has the votes to pass a Veto Free bill to restart the government with the original 1.3 billion as per the 2006 law.  The Senate also has the support for a Veto proof bill.  Now for the crux and the showing of REAL misspent power.  Even though the votes are there in the senate to do a veto free bill, one man won't allow it.  Mitch McConnel will not allow it to go onto the floor for a vote.  And the other Republicans in the Senate, although they would vote to restart the Government, won't either pressure him or replace him.  The GOP in the Senate needs to grow a pair.  Just because a President wants some willy nilly thing is no reason to give it to him.  We are supposed to have 3 branches of Government.  We don't have.  Congress either does exactly what Trump wants, no matter how crazy that can be, or he brings the government down to it's knees.  So, we expect this from Trump but we need Congress to override him when he goes off the deep end just like we need them to do for any President that goes off the deep end.  Otherwise, we will see more and more insane EOs because Congress isn't doing it's job.
> 
> How about joining in with me and getting Congress to actually do something instead of just blaming the Democrats.  In this case, it's not the Democrats or even the Republicans in the House, it's the Republicans in the Senate that allow McConnel to wield so much power.  Hell, he has ended up with more real power than even the President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You gave Honduras 7 million and that hasn't stopped them from sending caravans to the US. Talk about misappropriation of funds. Spend that money on the wall instead. At least then we'll be able to see what our money bought us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> REally now, you mean that it's part of the 1.6 billion that isn't allocated?  That's what the article says.  I can stage a bunch of construction equipment and call it anything I want as well.  But until it's funded, it can't be started.  It tells you what you want to hear, nothing more.  If Trump were really spending the 2.6 billion he already received, that wall would already be built since it's a replacement for a run down wall.  It's still run down, still there and still needs to be funded.  Again, not one single inch of wall expansion has been done in the last 2 years.  Here, let me repeat that.  Not one single inch of wall or border security fence has been done in the past 2 years.  And the most run down areas are still run down.  He wants you to feel sorry for him when in reality, the funds for repair/replacement for those areas have already been allocated in fiscal years 2017 and 2018.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cbp contracts show how it was spent. Soe of it for Levees with New 30 foot fencing on top.  Why the levees???  Flooding in the areas in 2016 put cities like Nagales under water.
Click to expand...


But not 2.6 billion dollars worth of Levees.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...we subscribe to Capitalism not national socialism.  Capitalism should solve all of our problems not Government;
> 
> only the Right Wing,
> 
> never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not making any sense. You want employment at will, where everyone who doesn't have a job receives unemployment benefits for being unemployed. How is that a Capitalistic solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is Capitalism's _natural_ rate of unemployment; socialism calls it Capitalism's _natural_ rate of inefficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry, You are too stupid to be here, or I am. You make absolutely no sense at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not dumb enough for the right wing?  Capitalism creates the problem.  Socialism solves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the first time in 50 years I'm going to put someone on ignore. Congratulations.
Click to expand...


Oh, please, me next, me next.


----------



## eagle1462010

Daryl Hunt said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is what was passed last month and what the Dems are offering now.  5.6 isn’t even enough.  Trump originally wanted 30 billion.  He scaled that down and the Dems still won’t approve it.
> 
> Now Cruz wants to re-introduce the el chapo bill to pay for the wall.  That means it won’t cost the taxpayers one red cent.  Watch how Democrats still won’t allow it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now 5.6 isn't enough.  Just how much will be enough if Trump has squandered 2.6 billion in the last 2 years that was supposed to go to wall/secure fencing.  The whole idea of the 2006 Border Security Law was to get the job done over a period of years, not months.  In 10 years, half has been built.  It was build with due diligence during the Bush Jr and the Obama years.  70 miles per year.  The time period for completion was 20 years.  That's not outlandish and the US Taxpayer can easily afford it.  What Trump wants to do is put everyone in a state of panic.  Since he has had 2.6 billion to expand on the wall/security fence in the last 2 years and he hasn't added one single inch to it he's remiss and not following the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a lie
> https://nypost.com/2018/06/02/trumps-border-wall-breaks-ground-in-san-diego/
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> On top of that, he's misappropriating funds.  Now, you want us to turn 30 billion over to him all at once?  Not going to happen.  30 billion this year, another 30 billion next year, we have to put a stop to it and put it back to a fiscal responsible expenditure.  I keep waiting for the Fiscal Conservatives to wake the hell up and start doing what they are supposed to do.
> 
> I really don't lay a lot of blame on Trump on this one.  He's like the scorpion and the Frog.  It's just in his nature.  But I do lay the real blame on the Congress.  The House has the votes to pass a Veto Free bill to restart the government with the original 1.3 billion as per the 2006 law.  The Senate also has the support for a Veto proof bill.  Now for the crux and the showing of REAL misspent power.  Even though the votes are there in the senate to do a veto free bill, one man won't allow it.  Mitch McConnel will not allow it to go onto the floor for a vote.  And the other Republicans in the Senate, although they would vote to restart the Government, won't either pressure him or replace him.  The GOP in the Senate needs to grow a pair.  Just because a President wants some willy nilly thing is no reason to give it to him.  We are supposed to have 3 branches of Government.  We don't have.  Congress either does exactly what Trump wants, no matter how crazy that can be, or he brings the government down to it's knees.  So, we expect this from Trump but we need Congress to override him when he goes off the deep end just like we need them to do for any President that goes off the deep end.  Otherwise, we will see more and more insane EOs because Congress isn't doing it's job.
> 
> How about joining in with me and getting Congress to actually do something instead of just blaming the Democrats.  In this case, it's not the Democrats or even the Republicans in the House, it's the Republicans in the Senate that allow McConnel to wield so much power.  Hell, he has ended up with more real power than even the President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You gave Honduras 7 million and that hasn't stopped them from sending caravans to the US. Talk about misappropriation of funds. Spend that money on the wall instead. At least then we'll be able to see what our money bought us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> REally now, you mean that it's part of the 1.6 billion that isn't allocated?  That's what the article says.  I can stage a bunch of construction equipment and call it anything I want as well.  But until it's funded, it can't be started.  It tells you what you want to hear, nothing more.  If Trump were really spending the 2.6 billion he already received, that wall would already be built since it's a replacement for a run down wall.  It's still run down, still there and still needs to be funded.  Again, not one single inch of wall expansion has been done in the last 2 years.  Here, let me repeat that.  Not one single inch of wall or border security fence has been done in the past 2 years.  And the most run down areas are still run down.  He wants you to feel sorry for him when in reality, the funds for repair/replacement for those areas have already been allocated in fiscal years 2017 and 2018.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cbp contracts show how it was spent. Soe of it for Levees with New 30 foot fencing on top.  Why the levees???  Flooding in the areas in 2016 put cities like Nagales under water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But not 2.6 billion dollars worth of Levees.
Click to expand...

The levees were only a portion.  Ive shown the updwtes and construction on too many threads alredy.


----------



## eagle1462010

Okay I hate this new phone small keyboard.  Lol


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> In one post here I showed how the wall idea began and has been under the control of nazis.  I think the word racist is used as a scare word, but politically speaking the proposed wall solution is socialist from its very beginnings.
> 
> I'm not fighting people over their racial ideology.  It's the socialism that they need to consider.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair trade is not fair unless we are on equal trading fields. It isn't fair that Americans have to compete with third worlders for American jobs.
> It isn't fair that China uses slave labor to make their products cheaper than we can make them here thus tariffs are needed.
> And it isn't fair that everything our ancestors worked for, for their children, is going to crap in the name of Globalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are dealing with half an equation.  When Americans are forced to hire foreigners because the American's prices are too high and the work too shoddy, it is the American's fault.
> 
> We make our decisions based on our own experiences.  My brother in law knows how to do remodeling work and so forth.  He said that he'd do some work for me for about 25 percent less than the big box guys that charge, essentially, $300 an hour.  The gutters he put up leak; the siding he put on the front of the house is not what he was supposed to pick up.  So, the siding don't match the rest of the house.
> 
> A car load of Mexicans come over, do the job for about 40 percent of what the big box people wanted and it worked out to $35 an hour for them.  Of course, we both realize the head honcho made a lot per hour and his buddies were paid $15 or so dollars.  It's free enterprise and those guys made good money while I was able not to take a soaking on trying to fix the place up.  I agree with you on the tariffs, but you're side has a lot of learning to do.
> 
> Foreigners did not subject you to the income tax.  The Democrats conned the Republicans into passing that plank out of the Communist Manifesto.  If you don't like the NEW WORLD ORDER and communism / globalism / One World Government, then quit criticizing me and help me.  Support an American's Right to do with their private property what they want to do with it.  Jobs created in the private sector do not belong to the citizenry.  They belong to the person who created the job.
> 
> If the build the wall advocates would quityerbitching and start businesses, ignoring the unconstitutional laws where they tell you who to hire and you hire from among those complaining, all of you would have a job, but less time to come here and wail about so - called "illegal immigrants."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More important than that I support my "need" to earn enough money to support my family without becoming a workaholic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should budget your time and learn all about an issue before jumping onto anyone's bandwagon.  The build the wall guys and the liberal Democrats are both going to the same destination by way of different routes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have roasted your butts with information on what has been built and what the budget is for.
> 
> You just want your illegal labor.  You have proven that.
Click to expand...


You are the one who makes this pretentious argument about this being something related to jobs.  It's not my fault that your argument imploded on you.

And there you go again, showing the people on this board your abject stupidity.  There is a couple of questions you haven't asked me.  I'm not going to respond to baseless accusations.  People might think I see some merit in your dishonesty.  If you want to KNOW where I stand, why aren't you asking a couple of relevant questions?  You'd just get another beat down.  The truth is something that evades you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> In one post here I showed how the wall idea began and has been under the control of nazis.  I think the word racist is used as a scare word, but politically speaking the proposed wall solution is socialist from its very beginnings.
> 
> I'm not fighting people over their racial ideology.  It's the socialism that they need to consider.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair trade is not fair unless we are on equal trading fields. It isn't fair that Americans have to compete with third worlders for American jobs.
> It isn't fair that China uses slave labor to make their products cheaper than we can make them here thus tariffs are needed.
> And it isn't fair that everything our ancestors worked for, for their children, is going to crap in the name of Globalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are dealing with half an equation.  When Americans are forced to hire foreigners because the American's prices are too high and the work too shoddy, it is the American's fault.
> 
> We make our decisions based on our own experiences.  My brother in law knows how to do remodeling work and so forth.  He said that he'd do some work for me for about 25 percent less than the big box guys that charge, essentially, $300 an hour.  The gutters he put up leak; the siding he put on the front of the house is not what he was supposed to pick up.  So, the siding don't match the rest of the house.
> 
> A car load of Mexicans come over, do the job for about 40 percent of what the big box people wanted and it worked out to $35 an hour for them.  Of course, we both realize the head honcho made a lot per hour and his buddies were paid $15 or so dollars.  It's free enterprise and those guys made good money while I was able not to take a soaking on trying to fix the place up.  I agree with you on the tariffs, but you're side has a lot of learning to do.
> 
> Foreigners did not subject you to the income tax.  The Democrats conned the Republicans into passing that plank out of the Communist Manifesto.  If you don't like the NEW WORLD ORDER and communism / globalism / One World Government, then quit criticizing me and help me.  Support an American's Right to do with their private property what they want to do with it.  Jobs created in the private sector do not belong to the citizenry.  They belong to the person who created the job.
> 
> If the build the wall advocates would quityerbitching and start businesses, ignoring the unconstitutional laws where they tell you who to hire and you hire from among those complaining, all of you would have a job, but less time to come here and wail about so - called "illegal immigrants."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More important than that I support my "need" to earn enough money to support my family without becoming a workaholic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should budget your time and learn all about an issue before jumping onto anyone's bandwagon.  The build the wall guys and the liberal Democrats are both going to the same destination by way of different routes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without the wall we have uncontrolled immigration.
> With the wall we have controlled immigration.
> Controlled is better than uncontrolled.
> Fighting who will be allowed in to take our jobs can be fought after we solved the uncontrolled immigration problem.
Click to expand...


Can you explain to us how our forefathers built the greatest nation in the annals of history *without* a wall?

The problem with trying to control people as opposed to regulating how people come and go means that one day *YOU* will be the one being controlled.  Read the admonition of a founding father:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."   Thomas Paine

Infringing on the unalienable Rights of others puts *YOUR* Freedom and Liberty in control once your political enemies gain control of the government.

If you didn't create a job, you do not own it.  Again, you're making a socialist argument.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair trade is not fair unless we are on equal trading fields. It isn't fair that Americans have to compete with third worlders for American jobs.
> It isn't fair that China uses slave labor to make their products cheaper than we can make them here thus tariffs are needed.
> And it isn't fair that everything our ancestors worked for, for their children, is going to crap in the name of Globalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are dealing with half an equation.  When Americans are forced to hire foreigners because the American's prices are too high and the work too shoddy, it is the American's fault.
> 
> We make our decisions based on our own experiences.  My brother in law knows how to do remodeling work and so forth.  He said that he'd do some work for me for about 25 percent less than the big box guys that charge, essentially, $300 an hour.  The gutters he put up leak; the siding he put on the front of the house is not what he was supposed to pick up.  So, the siding don't match the rest of the house.
> 
> A car load of Mexicans come over, do the job for about 40 percent of what the big box people wanted and it worked out to $35 an hour for them.  Of course, we both realize the head honcho made a lot per hour and his buddies were paid $15 or so dollars.  It's free enterprise and those guys made good money while I was able not to take a soaking on trying to fix the place up.  I agree with you on the tariffs, but you're side has a lot of learning to do.
> 
> Foreigners did not subject you to the income tax.  The Democrats conned the Republicans into passing that plank out of the Communist Manifesto.  If you don't like the NEW WORLD ORDER and communism / globalism / One World Government, then quit criticizing me and help me.  Support an American's Right to do with their private property what they want to do with it.  Jobs created in the private sector do not belong to the citizenry.  They belong to the person who created the job.
> 
> If the build the wall advocates would quityerbitching and start businesses, ignoring the unconstitutional laws where they tell you who to hire and you hire from among those complaining, all of you would have a job, but less time to come here and wail about so - called "illegal immigrants."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More important than that I support my "need" to earn enough money to support my family without becoming a workaholic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should budget your time and learn all about an issue before jumping onto anyone's bandwagon.  The build the wall guys and the liberal Democrats are both going to the same destination by way of different routes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without the wall we have uncontrolled immigration.
> With the wall we have controlled immigration.
> Controlled is better than uncontrolled.
> Fighting who will be allowed in to take our jobs can be fought after we solved the uncontrolled immigration problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you explain to us how our forefathers built the greatest nation in the annals of history *without* a wall?
Click to expand...

The needs of the past are not the needs of the present.
Labor was once valuable, now it is not.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are dealing with half an equation.  When Americans are forced to hire foreigners because the American's prices are too high and the work too shoddy, it is the American's fault.
> 
> We make our decisions based on our own experiences.  My brother in law knows how to do remodeling work and so forth.  He said that he'd do some work for me for about 25 percent less than the big box guys that charge, essentially, $300 an hour.  The gutters he put up leak; the siding he put on the front of the house is not what he was supposed to pick up.  So, the siding don't match the rest of the house.
> 
> A car load of Mexicans come over, do the job for about 40 percent of what the big box people wanted and it worked out to $35 an hour for them.  Of course, we both realize the head honcho made a lot per hour and his buddies were paid $15 or so dollars.  It's free enterprise and those guys made good money while I was able not to take a soaking on trying to fix the place up.  I agree with you on the tariffs, but you're side has a lot of learning to do.
> 
> Foreigners did not subject you to the income tax.  The Democrats conned the Republicans into passing that plank out of the Communist Manifesto.  If you don't like the NEW WORLD ORDER and communism / globalism / One World Government, then quit criticizing me and help me.  Support an American's Right to do with their private property what they want to do with it.  Jobs created in the private sector do not belong to the citizenry.  They belong to the person who created the job.
> 
> If the build the wall advocates would quityerbitching and start businesses, ignoring the unconstitutional laws where they tell you who to hire and you hire from among those complaining, all of you would have a job, but less time to come here and wail about so - called "illegal immigrants."
> 
> 
> 
> More important than that I support my "need" to earn enough money to support my family without becoming a workaholic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should budget your time and learn all about an issue before jumping onto anyone's bandwagon.  The build the wall guys and the liberal Democrats are both going to the same destination by way of different routes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without the wall we have uncontrolled immigration.
> With the wall we have controlled immigration.
> Controlled is better than uncontrolled.
> Fighting who will be allowed in to take our jobs can be fought after we solved the uncontrolled immigration problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you explain to us how our forefathers built the greatest nation in the annals of history *without* a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The needs of the past are not the needs of the present.
> Labor was once valuable, now it is not.
Click to expand...


If you have a skill set, it can be very valuable.  Still, jobs either belong to the person who creates the job *OR* it is owned by the citizenry.  The definition of socialism is when the government and the public at large own the jobs and control production.

America was founded and built on the free market model.  If you return to that, you will be much more prosperous as a nation.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> More important than that I support my "need" to earn enough money to support my family without becoming a workaholic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should budget your time and learn all about an issue before jumping onto anyone's bandwagon.  The build the wall guys and the liberal Democrats are both going to the same destination by way of different routes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without the wall we have uncontrolled immigration.
> With the wall we have controlled immigration.
> Controlled is better than uncontrolled.
> Fighting who will be allowed in to take our jobs can be fought after we solved the uncontrolled immigration problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you explain to us how our forefathers built the greatest nation in the annals of history *without* a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The needs of the past are not the needs of the present.
> Labor was once valuable, now it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have a skill set, it can be very valuable.  Still, jobs either belong to the person who creates the job *OR* it is owned by the citizenry.  The definition of socialism is when the government and the public at large own the jobs and control production.
> 
> America was founded and built on the free market model.  If you return to that, you will be much more prosperous as a nation.
Click to expand...

I'm bi-polar, can't hold down a job. I might as well have 0 experience and nobody cares about my 148 IQ. I have to compete with Mehicans for jobs, because I have to compete with no job history. I'm a COBOL Programer and nobody cares. I type 85 wpm, and they still don't care. I don't need immigrants taking away my right to live.


----------



## dblack

Slyhunter said:


> I don't need immigrants taking away my right to live.



Competing for your job isn't taking away your right to live.


----------



## Slyhunter

Why would I put a lock on my bike if the thief could just use bolt cutters.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair trade is not fair unless we are on equal trading fields. It isn't fair that Americans have to compete with third worlders for American jobs.
> It isn't fair that China uses slave labor to make their products cheaper than we can make them here thus tariffs are needed.
> And it isn't fair that everything our ancestors worked for, for their children, is going to crap in the name of Globalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are dealing with half an equation.  When Americans are forced to hire foreigners because the American's prices are too high and the work too shoddy, it is the American's fault.
> 
> We make our decisions based on our own experiences.  My brother in law knows how to do remodeling work and so forth.  He said that he'd do some work for me for about 25 percent less than the big box guys that charge, essentially, $300 an hour.  The gutters he put up leak; the siding he put on the front of the house is not what he was supposed to pick up.  So, the siding don't match the rest of the house.
> 
> A car load of Mexicans come over, do the job for about 40 percent of what the big box people wanted and it worked out to $35 an hour for them.  Of course, we both realize the head honcho made a lot per hour and his buddies were paid $15 or so dollars.  It's free enterprise and those guys made good money while I was able not to take a soaking on trying to fix the place up.  I agree with you on the tariffs, but you're side has a lot of learning to do.
> 
> Foreigners did not subject you to the income tax.  The Democrats conned the Republicans into passing that plank out of the Communist Manifesto.  If you don't like the NEW WORLD ORDER and communism / globalism / One World Government, then quit criticizing me and help me.  Support an American's Right to do with their private property what they want to do with it.  Jobs created in the private sector do not belong to the citizenry.  They belong to the person who created the job.
> 
> If the build the wall advocates would quityerbitching and start businesses, ignoring the unconstitutional laws where they tell you who to hire and you hire from among those complaining, all of you would have a job, but less time to come here and wail about so - called "illegal immigrants."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More important than that I support my "need" to earn enough money to support my family without becoming a workaholic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should budget your time and learn all about an issue before jumping onto anyone's bandwagon.  The build the wall guys and the liberal Democrats are both going to the same destination by way of different routes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have roasted your butts with information on what has been built and what the budget is for.
> 
> You just want your illegal labor.  You have proven that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who makes this pretentious argument about this being something related to jobs.  It's not my fault that your argument imploded on you.
> 
> And there you go again, showing the people on this board your abject stupidity.  There is a couple of questions you haven't asked me.  I'm not going to respond to baseless accusations.  People might think I see some merit in your dishonesty.  If you want to KNOW where I stand, why aren't you asking a couple of relevant questions?  You'd just get another beat down.  The truth is something that evades you.
Click to expand...

Early on you stated it.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need immigrants taking away my right to live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competing for your job isn't taking away your right to live.
Click to expand...

If they are here legally.  No problem.  Illegally I have a problem. No one is going to work in a slaughter house for substandard wages.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need immigrants taking away my right to live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competing for your job isn't taking away your right to live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they are here legally.  No problem.  Illegally I have a problem. No one is going to work in a slaughter house for substandard wages.
Click to expand...


Do you support reforms making it easier for immigrants to come here legally? Are you OK with widening the pipeline for legal immigrants?

Regardless, my comment stands. Competing for your job isn't taking away your right to live.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should budget your time and learn all about an issue before jumping onto anyone's bandwagon.  The build the wall guys and the liberal Democrats are both going to the same destination by way of different routes.
> 
> 
> 
> Without the wall we have uncontrolled immigration.
> With the wall we have controlled immigration.
> Controlled is better than uncontrolled.
> Fighting who will be allowed in to take our jobs can be fought after we solved the uncontrolled immigration problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you explain to us how our forefathers built the greatest nation in the annals of history *without* a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The needs of the past are not the needs of the present.
> Labor was once valuable, now it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have a skill set, it can be very valuable.  Still, jobs either belong to the person who creates the job *OR* it is owned by the citizenry.  The definition of socialism is when the government and the public at large own the jobs and control production.
> 
> America was founded and built on the free market model.  If you return to that, you will be much more prosperous as a nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm bi-polar, can't hold down a job. I might as well have 0 experience and nobody cares about my 148 IQ. I have to compete with Mehicans for jobs, because I have to compete with no job history. I'm a COBOL Programer and nobody cares. I type 85 wpm, and they still don't care. I don't need immigrants taking away my right to live.
Click to expand...


Nobody is taking away your Right to live.  The guys you surround yourself with advocate taking away the Right of others to live.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are dealing with half an equation.  When Americans are forced to hire foreigners because the American's prices are too high and the work too shoddy, it is the American's fault.
> 
> We make our decisions based on our own experiences.  My brother in law knows how to do remodeling work and so forth.  He said that he'd do some work for me for about 25 percent less than the big box guys that charge, essentially, $300 an hour.  The gutters he put up leak; the siding he put on the front of the house is not what he was supposed to pick up.  So, the siding don't match the rest of the house.
> 
> A car load of Mexicans come over, do the job for about 40 percent of what the big box people wanted and it worked out to $35 an hour for them.  Of course, we both realize the head honcho made a lot per hour and his buddies were paid $15 or so dollars.  It's free enterprise and those guys made good money while I was able not to take a soaking on trying to fix the place up.  I agree with you on the tariffs, but you're side has a lot of learning to do.
> 
> Foreigners did not subject you to the income tax.  The Democrats conned the Republicans into passing that plank out of the Communist Manifesto.  If you don't like the NEW WORLD ORDER and communism / globalism / One World Government, then quit criticizing me and help me.  Support an American's Right to do with their private property what they want to do with it.  Jobs created in the private sector do not belong to the citizenry.  They belong to the person who created the job.
> 
> If the build the wall advocates would quityerbitching and start businesses, ignoring the unconstitutional laws where they tell you who to hire and you hire from among those complaining, all of you would have a job, but less time to come here and wail about so - called "illegal immigrants."
> 
> 
> 
> More important than that I support my "need" to earn enough money to support my family without becoming a workaholic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should budget your time and learn all about an issue before jumping onto anyone's bandwagon.  The build the wall guys and the liberal Democrats are both going to the same destination by way of different routes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have roasted your butts with information on what has been built and what the budget is for.
> 
> You just want your illegal labor.  You have proven that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who makes this pretentious argument about this being something related to jobs.  It's not my fault that your argument imploded on you.
> 
> And there you go again, showing the people on this board your abject stupidity.  There is a couple of questions you haven't asked me.  I'm not going to respond to baseless accusations.  People might think I see some merit in your dishonesty.  If you want to KNOW where I stand, why aren't you asking a couple of relevant questions?  You'd just get another beat down.  The truth is something that evades you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Early on you stated it.
Click to expand...


You're admitting I stated the truth?  I could not state answers to questions not asked.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need immigrants taking away my right to live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competing for your job isn't taking away your right to live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they are here legally.  No problem.  Illegally I have a problem. No one is going to work in a slaughter house for substandard wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you support reforms making it easier for immigrants to come here legally? Are you OK with widening the pipeline for legal immigrants?
> 
> Regardless, my comment stands. Competing for your job isn't taking away your right to live.
Click to expand...

LEGAL entry...........yes...........but only when this flood of illegals is stopped.  And verification of employment VERIFIED via a E-Verify system that stops the fraud going on now.  Once that is done...........then they can get in line.......and businesses can use the LEGAL METHODS OF HIRING THEM........Not the Fake ID network we have now.

If I want to visit a foreign country I need a PASSPORT..........why should we just let anyone in when most of the World doesn't.......that is a broken system and it's been broken for decades.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> More important than that I support my "need" to earn enough money to support my family without becoming a workaholic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should budget your time and learn all about an issue before jumping onto anyone's bandwagon.  The build the wall guys and the liberal Democrats are both going to the same destination by way of different routes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have roasted your butts with information on what has been built and what the budget is for.
> 
> You just want your illegal labor.  You have proven that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who makes this pretentious argument about this being something related to jobs.  It's not my fault that your argument imploded on you.
> 
> And there you go again, showing the people on this board your abject stupidity.  There is a couple of questions you haven't asked me.  I'm not going to respond to baseless accusations.  People might think I see some merit in your dishonesty.  If you want to KNOW where I stand, why aren't you asking a couple of relevant questions?  You'd just get another beat down.  The truth is something that evades you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Early on you stated it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're admitting I stated the truth?  I could not state answers to questions not asked.
Click to expand...

You admitted to hiring illegals.........seemed proud of it...........so I consider you part of the problem


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need immigrants taking away my right to live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competing for your job isn't taking away your right to live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they are here legally.  No problem.  Illegally I have a problem. No one is going to work in a slaughter house for substandard wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you support reforms making it easier for immigrants to come here legally? Are you OK with widening the pipeline for legal immigrants?
> 
> Regardless, my comment stands. Competing for your job isn't taking away your right to live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LEGAL entry...........yes...........but only when this flood of illegals is stopped.  And verification of employment VERIFIED via a E-Verify system that stops the fraud going on now.  Once that is done...........then they can get in line.......and businesses can use the LEGAL METHODS OF HIRING THEM........Not the Fake ID network we have now.
> 
> If I want to visit a foreign country I need a PASSPORT..........why should we just let anyone in when most of the World doesn't.......that is a broken system and it's been broken for decades.
Click to expand...


Why we just let people in goes back to unalienable Rights.  

Either your God, your Creator gave you Rights OR the government did.  It cannot be both ways!  The build the wall guys abandoned the border and turned it all over to government.

You're going to win in the short term.  You WILL get the wall - UNTIL THE LEFT regains the White House.  Then they will take your Rights and show you the same consideration.  Ever think about that?

Why you ask?  We are the strongest nation in the world.  We are the leaders, not the followers.  We are the only nation in the world that recognizes Rights that are above the jurisdiction of any man made government.  You insist on being a third world shithole for some reason.  Screw that Orwellian 1984 B.S.  No foreign government that wants to do you harm is going to tell you the truth about who they let come to our border.

Did YOUR ancestors have a National ID Card?


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need immigrants taking away my right to live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competing for your job isn't taking away your right to live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they are here legally.  No problem.  Illegally I have a problem. No one is going to work in a slaughter house for substandard wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you support reforms making it easier for immigrants to come here legally? Are you OK with widening the pipeline for legal immigrants?
> 
> Regardless, my comment stands. Competing for your job isn't taking away your right to live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LEGAL entry...........yes...........but only when this flood of illegals is stopped.  And verification of employment VERIFIED via a E-Verify system that stops the fraud going on now.  Once that is done...........then they can get in line.......and businesses can use the LEGAL METHODS OF HIRING THEM........Not the Fake ID network we have now.
> 
> If I want to visit a foreign country I need a PASSPORT..........why should we just let anyone in when most of the World doesn't.......that is a broken system and it's been broken for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why we just let people in goes back to unalienable Rights.
> 
> Either your God, your Creator gave you Rights OR the government did.  It cannot be both ways!  The build the wall guys abandoned the border and turned it all over to government.
> 
> You're going to win in the short term.  You WILL get the wall - UNTIL THE LEFT regains the White House.  Then they will take your Rights and show you the same consideration.  Ever think about that?
> 
> Why you ask?  We are the strongest nation in the world.  We are the leaders, not the followers.  We are the only nation in the world that recognizes Rights that are above the jurisdiction of any man made government.  You insist on being a third world shithole for some reason.  Screw that Orwellian 1984 B.S.  No foreign government that wants to do you harm is going to tell you the truth about who they let come to our border.
> 
> Did YOUR ancestors have a National ID Card?
Click to expand...

If we don't stop the flood of illegals into this country the left will change the Demographics of this country........and then use it to shove their far left agenda down our throats........leaving only the 2nd Amendment option............

Obey the laws of this country...........if not we aren't a Republic...........We are no longer a Nation of Laws.................They openly disregard the LAWS...............and so do you ............You are part of the problem.............We will settle this one way or another eventually.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should budget your time and learn all about an issue before jumping onto anyone's bandwagon.  The build the wall guys and the liberal Democrats are both going to the same destination by way of different routes.
> 
> 
> 
> I have roasted your butts with information on what has been built and what the budget is for.
> 
> You just want your illegal labor.  You have proven that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who makes this pretentious argument about this being something related to jobs.  It's not my fault that your argument imploded on you.
> 
> And there you go again, showing the people on this board your abject stupidity.  There is a couple of questions you haven't asked me.  I'm not going to respond to baseless accusations.  People might think I see some merit in your dishonesty.  If you want to KNOW where I stand, why aren't you asking a couple of relevant questions?  You'd just get another beat down.  The truth is something that evades you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Early on you stated it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're admitting I stated the truth?  I could not state answers to questions not asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You admitted to hiring illegals.........seemed proud of it...........so I consider you part of the problem
Click to expand...


I don't hire "illegals."  Everybody is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  *YOU ARE* the problem.  You have a problem with the Constitution; consequently, you have a problem with me.

I hire the person who can do the job competently at the best price.  If a white guy shows up and he's a USDA approved National ID Card carrying, Socialist Surveillance Number holding subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER, he or she will be given consideration.

But, I'm not about to lose my home or anything else I own just because someone has human registration papers and thinks they are worth a surgeon's wages when they pissed away their life and did not take advantage of the free education I offered them.  You aren't joining my team, sitting on your ass, and thinking you're going to make a living off me just because you were lucky enough to be born in the USA.

There is no shame in Americans working like everybody else and *earning* their opportunities.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Competing for your job isn't taking away your right to live.
> 
> 
> 
> If they are here legally.  No problem.  Illegally I have a problem. No one is going to work in a slaughter house for substandard wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you support reforms making it easier for immigrants to come here legally? Are you OK with widening the pipeline for legal immigrants?
> 
> Regardless, my comment stands. Competing for your job isn't taking away your right to live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LEGAL entry...........yes...........but only when this flood of illegals is stopped.  And verification of employment VERIFIED via a E-Verify system that stops the fraud going on now.  Once that is done...........then they can get in line.......and businesses can use the LEGAL METHODS OF HIRING THEM........Not the Fake ID network we have now.
> 
> If I want to visit a foreign country I need a PASSPORT..........why should we just let anyone in when most of the World doesn't.......that is a broken system and it's been broken for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why we just let people in goes back to unalienable Rights.
> 
> Either your God, your Creator gave you Rights OR the government did.  It cannot be both ways!  The build the wall guys abandoned the border and turned it all over to government.
> 
> You're going to win in the short term.  You WILL get the wall - UNTIL THE LEFT regains the White House.  Then they will take your Rights and show you the same consideration.  Ever think about that?
> 
> Why you ask?  We are the strongest nation in the world.  We are the leaders, not the followers.  We are the only nation in the world that recognizes Rights that are above the jurisdiction of any man made government.  You insist on being a third world shithole for some reason.  Screw that Orwellian 1984 B.S.  No foreign government that wants to do you harm is going to tell you the truth about who they let come to our border.
> 
> Did YOUR ancestors have a National ID Card?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we don't stop the flood of illegals into this country the left will change the Demographics of this country........and then use it to shove their far left agenda down our throats........leaving only the 2nd Amendment option............
> 
> Obey the laws of this country...........if not we aren't a Republic...........We are no longer a Nation of Laws.................They openly disregard the LAWS...............and so do you ............You are part of the problem.............We will settle this one way or another eventually.
Click to expand...


Obeying the laws and carrying a freaking piece of paper issued by a corrupt government will not save the Republic.  *GOVERNMENT CAUSED YOUR PROBLEM*.  

Laws that conflict with the Constitution are NOT LEGITIMATE LAWS.  If you can show me the word immigration in the Constitution, this B.S. would stop in an instant.  You nor I have to obey unconstitutional laws.

You feel like asking what's missing yet?  You ready to ask the question that resolves this?  Are you brave enough OR too much of a dullard to know what I'm referring to?


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they are here legally.  No problem.  Illegally I have a problem. No one is going to work in a slaughter house for substandard wages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you support reforms making it easier for immigrants to come here legally? Are you OK with widening the pipeline for legal immigrants?
> 
> Regardless, my comment stands. Competing for your job isn't taking away your right to live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LEGAL entry...........yes...........but only when this flood of illegals is stopped.  And verification of employment VERIFIED via a E-Verify system that stops the fraud going on now.  Once that is done...........then they can get in line.......and businesses can use the LEGAL METHODS OF HIRING THEM........Not the Fake ID network we have now.
> 
> If I want to visit a foreign country I need a PASSPORT..........why should we just let anyone in when most of the World doesn't.......that is a broken system and it's been broken for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why we just let people in goes back to unalienable Rights.
> 
> Either your God, your Creator gave you Rights OR the government did.  It cannot be both ways!  The build the wall guys abandoned the border and turned it all over to government.
> 
> You're going to win in the short term.  You WILL get the wall - UNTIL THE LEFT regains the White House.  Then they will take your Rights and show you the same consideration.  Ever think about that?
> 
> Why you ask?  We are the strongest nation in the world.  We are the leaders, not the followers.  We are the only nation in the world that recognizes Rights that are above the jurisdiction of any man made government.  You insist on being a third world shithole for some reason.  Screw that Orwellian 1984 B.S.  No foreign government that wants to do you harm is going to tell you the truth about who they let come to our border.
> 
> Did YOUR ancestors have a National ID Card?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we don't stop the flood of illegals into this country the left will change the Demographics of this country........and then use it to shove their far left agenda down our throats........leaving only the 2nd Amendment option............
> 
> Obey the laws of this country...........if not we aren't a Republic...........We are no longer a Nation of Laws.................They openly disregard the LAWS...............and so do you ............You are part of the problem.............We will settle this one way or another eventually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obeying the laws and carrying a freaking piece of paper issued by a corrupt government will not save the Republic.  *GOVERNMENT CAUSED YOUR PROBLEM*.
> 
> Laws that conflict with the Constitution are NOT LEGITIMATE LAWS.  If you can show me the word immigration in the Constitution, this B.S. would stop in an instant.  You nor I have to obey unconstitutional laws.
> 
> You feel like asking what's missing yet?  You ready to ask the question that resolves this?  Are you brave enough OR too much of a dullard to know what I'm referring to?
Click to expand...

You have not proven that............Under the Constitution one of the primary purposes of the Gov't is to protect this nation and it's people.  That is part of the intent of the enumerated powers..............Making foreigners legally come here is part of that..............Enforcing the laws is part of that.

They are breaking the law.............Again........I can't visit another country without a passport............and their laws are tougher than ours on that.........

Do it LEGALLY OR NOT AT ALL...........Time to end this BS.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you support reforms making it easier for immigrants to come here legally? Are you OK with widening the pipeline for legal immigrants?
> 
> Regardless, my comment stands. Competing for your job isn't taking away your right to live.
> 
> 
> 
> LEGAL entry...........yes...........but only when this flood of illegals is stopped.  And verification of employment VERIFIED via a E-Verify system that stops the fraud going on now.  Once that is done...........then they can get in line.......and businesses can use the LEGAL METHODS OF HIRING THEM........Not the Fake ID network we have now.
> 
> If I want to visit a foreign country I need a PASSPORT..........why should we just let anyone in when most of the World doesn't.......that is a broken system and it's been broken for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why we just let people in goes back to unalienable Rights.
> 
> Either your God, your Creator gave you Rights OR the government did.  It cannot be both ways!  The build the wall guys abandoned the border and turned it all over to government.
> 
> You're going to win in the short term.  You WILL get the wall - UNTIL THE LEFT regains the White House.  Then they will take your Rights and show you the same consideration.  Ever think about that?
> 
> Why you ask?  We are the strongest nation in the world.  We are the leaders, not the followers.  We are the only nation in the world that recognizes Rights that are above the jurisdiction of any man made government.  You insist on being a third world shithole for some reason.  Screw that Orwellian 1984 B.S.  No foreign government that wants to do you harm is going to tell you the truth about who they let come to our border.
> 
> Did YOUR ancestors have a National ID Card?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we don't stop the flood of illegals into this country the left will change the Demographics of this country........and then use it to shove their far left agenda down our throats........leaving only the 2nd Amendment option............
> 
> Obey the laws of this country...........if not we aren't a Republic...........We are no longer a Nation of Laws.................They openly disregard the LAWS...............and so do you ............You are part of the problem.............We will settle this one way or another eventually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obeying the laws and carrying a freaking piece of paper issued by a corrupt government will not save the Republic.  *GOVERNMENT CAUSED YOUR PROBLEM*.
> 
> Laws that conflict with the Constitution are NOT LEGITIMATE LAWS.  If you can show me the word immigration in the Constitution, this B.S. would stop in an instant.  You nor I have to obey unconstitutional laws.
> 
> You feel like asking what's missing yet?  You ready to ask the question that resolves this?  Are you brave enough OR too much of a dullard to know what I'm referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have not proven that............Under the Constitution one of the primary purposes of the Gov't is to protect this nation and it's people.  That is part of the intent of the enumerated powers..............Making foreigners legally come here is part of that..............Enforcing the laws is part of that.
> 
> They are breaking the law.............Again........I can't visit another country without a passport............and their laws are tougher than ours on that.........
> 
> Do it LEGALLY OR NOT AT ALL...........Time to end this BS.
Click to expand...


IF it's time to end any B.S. then you should prove your case or just admit you have nothing on me.

1)  Yes, the government has the responsibility of protecting us

2) It is unconstitutional for the government to use the military to enforce domestic law.  That is a job for law enforcement

3)  Trump* cannot *make a case for a National Emergency because the numbers of people entering the United States are going down, not up; therefore, he's hard pressed to convince the other two branches of government he has a National Emergency

4)  Americans are *willingly* doing business with the foreigners.  If, on the basis of your arguments, you think something "illegal" is going on, then *YOU* too would be guilty

5)  The ONLY constitutional jurisdiction that Congress has over foreigners is for NATURALIZATION.  Naturalization is citizenship.  You want to piss people off calling them names and accusing them of being "illegal" without extending Due Process.  What happens to YOU when the left is in charge?  Are you paying attention or do you still have your head up your ass?

6)  If you are going to subvert the Constitution to deny foreigners Due Process, then when the left wants to call you a domestic terrorist, YOU will be afforded the "equal protection of the laws."  So, however you are treating foreigners, the left *will *dish out to you.  You don't have a very good plan there, Einstein

7)  No matter how much you stomp your feet, the government cannot save you from yourself.  So tomorrow, instead of getting on the computer to argue with me, look in your closet; check out the living room, look at your computer.  You bought shit made in China, Japan, Sri Lanka, Mexico and Pakistan.  Yet most of what you bought has an American equivalent.  Did you look at the freaking label OR did you buy what was the cheapest product that served your purpose?  

You expect one standard of behavior from me, but don't impose it on yourself.  Don't you think that's hypocritical?

8)  Trump has already told you, repeatedly, that before he introduced the nutty wall idea the Dems were for it?  And don't you find it odd that the left has not been on your ass, telling you the things I have?  Does it not dawn on you that the globalists and Dems are playing you?

9)  You still have not asked me a couple of important questions.  You've subjected me to your standards that you yourself fail.  Sure there isn't something you missed?

10)  You have yet to explain how America became the most powerful nation on this earth with open borders.  You cannot fool yourself.  That is why you're arguing with me.  You aren't trying to convince anyone but yourself at this stage.  The usual suspects have tapped out.  What did you miss there Sparky?  Let me give you another hint as to the questions you missed asking me:  How come you suppose that neither the build the wall guys NOR the left want to talk about the principles that made us the great nation we became and they do not want you to look at the roots of the problem?  

You can't handle the truth.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LEGAL entry...........yes...........but only when this flood of illegals is stopped.  And verification of employment VERIFIED via a E-Verify system that stops the fraud going on now.  Once that is done...........then they can get in line.......and businesses can use the LEGAL METHODS OF HIRING THEM........Not the Fake ID network we have now.
> 
> If I want to visit a foreign country I need a PASSPORT..........why should we just let anyone in when most of the World doesn't.......that is a broken system and it's been broken for decades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why we just let people in goes back to unalienable Rights.
> 
> Either your God, your Creator gave you Rights OR the government did.  It cannot be both ways!  The build the wall guys abandoned the border and turned it all over to government.
> 
> You're going to win in the short term.  You WILL get the wall - UNTIL THE LEFT regains the White House.  Then they will take your Rights and show you the same consideration.  Ever think about that?
> 
> Why you ask?  We are the strongest nation in the world.  We are the leaders, not the followers.  We are the only nation in the world that recognizes Rights that are above the jurisdiction of any man made government.  You insist on being a third world shithole for some reason.  Screw that Orwellian 1984 B.S.  No foreign government that wants to do you harm is going to tell you the truth about who they let come to our border.
> 
> Did YOUR ancestors have a National ID Card?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we don't stop the flood of illegals into this country the left will change the Demographics of this country........and then use it to shove their far left agenda down our throats........leaving only the 2nd Amendment option............
> 
> Obey the laws of this country...........if not we aren't a Republic...........We are no longer a Nation of Laws.................They openly disregard the LAWS...............and so do you ............You are part of the problem.............We will settle this one way or another eventually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obeying the laws and carrying a freaking piece of paper issued by a corrupt government will not save the Republic.  *GOVERNMENT CAUSED YOUR PROBLEM*.
> 
> Laws that conflict with the Constitution are NOT LEGITIMATE LAWS.  If you can show me the word immigration in the Constitution, this B.S. would stop in an instant.  You nor I have to obey unconstitutional laws.
> 
> You feel like asking what's missing yet?  You ready to ask the question that resolves this?  Are you brave enough OR too much of a dullard to know what I'm referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have not proven that............Under the Constitution one of the primary purposes of the Gov't is to protect this nation and it's people.  That is part of the intent of the enumerated powers..............Making foreigners legally come here is part of that..............Enforcing the laws is part of that.
> 
> They are breaking the law.............Again........I can't visit another country without a passport............and their laws are tougher than ours on that.........
> 
> Do it LEGALLY OR NOT AT ALL...........Time to end this BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF it's time to end any B.S. then you should prove your case or just admit you have nothing on me.
> 
> 1)  Yes, the government has the responsibility of protecting us
> 
> 2) It is unconstitutional for the government to use the military to enforce domestic law.  That is a job for law enforcement
> 
> 3)  Trump* cannot *make a case for a National Emergency because the numbers of people entering the United States are going down, not up; therefore, he's hard pressed to convince the other two branches of government he has a National Emergency
> 
> 4)  Americans are *willingly* doing business with the foreigners.  If, on the basis of your arguments, you think something "illegal" is going on, then *YOU* too would be guilty
> 
> 5)  The ONLY constitutional jurisdiction that Congress has over foreigners is for NATURALIZATION.  Naturalization is citizenship.  You want to piss people off calling them names and accusing them of being "illegal" without extending Due Process.  What happens to YOU when the left is in charge?  Are you paying attention or do you still have your head up your ass?
> 
> 6)  If you are going to subvert the Constitution to deny foreigners Due Process, then when the left wants to call you a domestic terrorist, YOU will be afforded the "equal protection of the laws."  So, however you are treating foreigners, the left *will *dish out to you.  You don't have a very good plan there, Einstein
> 
> 7)  No matter how much you stomp your feet, the government cannot save you from yourself.  So tomorrow, instead of getting on the computer to argue with me, look in your closet; check out the living room, look at your computer.  You bought shit made in China, Japan, Sri Lanka, Mexico and Pakistan.  Yet most of what you bought has an American equivalent.  Did you look at the freaking label OR did you buy what was the cheapest product that served your purpose?
> 
> You expect one standard of behavior from me, but don't impose it on yourself.  Don't you think that's hypocritical?
> 
> 8)  Trump has already told you, repeatedly, that before he introduced the nutty wall idea the Dems were for it?  And don't you find it odd that the left has not been on your ass, telling you the things I have?  Does it not dawn on you that the globalists and Dems are playing you?
> 
> 9)  You still have not asked me a couple of important questions.  You've subjected me to your standards that you yourself fail.  Sure there isn't something you missed?
> 
> 10)  You have yet to explain how America became the most powerful nation on this earth with open borders.  You cannot fool yourself.  That is why you're arguing with me.  You aren't trying to convince anyone but yourself at this stage.  The usual suspects have tapped out.  What did you miss there Sparky?  Let me give you another hint as to the questions you missed asking me:  How come you suppose that neither the build the wall guys NOR the left want to talk about the principles that made us the great nation we became and they do not want you to look at the roots of the problem?
> 
> You can't handle the truth.
Click to expand...

#3 you keep posting this I keep countering it with there is record numbers of families illegally immigrating to the US.
Illegal Immigration By Families Hits All-Time Record In September

And #9 if you got something to say spit it out maybe the questions you want asked are irrelevant.


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some parts of Texas, California and Arizona, there is *already a wall.* Let Trump the fuck alone and let him finish what the Dumcrates have already started. What is really needed is more border agents, drones, and the military if necessary and no more catch and release and more deportation. Enforce our existing immigration laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice.  You are buying into the Snake Oil.  The Walls that were built went into the Metro Areas that had the highest entry.  The walls funnel down to the entry points.  It's a bit difficult to determine who is and who isn't supposed to be there when there is a high degree of population around.  So walls are used and there is no room for the better multi layered Security Fence that actually works better.  Also, in that area, the requirement for the most dense border patrol and security devices are needed.  Those are already built.
> 
> Here is a bit of info that while I type it, you can hold your hands over your eyes and ears (assuming you are a 4 handed freak of nature) and loudly yell "LaLaLa" over and over.  In the Fiscal Years of 2017 and 2018, there was 1.3 billion dollars allocated for Wall/Security Fence maintenance and additions.  During those two years, not one single inch of additional wall or security fence has been added.  And the only place that the Wall/Security Fence has been replaced is  just outside San Diego at one of the lowest  intrusion areas all along the border.  That part was NEVER run down.  But it sure does look purty for the Richest Neighborhood in Mexico to look at.
> 
> Meanwhile, there are places along the border that are more intruded that the Wall (yes, I said wall) is falling down and just about ready to fall down.  After 10 years, mother nature has been harsh to the steel walls and through rust, corrosion and people tearing at them, they are falling down.  But Trump decides to doll up the part that is in good repair and works well so his Mexican Billionaires won't complain about the eyesore.
> 
> Believe it or not, you stated fixes closer to the Democrats solutions and completely foreign to Trumps way of thinking.  Trump is a Carny Operator.  How's it feel to be a Rube.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you fail to mention is that none of the 1.6 billion is allowed to be used for the wall.  Need the Politifact link, let me know and I’ll post it as soon as I get home.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your info is wrong once again.  Last month, the Dems offered the 1.6.  The 1.3 was included and they offered to increase it to 1.6.  It's not that it's need or not, it's the figure that was offered.  Trump turned it down flat now he doesn't get the 1.3.  But he's been misappropriating that all along anyway so does he really need it for the "Wall"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is what was passed last month and what the Dems are offering now.  5.6 isn’t even enough.  Trump originally wanted 30 billion.  He scaled that down and the Dems still won’t approve it.
> 
> Now Cruz wants to re-introduce the el chapo bill to pay for the wall.  That means it won’t cost the taxpayers one red cent.  Watch how Democrats still won’t allow it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...

There is no drug war clause.  Tax Cut Economics doesn't cover it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why we just let people in goes back to unalienable Rights.
> 
> Either your God, your Creator gave you Rights OR the government did.  It cannot be both ways!  The build the wall guys abandoned the border and turned it all over to government.
> 
> You're going to win in the short term.  You WILL get the wall - UNTIL THE LEFT regains the White House.  Then they will take your Rights and show you the same consideration.  Ever think about that?
> 
> Why you ask?  We are the strongest nation in the world.  We are the leaders, not the followers.  We are the only nation in the world that recognizes Rights that are above the jurisdiction of any man made government.  You insist on being a third world shithole for some reason.  Screw that Orwellian 1984 B.S.  No foreign government that wants to do you harm is going to tell you the truth about who they let come to our border.
> 
> Did YOUR ancestors have a National ID Card?
> 
> 
> 
> If we don't stop the flood of illegals into this country the left will change the Demographics of this country........and then use it to shove their far left agenda down our throats........leaving only the 2nd Amendment option............
> 
> Obey the laws of this country...........if not we aren't a Republic...........We are no longer a Nation of Laws.................They openly disregard the LAWS...............and so do you ............You are part of the problem.............We will settle this one way or another eventually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obeying the laws and carrying a freaking piece of paper issued by a corrupt government will not save the Republic.  *GOVERNMENT CAUSED YOUR PROBLEM*.
> 
> Laws that conflict with the Constitution are NOT LEGITIMATE LAWS.  If you can show me the word immigration in the Constitution, this B.S. would stop in an instant.  You nor I have to obey unconstitutional laws.
> 
> You feel like asking what's missing yet?  You ready to ask the question that resolves this?  Are you brave enough OR too much of a dullard to know what I'm referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have not proven that............Under the Constitution one of the primary purposes of the Gov't is to protect this nation and it's people.  That is part of the intent of the enumerated powers..............Making foreigners legally come here is part of that..............Enforcing the laws is part of that.
> 
> They are breaking the law.............Again........I can't visit another country without a passport............and their laws are tougher than ours on that.........
> 
> Do it LEGALLY OR NOT AT ALL...........Time to end this BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF it's time to end any B.S. then you should prove your case or just admit you have nothing on me.
> 
> 1)  Yes, the government has the responsibility of protecting us
> 
> 2) It is unconstitutional for the government to use the military to enforce domestic law.  That is a job for law enforcement
> 
> 3)  Trump* cannot *make a case for a National Emergency because the numbers of people entering the United States are going down, not up; therefore, he's hard pressed to convince the other two branches of government he has a National Emergency
> 
> 4)  Americans are *willingly* doing business with the foreigners.  If, on the basis of your arguments, you think something "illegal" is going on, then *YOU* too would be guilty
> 
> 5)  The ONLY constitutional jurisdiction that Congress has over foreigners is for NATURALIZATION.  Naturalization is citizenship.  You want to piss people off calling them names and accusing them of being "illegal" without extending Due Process.  What happens to YOU when the left is in charge?  Are you paying attention or do you still have your head up your ass?
> 
> 6)  If you are going to subvert the Constitution to deny foreigners Due Process, then when the left wants to call you a domestic terrorist, YOU will be afforded the "equal protection of the laws."  So, however you are treating foreigners, the left *will *dish out to you.  You don't have a very good plan there, Einstein
> 
> 7)  No matter how much you stomp your feet, the government cannot save you from yourself.  So tomorrow, instead of getting on the computer to argue with me, look in your closet; check out the living room, look at your computer.  You bought shit made in China, Japan, Sri Lanka, Mexico and Pakistan.  Yet most of what you bought has an American equivalent.  Did you look at the freaking label OR did you buy what was the cheapest product that served your purpose?
> 
> You expect one standard of behavior from me, but don't impose it on yourself.  Don't you think that's hypocritical?
> 
> 8)  Trump has already told you, repeatedly, that before he introduced the nutty wall idea the Dems were for it?  And don't you find it odd that the left has not been on your ass, telling you the things I have?  Does it not dawn on you that the globalists and Dems are playing you?
> 
> 9)  You still have not asked me a couple of important questions.  You've subjected me to your standards that you yourself fail.  Sure there isn't something you missed?
> 
> 10)  You have yet to explain how America became the most powerful nation on this earth with open borders.  You cannot fool yourself.  That is why you're arguing with me.  You aren't trying to convince anyone but yourself at this stage.  The usual suspects have tapped out.  What did you miss there Sparky?  Let me give you another hint as to the questions you missed asking me:  How come you suppose that neither the build the wall guys NOR the left want to talk about the principles that made us the great nation we became and they do not want you to look at the roots of the problem?
> 
> You can't handle the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> #3 you keep posting this I keep countering it with there is record numbers of families illegally immigrating to the US.
> Illegal Immigration By Families Hits All-Time Record In September
> 
> And #9 if you got something to say spit it out maybe the questions you want asked are irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Let's start with # 3.  Let us duly note that the number of *families* are the subject of the article, NOT the total number of undocumented foreigners.  So, what do you have to say about this?

Illegal immigration down 67 percent under Donald Trump: Former commissioner

5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S.

Illegal Immigration Statistics - FactCheck.org

You gave ONE source and it was limited to families.  I gave THREE sources, each saying that the numbers are in decline.  

The numbers you cite are related to the *political stunt* of bringing in families so that is presented as a humanitarian issue.  Your preconditioned response leads the left, moderates, and younger voters to see you for what is in your heart. You fall for it hook, line and sinker.  *WHEN* Trump leaves office,  the left WILL make you pay.

What you need is a permanent solution.  Unless you understand the foundational principles upon which this nation was founded you cannot offer up such a solution that will make it difficult for the left to over-come when they get back in control.

Now, let us talk about # 9.  If you cannot see the flaws in your arguments, and even my solutions have pitfalls, you're not smart enough to be IN this conversation and you do your side more damage than good.  In order for you to win in the court of public opinion (and this board ain't it) you have to know the other guy's position as good as he does so you can counter with relevant objections that address your opponent's points.  The funny icon won't work in a news interview or a public debate.


----------



## danielpalos

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we don't stop the flood of illegals into this country the left will change the Demographics of this country........and then use it to shove their far left agenda down our throats........leaving only the 2nd Amendment option............
> 
> Obey the laws of this country...........if not we aren't a Republic...........We are no longer a Nation of Laws.................They openly disregard the LAWS...............and so do you ............You are part of the problem.............We will settle this one way or another eventually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obeying the laws and carrying a freaking piece of paper issued by a corrupt government will not save the Republic.  *GOVERNMENT CAUSED YOUR PROBLEM*.
> 
> Laws that conflict with the Constitution are NOT LEGITIMATE LAWS.  If you can show me the word immigration in the Constitution, this B.S. would stop in an instant.  You nor I have to obey unconstitutional laws.
> 
> You feel like asking what's missing yet?  You ready to ask the question that resolves this?  Are you brave enough OR too much of a dullard to know what I'm referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have not proven that............Under the Constitution one of the primary purposes of the Gov't is to protect this nation and it's people.  That is part of the intent of the enumerated powers..............Making foreigners legally come here is part of that..............Enforcing the laws is part of that.
> 
> They are breaking the law.............Again........I can't visit another country without a passport............and their laws are tougher than ours on that.........
> 
> Do it LEGALLY OR NOT AT ALL...........Time to end this BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF it's time to end any B.S. then you should prove your case or just admit you have nothing on me.
> 
> 1)  Yes, the government has the responsibility of protecting us
> 
> 2) It is unconstitutional for the government to use the military to enforce domestic law.  That is a job for law enforcement
> 
> 3)  Trump* cannot *make a case for a National Emergency because the numbers of people entering the United States are going down, not up; therefore, he's hard pressed to convince the other two branches of government he has a National Emergency
> 
> 4)  Americans are *willingly* doing business with the foreigners.  If, on the basis of your arguments, you think something "illegal" is going on, then *YOU* too would be guilty
> 
> 5)  The ONLY constitutional jurisdiction that Congress has over foreigners is for NATURALIZATION.  Naturalization is citizenship.  You want to piss people off calling them names and accusing them of being "illegal" without extending Due Process.  What happens to YOU when the left is in charge?  Are you paying attention or do you still have your head up your ass?
> 
> 6)  If you are going to subvert the Constitution to deny foreigners Due Process, then when the left wants to call you a domestic terrorist, YOU will be afforded the "equal protection of the laws."  So, however you are treating foreigners, the left *will *dish out to you.  You don't have a very good plan there, Einstein
> 
> 7)  No matter how much you stomp your feet, the government cannot save you from yourself.  So tomorrow, instead of getting on the computer to argue with me, look in your closet; check out the living room, look at your computer.  You bought shit made in China, Japan, Sri Lanka, Mexico and Pakistan.  Yet most of what you bought has an American equivalent.  Did you look at the freaking label OR did you buy what was the cheapest product that served your purpose?
> 
> You expect one standard of behavior from me, but don't impose it on yourself.  Don't you think that's hypocritical?
> 
> 8)  Trump has already told you, repeatedly, that before he introduced the nutty wall idea the Dems were for it?  And don't you find it odd that the left has not been on your ass, telling you the things I have?  Does it not dawn on you that the globalists and Dems are playing you?
> 
> 9)  You still have not asked me a couple of important questions.  You've subjected me to your standards that you yourself fail.  Sure there isn't something you missed?
> 
> 10)  You have yet to explain how America became the most powerful nation on this earth with open borders.  You cannot fool yourself.  That is why you're arguing with me.  You aren't trying to convince anyone but yourself at this stage.  The usual suspects have tapped out.  What did you miss there Sparky?  Let me give you another hint as to the questions you missed asking me:  How come you suppose that neither the build the wall guys NOR the left want to talk about the principles that made us the great nation we became and they do not want you to look at the roots of the problem?
> 
> You can't handle the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> #3 you keep posting this I keep countering it with there is record numbers of families illegally immigrating to the US.
> Illegal Immigration By Families Hits All-Time Record In September
> 
> And #9 if you got something to say spit it out maybe the questions you want asked are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's start with # 3.  Let us duly note that the number of *families* are the subject of the article, NOT the total number of undocumented foreigners.  So, what do you have to say about this?
> 
> Illegal immigration down 67 percent under Donald Trump: Former commissioner
> 
> 5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S.
> 
> Illegal Immigration Statistics - FactCheck.org
> 
> You gave ONE source and it was limited to families.  I gave THREE sources, each saying that the numbers are in decline.
> 
> The numbers you cite are related to the *political stunt* of bringing in families so that is presented as a humanitarian issue.  Your preconditioned response leads the left, moderates, and younger voters to see you for what is in your heart. You fall for it hook, line and sinker.  *WHEN* Trump leaves office,  the left WILL make you pay.
> 
> What you need is a permanent solution.  Unless you understand the foundational principles upon which this nation was founded you cannot offer up such a solution that will make it difficult for the left to over-come when they get back in control.
> 
> Now, let us talk about # 9.  If you cannot see the flaws in your arguments, and even my solutions have pitfalls, you're not smart enough to be IN this conversation and you do your side more damage than good.  In order for you to win in the court of public opinion (and this board ain't it) you have to know the other guy's position as good as he does so you can counter with relevant objections that address your opponent's points.  The funny icon won't work in a news interview or a public debate.
Click to expand...

There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution, only in right wing, national socialist fantasy. 

We should have no illegal problem.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

danielpalos said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obeying the laws and carrying a freaking piece of paper issued by a corrupt government will not save the Republic.  *GOVERNMENT CAUSED YOUR PROBLEM*.
> 
> Laws that conflict with the Constitution are NOT LEGITIMATE LAWS.  If you can show me the word immigration in the Constitution, this B.S. would stop in an instant.  You nor I have to obey unconstitutional laws.
> 
> You feel like asking what's missing yet?  You ready to ask the question that resolves this?  Are you brave enough OR too much of a dullard to know what I'm referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> You have not proven that............Under the Constitution one of the primary purposes of the Gov't is to protect this nation and it's people.  That is part of the intent of the enumerated powers..............Making foreigners legally come here is part of that..............Enforcing the laws is part of that.
> 
> They are breaking the law.............Again........I can't visit another country without a passport............and their laws are tougher than ours on that.........
> 
> Do it LEGALLY OR NOT AT ALL...........Time to end this BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF it's time to end any B.S. then you should prove your case or just admit you have nothing on me.
> 
> 1)  Yes, the government has the responsibility of protecting us
> 
> 2) It is unconstitutional for the government to use the military to enforce domestic law.  That is a job for law enforcement
> 
> 3)  Trump* cannot *make a case for a National Emergency because the numbers of people entering the United States are going down, not up; therefore, he's hard pressed to convince the other two branches of government he has a National Emergency
> 
> 4)  Americans are *willingly* doing business with the foreigners.  If, on the basis of your arguments, you think something "illegal" is going on, then *YOU* too would be guilty
> 
> 5)  The ONLY constitutional jurisdiction that Congress has over foreigners is for NATURALIZATION.  Naturalization is citizenship.  You want to piss people off calling them names and accusing them of being "illegal" without extending Due Process.  What happens to YOU when the left is in charge?  Are you paying attention or do you still have your head up your ass?
> 
> 6)  If you are going to subvert the Constitution to deny foreigners Due Process, then when the left wants to call you a domestic terrorist, YOU will be afforded the "equal protection of the laws."  So, however you are treating foreigners, the left *will *dish out to you.  You don't have a very good plan there, Einstein
> 
> 7)  No matter how much you stomp your feet, the government cannot save you from yourself.  So tomorrow, instead of getting on the computer to argue with me, look in your closet; check out the living room, look at your computer.  You bought shit made in China, Japan, Sri Lanka, Mexico and Pakistan.  Yet most of what you bought has an American equivalent.  Did you look at the freaking label OR did you buy what was the cheapest product that served your purpose?
> 
> You expect one standard of behavior from me, but don't impose it on yourself.  Don't you think that's hypocritical?
> 
> 8)  Trump has already told you, repeatedly, that before he introduced the nutty wall idea the Dems were for it?  And don't you find it odd that the left has not been on your ass, telling you the things I have?  Does it not dawn on you that the globalists and Dems are playing you?
> 
> 9)  You still have not asked me a couple of important questions.  You've subjected me to your standards that you yourself fail.  Sure there isn't something you missed?
> 
> 10)  You have yet to explain how America became the most powerful nation on this earth with open borders.  You cannot fool yourself.  That is why you're arguing with me.  You aren't trying to convince anyone but yourself at this stage.  The usual suspects have tapped out.  What did you miss there Sparky?  Let me give you another hint as to the questions you missed asking me:  How come you suppose that neither the build the wall guys NOR the left want to talk about the principles that made us the great nation we became and they do not want you to look at the roots of the problem?
> 
> You can't handle the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> #3 you keep posting this I keep countering it with there is record numbers of families illegally immigrating to the US.
> Illegal Immigration By Families Hits All-Time Record In September
> 
> And #9 if you got something to say spit it out maybe the questions you want asked are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's start with # 3.  Let us duly note that the number of *families* are the subject of the article, NOT the total number of undocumented foreigners.  So, what do you have to say about this?
> 
> Illegal immigration down 67 percent under Donald Trump: Former commissioner
> 
> 5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S.
> 
> Illegal Immigration Statistics - FactCheck.org
> 
> You gave ONE source and it was limited to families.  I gave THREE sources, each saying that the numbers are in decline.
> 
> The numbers you cite are related to the *political stunt* of bringing in families so that is presented as a humanitarian issue.  Your preconditioned response leads the left, moderates, and younger voters to see you for what is in your heart. You fall for it hook, line and sinker.  *WHEN* Trump leaves office,  the left WILL make you pay.
> 
> What you need is a permanent solution.  Unless you understand the foundational principles upon which this nation was founded you cannot offer up such a solution that will make it difficult for the left to over-come when they get back in control.
> 
> Now, let us talk about # 9.  If you cannot see the flaws in your arguments, and even my solutions have pitfalls, you're not smart enough to be IN this conversation and you do your side more damage than good.  In order for you to win in the court of public opinion (and this board ain't it) you have to know the other guy's position as good as he does so you can counter with relevant objections that address your opponent's points.  The funny icon won't work in a news interview or a public debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution, only in right wing, national socialist fantasy.
> 
> We should have no illegal problem.
Click to expand...


The word immigration is not in the Constitution.  The only authority that the federal government has in this conversation is limited to citizenship.

It is here that the build the wall guys lose me.  They keep lobbying for a wall and calling undocumented foreigners criminals, parasites, scum, and a host of other derogatory names.  Meanwhile, the only way they see as an "in" for undocumented foreigners is the mythical "legal" avenue.  That word "legal" is code for citizenship.

So, now you've put up a wall and Trump has promised a "big beautiful door," and is now advocating upping the number of people he would let in.  At some point, the people who are pissing the Hispanics off will lose their power in Congress and then the left will be calling the build the wall guys domestic terrorists, racists, bigots, etc.  Then what goes around comes around.  I'm dumbfounded by the build the wall guys strategy.

There are far more pragmatic and practical ways of dealing with the situation, but they say you won't take a fool's advice until you've become a fool yourself.


----------



## danielpalos

Porter Rockwell said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not proven that............Under the Constitution one of the primary purposes of the Gov't is to protect this nation and it's people.  That is part of the intent of the enumerated powers..............Making foreigners legally come here is part of that..............Enforcing the laws is part of that.
> 
> They are breaking the law.............Again........I can't visit another country without a passport............and their laws are tougher than ours on that.........
> 
> Do it LEGALLY OR NOT AT ALL...........Time to end this BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF it's time to end any B.S. then you should prove your case or just admit you have nothing on me.
> 
> 1)  Yes, the government has the responsibility of protecting us
> 
> 2) It is unconstitutional for the government to use the military to enforce domestic law.  That is a job for law enforcement
> 
> 3)  Trump* cannot *make a case for a National Emergency because the numbers of people entering the United States are going down, not up; therefore, he's hard pressed to convince the other two branches of government he has a National Emergency
> 
> 4)  Americans are *willingly* doing business with the foreigners.  If, on the basis of your arguments, you think something "illegal" is going on, then *YOU* too would be guilty
> 
> 5)  The ONLY constitutional jurisdiction that Congress has over foreigners is for NATURALIZATION.  Naturalization is citizenship.  You want to piss people off calling them names and accusing them of being "illegal" without extending Due Process.  What happens to YOU when the left is in charge?  Are you paying attention or do you still have your head up your ass?
> 
> 6)  If you are going to subvert the Constitution to deny foreigners Due Process, then when the left wants to call you a domestic terrorist, YOU will be afforded the "equal protection of the laws."  So, however you are treating foreigners, the left *will *dish out to you.  You don't have a very good plan there, Einstein
> 
> 7)  No matter how much you stomp your feet, the government cannot save you from yourself.  So tomorrow, instead of getting on the computer to argue with me, look in your closet; check out the living room, look at your computer.  You bought shit made in China, Japan, Sri Lanka, Mexico and Pakistan.  Yet most of what you bought has an American equivalent.  Did you look at the freaking label OR did you buy what was the cheapest product that served your purpose?
> 
> You expect one standard of behavior from me, but don't impose it on yourself.  Don't you think that's hypocritical?
> 
> 8)  Trump has already told you, repeatedly, that before he introduced the nutty wall idea the Dems were for it?  And don't you find it odd that the left has not been on your ass, telling you the things I have?  Does it not dawn on you that the globalists and Dems are playing you?
> 
> 9)  You still have not asked me a couple of important questions.  You've subjected me to your standards that you yourself fail.  Sure there isn't something you missed?
> 
> 10)  You have yet to explain how America became the most powerful nation on this earth with open borders.  You cannot fool yourself.  That is why you're arguing with me.  You aren't trying to convince anyone but yourself at this stage.  The usual suspects have tapped out.  What did you miss there Sparky?  Let me give you another hint as to the questions you missed asking me:  How come you suppose that neither the build the wall guys NOR the left want to talk about the principles that made us the great nation we became and they do not want you to look at the roots of the problem?
> 
> You can't handle the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> #3 you keep posting this I keep countering it with there is record numbers of families illegally immigrating to the US.
> Illegal Immigration By Families Hits All-Time Record In September
> 
> And #9 if you got something to say spit it out maybe the questions you want asked are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's start with # 3.  Let us duly note that the number of *families* are the subject of the article, NOT the total number of undocumented foreigners.  So, what do you have to say about this?
> 
> Illegal immigration down 67 percent under Donald Trump: Former commissioner
> 
> 5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S.
> 
> Illegal Immigration Statistics - FactCheck.org
> 
> You gave ONE source and it was limited to families.  I gave THREE sources, each saying that the numbers are in decline.
> 
> The numbers you cite are related to the *political stunt* of bringing in families so that is presented as a humanitarian issue.  Your preconditioned response leads the left, moderates, and younger voters to see you for what is in your heart. You fall for it hook, line and sinker.  *WHEN* Trump leaves office,  the left WILL make you pay.
> 
> What you need is a permanent solution.  Unless you understand the foundational principles upon which this nation was founded you cannot offer up such a solution that will make it difficult for the left to over-come when they get back in control.
> 
> Now, let us talk about # 9.  If you cannot see the flaws in your arguments, and even my solutions have pitfalls, you're not smart enough to be IN this conversation and you do your side more damage than good.  In order for you to win in the court of public opinion (and this board ain't it) you have to know the other guy's position as good as he does so you can counter with relevant objections that address your opponent's points.  The funny icon won't work in a news interview or a public debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution, only in right wing, national socialist fantasy.
> 
> We should have no illegal problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word immigration is not in the Constitution.  The only authority that the federal government has in this conversation is limited to citizenship.
> 
> It is here that the build the wall guys lose me.  They keep lobbying for a wall and calling undocumented foreigners criminals, parasites, scum, and a host of other derogatory names.  Meanwhile, the only way they see as an "in" for undocumented foreigners is the mythical "legal" avenue.  That word "legal" is code for citizenship.
> 
> So, now you've put up a wall and Trump has promised a "big beautiful door," and is now advocating upping the number of people he would let in.  At some point, the people who are pissing the Hispanics off will lose their power in Congress and then the left will be calling the build the wall guys domestic terrorists, racists, bigots, etc.  Then what goes around comes around.  I'm dumbfounded by the build the wall guys strategy.
> 
> There are far more pragmatic and practical ways of dealing with the situation, but they say you won't take a fool's advice until you've become a fool yourself.
Click to expand...

we have an express naturalization clause to deal with these issues.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

danielpalos said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF it's time to end any B.S. then you should prove your case or just admit you have nothing on me.
> 
> 1)  Yes, the government has the responsibility of protecting us
> 
> 2) It is unconstitutional for the government to use the military to enforce domestic law.  That is a job for law enforcement
> 
> 3)  Trump* cannot *make a case for a National Emergency because the numbers of people entering the United States are going down, not up; therefore, he's hard pressed to convince the other two branches of government he has a National Emergency
> 
> 4)  Americans are *willingly* doing business with the foreigners.  If, on the basis of your arguments, you think something "illegal" is going on, then *YOU* too would be guilty
> 
> 5)  The ONLY constitutional jurisdiction that Congress has over foreigners is for NATURALIZATION.  Naturalization is citizenship.  You want to piss people off calling them names and accusing them of being "illegal" without extending Due Process.  What happens to YOU when the left is in charge?  Are you paying attention or do you still have your head up your ass?
> 
> 6)  If you are going to subvert the Constitution to deny foreigners Due Process, then when the left wants to call you a domestic terrorist, YOU will be afforded the "equal protection of the laws."  So, however you are treating foreigners, the left *will *dish out to you.  You don't have a very good plan there, Einstein
> 
> 7)  No matter how much you stomp your feet, the government cannot save you from yourself.  So tomorrow, instead of getting on the computer to argue with me, look in your closet; check out the living room, look at your computer.  You bought shit made in China, Japan, Sri Lanka, Mexico and Pakistan.  Yet most of what you bought has an American equivalent.  Did you look at the freaking label OR did you buy what was the cheapest product that served your purpose?
> 
> You expect one standard of behavior from me, but don't impose it on yourself.  Don't you think that's hypocritical?
> 
> 8)  Trump has already told you, repeatedly, that before he introduced the nutty wall idea the Dems were for it?  And don't you find it odd that the left has not been on your ass, telling you the things I have?  Does it not dawn on you that the globalists and Dems are playing you?
> 
> 9)  You still have not asked me a couple of important questions.  You've subjected me to your standards that you yourself fail.  Sure there isn't something you missed?
> 
> 10)  You have yet to explain how America became the most powerful nation on this earth with open borders.  You cannot fool yourself.  That is why you're arguing with me.  You aren't trying to convince anyone but yourself at this stage.  The usual suspects have tapped out.  What did you miss there Sparky?  Let me give you another hint as to the questions you missed asking me:  How come you suppose that neither the build the wall guys NOR the left want to talk about the principles that made us the great nation we became and they do not want you to look at the roots of the problem?
> 
> You can't handle the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> #3 you keep posting this I keep countering it with there is record numbers of families illegally immigrating to the US.
> Illegal Immigration By Families Hits All-Time Record In September
> 
> And #9 if you got something to say spit it out maybe the questions you want asked are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's start with # 3.  Let us duly note that the number of *families* are the subject of the article, NOT the total number of undocumented foreigners.  So, what do you have to say about this?
> 
> Illegal immigration down 67 percent under Donald Trump: Former commissioner
> 
> 5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S.
> 
> Illegal Immigration Statistics - FactCheck.org
> 
> You gave ONE source and it was limited to families.  I gave THREE sources, each saying that the numbers are in decline.
> 
> The numbers you cite are related to the *political stunt* of bringing in families so that is presented as a humanitarian issue.  Your preconditioned response leads the left, moderates, and younger voters to see you for what is in your heart. You fall for it hook, line and sinker.  *WHEN* Trump leaves office,  the left WILL make you pay.
> 
> What you need is a permanent solution.  Unless you understand the foundational principles upon which this nation was founded you cannot offer up such a solution that will make it difficult for the left to over-come when they get back in control.
> 
> Now, let us talk about # 9.  If you cannot see the flaws in your arguments, and even my solutions have pitfalls, you're not smart enough to be IN this conversation and you do your side more damage than good.  In order for you to win in the court of public opinion (and this board ain't it) you have to know the other guy's position as good as he does so you can counter with relevant objections that address your opponent's points.  The funny icon won't work in a news interview or a public debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution, only in right wing, national socialist fantasy.
> 
> We should have no illegal problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word immigration is not in the Constitution.  The only authority that the federal government has in this conversation is limited to citizenship.
> 
> It is here that the build the wall guys lose me.  They keep lobbying for a wall and calling undocumented foreigners criminals, parasites, scum, and a host of other derogatory names.  Meanwhile, the only way they see as an "in" for undocumented foreigners is the mythical "legal" avenue.  That word "legal" is code for citizenship.
> 
> So, now you've put up a wall and Trump has promised a "big beautiful door," and is now advocating upping the number of people he would let in.  At some point, the people who are pissing the Hispanics off will lose their power in Congress and then the left will be calling the build the wall guys domestic terrorists, racists, bigots, etc.  Then what goes around comes around.  I'm dumbfounded by the build the wall guys strategy.
> 
> There are far more pragmatic and practical ways of dealing with the situation, but they say you won't take a fool's advice until you've become a fool yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have an express naturalization clause to deal with these issues.
Click to expand...



How is the naturalization clause going to save people like slyhunter from being pursued by the left?  

America was founded by white Christians.  The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution are a reflection of the culture developed by the founders which is built upon the twin pillars of race and religion.

Even as whites are witnessing their demise, they appear oblivious to their fate.  The left (largely driven by blacks) are erasing the history of the whites.  Statues, monuments, memorials, and plaques are silently being destroyed and then replaced by those of non-whites and non-Christians.  The IRS has attacked the Tea Party; YouTube has enlisted the aid of the ADL to begin locking out those right of center.  Facebook is slowly terminating the accounts of whites that are racially conscious and right of center.  Instagram and Twitter are following suit.  Even ISPs are terminating the accounts of right leaning whites.

Donald Trump is powerless to stop those wheels that have been set in motion.  If you took out the aforementioned groups and people that support them, you would have no build the wall movement.  Yet those dullards want the wall on one hand, but increased citizenship on the other.  Do they honestly think handing people a piece of paper is going to change what's been going on the last couple of decades with respect to immigration?


----------



## danielpalos

Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligently designed, Inception.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

danielpalos said:


> Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligently designed, Inception.



That's not the way it was interpreted in the earliest Court decisions.

Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, only whites were allowed to be citizens and, according to most, if not all early state Constitutions, only white Christians were allowed to vote and / or hold public office.


----------



## danielpalos

Porter Rockwell said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligently designed, Inception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the way it was interpreted in the earliest Court decisions.
> 
> Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, only whites were allowed to be citizens and, according to most, if not all early state Constitutions, only white Christians were allowed to vote and / or hold public office.
Click to expand...

Slavery was the issue.  gender and based race laws should be considered unconstitutional.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

danielpalos said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligently designed, Inception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the way it was interpreted in the earliest Court decisions.
> 
> Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, only whites were allowed to be citizens and, according to most, if not all early state Constitutions, only white Christians were allowed to vote and / or hold public office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was the issue.  gender and based race laws should be considered unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


I support reparations.  You see, the black people lay claim to being the people who held biblical Israelites in bondage.  So, we had slavery in the U.S. for 200 or so years.  My ancestors were held in bondage for over 400  years. I am a Christian Israelite.  So, when the black people get their reparations, they can deposit the check, double that amount and send it to biblical Israelites.  Then we can move forward.


----------



## danielpalos

Porter Rockwell said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligently designed, Inception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the way it was interpreted in the earliest Court decisions.
> 
> Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, only whites were allowed to be citizens and, according to most, if not all early state Constitutions, only white Christians were allowed to vote and / or hold public office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was the issue.  gender and based race laws should be considered unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support reparations.  You see, the black people lay claim to being the people who held biblical Israelites in bondage.  So, we had slavery in the U.S. for 200 or so years.  My ancestors were held in bondage for over 400  years. I am a Christian Israelite.  So, when the black people get their reparations, they can deposit the check, double that amount and send it to biblical Israelites.  Then we can move forward.
Click to expand...

lousy right wing management?  

Eminent domain should have solved that issue in a market friendly manner.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

danielpalos said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligently designed, Inception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the way it was interpreted in the earliest Court decisions.
> 
> Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, only whites were allowed to be citizens and, according to most, if not all early state Constitutions, only white Christians were allowed to vote and / or hold public office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was the issue.  gender and based race laws should be considered unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support reparations.  You see, the black people lay claim to being the people who held biblical Israelites in bondage.  So, we had slavery in the U.S. for 200 or so years.  My ancestors were held in bondage for over 400  years. I am a Christian Israelite.  So, when the black people get their reparations, they can deposit the check, double that amount and send it to biblical Israelites.  Then we can move forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lousy right wing management?
> 
> Eminent domain should have solved that issue in a market friendly manner.
Click to expand...


Lousy right wing management???


----------



## danielpalos

Porter Rockwell said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligently designed, Inception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the way it was interpreted in the earliest Court decisions.
> 
> Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, only whites were allowed to be citizens and, according to most, if not all early state Constitutions, only white Christians were allowed to vote and / or hold public office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was the issue.  gender and based race laws should be considered unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support reparations.  You see, the black people lay claim to being the people who held biblical Israelites in bondage.  So, we had slavery in the U.S. for 200 or so years.  My ancestors were held in bondage for over 400  years. I am a Christian Israelite.  So, when the black people get their reparations, they can deposit the check, double that amount and send it to biblical Israelites.  Then we can move forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lousy right wing management?
> 
> Eminent domain should have solved that issue in a market friendly manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lousy right wing management???
Click to expand...

States lost their former States right over immigration in favor of the general government and entry into the Union after 1808.  

All Persons born in the US after that were natural born citizens.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

danielpalos said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the way it was interpreted in the earliest Court decisions.
> 
> Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, only whites were allowed to be citizens and, according to most, if not all early state Constitutions, only white Christians were allowed to vote and / or hold public office.
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was the issue.  gender and based race laws should be considered unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support reparations.  You see, the black people lay claim to being the people who held biblical Israelites in bondage.  So, we had slavery in the U.S. for 200 or so years.  My ancestors were held in bondage for over 400  years. I am a Christian Israelite.  So, when the black people get their reparations, they can deposit the check, double that amount and send it to biblical Israelites.  Then we can move forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lousy right wing management?
> 
> Eminent domain should have solved that issue in a market friendly manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lousy right wing management???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States lost their former States right over immigration in favor of the general government and entry into the Union after 1808.
> 
> All Persons born in the US after that were natural born citizens.
Click to expand...


We dispelled that myth a long time back danielpalos.  You are now making a right wing argument.  One of those right wing, build the wall guys tried that maneuver.  I finally had to close him down with the facts.  I can do it for you as well  This was my response to the build the wall guy:

You have been provided with walls of text wherein I've backed up the claims. Unless you are going to pay me for research time, you are not due any legal brief for free.

If you insist on me making an ass out of you, I will give you a free sample. Then you can kiss my ass and then stand down.

Let us revisit post # 4242. *You* wrote:

"There is nothing written in the Constitution that grants states the authority over the Federal Government on immigration. We have been down this road before. It’s the same damn thing as you never being able to PROVE the ratification of the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional.

*Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.*
The *Migration* *or Importation of such Persons as any of the States* now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year* one thousand eight hundred and eight *[ 1808 ]*.

The provision covered both slaves and free immigrants. The Supreme Court case - *Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 *was in *1875*.

HOW many ways do you want to be proven wrong?

Again. Provide me a Constitutional Case or researched evidence that you can back up, that proves me wrong."

*ME*: I don't owe you any free research; don't have to prove squat and am not your push button monkey. It was not my intent to take sides; I was looking for the OP's standards that would allow us to define the terminology "wrong" so we'd be on the same page. Build the wall freaks have made a religion out of a subject they don't understand. You are one the most misguided, so here is your

*RESPONSE*:

I told you BEFORE and AFTER post # 4242 mentioned above that it was a tax issue and had NOTHING to do with immigration. So, here we go:

*"Clause 1: *The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

*Explanation: *This clause relates to the slave trade. It prevented Congress from restricting the importation of slaves prior to 1808. It did allow Congress to levy a duty of up to 10 dollars for each slave. In 1807, the international slave trade was blocked and no more slaves were allowed to be imported into the US.

What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts

Also see this:

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

Bone up on your U.S. history Einstein. Your cite has nothing to do with immigration.

It is still an irrefutable *FACT* that between 1808 and 1875 the states decided who came and went within their states. It is an irrefutable *FACT*that:

"The House and Senate agreed on a bill, approved on March 2, 1807, called _*An Act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, from and after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eight.*_The bound measure also regulated the coastwise slave trade. President Thomas Jefferson signed the bill into law on March 2, 1807."

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

In 1875, in the Chy Lung decision the SCOTUS gave to Congress a power they do not have in the Constitution. That was legislating from the bench. Odd how the SCOTUS waited until all the original founders AND the Supreme Court Justices were dead and gone before presuming to give Congress ANY power to do a damn thing.

* The *fact* is the word immigration is not in the Constitution
* The *fact* is, despite only whites being able to become citizens after the ratification of the Constitution, *MILLIONS* of non-whites still came to the United States to partake of opportunities willingly offered
* The *fact *is, our Constitution specifically states that the Tenth Amendment provides:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The *fact *is since Congress has *no* authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY kind of power, most of the statutes you hide behind are illegal

The *fact* is, we have at least *TWO* separate and distinct governments operating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption. One is the lawful / legal / constitutional / de jure Republic guaranteed in Article IV Section 4 of the United States Constitution. The OTHER government is an illegal / de facto / Federal -Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations.

The *fact* is, when you tell that illegal government they have over-stepped their authority, they *are* going to rule against you. Most people who own a firearm and watch that illegal government take a giant dump on the Second Amendment can tell you horror stories about how the unconstitutional nature of the gun laws in America.

Despite how much you hate people from south of the border, and for whatever reason, the bottom line is, they either have inherent, natural, God given, unalienable, absolute, and irrevocable Rights or they don't. If your contention is that they don't have Rights, you would shoot them in the streets because you don't think they have Rights. Either they do or they do not. If they don't, then you can shoot them any time you get tired of being a bloviating blowhard.

But, you won't. It's because they do have Rights. And if they have a Right to Life, they damn well have a Right to Liberty. Those are unalienable Rights that the founders intended to be above the law.

Your problem is that you are so hung up on wall worship, you don't understand that most Americans *WILLINGLY* invite the foreigners here. Does it cause us problems? YES. But, you cannot improve your lot in life violating the original intent of the Constitution. You cannot resolve the issue by attacking the Rights of others. At some point you have to get off your high horse and realize that are people in this world that have just as much experience as you do. I've only taken ONE of your examples to show that you're wrong. How much more of an ass whipping do you want to take before realizing that maybe there are better options to be put on the table?

See post 4161 too


----------



## danielpalos

Clearly, all persons born in the US after 1808 were natural born citizens.  States have no authority to declare otherwise.


----------



## Slyhunter

I've  changed my mind on the wall. Don't build it. Get rid of the incentives for migrants to come to America illegally.
Get rid of welfare. Fine and/or jail those who hire illegals. Forbid them access into our schools. Fine states who give them in-state tuition and/or medicare. Lets make it impossible for a illegal to survive in America.


----------



## Slyhunter

I'd prefer the wall but I've given up on it.

However,


----------



## Porter Rockwell

danielpalos said:


> Clearly, all persons born in the US after 1808 were natural born citizens.  States have no authority to declare otherwise.



It was not the states that decided who were citizens.  the federal government made no official ruling until 1857 in the Dred Scott case.  So, the Dred Scott decision covered the time period of 1808 through 1857.

The 14th Amendment (which was illegally ratified) ended the debate.


----------



## danielpalos

Porter Rockwell said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, all persons born in the US after 1808 were natural born citizens.  States have no authority to declare otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not the states that decided who were citizens.  the federal government made no official ruling until 1857 in the Dred Scott case.  So, the Dred Scott decision covered the time period of 1808 through 1857.
> 
> The 14th Amendment (which was illegally ratified) ended the debate.
Click to expand...

Entry into the Union is a federal obligation since 1808. The States have no basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of state since 1808.  Anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen by birth.


----------



## Conservative65

Timmy said:


> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .


You mean like spending billions and billions more on social welfare illegals get when here?


----------



## danielpalos

Conservative65 said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like spending billions and billions more on social welfare illegals get when here?
Click to expand...

we should upgrade Ellis Island and increase our minimum wage.


----------



## Conservative65

danielpalos said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like spending billions and billions more on social welfare illegals get when here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we should upgrade Ellis Island and increase our minimum wage.
Click to expand...


The current system for allowing people in legally is fine.   Minimum wage shouldn't exist.


----------



## danielpalos

Conservative65 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like spending billions and billions more on social welfare illegals get when here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we should upgrade Ellis Island and increase our minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The current system for allowing people in legally is fine.   Minimum wage shouldn't exist.
Click to expand...

we may need a counselor.  any suggestions?

why do you believe a minimum wage should not exist?  and, can you find an express immigration clause in our federal Constitution.


----------



## Conservative65

danielpalos said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like spending billions and billions more on social welfare illegals get when here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we should upgrade Ellis Island and increase our minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The current system for allowing people in legally is fine.   Minimum wage shouldn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we may need a counselor.  any suggestions?
> 
> why do you believe a minimum wage should not exist?  and, can you find an express immigration clause in our federal Constitution.
Click to expand...


No counselor needed.   

Not the government's place to tell a business that does the paying how much someone's labor is worth.  

Can you show me how someone can naturalize without first being an immigrant?

Can you show me where the federal government has any delegated authority in the Constitution to make a business pay someone a minimum amount?  Someone should be ashamed if the only wage they can earn is the minimum.


----------



## danielpalos

Conservative65 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like spending billions and billions more on social welfare illegals get when here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we should upgrade Ellis Island and increase our minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The current system for allowing people in legally is fine.   Minimum wage shouldn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we may need a counselor.  any suggestions?
> 
> why do you believe a minimum wage should not exist?  and, can you find an express immigration clause in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No counselor needed.
> 
> Not the government's place to tell a business that does the paying how much someone's labor is worth.
> 
> Can you show me how someone can naturalize without first being an immigrant?
> 
> Can you show me where the federal government has any delegated authority in the Constitution to make a business pay someone a minimum amount?  Someone should be ashamed if the only wage they can earn is the minimum.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe it is not our federal Government's business to regulate Commerce.


----------



## Conservative65

danielpalos said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like spending billions and billions more on social welfare illegals get when here?
> 
> 
> 
> we should upgrade Ellis Island and increase our minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The current system for allowing people in legally is fine.   Minimum wage shouldn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we may need a counselor.  any suggestions?
> 
> why do you believe a minimum wage should not exist?  and, can you find an express immigration clause in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No counselor needed.
> 
> Not the government's place to tell a business that does the paying how much someone's labor is worth.
> 
> Can you show me how someone can naturalize without first being an immigrant?
> 
> Can you show me where the federal government has any delegated authority in the Constitution to make a business pay someone a minimum amount?  Someone should be ashamed if the only wage they can earn is the minimum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you believe it is not our federal Government's business to regulate Commerce.
Click to expand...


Moving the goalposts, huh?


----------



## danielpalos

Regulating Commerce includes labor input.


----------



## LilOlLady

Trump needs to take all the stray dogs and train them to attack illegals and put them on the border to secure the border. CBP canine teams assist local law enforcement can assist border patrols. Just saying. ...


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> why should we believe the right wing is serious about natural rights, in abortion threads.


This isn't an abortion thread.


----------



## dblack

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why should we believe the right wing is serious about natural rights, in abortion threads.
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't an abortion thread.
Click to expand...

It is now.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot separate the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, etc. from the wall.  The cost of the wall is immaterial - UNLESS you're agreeing with me that once the liberals get back in power, the wall would just be an eyesore covered in graffiti and be a symbol of the stupidity of modern Americans.
> 
> Trying to tie the build the wall guys is like trying go grip a handful of slime.  All the manpower, maintenance, uniforms, firearms, etc. are all a part of this equation.  Don't you recall in 2013 how the DHS bought 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammunition?
> 
> You're so blinded by the wall, you can't see the forest for the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> You are full of it..........I've been putting the data all over threads on the aspects of this............I asked for clarity on the Trillions.......where is it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts with endless ellipsis are idiotic and look like the ravings of a freaking lunatic.  Try reading the posts.  The higher dollar items are listed for you.
> 
> The Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security which oversees "border security" has a budget of $40.6 BILLION DOLLARS a year.  That department is 17 years old.  A quick swag tells me that in 24 years DHS will spend a TRILLION DOLLARS.  In 8 more years, that agency ALONE will have cost a TRILLION DOLLARS.
> 
> Ah, yes, we see your objection now.  A lot of that money is being spent on things OTHER THAN border security at the southern border, but the lion's share is being invested in the place where the build the wall guys worship.  And that is just ONE AGENCY.
> 
> So, what exactly, is your point or do you even have one?  Complete sentences in English appreciated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is 974.4 Billion in 24 years..........Is your calculator broken...........That hasn't reached a Trillion yet.............You said TRILLIONS.......PLURAL.......then didn't specify from what........and their entire budget takes 25 years to reach a TRILLION............singular..........
> 
> So you don't CLARIFY your TRILLIONS REMARK......and then try to back it up with today's numbers.......which are higher than previous years.....and then can't even use a calculator to know how many years at that amount makes the 1st Trillion
> 
> Did you drop out of school.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your asking him to take the time to back up his responses with resources, links to figures, and actual evidence to prove that his information is accurate, you’re going to be in for a very ... very long wait.  You’re talking about someone who says he’s prepped 250 cases but cant be bothered with simple research.  Don’t be surprised if he only bloviates, provides none of the linked resource evidence you only BEEN asking for the last 3 responses, yet thinks everyone else is the idiot.
> 
> Just watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been provided with walls of text wherein I've backed up the claims.  Unless you are going to pay me for research time, you are not due any legal brief for free.
> 
> If you insist on me making an ass out of you, I will give you a free sample.  Then you can kiss my ass and then stand down.
> 
> Let us revisit post # 4242.  *You* wrote:
> 
> "There is nothing written in the Constitution that grants states the authority over the Federal Government on immigration. We have been down this road before. It’s the same damn thing as you never being able to PROVE the ratification of the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional.
> 
> *Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.*
> The *Migration* *or Importation of such Persons as any of the States* now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year* one thousand eight hundred and eight *[ 1808 ]*.
> 
> The provision covered both slaves and free immigrants. The Supreme Court case - *Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 *was in *1875*.
> 
> HOW many ways do you want to be proven wrong?
> 
> Again. Provide me a Constitutional Case or researched evidence that you can back up, that proves me wrong."
> 
> ME:  I don't owe you any free research; don't have to prove squat and am not your push button monkey.  It was not my intent to take sides; I was looking for the OP's standards that would allow us to define the terminology "wrong" so we'd be on the same page.  Build the wall freaks have made a religion out of a subject they don't understand.  You are one the most misguided, so here is your
> 
> *RESPONSE*:
> 
> I told you BEFORE and AFTER post # 4242 mentioned above that it was a tax issue and had NOTHING to do with immigration.  So, here we go:
> 
> *"Clause 1: *The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
> 
> *Explanation: *This clause relates to the slave trade. It prevented Congress from restricting the importation of slaves prior to 1808. It did allow Congress to levy a duty of up to 10 dollars for each slave. In 1807, the international slave trade was blocked and no more slaves were allowed to be imported into the US.
> 
> What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> Bone up on your U.S. history Einstein.  Your cite has nothing to do with immigration.
> 
> It is still an irrefutable *FACT* that between 1808 and 1875 the states decided who came and went within their states.  It is an irrefutable *FACT* that:
> 
> "The House and Senate agreed on a bill, approved on March 2, 1807, called _*An Act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, from and after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eight.*_ The bound measure also regulated the coastwise slave trade. President Thomas Jefferson signed the bill into law on March 2, 1807."
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> In 1875, in the Chy Lung decision the SCOTUS gave to Congress a power they do not have in the Constitution.  That was legislating from the bench.  Odd how the SCOTUS waited until all the original founders AND the Supreme Court Justices were dead and gone before presuming to give Congress ANY power to do a damn thing.
> 
> *  The *fact* is the word immigration is not in the Constitution
> *  The *fact* is, despite only whites being able to become citizens after the ratification of the Constitution, *MILLIONS* of non-whites still came to the United States to partake of opportunities willingly offered
> *  The *fact *is, our Constitution specifically states that the Tenth Amendment provides:
> 
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
> 
> The *fact *is since Congress has *no* authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY kind of power, most of the statutes you hide behind are illegal
> 
> The *fact* is, we have at least *TWO* separate and distinct governments operating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption.  One is the lawful / legal / constitutional / de jure Republic guaranteed in Article IV  Section 4 of the United States Constitution.  The OTHER government is an illegal / de facto / Federal -Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations.
> 
> The *fact* is, when you tell that illegal government they have over-stepped their authority, they *are* going to rule against you.  Most people who own a firearm and watch that illegal government take a giant dump on the Second Amendment can tell you horror stories about how the unconstitutional nature of the gun laws in America.
> 
> Despite how much you hate people from south of the border, and for whatever reason, the bottom line is, they either have inherent, natural, God given, unalienable, absolute, and irrevocable Rights or they don't.  If your contention is that they don't have Rights, you would shoot them in the streets because you don't think they have Rights.  Either they do or they do not.  If they don't, then you can shoot them any time you get tired of being a bloviating blowhard.
> 
> But, you won't.  It's because they do have Rights.  And if they have a Right to Life, they damn well have a Right to Liberty.  Those are unalienable Rights that the founders intended to be above the law.
> 
> Your problem is that you are so hung up on wall worship, you don't understand that most Americans *WILLINGLY* invite the foreigners here.  Does it cause us problems?  YES.  But, you cannot improve your lot in life violating the original intent of the Constitution.  You cannot resolve the issue by attacking the Rights of others.  At some point you have to get off your high horse and realize that are people in this world that have just as much experience as you do.  I've only taken ONE of your examples to show that you're wrong.  How much more of an ass whipping do you want to take before realizing that maybe there are better options to be put on the table?
Click to expand...


This Article below makes no mention of the word “slave” or “slavery” anywhere in the Amendment.   There is your FACT. 


Article I

Section 9.

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.


It does speak however in addressing each state admitting foreigners, and the migration of such in the United States.  As listed below, the Founders DID have a lot to say regarding the migration and the entry of foreign immigrants into this country.


Gouverneur Morris argued in the Convention as he ran over the privileges which emigrants would enjoy among us, “though they should be deprived of that of being eligible to the great offices of Government; *observing that they exceeded the privileges allowed to foreigners in any part of the world; and that as every Society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted.*”

SOURCE: Madison Debates, August 9, 1787


The principles of the American Founding conferred a right to emigrate from the land of one’s birth, one should not make the mistake of assume that the principle of consent also conferred an inherent right to immigrate to any place of one’s choosing. *If “all men are created equal” then consent must be reciprocal among the parties involved.* Return to the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution: “The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: *It is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all SHALL BE GOVERNED BY CERTAIN LAWS FOR THE COMMON GOOD.*”

Mutual or reciprocal consent is dictated by the principle of natural equality.  —- *If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals.* *The immigrant is establishing himself as the rightful superior, as he has the power to dictate, unilaterally, the terms of the contract between himself and the community, without the community’s consent.*

*A person who is denied entrance into a country is not denied any inherent natural right.* He is perfectly free to go elsewhere, or even to form his own political community, and to take any necessary and proper measures to secure his own rights.


*During the 1750s, Benjamin Franklin expressed great concern regarding the massive influx of German immigrants into Pennsylvania.* Franklin laments that Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s, or live as in a foreign country.”

SOURCE: Franklin, Letter to James Parker, March 20, 1750, in Writings, 445


*Washington was also concerned about the isolation that differences of language bred.* He told his Vice President that “the advantage of [immigration and settlement] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”

SOURCE: Washington, Letter to the Vice President, November 15, 1794, in Fitzpatrick, Writings, 34:23.




“The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that *foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? *There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. *The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.* In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

*The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations*, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. *The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust*; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but *their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.*”

“If the rights of naturalization may be communicated by parts, and it is not perceived why they may not, those peculiar to the conducting of business and the acquisition of property, might with propriety be at once conferred, upon receiving proof, by certain prescribed solemnities, of the intention of the candidates to become citizens; postponing all political privileges to the ultimate term. *To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in the message, would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty*.”

SOURCE: Alexander Hamilton (Lucius Crassus), “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904).




Meanwhile all this vast knowledge you have, all this experience of prepping 250 court cases, those resources you can’t offer for free... can be summed up through what you read in Wikipedia.  That’s it?

Exactly how much “legal experience” and how much Constitutional background do you think that website carries behind their “basic and general” posts?  Do you actually know what real research is?  Obviously, from what I see here, it’s more of a quick 5 minute offering of “Cliff Notes” research  behind all your talk of apparent vast “experience”.


----------



## sparky

~S~


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are full of it..........I've been putting the data all over threads on the aspects of this............I asked for clarity on the Trillions.......where is it.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your posts with endless ellipsis are idiotic and look like the ravings of a freaking lunatic.  Try reading the posts.  The higher dollar items are listed for you.
> 
> The Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security which oversees "border security" has a budget of $40.6 BILLION DOLLARS a year.  That department is 17 years old.  A quick swag tells me that in 24 years DHS will spend a TRILLION DOLLARS.  In 8 more years, that agency ALONE will have cost a TRILLION DOLLARS.
> 
> Ah, yes, we see your objection now.  A lot of that money is being spent on things OTHER THAN border security at the southern border, but the lion's share is being invested in the place where the build the wall guys worship.  And that is just ONE AGENCY.
> 
> So, what exactly, is your point or do you even have one?  Complete sentences in English appreciated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is 974.4 Billion in 24 years..........Is your calculator broken...........That hasn't reached a Trillion yet.............You said TRILLIONS.......PLURAL.......then didn't specify from what........and their entire budget takes 25 years to reach a TRILLION............singular..........
> 
> So you don't CLARIFY your TRILLIONS REMARK......and then try to back it up with today's numbers.......which are higher than previous years.....and then can't even use a calculator to know how many years at that amount makes the 1st Trillion
> 
> Did you drop out of school.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your asking him to take the time to back up his responses with resources, links to figures, and actual evidence to prove that his information is accurate, you’re going to be in for a very ... very long wait.  You’re talking about someone who says he’s prepped 250 cases but cant be bothered with simple research.  Don’t be surprised if he only bloviates, provides none of the linked resource evidence you only BEEN asking for the last 3 responses, yet thinks everyone else is the idiot.
> 
> Just watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been provided with walls of text wherein I've backed up the claims.  Unless you are going to pay me for research time, you are not due any legal brief for free.
> 
> If you insist on me making an ass out of you, I will give you a free sample.  Then you can kiss my ass and then stand down.
> 
> Let us revisit post # 4242.  *You* wrote:
> 
> "There is nothing written in the Constitution that grants states the authority over the Federal Government on immigration. We have been down this road before. It’s the same damn thing as you never being able to PROVE the ratification of the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional.
> 
> *Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.*
> The *Migration* *or Importation of such Persons as any of the States* now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year* one thousand eight hundred and eight *[ 1808 ]*.
> 
> The provision covered both slaves and free immigrants. The Supreme Court case - *Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 *was in *1875*.
> 
> HOW many ways do you want to be proven wrong?
> 
> Again. Provide me a Constitutional Case or researched evidence that you can back up, that proves me wrong."
> 
> ME:  I don't owe you any free research; don't have to prove squat and am not your push button monkey.  It was not my intent to take sides; I was looking for the OP's standards that would allow us to define the terminology "wrong" so we'd be on the same page.  Build the wall freaks have made a religion out of a subject they don't understand.  You are one the most misguided, so here is your
> 
> *RESPONSE*:
> 
> I told you BEFORE and AFTER post # 4242 mentioned above that it was a tax issue and had NOTHING to do with immigration.  So, here we go:
> 
> *"Clause 1: *The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
> 
> *Explanation: *This clause relates to the slave trade. It prevented Congress from restricting the importation of slaves prior to 1808. It did allow Congress to levy a duty of up to 10 dollars for each slave. In 1807, the international slave trade was blocked and no more slaves were allowed to be imported into the US.
> 
> What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> Bone up on your U.S. history Einstein.  Your cite has nothing to do with immigration.
> 
> It is still an irrefutable *FACT* that between 1808 and 1875 the states decided who came and went within their states.  It is an irrefutable *FACT* that:
> 
> "The House and Senate agreed on a bill, approved on March 2, 1807, called _*An Act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, from and after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eight.*_ The bound measure also regulated the coastwise slave trade. President Thomas Jefferson signed the bill into law on March 2, 1807."
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> In 1875, in the Chy Lung decision the SCOTUS gave to Congress a power they do not have in the Constitution.  That was legislating from the bench.  Odd how the SCOTUS waited until all the original founders AND the Supreme Court Justices were dead and gone before presuming to give Congress ANY power to do a damn thing.
> 
> *  The *fact* is the word immigration is not in the Constitution
> *  The *fact* is, despite only whites being able to become citizens after the ratification of the Constitution, *MILLIONS* of non-whites still came to the United States to partake of opportunities willingly offered
> *  The *fact *is, our Constitution specifically states that the Tenth Amendment provides:
> 
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
> 
> The *fact *is since Congress has *no* authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY kind of power, most of the statutes you hide behind are illegal
> 
> The *fact* is, we have at least *TWO* separate and distinct governments operating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption.  One is the lawful / legal / constitutional / de jure Republic guaranteed in Article IV  Section 4 of the United States Constitution.  The OTHER government is an illegal / de facto / Federal -Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations.
> 
> The *fact* is, when you tell that illegal government they have over-stepped their authority, they *are* going to rule against you.  Most people who own a firearm and watch that illegal government take a giant dump on the Second Amendment can tell you horror stories about how the unconstitutional nature of the gun laws in America.
> 
> Despite how much you hate people from south of the border, and for whatever reason, the bottom line is, they either have inherent, natural, God given, unalienable, absolute, and irrevocable Rights or they don't.  If your contention is that they don't have Rights, you would shoot them in the streets because you don't think they have Rights.  Either they do or they do not.  If they don't, then you can shoot them any time you get tired of being a bloviating blowhard.
> 
> But, you won't.  It's because they do have Rights.  And if they have a Right to Life, they damn well have a Right to Liberty.  Those are unalienable Rights that the founders intended to be above the law.
> 
> Your problem is that you are so hung up on wall worship, you don't understand that most Americans *WILLINGLY* invite the foreigners here.  Does it cause us problems?  YES.  But, you cannot improve your lot in life violating the original intent of the Constitution.  You cannot resolve the issue by attacking the Rights of others.  At some point you have to get off your high horse and realize that are people in this world that have just as much experience as you do.  I've only taken ONE of your examples to show that you're wrong.  How much more of an ass whipping do you want to take before realizing that maybe there are better options to be put on the table?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This Article below makes no mention of the word “slave” or “slavery” anywhere in the Amendment.   There is your FACT.
> 
> 
> Article I
> 
> Section 9.
> 
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
> 
> 
> It does speak however in addressing each state admitting foreigners, and the migration of such in the United States.  As listed below, the Founders DID have a lot to say regarding the migration and the entry of foreign immigrants into this country.
> 
> 
> Gouverneur Morris argued in the Convention as he ran over the privileges which emigrants would enjoy among us, “though they should be deprived of that of being eligible to the great offices of Government; *observing that they exceeded the privileges allowed to foreigners in any part of the world; and that as every Society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted.*”
> 
> SOURCE: Madison Debates, August 9, 1787
> 
> 
> The principles of the American Founding conferred a right to emigrate from the land of one’s birth, one should not make the mistake of assume that the principle of consent also conferred an inherent right to immigrate to any place of one’s choosing. *If “all men are created equal” then consent must be reciprocal among the parties involved.* Return to the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution: “The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: *It is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all SHALL BE GOVERNED BY CERTAIN LAWS FOR THE COMMON GOOD.*”
> 
> Mutual or reciprocal consent is dictated by the principle of natural equality.  —- *If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals.* *The immigrant is establishing himself as the rightful superior, as he has the power to dictate, unilaterally, the terms of the contract between himself and the community, without the community’s consent.*
> 
> *A person who is denied entrance into a country is not denied any inherent natural right.* He is perfectly free to go elsewhere, or even to form his own political community, and to take any necessary and proper measures to secure his own rights.
> 
> 
> *During the 1750s, Benjamin Franklin expressed great concern regarding the massive influx of German immigrants into Pennsylvania.* Franklin laments that Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s, or live as in a foreign country.”
> 
> SOURCE: Franklin, Letter to James Parker, March 20, 1750, in Writings, 445
> 
> 
> *Washington was also concerned about the isolation that differences of language bred.* He told his Vice President that “the advantage of [immigration and settlement] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”
> 
> SOURCE: Washington, Letter to the Vice President, November 15, 1794, in Fitzpatrick, Writings, 34:23.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that *foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? *There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. *The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.* In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
> 
> *The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations*, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. *The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust*; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but *their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.*”
> 
> “If the rights of naturalization may be communicated by parts, and it is not perceived why they may not, those peculiar to the conducting of business and the acquisition of property, might with propriety be at once conferred, upon receiving proof, by certain prescribed solemnities, of the intention of the candidates to become citizens; postponing all political privileges to the ultimate term. *To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in the message, would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty*.”
> 
> SOURCE: Alexander Hamilton (Lucius Crassus), “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile all this vast knowledge you have, all this experience of prepping 250 court cases, those resources you can’t offer for free... can be summed up through what you read in Wikipedia.  That’s it?
> 
> Exactly how much “legal experience” and how much Constitutional background do you think that website carries behind their “basic and general” posts?  Do you actually know what real research is?  Obviously, from what I see here, it’s more of a quick 5 minute offering of “Cliff Notes” research  behind all your talk of apparent vast “experience”.
Click to expand...



I know enough about "research" that I can shepardize cases.  Can you?  I can tell the difference between dicta and a court's holding.  Can you?  I know that BEFORE the Chy Lung decision it was up to the states to decide who could come and go within a state and that the SCOTUS granted Congress plenary powers over immigration.

You cannot show us one single sentence in the entire United States Constitution that gives the SCOTUS the authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY power.

Additionally, the things you cite refer to citizenship NOT to the natural flow of people coming and going for the purposes of doing business - something you build a wall types seem completely oblivious to.  This dumbassery that you guys who dream of a POLICE STATE is so idiotic that we have to have arguments instead of civil discussion with idiots like you wanting to argue something you don't understand.

You think that everybody who sets foot on U.S. soil should be "admitted" - the article you cite is about naturalization not people operating in the normal course of business.  WTF is wrong with you?  Look at how long it took you to even respond to my earlier post.


----------



## danielpalos

there is no express wall building clause.  we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

danielpalos said:


> there is no express wall building clause.  we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.



What???


----------



## danielpalos

Porter Rockwell said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no express wall building clause.  we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What???
Click to expand...

the right wing doesn't care about the law, Constitutional or otherwise; they prefer their socialism on a national basis.


----------



## LilOlLady

One more reason to build the wall. To keep our children safe.

*Man arrested for alleged sexual assaults in South Lake Tahoe in US illegally*
A Nevada man accused of sexually assaulting minors in South Lake Tahoe is in the country illegally.

That’s according to additional information provided by the South Lake Tahoe Police Department Tuesday morning.

Sergio Antonio Recendiz-Rodriguez was arrested on multiple charges of sexual battery on minors under the age of 14 on Friday, Jan. 25.
UPDATE: Man arrested for alleged sexual assaults in South Lake Tahoe in US illegally


----------



## Porter Rockwell

danielpalos said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no express wall building clause.  we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing doesn't care about the law, Constitutional or otherwise; they prefer their socialism on a national basis.
Click to expand...


I've stated many times, the left and the right are going to the same destination - just by different routes.


----------



## danielpalos

Porter Rockwell said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no express wall building clause.  we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing doesn't care about the law, Constitutional or otherwise; they prefer their socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've stated many times, the left and the right are going to the same destination - just by different routes.
Click to expand...

the right wing does it by being kettles, calling less fortunate pots, black.


----------



## LilOlLady

Porter Rockwell said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no express wall building clause.  we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing doesn't care about the law, Constitutional or otherwise; they prefer their socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've stated many times, the left and the right are going to the same destination - just by different routes.
Click to expand...

Yes. They are both saying the same thing but is seem to be in different languages. One says wall the other say border security and it is the same thing. Kind of like words illegal, undocumented and improper. _There’s more than one way to skin a cat_ means there are many ways to do something, there are many ways to achieve a goal.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your posts with endless ellipsis are idiotic and look like the ravings of a freaking lunatic.  Try reading the posts.  The higher dollar items are listed for you.
> 
> The Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security which oversees "border security" has a budget of $40.6 BILLION DOLLARS a year.  That department is 17 years old.  A quick swag tells me that in 24 years DHS will spend a TRILLION DOLLARS.  In 8 more years, that agency ALONE will have cost a TRILLION DOLLARS.
> 
> Ah, yes, we see your objection now.  A lot of that money is being spent on things OTHER THAN border security at the southern border, but the lion's share is being invested in the place where the build the wall guys worship.  And that is just ONE AGENCY.
> 
> So, what exactly, is your point or do you even have one?  Complete sentences in English appreciated.
> 
> 
> 
> That is 974.4 Billion in 24 years..........Is your calculator broken...........That hasn't reached a Trillion yet.............You said TRILLIONS.......PLURAL.......then didn't specify from what........and their entire budget takes 25 years to reach a TRILLION............singular..........
> 
> So you don't CLARIFY your TRILLIONS REMARK......and then try to back it up with today's numbers.......which are higher than previous years.....and then can't even use a calculator to know how many years at that amount makes the 1st Trillion
> 
> Did you drop out of school.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your asking him to take the time to back up his responses with resources, links to figures, and actual evidence to prove that his information is accurate, you’re going to be in for a very ... very long wait.  You’re talking about someone who says he’s prepped 250 cases but cant be bothered with simple research.  Don’t be surprised if he only bloviates, provides none of the linked resource evidence you only BEEN asking for the last 3 responses, yet thinks everyone else is the idiot.
> 
> Just watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been provided with walls of text wherein I've backed up the claims.  Unless you are going to pay me for research time, you are not due any legal brief for free.
> 
> If you insist on me making an ass out of you, I will give you a free sample.  Then you can kiss my ass and then stand down.
> 
> Let us revisit post # 4242.  *You* wrote:
> 
> "There is nothing written in the Constitution that grants states the authority over the Federal Government on immigration. We have been down this road before. It’s the same damn thing as you never being able to PROVE the ratification of the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional.
> 
> *Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.*
> The *Migration* *or Importation of such Persons as any of the States* now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year* one thousand eight hundred and eight *[ 1808 ]*.
> 
> The provision covered both slaves and free immigrants. The Supreme Court case - *Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 *was in *1875*.
> 
> HOW many ways do you want to be proven wrong?
> 
> Again. Provide me a Constitutional Case or researched evidence that you can back up, that proves me wrong."
> 
> ME:  I don't owe you any free research; don't have to prove squat and am not your push button monkey.  It was not my intent to take sides; I was looking for the OP's standards that would allow us to define the terminology "wrong" so we'd be on the same page.  Build the wall freaks have made a religion out of a subject they don't understand.  You are one the most misguided, so here is your
> 
> *RESPONSE*:
> 
> I told you BEFORE and AFTER post # 4242 mentioned above that it was a tax issue and had NOTHING to do with immigration.  So, here we go:
> 
> *"Clause 1: *The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
> 
> *Explanation: *This clause relates to the slave trade. It prevented Congress from restricting the importation of slaves prior to 1808. It did allow Congress to levy a duty of up to 10 dollars for each slave. In 1807, the international slave trade was blocked and no more slaves were allowed to be imported into the US.
> 
> What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> Bone up on your U.S. history Einstein.  Your cite has nothing to do with immigration.
> 
> It is still an irrefutable *FACT* that between 1808 and 1875 the states decided who came and went within their states.  It is an irrefutable *FACT* that:
> 
> "The House and Senate agreed on a bill, approved on March 2, 1807, called _*An Act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, from and after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eight.*_ The bound measure also regulated the coastwise slave trade. President Thomas Jefferson signed the bill into law on March 2, 1807."
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> In 1875, in the Chy Lung decision the SCOTUS gave to Congress a power they do not have in the Constitution.  That was legislating from the bench.  Odd how the SCOTUS waited until all the original founders AND the Supreme Court Justices were dead and gone before presuming to give Congress ANY power to do a damn thing.
> 
> *  The *fact* is the word immigration is not in the Constitution
> *  The *fact* is, despite only whites being able to become citizens after the ratification of the Constitution, *MILLIONS* of non-whites still came to the United States to partake of opportunities willingly offered
> *  The *fact *is, our Constitution specifically states that the Tenth Amendment provides:
> 
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
> 
> The *fact *is since Congress has *no* authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY kind of power, most of the statutes you hide behind are illegal
> 
> The *fact* is, we have at least *TWO* separate and distinct governments operating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption.  One is the lawful / legal / constitutional / de jure Republic guaranteed in Article IV  Section 4 of the United States Constitution.  The OTHER government is an illegal / de facto / Federal -Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations.
> 
> The *fact* is, when you tell that illegal government they have over-stepped their authority, they *are* going to rule against you.  Most people who own a firearm and watch that illegal government take a giant dump on the Second Amendment can tell you horror stories about how the unconstitutional nature of the gun laws in America.
> 
> Despite how much you hate people from south of the border, and for whatever reason, the bottom line is, they either have inherent, natural, God given, unalienable, absolute, and irrevocable Rights or they don't.  If your contention is that they don't have Rights, you would shoot them in the streets because you don't think they have Rights.  Either they do or they do not.  If they don't, then you can shoot them any time you get tired of being a bloviating blowhard.
> 
> But, you won't.  It's because they do have Rights.  And if they have a Right to Life, they damn well have a Right to Liberty.  Those are unalienable Rights that the founders intended to be above the law.
> 
> Your problem is that you are so hung up on wall worship, you don't understand that most Americans *WILLINGLY* invite the foreigners here.  Does it cause us problems?  YES.  But, you cannot improve your lot in life violating the original intent of the Constitution.  You cannot resolve the issue by attacking the Rights of others.  At some point you have to get off your high horse and realize that are people in this world that have just as much experience as you do.  I've only taken ONE of your examples to show that you're wrong.  How much more of an ass whipping do you want to take before realizing that maybe there are better options to be put on the table?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This Article below makes no mention of the word “slave” or “slavery” anywhere in the Amendment.   There is your FACT.
> 
> 
> Article I
> 
> Section 9.
> 
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
> 
> 
> It does speak however in addressing each state admitting foreigners, and the migration of such in the United States.  As listed below, the Founders DID have a lot to say regarding the migration and the entry of foreign immigrants into this country.
> 
> 
> Gouverneur Morris argued in the Convention as he ran over the privileges which emigrants would enjoy among us, “though they should be deprived of that of being eligible to the great offices of Government; *observing that they exceeded the privileges allowed to foreigners in any part of the world; and that as every Society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted.*”
> 
> SOURCE: Madison Debates, August 9, 1787
> 
> 
> The principles of the American Founding conferred a right to emigrate from the land of one’s birth, one should not make the mistake of assume that the principle of consent also conferred an inherent right to immigrate to any place of one’s choosing. *If “all men are created equal” then consent must be reciprocal among the parties involved.* Return to the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution: “The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: *It is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all SHALL BE GOVERNED BY CERTAIN LAWS FOR THE COMMON GOOD.*”
> 
> Mutual or reciprocal consent is dictated by the principle of natural equality.  —- *If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals.* *The immigrant is establishing himself as the rightful superior, as he has the power to dictate, unilaterally, the terms of the contract between himself and the community, without the community’s consent.*
> 
> *A person who is denied entrance into a country is not denied any inherent natural right.* He is perfectly free to go elsewhere, or even to form his own political community, and to take any necessary and proper measures to secure his own rights.
> 
> 
> *During the 1750s, Benjamin Franklin expressed great concern regarding the massive influx of German immigrants into Pennsylvania.* Franklin laments that Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s, or live as in a foreign country.”
> 
> SOURCE: Franklin, Letter to James Parker, March 20, 1750, in Writings, 445
> 
> 
> *Washington was also concerned about the isolation that differences of language bred.* He told his Vice President that “the advantage of [immigration and settlement] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”
> 
> SOURCE: Washington, Letter to the Vice President, November 15, 1794, in Fitzpatrick, Writings, 34:23.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that *foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? *There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. *The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.* In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
> 
> *The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations*, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. *The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust*; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but *their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.*”
> 
> “If the rights of naturalization may be communicated by parts, and it is not perceived why they may not, those peculiar to the conducting of business and the acquisition of property, might with propriety be at once conferred, upon receiving proof, by certain prescribed solemnities, of the intention of the candidates to become citizens; postponing all political privileges to the ultimate term. *To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in the message, would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty*.”
> 
> SOURCE: Alexander Hamilton (Lucius Crassus), “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile all this vast knowledge you have, all this experience of prepping 250 court cases, those resources you can’t offer for free... can be summed up through what you read in Wikipedia.  That’s it?
> 
> Exactly how much “legal experience” and how much Constitutional background do you think that website carries behind their “basic and general” posts?  Do you actually know what real research is?  Obviously, from what I see here, it’s more of a quick 5 minute offering of “Cliff Notes” research  behind all your talk of apparent vast “experience”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know enough about "research" that I can shepardize cases.  Can you?  I can tell the difference between dicta and a court's holding.  Can you?  I know that BEFORE the Chy Lung decision it was up to the states to decide who could come and go within a state and that the SCOTUS granted Congress plenary powers over immigration.
> 
> You cannot show us one single sentence in the entire United States Constitution that gives the SCOTUS the authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY power.
> 
> Additionally, the things you cite refer to citizenship NOT to the natural flow of people coming and going for the purposes of doing business - something you build a wall types seem completely oblivious to.  This dumbassery that you guys who dream of a POLICE STATE is so idiotic that we have to have arguments instead of civil discussion with idiots like you wanting to argue something you don't understand.
> 
> You think that everybody who sets foot on U.S. soil should be "admitted" - the article you cite is about naturalization not people operating in the normal course of business.  WTF is wrong with you?  Look at how long it took you to even respond to my earlier post.
Click to expand...


*“If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals“*

That quote deals specifically to foreign immigrants coming into the United States and imposing their will to recognize their right to be here in violation of its laws.

Franklin - “Pennsylvania *“will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s or live as in a foreign country” .. *addressed concerns over an OVERABUNDANCE of foreign immigrants entering this country with the need of limits in its numbers.

You see I can back up my point through multiple sources going back to our Founding, to include
(1) Ben Franklin
(2) George Washington
(3) Alexander Hamilton,
(4) the1780 Massachusetts Constitution:

ALL of which discredits your claims of a nation using borders which interferes into an immigrant’s personal liberty contrary to the United States Constitution.  More importantly, I can back up my views with direct quotes ... you can’t.  I can provide actual documentation without citing Wikipedia ... you can’t. I can do actual research while I laugh at the attempt of yours.  Let me know when you can provide actual documented sources from our Founders, the state Constitution of one of the colonies, or the Continental Congress which states their full support of unlimited foreign immigrants coming into this country.

Unlike you I just provided much more than your ramblings on a Immigration thread, like your response above.  Yes I obviously out research you by actually backing up my view through *and providing* individual views (*sources*) going back to our nation’s founding.

Show us your ability to perform actual research, or give us another lazy excuse not to — like I don’t do it for free.  If Wikipedia is your best, as a client I’d want my money back.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is 974.4 Billion in 24 years..........Is your calculator broken...........That hasn't reached a Trillion yet.............You said TRILLIONS.......PLURAL.......then didn't specify from what........and their entire budget takes 25 years to reach a TRILLION............singular..........
> 
> So you don't CLARIFY your TRILLIONS REMARK......and then try to back it up with today's numbers.......which are higher than previous years.....and then can't even use a calculator to know how many years at that amount makes the 1st Trillion
> 
> Did you drop out of school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your asking him to take the time to back up his responses with resources, links to figures, and actual evidence to prove that his information is accurate, you’re going to be in for a very ... very long wait.  You’re talking about someone who says he’s prepped 250 cases but cant be bothered with simple research.  Don’t be surprised if he only bloviates, provides none of the linked resource evidence you only BEEN asking for the last 3 responses, yet thinks everyone else is the idiot.
> 
> Just watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been provided with walls of text wherein I've backed up the claims.  Unless you are going to pay me for research time, you are not due any legal brief for free.
> 
> If you insist on me making an ass out of you, I will give you a free sample.  Then you can kiss my ass and then stand down.
> 
> Let us revisit post # 4242.  *You* wrote:
> 
> "There is nothing written in the Constitution that grants states the authority over the Federal Government on immigration. We have been down this road before. It’s the same damn thing as you never being able to PROVE the ratification of the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional.
> 
> *Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.*
> The *Migration* *or Importation of such Persons as any of the States* now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year* one thousand eight hundred and eight *[ 1808 ]*.
> 
> The provision covered both slaves and free immigrants. The Supreme Court case - *Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 *was in *1875*.
> 
> HOW many ways do you want to be proven wrong?
> 
> Again. Provide me a Constitutional Case or researched evidence that you can back up, that proves me wrong."
> 
> ME:  I don't owe you any free research; don't have to prove squat and am not your push button monkey.  It was not my intent to take sides; I was looking for the OP's standards that would allow us to define the terminology "wrong" so we'd be on the same page.  Build the wall freaks have made a religion out of a subject they don't understand.  You are one the most misguided, so here is your
> 
> *RESPONSE*:
> 
> I told you BEFORE and AFTER post # 4242 mentioned above that it was a tax issue and had NOTHING to do with immigration.  So, here we go:
> 
> *"Clause 1: *The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
> 
> *Explanation: *This clause relates to the slave trade. It prevented Congress from restricting the importation of slaves prior to 1808. It did allow Congress to levy a duty of up to 10 dollars for each slave. In 1807, the international slave trade was blocked and no more slaves were allowed to be imported into the US.
> 
> What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> Bone up on your U.S. history Einstein.  Your cite has nothing to do with immigration.
> 
> It is still an irrefutable *FACT* that between 1808 and 1875 the states decided who came and went within their states.  It is an irrefutable *FACT* that:
> 
> "The House and Senate agreed on a bill, approved on March 2, 1807, called _*An Act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, from and after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eight.*_ The bound measure also regulated the coastwise slave trade. President Thomas Jefferson signed the bill into law on March 2, 1807."
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> In 1875, in the Chy Lung decision the SCOTUS gave to Congress a power they do not have in the Constitution.  That was legislating from the bench.  Odd how the SCOTUS waited until all the original founders AND the Supreme Court Justices were dead and gone before presuming to give Congress ANY power to do a damn thing.
> 
> *  The *fact* is the word immigration is not in the Constitution
> *  The *fact* is, despite only whites being able to become citizens after the ratification of the Constitution, *MILLIONS* of non-whites still came to the United States to partake of opportunities willingly offered
> *  The *fact *is, our Constitution specifically states that the Tenth Amendment provides:
> 
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
> 
> The *fact *is since Congress has *no* authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY kind of power, most of the statutes you hide behind are illegal
> 
> The *fact* is, we have at least *TWO* separate and distinct governments operating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption.  One is the lawful / legal / constitutional / de jure Republic guaranteed in Article IV  Section 4 of the United States Constitution.  The OTHER government is an illegal / de facto / Federal -Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations.
> 
> The *fact* is, when you tell that illegal government they have over-stepped their authority, they *are* going to rule against you.  Most people who own a firearm and watch that illegal government take a giant dump on the Second Amendment can tell you horror stories about how the unconstitutional nature of the gun laws in America.
> 
> Despite how much you hate people from south of the border, and for whatever reason, the bottom line is, they either have inherent, natural, God given, unalienable, absolute, and irrevocable Rights or they don't.  If your contention is that they don't have Rights, you would shoot them in the streets because you don't think they have Rights.  Either they do or they do not.  If they don't, then you can shoot them any time you get tired of being a bloviating blowhard.
> 
> But, you won't.  It's because they do have Rights.  And if they have a Right to Life, they damn well have a Right to Liberty.  Those are unalienable Rights that the founders intended to be above the law.
> 
> Your problem is that you are so hung up on wall worship, you don't understand that most Americans *WILLINGLY* invite the foreigners here.  Does it cause us problems?  YES.  But, you cannot improve your lot in life violating the original intent of the Constitution.  You cannot resolve the issue by attacking the Rights of others.  At some point you have to get off your high horse and realize that are people in this world that have just as much experience as you do.  I've only taken ONE of your examples to show that you're wrong.  How much more of an ass whipping do you want to take before realizing that maybe there are better options to be put on the table?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This Article below makes no mention of the word “slave” or “slavery” anywhere in the Amendment.   There is your FACT.
> 
> 
> Article I
> 
> Section 9.
> 
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
> 
> 
> It does speak however in addressing each state admitting foreigners, and the migration of such in the United States.  As listed below, the Founders DID have a lot to say regarding the migration and the entry of foreign immigrants into this country.
> 
> 
> Gouverneur Morris argued in the Convention as he ran over the privileges which emigrants would enjoy among us, “though they should be deprived of that of being eligible to the great offices of Government; *observing that they exceeded the privileges allowed to foreigners in any part of the world; and that as every Society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted.*”
> 
> SOURCE: Madison Debates, August 9, 1787
> 
> 
> The principles of the American Founding conferred a right to emigrate from the land of one’s birth, one should not make the mistake of assume that the principle of consent also conferred an inherent right to immigrate to any place of one’s choosing. *If “all men are created equal” then consent must be reciprocal among the parties involved.* Return to the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution: “The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: *It is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all SHALL BE GOVERNED BY CERTAIN LAWS FOR THE COMMON GOOD.*”
> 
> Mutual or reciprocal consent is dictated by the principle of natural equality.  —- *If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals.* *The immigrant is establishing himself as the rightful superior, as he has the power to dictate, unilaterally, the terms of the contract between himself and the community, without the community’s consent.*
> 
> *A person who is denied entrance into a country is not denied any inherent natural right.* He is perfectly free to go elsewhere, or even to form his own political community, and to take any necessary and proper measures to secure his own rights.
> 
> 
> *During the 1750s, Benjamin Franklin expressed great concern regarding the massive influx of German immigrants into Pennsylvania.* Franklin laments that Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s, or live as in a foreign country.”
> 
> SOURCE: Franklin, Letter to James Parker, March 20, 1750, in Writings, 445
> 
> 
> *Washington was also concerned about the isolation that differences of language bred.* He told his Vice President that “the advantage of [immigration and settlement] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”
> 
> SOURCE: Washington, Letter to the Vice President, November 15, 1794, in Fitzpatrick, Writings, 34:23.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that *foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? *There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. *The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.* In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
> 
> *The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations*, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. *The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust*; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but *their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.*”
> 
> “If the rights of naturalization may be communicated by parts, and it is not perceived why they may not, those peculiar to the conducting of business and the acquisition of property, might with propriety be at once conferred, upon receiving proof, by certain prescribed solemnities, of the intention of the candidates to become citizens; postponing all political privileges to the ultimate term. *To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in the message, would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty*.”
> 
> SOURCE: Alexander Hamilton (Lucius Crassus), “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile all this vast knowledge you have, all this experience of prepping 250 court cases, those resources you can’t offer for free... can be summed up through what you read in Wikipedia.  That’s it?
> 
> Exactly how much “legal experience” and how much Constitutional background do you think that website carries behind their “basic and general” posts?  Do you actually know what real research is?  Obviously, from what I see here, it’s more of a quick 5 minute offering of “Cliff Notes” research  behind all your talk of apparent vast “experience”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know enough about "research" that I can shepardize cases.  Can you?  I can tell the difference between dicta and a court's holding.  Can you?  I know that BEFORE the Chy Lung decision it was up to the states to decide who could come and go within a state and that the SCOTUS granted Congress plenary powers over immigration.
> 
> You cannot show us one single sentence in the entire United States Constitution that gives the SCOTUS the authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY power.
> 
> Additionally, the things you cite refer to citizenship NOT to the natural flow of people coming and going for the purposes of doing business - something you build a wall types seem completely oblivious to.  This dumbassery that you guys who dream of a POLICE STATE is so idiotic that we have to have arguments instead of civil discussion with idiots like you wanting to argue something you don't understand.
> 
> You think that everybody who sets foot on U.S. soil should be "admitted" - the article you cite is about naturalization not people operating in the normal course of business.  WTF is wrong with you?  Look at how long it took you to even respond to my earlier post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals“*
> 
> That quote deals specifically to foreign immigrants coming into the United States and imposing their will to recognize their right to be here in violation of its laws.
> 
> Franklin - “Pennsylvania *“will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s or live as in a foreign country” .. *addressed concerns over an OVERABUNDANCE of foreign immigrants entering this country with the need of limits in its numbers.
> 
> You see I can back up my point through multiple sources going back to our Founding, to include
> (1) Ben Franklin
> (2) George Washington
> (3) Alexander Hamilton,
> (4) the1780 Massachusetts Constitution:
> 
> ALL of which discredits your claims of a nation using borders which interferes into an immigrant’s personal liberty contrary to the United States Constitution.  More importantly, I can back up my views with direct quotes ... you can’t.  I can provide actual documentation without citing Wikipedia ... you can’t. I can do actual research while I laugh at the attempt of yours.  Let me know when you can provide actual documented sources from our Founders, the state Constitution of one of the colonies, or the Continental Congress which states their full support of unlimited foreign immigrants coming into this country.
> 
> Unlike you I just provided much more than your ramblings on a Immigration thread, like your response above.  Yes I obviously out research you by actually backing up my view through *and providing* individual views (*sources*) going back to our nation’s founding.
> 
> Show us your ability to perform actual research, or give us another lazy excuse not to — like I don’t do it for free.  If Wikipedia is your best, as a client I’d want my money back.
Click to expand...


In the 4489 posts here I have quoted founding fathers, court cases, the Constitution, history books, etc.  Wasn't your last ass whipping enough the last time? 

You continue to mix citizenship up with people working jobs and doing business here as non-citizens.  So, all the research you put on the table is irrelevant.

1)  If an immigrant imposed himself on me or in my neighborhood, I'd drive the son of a bitch out myself.  I wouldn't be talking about it on a discussion board or thumping my chest.  So, why aren't you?  OR is your inaction and walls of irrelevant text an easy way out of doing a dirty job?  I think that maybe you understand that half of the population -  at a minimum *invited *the foreigner here.  So, your first paragraph is *irrelevant*.

2)  Did Benjamin Franklin lobby for a quota system in the U.S.?  OR did he leave well enough alone?  Did he lobby to make America an English speaking country?  How many people agreed with him?

3)  You continue to do your share of chest thumping, but no matter what founding father said what, *NONE* of them done a damn thing about the *FACT* that the comings and goings of foreigners were left up to the *STATES*.  The founders did not address it in the Constitution.  As a matter of *FACT*, the only authority the federal government has relative to immigration is:

"_To establish a uniform rule of naturalization_"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Other than that, the federal government has no lawful / legal / de jure authority in immigration.  The United States Constitution takes precedence over all the quotes you've given. Now which of us do you think, on that point, provided the best evidence?

Let me repeat what YOU said:

*If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals*

I think you want some debate on that point, but the bottom line is, when Americans buy from, sell to, rent to, and otherwise do business with foreigners, it's none of your fucking business.  It's dumb asses that fed you that socialist shit that is at the root of your problem.  How do you think you got into this situation?

Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, Congress enacted the first Naturalization Law.  Here is a quote from it:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof"

naturalization laws 1790-1795

Let's take a look at the Preamble to the Constitution:

_"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity*, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."_
_
The Constitution of the United States_

*WHEN* the United States Supreme Court interpreted that, they ruled (with respect to blacks):

"The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all of the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied [_sic_] by that instrument to the citizen?

...
We think [...] that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."

 _Dred Scott v. Sandford_, 60 U.S. at 404–05.

Additionally, Taney, who wrote the majority opinion stated "The  American people, constituted a “political family” restricted to whites."

Eleven years later the Republicans *ILLEGALLY* ratified the 14th Amendment:

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

It’s time to tell the truth; the 14th amendment was never ratified.

The 14th Amendment did a few negative things:

* It created TWO classes of citizens: Preamble and 14th Amendment citizens

*  The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights, or more specifically, your* unalienable Rights*.  Do you know what an unalienable Right is?

Let's move on:

"The Constitution for the United States of America talks about 2 classes of citizens. 

Article IV, Section 2 Clause 1 says; "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

The courts have talked about the two classes of citizens as shown below.

"there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States  Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 

The Fourteenth Amendment, "....creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the States." 
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at pg 591;

"One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443." 
Mc Donel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323;

"Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to be a citizen of his State" Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, Baltimore, Md., 1966, 221 A. 2d 431 citing US Supreme Court Slaughter House Cases and U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542, 549, 23 L. Ed 588 1875

"There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 (1909)

"Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities 
of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other" Tashiro v. Jordan, 255 P. 545 California Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court quite thoroughly expanded on the two classes 
of citizenship in the case Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, where it said:

"...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, 
which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the
paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested." 
Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451; 

These two classes of citizenship continue to this day, 
"Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. 14,Â§ 1." 
Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993);

Because there are 2 classes of citizens, and also because of circumstances that will become known below, it is necessary to assert your sovereignty. In order to understand how and why you assert your sovereignty, we need to have some background knowledge.

A state citizen is one of "We the People" found in the preamble to the constitution. You can be in a state without being in the United States. In fact, if you read their codes, the United States in the United States Code is the District of Columbia and the Territories. The Puerto Rico website even talks about it.

The US citizen
A US citizen does not have any rights.
"...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;

The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957 

"Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity." 
Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773. 

â€œA â€œUS Citizenâ€ upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in â€œinterstate commerceâ€, as a â€œresidentâ€ does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.â€ Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporterâ€™s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

A US citizen is a corporation.
"...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300

This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC. 

Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.

The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is;

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,....."


The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended"   (Reposted with permission)

2 Classes of Citizens

I want you to think on that while I work on part 2 of this for you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

*PART 2 FOR SHAKLESOFBIGGOV* 

You have this warped ass idea that an individual cannot disagree with the wall worship and not understand the culture / immigration issue.  I think it's time we pulled your head out of your ass.

A quick look at the House of Representatives will give you a real representative look at the makeup of America.  There are gays, mixed race people, Muslims, Jews, atheists, socialists, communists... a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah.  And they outnumber you!

And *HOW* do you suppose we got into that predicament?  Was it not via unconstitutional laws that made citizens out of nonwhites?  Today, the people to whom you've attached yourself to have a half assed idiotic program that don't make sense.  For example, you want the current immigration laws enforced.  You hate Wikipedia, but it summed up what I hate about the silly ass laws you have sworn fealty to:

"Senator Ted Kennedy, asserted that the bill would not affect US demographic mix.[2] However, the ethnic composition of immigrants changed following the passage of the law.[18][19] Specifically, the Hart–Celler Act allowed increased numbers of people to migrate to the United States from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. The 1965 act, however, imposed the first cap on immigration from the Americas. This marks the first time numerical limitations were placed on legal immigration from Latin American countries including Mexico.[20]

Prior to 1965, the demographics of immigration stood as mostly Europeans; 68 percent of legal immigrants in the 1950s came from Europe and Canada. However, in the years 1971–1991, immigrants from Hispanic and Latin American countries made 47.9 percent of immigrants (with Mexico accounting for 23.7 percent) and immigrants from Asia 35.2 percent. Not only did it change the ethnic makeup of immigration, but it also greatly increased the number of immigrants—immigration constituted 11 percent of the total U.S. population growth between 1960 and 1970, growing to 33 percent from 1970–80, and to 39 percent from 1980–90"

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia

So let me see, you hide behind a fat ass slob that is making a monkey out of you.  I wrote this earlier on this board about your standard bearer:

The standard bearer for the whites is that fat slob that inherited a fortune and has a God complex. This guy bitches about so - called "illegal immigration" while employing undocumented foreigners. Still, the cultists hang on his every word as if it were manna from Heaven. He tells them today that he is against gun control, yet his history is that of being a total gun control freak. He even wrote in a book published in 2000 that he was for waiting periods and against "assault weapons." Despite signing onto the bump stock ban (which violated the Constitution in three different ways), his loyal subjects worship at his feet. The POS picks an Attorney General that is in favor of seizing your private property and using to the benefit of government. It is called asset forfeiture. In addition this pick for Attorney General is for the expansion of the so - called "Patriot Act."

Underneath the standard bearer are the legions of misguided followers that want to do the left's dirty work and put up a wall around America. They seem to ignore the* fact *that their standard bearer moans about the Democrats wanting the wall before he was for it. It's a socialist solution looking for a problem to solve. Furthermore, the fat slob's legions of loyal subjects worship at the altar of the wall as a symbol of their new found culture - ignoring the fact that their attitudes about the immigration issue were pioneered and developed by National Socialists. You aren't even allowed to agree with them that a problem exists unless you pay homage to their wall.

The radicalization of white Americans

Now you've gone on long enough with this wall worship.  You wanted my time and you wanted an education.  Since we're going to lose this war, we might as well post what would have been the bottom line so that the whites don't have a strategy.  

Donald Trump offered Nancy Pelosi citizenship for Dreamers.  That is 2 MILLION new citizens - citizens you dumb asses have referred to their parents as criminals, rapists, robbers, drug dealers, scum, etc., etc.  Now, in all REALITY, when something like that happens, those 2 MILLION are going to vote Democrat.  They will go to the courts and say that it is cruel and unusual punishment to lock their parents out of the U.S. over a minor misdemeanor.  So, that 2 MILLION became 6 MILLION,  Then, when the liberals take the White House again, you'd have 6 MILLION Hispanic citizens with a bone to pick with your side of the political spectrum.  How stupid can you be!

America was founded as a Republic built on Christian principles by white people.  If you think you can bring in the mixed multitude be it Muslims that want to convert or kill you; blacks that want to destroy America over the pretext of slavery; Hispanics that you have treated like shit, and give them control of your country, you are a straight up fucking idiot.

Socialism has failed in every nation it's been tried in.  And you reject the principles upon which the greatest nation in the annals of history was built on in favor of a damn wall.  You think you can debate me???

If you were on my level, you'd understand a few things:

*  Enforcing the current immigration laws are diminishing the numbers of the posterity of the founders

*  Those people replacing the posterity *HATE YOU*. They don't give a rat's ass about your imaginary culture (which today is what... drugs, tattoos and imitating black people)  They want your land and your wealth

*  The government cannot and will not save you from yourself.  They will allow you to  dig your own grave

What don't you understand about how the world works?  Let me repeat to you what you said again:

*If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals*

This is a free enterprise country.  When an immigrant can come here and work at the behest of the people, he is a guest worker.  He is not a citizen and has no privileges of citizenship.  He cannot vote you out of your own country.  What in the Hell does it take to teach you the difference between a citizen and a foreign guest worker?

Let me put it to you this way:

If your dumb ass was not advocating jailing employers for picking the employee of their choice and we got rid of government intervention in hiring employees, how long before communities would spring up and hire from within?  The only way to get a job in those communities would be to become (VOLUNTARILY) a part of the family.  If an employer can hire a foreigner, another company can hire a white American if they like.  The employer created the job.  

But, rather than err on the side of Freedom and Liberty, you want everybody to have a Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "Social Security Number," a cashless society that is under surveillance from the womb to the tomb  24 / 7 / 365.  WTF?  How would you mount a defense to a tyrannical government when YOU want to give them all the intel they would ever need to defeat you?  Oh yeah, I keep forgetting.  You want a damn wall to pray to and a government big enough to save you from yourself.  

You REALLY want me to go beyond where we've already been?

See posts 3475, 3476, 3613, 3669, 3731, and the last two.  Formulate some kind of response to that and then I'll get into the nitty gritty with you.

The Two United States and the Law

BTW, I was a student of Howard Freeman when he was alive

The Two United States and the Fake Law  - Report

I don't agree with a lot of what they say, but what I do agree with is confirmed with other links contained herein


America Keeps Getting Less White and Less Christian

http://www.thechristianidentityforum.net/downloads/Jewish-War.pdf

Mohr was one of THE founders of the modern anti- immigration movement though not a wall supporter 

America--free, white, & Christian: The foundational acts and principles in American law and history that legally established America as a free, white, and Christian nation by Charles A. Weisman

The Origin of Race and Civilization by Charles A. Weisman

Race and Civilization Weisman - AbeBooks


https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0069TITDQ/?tag=ff0d01-20

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-c...utm_source=bing#isbn=B00366I3JK&idiq=30800349

I have read all the books more than twice and they remain in my personal library.  Some you can access on pdf.  Others you might have to buy.  Read those and you might be able to BEGIN a debate with me... then I'll spring another dozen titles on you just to give you a freshman's view before you advance to harder and harder material.


* 
*


----------



## Slyhunter

A lot of words. Didn't read them.
The wall keeps out the riff raff. The undesirables. The ones with no job skills or money to hire others.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> A lot of words. Didn't read them.
> The wall keeps out the riff raff. The undesirables. The ones with no job skills or money to hire others.


stop creating refugees with your right wing, alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror y'all don't want to pay for with real times of war tax rates and not fake times of war tax cut economics.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> A lot of words. Didn't read them.
> The wall keeps out the riff raff. The undesirables. The ones with no job skills or money to hire others.



The words weren't aimed at you so I don't care.  Some day you will have your wish and live within walls.  The liberals will grant you your wish.


----------



## eagle1462010

Under the Constitution the laws under the republic are subject to be changed...........This is a different time and circumstances than that of the time of the founding fathers...............

The founding fathers didn't want the Gov't to have too much power........Having MANY social safety nets causes the gov't....and the states to pay out huge sums of money for illegals who use the system.............They also don't have the same protections of the labor laws in this country and they drive wages down..........It's not what Americans will not do............it's what Americans REFUSE TO DO...........in regards to work..........American citizens expect a decent pay for that kind of labor....................not substandard wages they give to illegals to maximize their profit..........If they complain about working conditions they turn them in and they are deported.  No American  in his right mind would work for wages that so many have to live in the same house because of dirt poor wages..........

This is why we must limit the numbers into this country......And under a Republic of laws you FOLLOW the Laws of this country or carry your happy ass home.  Businesses are using this for cheap labor in violation of our laws.........You are either a NATION OF LAWS or you are no longer a True Republic........In the Argriculture areas the Dept of Labor has a guest worker program that ALLOWS them to come here and work...........It is abused MASSIVELY..........screwing the businesses that go through the LEGAL WAY to get their labor under the law...........Not enforcing these laws gives an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE to those WHO VIOLATE OUR LAWS.................

The loop holes in the immigration system are being taken advantage of.......with people from other countries DEMANDING entry into our country............Who are they to DEMAND WE MUST TAKE THEM.........This is our country and not theirs and we HAVE EVERY RIGHT to limit the numbers coming into this country.......

On the border the Drug Cartels are smuggling drugs into our country and are making a killing on human trafficking here.............Part of the Responsibility of this gov't is to protect it's borders.........It doesn't have to be a War to fulfill that duty.......Walls........Barriers .......are a means to hender that entry.......they are just a part of a layered system to stop the illegals from marching in to America.............and limit the flow of drugs into this country.......More people south of our border have been killed because of the drug cartels than in the War in Syria................and yet people say we don't need to increase security on the border............That is RIDICULOUS.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Under the Constitution the laws under the republic are subject to be changed...........This is a different time and circumstances than that of the time of the founding fathers...............
> 
> The founding fathers didn't want the Gov't to have too much power........Having MANY social safety nets causes the gov't....and the states to pay out huge sums of money for illegals who use the system.............They also don't have the same protections of the labor laws in this country and they drive wages down..........It's not what Americans will not do............it's what Americans REFUSE TO DO...........in regards to work..........American citizens expect a decent pay for that kind of labor....................not substandard wages they give to illegals to maximize their profit..........If they complain about working conditions they turn them in and they are deported.  No American  in his right mind would work for wages that so many have to live in the same house because of dirt poor wages..........
> 
> This is why we must limit the numbers into this country......And under a Republic of laws you FOLLOW the Laws of this country or carry your happy ass home.  Businesses are using this for cheap labor in violation of our laws.........You are either a NATION OF LAWS or you are no longer a True Republic........In the Argriculture areas the Dept of Labor has a guest worker program that ALLOWS them to come here and work...........It is abused MASSIVELY..........screwing the businesses that go through the LEGAL WAY to get their labor under the law...........Not enforcing these laws gives an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE to those WHO VIOLATE OUR LAWS.................
> 
> The loop holes in the immigration system are being taken advantage of.......with people from other countries DEMANDING entry into our country............Who are they to DEMAND WE MUST TAKE THEM.........This is our country and not theirs and we HAVE EVERY RIGHT to limit the numbers coming into this country.......
> 
> On the border the Drug Cartels are smuggling drugs into our country and are making a killing on human trafficking here.............Part of the Responsibility of this gov't is to protect it's borders.........It doesn't have to be a War to fulfill that duty.......Walls........Barriers .......are a means to hender that entry.......they are just a part of a layered system to stop the illegals from marching in to America.............and limit the flow of drugs into this country.......More people south of our border have been killed because of the drug cartels than in the War in Syria................and yet people say we don't need to increase security on the border............That is RIDICULOUS.



You really should read the thread and try to keep up.  Your issues are asked and answered, but in a nutshell, the feds don't have the authority to do what you want done.


----------



## danielpalos

eagle1462010 said:


> Under the Constitution the laws under the republic are subject to be changed...........This is a different time and circumstances than that of the time of the founding fathers...............
> 
> The founding fathers didn't want the Gov't to have too much power........Having MANY social safety nets causes the gov't....and the states to pay out huge sums of money for illegals who use the system.............They also don't have the same protections of the labor laws in this country and they drive wages down..........It's not what Americans will not do............it's what Americans REFUSE TO DO...........in regards to work..........American citizens expect a decent pay for that kind of labor....................not substandard wages they give to illegals to maximize their profit..........If they complain about working conditions they turn them in and they are deported.  No American  in his right mind would work for wages that so many have to live in the same house because of dirt poor wages..........
> 
> This is why we must limit the numbers into this country......And under a Republic of laws you FOLLOW the Laws of this country or carry your happy ass home.  Businesses are using this for cheap labor in violation of our laws.........You are either a NATION OF LAWS or you are no longer a True Republic........In the Argriculture areas the Dept of Labor has a guest worker program that ALLOWS them to come here and work...........It is abused MASSIVELY..........screwing the businesses that go through the LEGAL WAY to get their labor under the law...........Not enforcing these laws gives an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE to those WHO VIOLATE OUR LAWS.................
> 
> The loop holes in the immigration system are being taken advantage of.......with people from other countries DEMANDING entry into our country............Who are they to DEMAND WE MUST TAKE THEM.........This is our country and not theirs and we HAVE EVERY RIGHT to limit the numbers coming into this country.......
> 
> On the border the Drug Cartels are smuggling drugs into our country and are making a killing on human trafficking here.............Part of the Responsibility of this gov't is to protect it's borders.........It doesn't have to be a War to fulfill that duty.......Walls........Barriers .......are a means to hender that entry.......they are just a part of a layered system to stop the illegals from marching in to America.............and limit the flow of drugs into this country.......More people south of our border have been killed because of the drug cartels than in the War in Syria................and yet people say we don't need to increase security on the border............That is RIDICULOUS.


lousy management.   there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  Only the right wing enjoys wasting the Peoples' tax money on implied powers for the general warfare not the general welfare.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

LilOlLady said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no express wall building clause.  we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing doesn't care about the law, Constitutional or otherwise; they prefer their socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've stated many times, the left and the right are going to the same destination - just by different routes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. They are both saying the same thing but is seem to be in different languages. One says wall the other say border security and it is the same thing. Kind of like words illegal, undocumented and improper. _There’s more than one way to skin a cat_ means there are many ways to do something, there are many ways to achieve a goal.
Click to expand...


Look for another shutdown attempt.  Trump is no longer saying a Barrier.  He's back to saying it must be a Wall.  A Wall is a Wall and nothing else.  Nothing else will sate his thirst.  He's gone back to his rabid stance once again.  It appears that the Senate had better damn well better either get ready for a very long shutdown and a possible series of recalls or start getting ready to prepare for a Veto Proof Annual Spending Bill.  And then get ready for the third option.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Daryl Hunt said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no express wall building clause.  we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing doesn't care about the law, Constitutional or otherwise; they prefer their socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've stated many times, the left and the right are going to the same destination - just by different routes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. They are both saying the same thing but is seem to be in different languages. One says wall the other say border security and it is the same thing. Kind of like words illegal, undocumented and improper. _There’s more than one way to skin a cat_ means there are many ways to do something, there are many ways to achieve a goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look for another shutdown attempt.  Trump is no longer saying a Barrier.  He's back to saying it must be a Wall.  A Wall is a Wall and nothing else.  Nothing else will sate his thirst.  He's gone back to his rabid stance once again.  It appears that the Senate had better damn well better either get ready for a very long shutdown and a possible series of recalls or start getting ready to prepare for a Veto Proof Annual Spending Bill.  And then get ready for the third option.
Click to expand...


It's like WWE wrestling.  Pelosi and Trump are working together to make sure that gun control and the wall are completed without either side looking like they got beat up.


----------



## LilOlLady

Daryl Hunt said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no express wall building clause.  we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing doesn't care about the law, Constitutional or otherwise; they prefer their socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've stated many times, the left and the right are going to the same destination - just by different routes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. They are both saying the same thing but is seem to be in different languages. One says wall the other say border security and it is the same thing. Kind of like words illegal, undocumented and improper. _There’s more than one way to skin a cat_ means there are many ways to do something, there are many ways to achieve a goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look for another shutdown attempt.  Trump is no longer saying a Barrier.  He's back to saying it must be a Wall.  A Wall is a Wall and nothing else.  Nothing else will sate his thirst.  He's gone back to his rabid stance once again.  It appears that the Senate had better damn well better either get ready for a very long shutdown and a possible series of recalls or start getting ready to prepare for a Veto Proof Annual Spending Bill.  And then get ready for the third option.
Click to expand...


Border security has to be more than a wall. It has to be all the things the Democrats have offered and walls or fences in places that need to be replaced or placed in places with no barriers. Trump is being stubborn in asking for $5 billion for just a wall. We all know a wall alone will not secure the border. Walls are meant to be scaled. Fences around our homes do not protect us. We have fences, home security, bars on our windows, big dogs and some of us have guns.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Porter Rockwell said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What???
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing doesn't care about the law, Constitutional or otherwise; they prefer their socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've stated many times, the left and the right are going to the same destination - just by different routes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. They are both saying the same thing but is seem to be in different languages. One says wall the other say border security and it is the same thing. Kind of like words illegal, undocumented and improper. _There’s more than one way to skin a cat_ means there are many ways to do something, there are many ways to achieve a goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look for another shutdown attempt.  Trump is no longer saying a Barrier.  He's back to saying it must be a Wall.  A Wall is a Wall and nothing else.  Nothing else will sate his thirst.  He's gone back to his rabid stance once again.  It appears that the Senate had better damn well better either get ready for a very long shutdown and a possible series of recalls or start getting ready to prepare for a Veto Proof Annual Spending Bill.  And then get ready for the third option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's like WWE wrestling.  Pelosi and Trump are working together to make sure that gun control and the wall are completed without either side looking like they got beat up.
Click to expand...


Apples and Oranges.  Gun Control is NOT a Federal issue.  It's a state issue.  The more you fight to keep it in the Federal limelight, the less it stays in the State's limelight.  Pelosi has NO say in Gun control one way or another.  

As for the Wall, the more it continues, the more I believe it's also more of a States Issue and less of a Federal issue as well.  If Texas wants a friggin wall, let Texas pay for it.  If Texas wants to not have all those illegals coming into their state, maybe they should send their own people (with Federal assistance) to stop them.  Only the Border Crossings should be Federally Controlled.  If the Feds want more control, have them open up more Border Crossings.  Same goes for Arizona, New Mexico, and California.  Right now, Trump is denying the States their Rights or trying to do the States job for them.  The facts remain that the States can do it better and far cheaper than the Feds can and always can for everything.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

LilOlLady said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What???
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing doesn't care about the law, Constitutional or otherwise; they prefer their socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've stated many times, the left and the right are going to the same destination - just by different routes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. They are both saying the same thing but is seem to be in different languages. One says wall the other say border security and it is the same thing. Kind of like words illegal, undocumented and improper. _There’s more than one way to skin a cat_ means there are many ways to do something, there are many ways to achieve a goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look for another shutdown attempt.  Trump is no longer saying a Barrier.  He's back to saying it must be a Wall.  A Wall is a Wall and nothing else.  Nothing else will sate his thirst.  He's gone back to his rabid stance once again.  It appears that the Senate had better damn well better either get ready for a very long shutdown and a possible series of recalls or start getting ready to prepare for a Veto Proof Annual Spending Bill.  And then get ready for the third option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border security has to be more than a wall. It has to be all the things the Democrats have offered and walls or fences in places that need to be replaced or placed in places with no barriers. Trump is being stubborn in asking for $5 billion for just a wall. We all know a wall alone will not secure the border. Walls are meant to be scaled. Fences around our homes do not protect us. We have fences, home security, bars on our windows, big dogs and some of us have guns.
Click to expand...


Many of the neighborhoods where I live do not allow fences.  The anti white libs are going to put a lot of you inside walls (four of them) the next time they take control.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Daryl Hunt said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing doesn't care about the law, Constitutional or otherwise; they prefer their socialism on a national basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've stated many times, the left and the right are going to the same destination - just by different routes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. They are both saying the same thing but is seem to be in different languages. One says wall the other say border security and it is the same thing. Kind of like words illegal, undocumented and improper. _There’s more than one way to skin a cat_ means there are many ways to do something, there are many ways to achieve a goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look for another shutdown attempt.  Trump is no longer saying a Barrier.  He's back to saying it must be a Wall.  A Wall is a Wall and nothing else.  Nothing else will sate his thirst.  He's gone back to his rabid stance once again.  It appears that the Senate had better damn well better either get ready for a very long shutdown and a possible series of recalls or start getting ready to prepare for a Veto Proof Annual Spending Bill.  And then get ready for the third option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's like WWE wrestling.  Pelosi and Trump are working together to make sure that gun control and the wall are completed without either side looking like they got beat up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and Oranges.  Gun Control is NOT a Federal issue.  It's a state issue.  The more you fight to keep it in the Federal limelight, the less it stays in the State's limelight.  Pelosi has NO say in Gun control one way or another.
> 
> As for the Wall, the more it continues, the more I believe it's also more of a States Issue and less of a Federal issue as well.  If Texas wants a friggin wall, let Texas pay for it.  If Texas wants to not have all those illegals coming into their state, maybe they should send their own people (with Federal assistance) to stop them.  Only the Border Crossings should be Federally Controlled.  If the Feds want more control, have them open up more Border Crossings.  Same goes for Arizona, New Mexico, and California.  Right now, Trump is denying the States their Rights or trying to do the States job for them.  The facts remain that the States can do it better and far cheaper than the Feds can and always can for everything.
Click to expand...


I agree with you in theory.  It's that ominous wording in the Heller decision that scares the living Hell out of me.


----------



## eagle1462010

LilOlLady said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What???
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing doesn't care about the law, Constitutional or otherwise; they prefer their socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've stated many times, the left and the right are going to the same destination - just by different routes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. They are both saying the same thing but is seem to be in different languages. One says wall the other say border security and it is the same thing. Kind of like words illegal, undocumented and improper. _There’s more than one way to skin a cat_ means there are many ways to do something, there are many ways to achieve a goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look for another shutdown attempt.  Trump is no longer saying a Barrier.  He's back to saying it must be a Wall.  A Wall is a Wall and nothing else.  Nothing else will sate his thirst.  He's gone back to his rabid stance once again.  It appears that the Senate had better damn well better either get ready for a very long shutdown and a possible series of recalls or start getting ready to prepare for a Veto Proof Annual Spending Bill.  And then get ready for the third option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border security has to be more than a wall. It has to be all the things the Democrats have offered and walls or fences in places that need to be replaced or placed in places with no barriers. Trump is being stubborn in asking for $5 billion for just a wall. We all know a wall alone will not secure the border. Walls are meant to be scaled. Fences around our homes do not protect us. We have fences, home security, bars on our windows, big dogs and some of us have guns.
Click to expand...

The walls proposed in that money include all the whistles and bells need along with the wall...........They are adding the climb sensors, camera's, motion detectors and coms systems in that area at the same time..........it is all inclusive.


----------



## LilOlLady

eagle1462010 said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing doesn't care about the law, Constitutional or otherwise; they prefer their socialism on a national basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've stated many times, the left and the right are going to the same destination - just by different routes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. They are both saying the same thing but is seem to be in different languages. One says wall the other say border security and it is the same thing. Kind of like words illegal, undocumented and improper. _There’s more than one way to skin a cat_ means there are many ways to do something, there are many ways to achieve a goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look for another shutdown attempt.  Trump is no longer saying a Barrier.  He's back to saying it must be a Wall.  A Wall is a Wall and nothing else.  Nothing else will sate his thirst.  He's gone back to his rabid stance once again.  It appears that the Senate had better damn well better either get ready for a very long shutdown and a possible series of recalls or start getting ready to prepare for a Veto Proof Annual Spending Bill.  And then get ready for the third option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border security has to be more than a wall. It has to be all the things the Democrats have offered and walls or fences in places that need to be replaced or placed in places with no barriers. Trump is being stubborn in asking for $5 billion for just a wall. We all know a wall alone will not secure the border. Walls are meant to be scaled. Fences around our homes do not protect us. We have fences, home security, bars on our windows, big dogs and some of us have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The walls proposed in that money include all the whistles and bells need along with the wall...........They are adding the climb sensors, camera's, motion detectors and coms systems in that area at the same time..........it is all inclusive.
Click to expand...


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing doesn't care about the law, Constitutional or otherwise; they prefer their socialism on a national basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've stated many times, the left and the right are going to the same destination - just by different routes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. They are both saying the same thing but is seem to be in different languages. One says wall the other say border security and it is the same thing. Kind of like words illegal, undocumented and improper. _There’s more than one way to skin a cat_ means there are many ways to do something, there are many ways to achieve a goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look for another shutdown attempt.  Trump is no longer saying a Barrier.  He's back to saying it must be a Wall.  A Wall is a Wall and nothing else.  Nothing else will sate his thirst.  He's gone back to his rabid stance once again.  It appears that the Senate had better damn well better either get ready for a very long shutdown and a possible series of recalls or start getting ready to prepare for a Veto Proof Annual Spending Bill.  And then get ready for the third option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Border security has to be more than a wall. It has to be all the things the Democrats have offered and walls or fences in places that need to be replaced or placed in places with no barriers. Trump is being stubborn in asking for $5 billion for just a wall. We all know a wall alone will not secure the border. Walls are meant to be scaled. Fences around our homes do not protect us. We have fences, home security, bars on our windows, big dogs and some of us have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The walls proposed in that money include all the whistles and bells need along with the wall...........They are adding the climb sensors, camera's, motion detectors and coms systems in that area at the same time..........it is all inclusive.
Click to expand...


And when the liberals are in control, those modern marvels that aid in the suppression of human Freedom will be tools used against YOU.

Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## dblack

Building the wall is wrong because it's a symbol for police-state cowards and we'll just have to tear in down when they go back to sleep.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your asking him to take the time to back up his responses with resources, links to figures, and actual evidence to prove that his information is accurate, you’re going to be in for a very ... very long wait.  You’re talking about someone who says he’s prepped 250 cases but cant be bothered with simple research.  Don’t be surprised if he only bloviates, provides none of the linked resource evidence you only BEEN asking for the last 3 responses, yet thinks everyone else is the idiot.
> 
> Just watch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been provided with walls of text wherein I've backed up the claims.  Unless you are going to pay me for research time, you are not due any legal brief for free.
> 
> If you insist on me making an ass out of you, I will give you a free sample.  Then you can kiss my ass and then stand down.
> 
> Let us revisit post # 4242.  *You* wrote:
> 
> "There is nothing written in the Constitution that grants states the authority over the Federal Government on immigration. We have been down this road before. It’s the same damn thing as you never being able to PROVE the ratification of the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional.
> 
> *Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.*
> The *Migration* *or Importation of such Persons as any of the States* now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year* one thousand eight hundred and eight *[ 1808 ]*.
> 
> The provision covered both slaves and free immigrants. The Supreme Court case - *Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 *was in *1875*.
> 
> HOW many ways do you want to be proven wrong?
> 
> Again. Provide me a Constitutional Case or researched evidence that you can back up, that proves me wrong."
> 
> ME:  I don't owe you any free research; don't have to prove squat and am not your push button monkey.  It was not my intent to take sides; I was looking for the OP's standards that would allow us to define the terminology "wrong" so we'd be on the same page.  Build the wall freaks have made a religion out of a subject they don't understand.  You are one the most misguided, so here is your
> 
> *RESPONSE*:
> 
> I told you BEFORE and AFTER post # 4242 mentioned above that it was a tax issue and had NOTHING to do with immigration.  So, here we go:
> 
> *"Clause 1: *The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
> 
> *Explanation: *This clause relates to the slave trade. It prevented Congress from restricting the importation of slaves prior to 1808. It did allow Congress to levy a duty of up to 10 dollars for each slave. In 1807, the international slave trade was blocked and no more slaves were allowed to be imported into the US.
> 
> What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> Bone up on your U.S. history Einstein.  Your cite has nothing to do with immigration.
> 
> It is still an irrefutable *FACT* that between 1808 and 1875 the states decided who came and went within their states.  It is an irrefutable *FACT* that:
> 
> "The House and Senate agreed on a bill, approved on March 2, 1807, called _*An Act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, from and after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eight.*_ The bound measure also regulated the coastwise slave trade. President Thomas Jefferson signed the bill into law on March 2, 1807."
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> In 1875, in the Chy Lung decision the SCOTUS gave to Congress a power they do not have in the Constitution.  That was legislating from the bench.  Odd how the SCOTUS waited until all the original founders AND the Supreme Court Justices were dead and gone before presuming to give Congress ANY power to do a damn thing.
> 
> *  The *fact* is the word immigration is not in the Constitution
> *  The *fact* is, despite only whites being able to become citizens after the ratification of the Constitution, *MILLIONS* of non-whites still came to the United States to partake of opportunities willingly offered
> *  The *fact *is, our Constitution specifically states that the Tenth Amendment provides:
> 
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
> 
> The *fact *is since Congress has *no* authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY kind of power, most of the statutes you hide behind are illegal
> 
> The *fact* is, we have at least *TWO* separate and distinct governments operating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption.  One is the lawful / legal / constitutional / de jure Republic guaranteed in Article IV  Section 4 of the United States Constitution.  The OTHER government is an illegal / de facto / Federal -Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations.
> 
> The *fact* is, when you tell that illegal government they have over-stepped their authority, they *are* going to rule against you.  Most people who own a firearm and watch that illegal government take a giant dump on the Second Amendment can tell you horror stories about how the unconstitutional nature of the gun laws in America.
> 
> Despite how much you hate people from south of the border, and for whatever reason, the bottom line is, they either have inherent, natural, God given, unalienable, absolute, and irrevocable Rights or they don't.  If your contention is that they don't have Rights, you would shoot them in the streets because you don't think they have Rights.  Either they do or they do not.  If they don't, then you can shoot them any time you get tired of being a bloviating blowhard.
> 
> But, you won't.  It's because they do have Rights.  And if they have a Right to Life, they damn well have a Right to Liberty.  Those are unalienable Rights that the founders intended to be above the law.
> 
> Your problem is that you are so hung up on wall worship, you don't understand that most Americans *WILLINGLY* invite the foreigners here.  Does it cause us problems?  YES.  But, you cannot improve your lot in life violating the original intent of the Constitution.  You cannot resolve the issue by attacking the Rights of others.  At some point you have to get off your high horse and realize that are people in this world that have just as much experience as you do.  I've only taken ONE of your examples to show that you're wrong.  How much more of an ass whipping do you want to take before realizing that maybe there are better options to be put on the table?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This Article below makes no mention of the word “slave” or “slavery” anywhere in the Amendment.   There is your FACT.
> 
> 
> Article I
> 
> Section 9.
> 
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
> 
> 
> It does speak however in addressing each state admitting foreigners, and the migration of such in the United States.  As listed below, the Founders DID have a lot to say regarding the migration and the entry of foreign immigrants into this country.
> 
> 
> Gouverneur Morris argued in the Convention as he ran over the privileges which emigrants would enjoy among us, “though they should be deprived of that of being eligible to the great offices of Government; *observing that they exceeded the privileges allowed to foreigners in any part of the world; and that as every Society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted.*”
> 
> SOURCE: Madison Debates, August 9, 1787
> 
> 
> The principles of the American Founding conferred a right to emigrate from the land of one’s birth, one should not make the mistake of assume that the principle of consent also conferred an inherent right to immigrate to any place of one’s choosing. *If “all men are created equal” then consent must be reciprocal among the parties involved.* Return to the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution: “The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: *It is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all SHALL BE GOVERNED BY CERTAIN LAWS FOR THE COMMON GOOD.*”
> 
> Mutual or reciprocal consent is dictated by the principle of natural equality.  —- *If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals.* *The immigrant is establishing himself as the rightful superior, as he has the power to dictate, unilaterally, the terms of the contract between himself and the community, without the community’s consent.*
> 
> *A person who is denied entrance into a country is not denied any inherent natural right.* He is perfectly free to go elsewhere, or even to form his own political community, and to take any necessary and proper measures to secure his own rights.
> 
> 
> *During the 1750s, Benjamin Franklin expressed great concern regarding the massive influx of German immigrants into Pennsylvania.* Franklin laments that Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s, or live as in a foreign country.”
> 
> SOURCE: Franklin, Letter to James Parker, March 20, 1750, in Writings, 445
> 
> 
> *Washington was also concerned about the isolation that differences of language bred.* He told his Vice President that “the advantage of [immigration and settlement] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”
> 
> SOURCE: Washington, Letter to the Vice President, November 15, 1794, in Fitzpatrick, Writings, 34:23.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that *foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? *There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. *The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.* In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
> 
> *The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations*, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. *The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust*; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but *their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.*”
> 
> “If the rights of naturalization may be communicated by parts, and it is not perceived why they may not, those peculiar to the conducting of business and the acquisition of property, might with propriety be at once conferred, upon receiving proof, by certain prescribed solemnities, of the intention of the candidates to become citizens; postponing all political privileges to the ultimate term. *To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in the message, would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty*.”
> 
> SOURCE: Alexander Hamilton (Lucius Crassus), “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile all this vast knowledge you have, all this experience of prepping 250 court cases, those resources you can’t offer for free... can be summed up through what you read in Wikipedia.  That’s it?
> 
> Exactly how much “legal experience” and how much Constitutional background do you think that website carries behind their “basic and general” posts?  Do you actually know what real research is?  Obviously, from what I see here, it’s more of a quick 5 minute offering of “Cliff Notes” research  behind all your talk of apparent vast “experience”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know enough about "research" that I can shepardize cases.  Can you?  I can tell the difference between dicta and a court's holding.  Can you?  I know that BEFORE the Chy Lung decision it was up to the states to decide who could come and go within a state and that the SCOTUS granted Congress plenary powers over immigration.
> 
> You cannot show us one single sentence in the entire United States Constitution that gives the SCOTUS the authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY power.
> 
> Additionally, the things you cite refer to citizenship NOT to the natural flow of people coming and going for the purposes of doing business - something you build a wall types seem completely oblivious to.  This dumbassery that you guys who dream of a POLICE STATE is so idiotic that we have to have arguments instead of civil discussion with idiots like you wanting to argue something you don't understand.
> 
> You think that everybody who sets foot on U.S. soil should be "admitted" - the article you cite is about naturalization not people operating in the normal course of business.  WTF is wrong with you?  Look at how long it took you to even respond to my earlier post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals“*
> 
> That quote deals specifically to foreign immigrants coming into the United States and imposing their will to recognize their right to be here in violation of its laws.
> 
> Franklin - “Pennsylvania *“will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s or live as in a foreign country” .. *addressed concerns over an OVERABUNDANCE of foreign immigrants entering this country with the need of limits in its numbers.
> 
> You see I can back up my point through multiple sources going back to our Founding, to include
> (1) Ben Franklin
> (2) George Washington
> (3) Alexander Hamilton,
> (4) the1780 Massachusetts Constitution:
> 
> ALL of which discredits your claims of a nation using borders which interferes into an immigrant’s personal liberty contrary to the United States Constitution.  More importantly, I can back up my views with direct quotes ... you can’t.  I can provide actual documentation without citing Wikipedia ... you can’t. I can do actual research while I laugh at the attempt of yours.  Let me know when you can provide actual documented sources from our Founders, the state Constitution of one of the colonies, or the Continental Congress which states their full support of unlimited foreign immigrants coming into this country.
> 
> Unlike you I just provided much more than your ramblings on a Immigration thread, like your response above.  Yes I obviously out research you by actually backing up my view through *and providing* individual views (*sources*) going back to our nation’s founding.
> 
> Show us your ability to perform actual research, or give us another lazy excuse not to — like I don’t do it for free.  If Wikipedia is your best, as a client I’d want my money back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the 4489 posts here I have quoted founding fathers, court cases, the Constitution, history books, etc.  Wasn't your last ass whipping enough the last time?
> 
> You continue to mix citizenship up with people working jobs and doing business here as non-citizens.  So, all the research you put on the table is irrelevant.
> 
> 1)  If an immigrant imposed himself on me or in my neighborhood, I'd drive the son of a bitch out myself.  I wouldn't be talking about it on a discussion board or thumping my chest.  So, why aren't you?  OR is your inaction and walls of irrelevant text an easy way out of doing a dirty job?  I think that maybe you understand that half of the population -  at a minimum *invited *the foreigner here.  So, your first paragraph is *irrelevant*.
> 
> 2)  Did Benjamin Franklin lobby for a quota system in the U.S.?  OR did he leave well enough alone?  Did he lobby to make America an English speaking country?  How many people agreed with him?
> 
> 3)  You continue to do your share of chest thumping, but no matter what founding father said what, *NONE* of them done a damn thing about the *FACT* that the comings and goings of foreigners were left up to the *STATES*.  The founders did not address it in the Constitution.  As a matter of *FACT*, the only authority the federal government has relative to immigration is:
> 
> "_To establish a uniform rule of naturalization_"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Other than that, the federal government has no lawful / legal / de jure authority in immigration.  The United States Constitution takes precedence over all the quotes you've given. Now which of us do you think, on that point, provided the best evidence?
> 
> Let me repeat what YOU said:
> 
> *If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals*
> 
> I think you want some debate on that point, but the bottom line is, when Americans buy from, sell to, rent to, and otherwise do business with foreigners, it's none of your fucking business.  It's dumb asses that fed you that socialist shit that is at the root of your problem.  How do you think you got into this situation?
> 
> Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, Congress enacted the first Naturalization Law.  Here is a quote from it:
> 
> "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof"
> 
> naturalization laws 1790-1795
> 
> Let's take a look at the Preamble to the Constitution:
> 
> _"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity*, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
> 
> The Constitution of the United States_
> 
> *WHEN* the United States Supreme Court interpreted that, they ruled (with respect to blacks):
> 
> "The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all of the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied [_sic_] by that instrument to the citizen?
> 
> ...
> We think [...] that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."
> 
> _Dred Scott v. Sandford_, 60 U.S. at 404–05.
> 
> Additionally, Taney, who wrote the majority opinion stated "The  American people, constituted a “political family” restricted to whites."
> 
> Eleven years later the Republicans *ILLEGALLY* ratified the 14th Amendment:
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez
> 
> https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm
> 
> It’s time to tell the truth; the 14th amendment was never ratified.
> 
> The 14th Amendment did a few negative things:
> 
> * It created TWO classes of citizens: Preamble and 14th Amendment citizens
> 
> *  The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights, or more specifically, your* unalienable Rights*.  Do you know what an unalienable Right is?
> 
> Let's move on:
> 
> "The Constitution for the United States of America talks about 2 classes of citizens.
> 
> Article IV, Section 2 Clause 1 says; "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
> 
> The courts have talked about the two classes of citizens as shown below.
> 
> "there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States  Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542,
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment, "....creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the States."
> Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at pg 591;
> 
> "One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443."
> Mc Donel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323;
> 
> "Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to be a citizen of his State" Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, Baltimore, Md., 1966, 221 A. 2d 431 citing US Supreme Court Slaughter House Cases and U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542, 549, 23 L. Ed 588 1875
> 
> "There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 (1909)
> 
> "Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities
> of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other" Tashiro v. Jordan, 255 P. 545 California Supreme Court
> 
> The United States Supreme Court quite thoroughly expanded on the two classes
> of citizenship in the case Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, where it said:
> 
> "...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states,
> which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the
> paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested."
> Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;
> 
> These two classes of citizenship continue to this day,
> "Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. 14,Â§ 1."
> Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993);
> 
> Because there are 2 classes of citizens, and also because of circumstances that will become known below, it is necessary to assert your sovereignty. In order to understand how and why you assert your sovereignty, we need to have some background knowledge.
> 
> A state citizen is one of "We the People" found in the preamble to the constitution. You can be in a state without being in the United States. In fact, if you read their codes, the United States in the United States Code is the District of Columbia and the Territories. The Puerto Rico website even talks about it.
> 
> The US citizen
> A US citizen does not have any rights.
> "...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;
> 
> The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957
> 
> "Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity."
> Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.
> 
> â€œA â€œUS Citizenâ€ upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in â€œinterstate commerceâ€, as a â€œresidentâ€ does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.â€ Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporterâ€™s Rd. 610-625. (1914)
> 
> A US citizen is a corporation.
> "...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300
> 
> This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.
> 
> Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is;
> 
> "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,....."
> 
> 
> The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended"   (Reposted with permission)
> 
> 2 Classes of Citizens
> 
> I want you to think on that while I work on part 2 of this for you.
Click to expand...



The “topic” we are talking about surrounds immigrants crossing a border illegally (that means outside of established laws regarding immigration and it’s customs procedures) in the United States , establish a place to live in this country with the original intent of imposing *their will* and desire to become citizens of the United States.  We also have refugees in caravans that are seeking to force *their will* to live in the United States while using the “excuse”, aided by United States ideological supporters and attornies as if “asylum” was some secret password to grant them automatic entry.  Do you know what the actual conditions are asylum regarding in the United States?

Every year people come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:

Race
Religion
Nationality
Membership in a particular social group
Political opinion
Those specific conditions do NOT include poverty. All this while we have immigrants overseas are seeking legal entry, going through the current established process designated by law to become American citizens.  We also have designated check points of entry for foreigners who wish to enter into Canada or come down into the United States.  None of that is in debate.  Yet a wall or parameter to allow foreigners to use the same kind of designated access into our country from our southern border IS an issue.

So the question has evolved into: What are the Founders views on a large influx of foreign immigrants intentionally crossing our southern border only to  later imposing THEIR will on the United States to “recognize” and “accept” them.

“*The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass*; by *promoting in DIFFERENT CLASSES different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others,* it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.”
Alexander Hamilton

SOURCE: (Lucius Crassus), “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904)

We have immigrants sneaking across our southern demanding their right to be heard and recognized as citizens of the United States.  While we have a diffeeent class of foreigners from overseas who go through the long legal process to become a citizen of the United States BY LAW.

The Founders also has concerns of unlimited foreigners simply coming into the United States.

Benjamin Franklin’s concern surrounded a *massive influx of German immigrants pouring into Pennsylvania*. Franklin said Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s, or live as in a foreign country.”
SOURCE:
Franklin, Letter to James Parker, March 20, 1750, in Writings, 445

Washington was also concerned about the isolation that differences of language bred, telling  his Vice President:  “the advantage of [immigration and settlement] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) *may be much questioned*; for, by so doing, *they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them*.”
SOURCE:
Washington, Letter to the Vice President, November 15, 1794, in Fitzpatrick, Writings, 34:23

When we look to the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution: “The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: It is a social compact, by which *the WHOLE people* covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that  *ALL* (*without* *exclusion)* *shall be GOVERNED BY CERTAIN LAWS for the common good*.”
SOURCE:
Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, Preamble, in The Founders’ Constitution 1:11

These same laws which govern each state of *the “common good*” of *ALL*, to include foreigners and foreign immigrants, can be found under Article I of the United States Constitution.


Article I

Section 9.

The *migration* or *importation* of such persons *as any of the STATES NOW EXISTING* *shall think proper to admit*, *shall not be prohibited by the CONGRESS prior* *to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight*, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.



With regards to the principles of the American Founding, _*the right to emigrate from the land of one’s birth*_,  one should not make the mistake ... *assume* ... that this principle of consent also conferred an inherent right to immigrate to any place of one’s choosing.  If* “all men are created equal” *then *consent must be reciprocal among the parties involved*.

*ALL  to include foreign immigrants are governed by certain LAWS for the common good.  These laws act as a social contract that both parties must abide by.  You can not simply wander into a foreign nation and demand YOUR will, or what you believe as YOUR inherent right, upon others to be recognized if .. “all men are created equal” 
*
Gouverneur Morris argued in the Convention, “*every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the CONDITIONS on which new members should be admitted*.”
SOURCE: Gouverneur Morris, quoted in West, Vindicating the Founders, 157.


*Mutual or reciprocal consent is dictated by the principle of natural equality*.  —- *If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals.* *The immigrant is establishing himself as the rightful superior, as he has the power to dictate, unilaterally, the terms of the contract between himself and the community, without the community’s consent.*


This ends PART ONE, as I continue to take the time and go through several more sources, as well as references that lead me to other early Supreme Court cases.


 Now I have included specific views of our Founders related to this very issue, quotes you rejected as irrelevant.  All while YOU stated   “ I have quoted founding fathers, court cases, the Constitution, history books, etc.” while including your most predominate linked source “Wikipedia” .. and call that research.  Perhaps you can tell me just how many expert historians out there (list them please), or those who desire to be called an “expert” in a particular area of United States or Constitutional history ... use and reference Wikipedia as THEIR predominate go to source, if they even list it at all?  The term “Cliff Notes” really comes to mind when I see that source used, which is the choice of many individuals who would rather just throw up a quick link without actually taking the dime to do the research.  I find particularly hilarious.. at the very least entertaining, when an individual insists on prodomiantly using this source and makes this claim they are able “to kick my ass” on research”.   At least I can see you still have your sense of humor.

If there was ever a need to utilize “Cliff Notes” or a quick response to a post, I’m sure Wikipedia is the source to use ... as opposed to setting aside the amount of time which is required to perform some actual research.  At least I know where your list of “preferences” can be found.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been provided with walls of text wherein I've backed up the claims.  Unless you are going to pay me for research time, you are not due any legal brief for free.
> 
> If you insist on me making an ass out of you, I will give you a free sample.  Then you can kiss my ass and then stand down.
> 
> Let us revisit post # 4242.  *You* wrote:
> 
> "There is nothing written in the Constitution that grants states the authority over the Federal Government on immigration. We have been down this road before. It’s the same damn thing as you never being able to PROVE the ratification of the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional.
> 
> *Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.*
> The *Migration* *or Importation of such Persons as any of the States* now existing shall think proper to admit, *shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year* one thousand eight hundred and eight *[ 1808 ]*.
> 
> The provision covered both slaves and free immigrants. The Supreme Court case - *Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 *was in *1875*.
> 
> HOW many ways do you want to be proven wrong?
> 
> Again. Provide me a Constitutional Case or researched evidence that you can back up, that proves me wrong."
> 
> ME:  I don't owe you any free research; don't have to prove squat and am not your push button monkey.  It was not my intent to take sides; I was looking for the OP's standards that would allow us to define the terminology "wrong" so we'd be on the same page.  Build the wall freaks have made a religion out of a subject they don't understand.  You are one the most misguided, so here is your
> 
> *RESPONSE*:
> 
> I told you BEFORE and AFTER post # 4242 mentioned above that it was a tax issue and had NOTHING to do with immigration.  So, here we go:
> 
> *"Clause 1: *The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
> 
> *Explanation: *This clause relates to the slave trade. It prevented Congress from restricting the importation of slaves prior to 1808. It did allow Congress to levy a duty of up to 10 dollars for each slave. In 1807, the international slave trade was blocked and no more slaves were allowed to be imported into the US.
> 
> What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
> 
> Also see this:
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> Bone up on your U.S. history Einstein.  Your cite has nothing to do with immigration.
> 
> It is still an irrefutable *FACT* that between 1808 and 1875 the states decided who came and went within their states.  It is an irrefutable *FACT* that:
> 
> "The House and Senate agreed on a bill, approved on March 2, 1807, called _*An Act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, from and after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eight.*_ The bound measure also regulated the coastwise slave trade. President Thomas Jefferson signed the bill into law on March 2, 1807."
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> In 1875, in the Chy Lung decision the SCOTUS gave to Congress a power they do not have in the Constitution.  That was legislating from the bench.  Odd how the SCOTUS waited until all the original founders AND the Supreme Court Justices were dead and gone before presuming to give Congress ANY power to do a damn thing.
> 
> *  The *fact* is the word immigration is not in the Constitution
> *  The *fact* is, despite only whites being able to become citizens after the ratification of the Constitution, *MILLIONS* of non-whites still came to the United States to partake of opportunities willingly offered
> *  The *fact *is, our Constitution specifically states that the Tenth Amendment provides:
> 
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
> 
> The *fact *is since Congress has *no* authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY kind of power, most of the statutes you hide behind are illegal
> 
> The *fact* is, we have at least *TWO* separate and distinct governments operating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption.  One is the lawful / legal / constitutional / de jure Republic guaranteed in Article IV  Section 4 of the United States Constitution.  The OTHER government is an illegal / de facto / Federal -Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations.
> 
> The *fact* is, when you tell that illegal government they have over-stepped their authority, they *are* going to rule against you.  Most people who own a firearm and watch that illegal government take a giant dump on the Second Amendment can tell you horror stories about how the unconstitutional nature of the gun laws in America.
> 
> Despite how much you hate people from south of the border, and for whatever reason, the bottom line is, they either have inherent, natural, God given, unalienable, absolute, and irrevocable Rights or they don't.  If your contention is that they don't have Rights, you would shoot them in the streets because you don't think they have Rights.  Either they do or they do not.  If they don't, then you can shoot them any time you get tired of being a bloviating blowhard.
> 
> But, you won't.  It's because they do have Rights.  And if they have a Right to Life, they damn well have a Right to Liberty.  Those are unalienable Rights that the founders intended to be above the law.
> 
> Your problem is that you are so hung up on wall worship, you don't understand that most Americans *WILLINGLY* invite the foreigners here.  Does it cause us problems?  YES.  But, you cannot improve your lot in life violating the original intent of the Constitution.  You cannot resolve the issue by attacking the Rights of others.  At some point you have to get off your high horse and realize that are people in this world that have just as much experience as you do.  I've only taken ONE of your examples to show that you're wrong.  How much more of an ass whipping do you want to take before realizing that maybe there are better options to be put on the table?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Article below makes no mention of the word “slave” or “slavery” anywhere in the Amendment.   There is your FACT.
> 
> 
> Article I
> 
> Section 9.
> 
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
> 
> 
> It does speak however in addressing each state admitting foreigners, and the migration of such in the United States.  As listed below, the Founders DID have a lot to say regarding the migration and the entry of foreign immigrants into this country.
> 
> 
> Gouverneur Morris argued in the Convention as he ran over the privileges which emigrants would enjoy among us, “though they should be deprived of that of being eligible to the great offices of Government; *observing that they exceeded the privileges allowed to foreigners in any part of the world; and that as every Society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted.*”
> 
> SOURCE: Madison Debates, August 9, 1787
> 
> 
> The principles of the American Founding conferred a right to emigrate from the land of one’s birth, one should not make the mistake of assume that the principle of consent also conferred an inherent right to immigrate to any place of one’s choosing. *If “all men are created equal” then consent must be reciprocal among the parties involved.* Return to the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution: “The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: *It is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all SHALL BE GOVERNED BY CERTAIN LAWS FOR THE COMMON GOOD.*”
> 
> Mutual or reciprocal consent is dictated by the principle of natural equality.  —- *If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals.* *The immigrant is establishing himself as the rightful superior, as he has the power to dictate, unilaterally, the terms of the contract between himself and the community, without the community’s consent.*
> 
> *A person who is denied entrance into a country is not denied any inherent natural right.* He is perfectly free to go elsewhere, or even to form his own political community, and to take any necessary and proper measures to secure his own rights.
> 
> 
> *During the 1750s, Benjamin Franklin expressed great concern regarding the massive influx of German immigrants into Pennsylvania.* Franklin laments that Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s, or live as in a foreign country.”
> 
> SOURCE: Franklin, Letter to James Parker, March 20, 1750, in Writings, 445
> 
> 
> *Washington was also concerned about the isolation that differences of language bred.* He told his Vice President that “the advantage of [immigration and settlement] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”
> 
> SOURCE: Washington, Letter to the Vice President, November 15, 1794, in Fitzpatrick, Writings, 34:23.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that *foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? *There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. *The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.* In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
> 
> *The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations*, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. *The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust*; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but *their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.*”
> 
> “If the rights of naturalization may be communicated by parts, and it is not perceived why they may not, those peculiar to the conducting of business and the acquisition of property, might with propriety be at once conferred, upon receiving proof, by certain prescribed solemnities, of the intention of the candidates to become citizens; postponing all political privileges to the ultimate term. *To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in the message, would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty*.”
> 
> SOURCE: Alexander Hamilton (Lucius Crassus), “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile all this vast knowledge you have, all this experience of prepping 250 court cases, those resources you can’t offer for free... can be summed up through what you read in Wikipedia.  That’s it?
> 
> Exactly how much “legal experience” and how much Constitutional background do you think that website carries behind their “basic and general” posts?  Do you actually know what real research is?  Obviously, from what I see here, it’s more of a quick 5 minute offering of “Cliff Notes” research  behind all your talk of apparent vast “experience”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know enough about "research" that I can shepardize cases.  Can you?  I can tell the difference between dicta and a court's holding.  Can you?  I know that BEFORE the Chy Lung decision it was up to the states to decide who could come and go within a state and that the SCOTUS granted Congress plenary powers over immigration.
> 
> You cannot show us one single sentence in the entire United States Constitution that gives the SCOTUS the authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY power.
> 
> Additionally, the things you cite refer to citizenship NOT to the natural flow of people coming and going for the purposes of doing business - something you build a wall types seem completely oblivious to.  This dumbassery that you guys who dream of a POLICE STATE is so idiotic that we have to have arguments instead of civil discussion with idiots like you wanting to argue something you don't understand.
> 
> You think that everybody who sets foot on U.S. soil should be "admitted" - the article you cite is about naturalization not people operating in the normal course of business.  WTF is wrong with you?  Look at how long it took you to even respond to my earlier post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals“*
> 
> That quote deals specifically to foreign immigrants coming into the United States and imposing their will to recognize their right to be here in violation of its laws.
> 
> Franklin - “Pennsylvania *“will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s or live as in a foreign country” .. *addressed concerns over an OVERABUNDANCE of foreign immigrants entering this country with the need of limits in its numbers.
> 
> You see I can back up my point through multiple sources going back to our Founding, to include
> (1) Ben Franklin
> (2) George Washington
> (3) Alexander Hamilton,
> (4) the1780 Massachusetts Constitution:
> 
> ALL of which discredits your claims of a nation using borders which interferes into an immigrant’s personal liberty contrary to the United States Constitution.  More importantly, I can back up my views with direct quotes ... you can’t.  I can provide actual documentation without citing Wikipedia ... you can’t. I can do actual research while I laugh at the attempt of yours.  Let me know when you can provide actual documented sources from our Founders, the state Constitution of one of the colonies, or the Continental Congress which states their full support of unlimited foreign immigrants coming into this country.
> 
> Unlike you I just provided much more than your ramblings on a Immigration thread, like your response above.  Yes I obviously out research you by actually backing up my view through *and providing* individual views (*sources*) going back to our nation’s founding.
> 
> Show us your ability to perform actual research, or give us another lazy excuse not to — like I don’t do it for free.  If Wikipedia is your best, as a client I’d want my money back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the 4489 posts here I have quoted founding fathers, court cases, the Constitution, history books, etc.  Wasn't your last ass whipping enough the last time?
> 
> You continue to mix citizenship up with people working jobs and doing business here as non-citizens.  So, all the research you put on the table is irrelevant.
> 
> 1)  If an immigrant imposed himself on me or in my neighborhood, I'd drive the son of a bitch out myself.  I wouldn't be talking about it on a discussion board or thumping my chest.  So, why aren't you?  OR is your inaction and walls of irrelevant text an easy way out of doing a dirty job?  I think that maybe you understand that half of the population -  at a minimum *invited *the foreigner here.  So, your first paragraph is *irrelevant*.
> 
> 2)  Did Benjamin Franklin lobby for a quota system in the U.S.?  OR did he leave well enough alone?  Did he lobby to make America an English speaking country?  How many people agreed with him?
> 
> 3)  You continue to do your share of chest thumping, but no matter what founding father said what, *NONE* of them done a damn thing about the *FACT* that the comings and goings of foreigners were left up to the *STATES*.  The founders did not address it in the Constitution.  As a matter of *FACT*, the only authority the federal government has relative to immigration is:
> 
> "_To establish a uniform rule of naturalization_"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Other than that, the federal government has no lawful / legal / de jure authority in immigration.  The United States Constitution takes precedence over all the quotes you've given. Now which of us do you think, on that point, provided the best evidence?
> 
> Let me repeat what YOU said:
> 
> *If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals*
> 
> I think you want some debate on that point, but the bottom line is, when Americans buy from, sell to, rent to, and otherwise do business with foreigners, it's none of your fucking business.  It's dumb asses that fed you that socialist shit that is at the root of your problem.  How do you think you got into this situation?
> 
> Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, Congress enacted the first Naturalization Law.  Here is a quote from it:
> 
> "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof"
> 
> naturalization laws 1790-1795
> 
> Let's take a look at the Preamble to the Constitution:
> 
> _"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity*, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
> 
> The Constitution of the United States_
> 
> *WHEN* the United States Supreme Court interpreted that, they ruled (with respect to blacks):
> 
> "The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all of the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied [_sic_] by that instrument to the citizen?
> 
> ...
> We think [...] that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."
> 
> _Dred Scott v. Sandford_, 60 U.S. at 404–05.
> 
> Additionally, Taney, who wrote the majority opinion stated "The  American people, constituted a “political family” restricted to whites."
> 
> Eleven years later the Republicans *ILLEGALLY* ratified the 14th Amendment:
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez
> 
> https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm
> 
> It’s time to tell the truth; the 14th amendment was never ratified.
> 
> The 14th Amendment did a few negative things:
> 
> * It created TWO classes of citizens: Preamble and 14th Amendment citizens
> 
> *  The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights, or more specifically, your* unalienable Rights*.  Do you know what an unalienable Right is?
> 
> Let's move on:
> 
> "The Constitution for the United States of America talks about 2 classes of citizens.
> 
> Article IV, Section 2 Clause 1 says; "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
> 
> The courts have talked about the two classes of citizens as shown below.
> 
> "there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States  Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542,
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment, "....creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the States."
> Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at pg 591;
> 
> "One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443."
> Mc Donel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323;
> 
> "Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to be a citizen of his State" Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, Baltimore, Md., 1966, 221 A. 2d 431 citing US Supreme Court Slaughter House Cases and U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542, 549, 23 L. Ed 588 1875
> 
> "There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 (1909)
> 
> "Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities
> of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other" Tashiro v. Jordan, 255 P. 545 California Supreme Court
> 
> The United States Supreme Court quite thoroughly expanded on the two classes
> of citizenship in the case Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, where it said:
> 
> "...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states,
> which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the
> paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested."
> Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;
> 
> These two classes of citizenship continue to this day,
> "Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. 14,Â§ 1."
> Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993);
> 
> Because there are 2 classes of citizens, and also because of circumstances that will become known below, it is necessary to assert your sovereignty. In order to understand how and why you assert your sovereignty, we need to have some background knowledge.
> 
> A state citizen is one of "We the People" found in the preamble to the constitution. You can be in a state without being in the United States. In fact, if you read their codes, the United States in the United States Code is the District of Columbia and the Territories. The Puerto Rico website even talks about it.
> 
> The US citizen
> A US citizen does not have any rights.
> "...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;
> 
> The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957
> 
> "Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity."
> Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.
> 
> â€œA â€œUS Citizenâ€ upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in â€œinterstate commerceâ€, as a â€œresidentâ€ does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.â€ Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporterâ€™s Rd. 610-625. (1914)
> 
> A US citizen is a corporation.
> "...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300
> 
> This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.
> 
> Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is;
> 
> "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,....."
> 
> 
> The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended"   (Reposted with permission)
> 
> 2 Classes of Citizens
> 
> I want you to think on that while I work on part 2 of this for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The “topic” we are talking about surrounds immigrants crossing a border illegally (that means outside of established laws regarding immigration and it’s customs procedures) in the United States , establish a place to live in this country with the original intent of imposing *their will* and desire to become citizens of the United States.  We also have refugees in caravans that are seeking to force *their will* to live in the United States while using the “excuse”, aided by United States ideological supporters and attornies as if “asylum” was some secret password to grant them automatic entry.  Do you know what the actual conditions are asylum regarding in the United States?
> 
> Every year people come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:
> 
> Race
> Religion
> Nationality
> Membership in a particular social group
> Political opinion
> Those specific conditions do NOT include poverty. All this while we have immigrants overseas are seeking legal entry, going through the current established process designated by law to become American citizens.  We also have designated check points of entry for foreigners who wish to enter into Canada or come down into the United States.  None of that is in debate.  Yet a wall or parameter to allow foreigners to use the same kind of designated access into our country from our southern border IS an issue.
> 
> So the question has evolved into: What are the Founders views on a large influx of foreign immigrants intentionally crossing our southern border only to  later imposing THEIR will on the United States to “recognize” and “accept” them.
> 
> “*The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass*; by *promoting in DIFFERENT CLASSES different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others,* it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.”
> Alexander Hamilton
> 
> SOURCE: (Lucius Crassus), “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904)
> 
> We have immigrants sneaking across our southern demanding their right to be heard and recognized as citizens of the United States.  While we have a diffeeent class of foreigners from overseas who go through the long legal process to become a citizen of the United States BY LAW.
> 
> The Founders also has concerns of unlimited foreigners simply coming into the United States.
> 
> Benjamin Franklin’s concern surrounded a *massive influx of German immigrants pouring into Pennsylvania*. Franklin said Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s, or live as in a foreign country.”
> SOURCE:
> Franklin, Letter to James Parker, March 20, 1750, in Writings, 445
> 
> Washington was also concerned about the isolation that differences of language bred, telling  his Vice President:  “the advantage of [immigration and settlement] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) *may be much questioned*; for, by so doing, *they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them*.”
> SOURCE:
> Washington, Letter to the Vice President, November 15, 1794, in Fitzpatrick, Writings, 34:23
> 
> When we look to the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution: “The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: It is a social compact, by which *the WHOLE people* covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that  *ALL* (*without* *exclusion)* *shall be GOVERNED BY CERTAIN LAWS for the common good*.”
> SOURCE:
> Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, Preamble, in The Founders’ Constitution 1:11
> 
> These same laws which govern each state of *the “common good*” of *ALL*, to include foreigners and foreign immigrants, can be found under Article I of the United States Constitution.
> 
> 
> Article I
> 
> Section 9.
> 
> The *migration* or *importation* of such persons *as any of the STATES NOW EXISTING* *shall think proper to admit*, *shall not be prohibited by the CONGRESS prior* *to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight*, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
> 
> 
> 
> With regards to the principles of the American Founding, _*the right to emigrate from the land of one’s birth*_,  one should not make the mistake ... *assume* ... that this principle of consent also conferred an inherent right to immigrate to any place of one’s choosing.  If* “all men are created equal” *then *consent must be reciprocal among the parties involved*.
> 
> *ALL  to include foreign immigrants are governed by certain LAWS for the common good.  These laws act as a social contract that both parties must abide by.  You can not simply wander into a foreign nation and demand YOUR will, or what you believe as YOUR inherent right, upon others to be recognized if .. “all men are created equal”
> *
> Gouverneur Morris argued in the Convention, “*every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the CONDITIONS on which new members should be admitted*.”
> SOURCE: Gouverneur Morris, quoted in West, Vindicating the Founders, 157.
> 
> 
> *Mutual or reciprocal consent is dictated by the principle of natural equality*.  —- *If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals.* *The immigrant is establishing himself as the rightful superior, as he has the power to dictate, unilaterally, the terms of the contract between himself and the community, without the community’s consent.*
> 
> 
> This ends PART ONE, as I continue to take the time and go through several more sources, as well as references that lead me to other early Supreme Court cases.
> 
> 
> Now I have included specific views of our Founders related to this very issue, quotes you rejected as irrelevant.  All while YOU stated   “ I have quoted founding fathers, court cases, the Constitution, history books, etc.” while including your most predominate linked source “Wikipedia” .. and call that research.  Perhaps you can tell me just how many expert historians out there (list them please), or those who desire to be called an “expert” in a particular area of United States or Constitutional history ... use and reference Wikipedia as THEIR predominate go to source, if they even list it at all?  The term “Cliff Notes” really comes to mind when I see that source used, which is the choice of many individuals who would rather just throw up a quick link without actually taking the dime to do the research.  I find particularly hilarious.. at the very least entertaining, when an individual insists on prodomiantly using this source and makes this claim they are able “to kick my ass” on research”.   At least I can see you still have your sense of humor.
> 
> If there was ever a need to utilize “Cliff Notes” or a quick response to a post, I’m sure Wikipedia is the source to use ... as opposed to setting aside the amount of time which is required to perform some actual research.  At least I know where your list of “preferences” can be found.
Click to expand...


You are repeating yourself and you've made those arguments and they got shot down.  You allowed some pages to pass and bring the same B.S. to the table.  The facts are NOT going to change:

1)  The federal government has NO constitutional authority to tell a state who may come and go.  Congress is limited to naturalization.  Naturalization is citizenship

2)  What Franklin said regarding the Germans becoming a large colony is predicated on the assumption that they would* become citizens*. You cannot colonize in a country where you are not a citizen... unless you're invading it with a force of arms and taking it. What in the Hell is your major malfunction here?  Becoming a citizen and coming to a country to conduct business are two separate things.  Are you really so stupid that you cannot differentiate nor delineate the difference between those two concepts?

3)  Your quote regarding Gouverneur Morris is about *citizenship. * Again, it had *NOTHING to do with non-citizens* doing business in the United States

4)  The foreigners coming here have no claim to citizenship and IF a jurisdiction is giving the foreigner ANYTHING at taxpayer expense, it is between the citizenry and their elected leaders.

NOBODY is doing what you claim.  People are taking advantage of free enterprise while your dumb ass is waging a war against private property Rights, the Freedom of Association, and the concept of God given, natural, inherent, absolute, *unalienable*, irrevocable Rights...  *ESPECIALLY LIBERTY
*
5)  Article I  Section 9 has been explained to you.  Here is a repeat:

"_This is another euphemistic nod to America's dark history (_sic_) of slavery. "Such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" is a really long-winded way of saying "slaves" without actually saying "slaves." The Constitution barred any attempt to outlaw the slave trade before 1808. As soon as that date rolled around, Congress did vote to block the international slave trade, although slaves continued to be sold within the country and slavery itself lasted for almost another 60 years_..."

Article 1, Section 9

*Section 9 - The Meaning*
_"Article I, Section 9 specifically prohibits Congress from legislating in certain areas. In the first clause, the Constitution bars Congress from banning the importation of slaves before 1808_."

Article I Section 9


"_The importation of slaves cannot be outlawed before 1808."_
_https://www.brighthubeducation.com/...471-article-1-of-the-us-constitution-summary/
_
*YOUR QUOTED SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION HAS NO, ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON IMMIGRATION.*


----------



## LilOlLady

*US prepares to build portion of Texas border wall*
That construction was often described as fencing, and the government funding bill that included construction was supported by some Democrats in the House and Senate. CBP refers to what it plans to build as a "border wall system.

"US prepares to start building portion of Texas border wall


----------



## Daryl Hunt

LilOlLady said:


> *US prepares to build portion of Texas border wall*
> That construction was often described as fencing, and the government funding bill that included construction was supported by some Democrats in the House and Senate. CBP refers to what it plans to build as a "border wall system.
> 
> "US prepares to start building portion of Texas border wall



The reason many of the locals oppose it is that the federal lands are used as an access to the state wildlife refuge.  If they block off that access, there is no easy way to get to the state wildlife refuge and that land will then revert back to the family that donated it to the state for it to be used as a wildlife refuge.  The Refuge has over flowed onto the Federal land due to migratory reasons.  The Locals want alternative methods other than either a wall or a security fence to be used along the current levy that is already there.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

LilOlLady said:


> *US prepares to build portion of Texas border wall*
> That construction was often described as fencing, and the government funding bill that included construction was supported by some Democrats in the House and Senate. CBP refers to what it plans to build as a "border wall system.
> 
> "US prepares to start building portion of Texas border wall



Good for them.  It will be used as a canvas for liberal graffiti the next time the liberals come into office... a testament to the stupidity of man.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Porter Rockwell said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US prepares to build portion of Texas border wall*
> That construction was often described as fencing, and the government funding bill that included construction was supported by some Democrats in the House and Senate. CBP refers to what it plans to build as a "border wall system.
> 
> "US prepares to start building portion of Texas border wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for them.  It will be used as a canvas for liberal graffiti the next time the liberals come into office... a testament to the stupidity of man.
Click to expand...


It's not new wall construction.  It's rebuilding existing wall construction.  No new walls are being built because there are no new funds for it.  Actually, there was funds for new wall construction.  Trump could have built about 140 miles of new wall in the last 2 years but he's been too busy playing BS Political games with that 2.6 billion dollars he's received.  He even reduced the number of border agents on the Texas Border to make things worse so he could point to it and say how bad it has gotten.  Before we give him one thin dime more, we need to do a full on audit to see exactly what he's done with the money he's been given.  It looks like he's been going backward more than forward.


----------



## protectionist

Timmy said:


> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .


About 50% of illegals never take jobs. They're here strictly to anchor a baby into citizenship, and have the family help itself to a lifetime of benefits$$$ at US taxpayer expense.


----------



## protectionist

Tax Man said:


> What is so silly is the reich totally ignores the largest immigration problem is expired visa's. There are more of them than people crossing without permission or documentation.


 ..……………………………….


----------



## Daryl Hunt

protectionist said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> About 50% of illegals never take jobs. They're here strictly to anchor a baby into citizenship, and have the family help itself to a lifetime of benefits$$$ at US taxpayer expense.
Click to expand...


50%.  You know this for a fact.  Or are you just making it up or did your handlers give that figure to you that they just made it up.  Newsflash:  We have illegals around here and almost all of them are employed.  Otherwise, they wouldn't stay here.  Even your Orange Individual 1 hires illegals.  He just got rid of the last batch but his companies have just brought in a new batch.  All done under the books for work that they claim Americans won't do.  No we won't.  Not for less than minimum wage, we won't.  But illegals will.  Until the INS and ICE start snooping around and then it's time to fire the lot of them until things cool down.  Then hire a new batch.  If the jobs weren't there, they would be here in the first place.  If they couldn't get benefits they wouldn't be here.  Both sides are feeding this problem.  Why don't you accept your own sides responsibility for it instead of blaming it all on someone else.  It's not just the snowflakes, it's the cupcakes like you that let the ultra rightwingers off the hook as well.


----------



## sparky

Changing our immigration laws would have just as much, if not more impact, than a wall

BUT, all that cheap labor wouldn't be here....



*Donald J. Trump*‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
H1-B holders in the United States can rest assured that changes are soon coming which will bring both simplicity and certainty to your stay, including a potential path to citizenship. We want to encourage talented and highly skilled people to pursue career options in the U.S.

4:40 AM - 11 Jan 2019


----------



## Daryl Hunt

sparky said:


> Changing our immigration laws would have just as much, if not more impact, than a wall
> 
> BUT, all that cheap labor wouldn't be here....
> 
> 
> 
> *Donald J. Trump*‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
> H1-B holders in the United States can rest assured that changes are soon coming which will bring both simplicity and certainty to your stay, including a potential path to citizenship. We want to encourage talented and highly skilled people to pursue career options in the U.S.
> 
> 4:40 AM - 11 Jan 2019



The other side of that coin is, it means that industry will feel less obligated to train new people in jobs.  Why invest in people that already live here or train from within when they can just import workers from without.  That's not the way it used to be when the US really was great.  It's not so great anymore.  Can you understand why?  Crap like the H1-B is part of the reason we are in such a mess with our work force today.  And the reason our industry is crying about not having enough skilled workers.


----------



## sparky

Daryl Hunt said:


> Can you understand why?



*Yes*.....from a lowly construction workers _view_, existing in _whitopia_, with nothing but immigrants on every _d*mn_ job

~S~


----------



## Likkmee

Main ? Whos going to do the work ? Latinos
Who will inspect it ? Latinos.
Who will leave secret places to sneak in ? Jooz.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

sparky said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you understand why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes*.....from a lowly construction workers _view_, existing in _whitopia_, with nothing but immigrants on every _d*mn_ job
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...


And your corporation deleting it's training programs so it can bring in H1-B workers from overseas to work for less money as well.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Daryl Hunt said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US prepares to build portion of Texas border wall*
> That construction was often described as fencing, and the government funding bill that included construction was supported by some Democrats in the House and Senate. CBP refers to what it plans to build as a "border wall system.
> 
> "US prepares to start building portion of Texas border wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for them.  It will be used as a canvas for liberal graffiti the next time the liberals come into office... a testament to the stupidity of man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not new wall construction.  It's rebuilding existing wall construction.  No new walls are being built because there are no new funds for it.  Actually, there was funds for new wall construction.  Trump could have built about 140 miles of new wall in the last 2 years but he's been too busy playing BS Political games with that 2.6 billion dollars he's received.  He even reduced the number of border agents on the Texas Border to make things worse so he could point to it and say how bad it has gotten.  Before we give him one thin dime more, we need to do a full on audit to see exactly what he's done with the money he's been given.  It looks like he's been going backward more than forward.
Click to expand...


What would it take to prove to you that this whole "wall" fight is as phony as WWE wrestling?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Daryl Hunt said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you understand why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes*.....from a lowly construction workers _view_, existing in _whitopia_, with nothing but immigrants on every _d*mn_ job
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your corporation deleting it's training programs so it can bring in H1-B workers from overseas to work for less money as well.
Click to expand...


Self sufficiency is your key to survival.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Porter Rockwell said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US prepares to build portion of Texas border wall*
> That construction was often described as fencing, and the government funding bill that included construction was supported by some Democrats in the House and Senate. CBP refers to what it plans to build as a "border wall system.
> 
> "US prepares to start building portion of Texas border wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for them.  It will be used as a canvas for liberal graffiti the next time the liberals come into office... a testament to the stupidity of man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not new wall construction.  It's rebuilding existing wall construction.  No new walls are being built because there are no new funds for it.  Actually, there was funds for new wall construction.  Trump could have built about 140 miles of new wall in the last 2 years but he's been too busy playing BS Political games with that 2.6 billion dollars he's received.  He even reduced the number of border agents on the Texas Border to make things worse so he could point to it and say how bad it has gotten.  Before we give him one thin dime more, we need to do a full on audit to see exactly what he's done with the money he's been given.  It looks like he's been going backward more than forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What would it take to prove to you that this whole "wall" fight is as phony as WWE wrestling?
Click to expand...


Not a single thing.  I already equate it to a Ringling Brothers 3 ring Circus.


----------



## dblack

Porter Rockwell said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US prepares to build portion of Texas border wall*
> That construction was often described as fencing, and the government funding bill that included construction was supported by some Democrats in the House and Senate. CBP refers to what it plans to build as a "border wall system.
> 
> "US prepares to start building portion of Texas border wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for them.  It will be used as a canvas for liberal graffiti the next time the liberals come into office... a testament to the stupidity of man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not new wall construction.  It's rebuilding existing wall construction.  No new walls are being built because there are no new funds for it.  Actually, there was funds for new wall construction.  Trump could have built about 140 miles of new wall in the last 2 years but he's been too busy playing BS Political games with that 2.6 billion dollars he's received.  He even reduced the number of border agents on the Texas Border to make things worse so he could point to it and say how bad it has gotten.  Before we give him one thin dime more, we need to do a full on audit to see exactly what he's done with the money he's been given.  It looks like he's been going backward more than forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What would it take to prove to you that this whole "wall" fight is as phony as WWE wrestling?
Click to expand...


First you'd have to convince them WWE wrestling is phony.


----------



## protectionist

Daryl Hunt said:


> 50%.  You know this for a fact.  Or are you just making it up or did your handlers give that figure to you that they just made it up.  Newsflash:  We have illegals around here and almost all of them are employed.  Otherwise, they wouldn't stay here.  Even your Orange Individual 1 hires illegals.  He just got rid of the last batch but his companies have just brought in a new batch.  All done under the books for work that they claim Americans won't do.  No we won't.  Not for less than minimum wage, we won't.  But illegals will.  Until the INS and ICE start snooping around and then it's time to fire the lot of them until things cool down.  Then hire a new batch.  If the jobs weren't there, they would be here in the first place.  If they couldn't get benefits they wouldn't be here.  Both sides are feeding this problem.  Why don't you accept your own sides responsibility for it instead of blaming it all on someone else.  It's not just the snowflakes, it's the cupcakes like you that let the ultra rightwingers off the hook as well.


I don't know what you're talking about.  My "side". What do you think that is ?

Report: Majority of Illegal Immigrant Households On Welfare - Washington Free Beacon

Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare

Most Illegal Immigrant Families Collect Welfare - Judicial Watch

Illegal Immigrants Get More Welfare Than American Families


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> What would it take to prove to you that this whole "wall" fight is as phony as WWE wrestling?


It_ "would take"_ showing that the walls in 77 countries around the world are not working successfully.  Problem there is that >. THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

protectionist said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50%.  You know this for a fact.  Or are you just making it up or did your handlers give that figure to you that they just made it up.  Newsflash:  We have illegals around here and almost all of them are employed.  Otherwise, they wouldn't stay here.  Even your Orange Individual 1 hires illegals.  He just got rid of the last batch but his companies have just brought in a new batch.  All done under the books for work that they claim Americans won't do.  No we won't.  Not for less than minimum wage, we won't.  But illegals will.  Until the INS and ICE start snooping around and then it's time to fire the lot of them until things cool down.  Then hire a new batch.  If the jobs weren't there, they would be here in the first place.  If they couldn't get benefits they wouldn't be here.  Both sides are feeding this problem.  Why don't you accept your own sides responsibility for it instead of blaming it all on someone else.  It's not just the snowflakes, it's the cupcakes like you that let the ultra rightwingers off the hook as well.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about.  My "side". What do you think that is ?
> 
> Report: Majority of Illegal Immigrant Households On Welfare - Washington Free Beacon
> 
> Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare
> 
> Most Illegal Immigrant Families Collect Welfare - Judicial Watch
> 
> Illegal Immigrants Get More Welfare Than American Families
Click to expand...


Wow, you sure did pick some real duzies for cites.  Let's  look at them.

_*freebeacon.com  *_Ultra Right Wing that is know for it's right wing bias and not know for it being factual.  Enough said about this one.  Most of what it puts out is probably false.

_*CIS  *_Let's look at this one.  Exactly where did they get this information from for CIS to  report it?  Let's see.  Welfare usually means some kind of Government Program yet the CIS report also included Food Banks,Church Programs and more.  I don't know about you but I doubt if any Church is going to let any Government Agency be privy to their records.  The CIS is an EXTREME right wing group that is almost off the right wing scale.  When I tried to Fact Check it, one thing kept coming up, "The CIS is a deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes or false information".  It's listed as a White Nationalist Site.  Yes, they referenced back to a decent source on their own source but it didn't take very long to tear that up.  Tell me, just how could you ever take a Government Survey determining the total Welfare to include non Government Programs that are NEVER listed by asking Illegal Immigrants when you can't find most of the illegal immigrants to ask in the first place.  They said they used a government census and gleaned the information from there.  Unlike the freebeacon.com site, CIS isn't even remotely written as well.

_*judicial-watch   *_Wow, another White Supremecy site.  They are so off the scale right wing that they.....well, it's just mind boggling.  They just looped back to the CIS report that turned out to be a white nationalist rag.  Keep going,  Tell me, are you a white nationalist as well?

_*newsmax.com   *_This is the only one that is remotely believable.  Yet it's not considered reliable or actual factual about anything other than right wing information.  It also links back to the CIS report that is just plain made up.  

The fact remains, the information that is supposed to true in all of these comes from one source and one source only and they just made it up.  There is no way they could verify their information.  It could be true or a lie, but the fact that it's unverifiable means they were just lying out their asses.  Just because you saw it on the Internet doesn't make it true.  And quoting White Nationalist Sites pretty well says that you must be a white Nationalist as well.


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50%.  You know this for a fact.  Or are you just making it up or did your handlers give that figure to you that they just made it up.  Newsflash:  We have illegals around here and almost all of them are employed.  Otherwise, they wouldn't stay here.  Even your Orange Individual 1 hires illegals.  He just got rid of the last batch but his companies have just brought in a new batch.  All done under the books for work that they claim Americans won't do.  No we won't.  Not for less than minimum wage, we won't.  But illegals will.  Until the INS and ICE start snooping around and then it's time to fire the lot of them until things cool down.  Then hire a new batch.  If the jobs weren't there, they would be here in the first place.  If they couldn't get benefits they wouldn't be here.  Both sides are feeding this problem.  Why don't you accept your own sides responsibility for it instead of blaming it all on someone else.  It's not just the snowflakes, it's the cupcakes like you that let the ultra rightwingers off the hook as well.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about.  My "side". What do you think that is ?
> 
> Report: Majority of Illegal Immigrant Households On Welfare - Washington Free Beacon
> 
> Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare
> 
> Most Illegal Immigrant Families Collect Welfare - Judicial Watch
> 
> Illegal Immigrants Get More Welfare Than American Families
Click to expand...

We have no immigration clause, how can we have illegal immigrants?


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would it take to prove to you that this whole "wall" fight is as phony as WWE wrestling?
> 
> 
> 
> It_ "would take"_ showing that the walls in 77 countries around the world are not working successfully.  Problem there is that >. THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL.
Click to expand...

capitalism is worthless if we need walls.


----------



## protectionist

Daryl Hunt said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50%.  You know this for a fact.  Or are you just making it up or did your handlers give that figure to you that they just made it up.  Newsflash:  We have illegals around here and almost all of them are employed.  Otherwise, they wouldn't stay here.  Even your Orange Individual 1 hires illegals.  He just got rid of the last batch but his companies have just brought in a new batch.  All done under the books for work that they claim Americans won't do.  No we won't.  Not for less than minimum wage, we won't.  But illegals will.  Until the INS and ICE start snooping around and then it's time to fire the lot of them until things cool down.  Then hire a new batch.  If the jobs weren't there, they would be here in the first place.  If they couldn't get benefits they wouldn't be here.  Both sides are feeding this problem.  Why don't you accept your own sides responsibility for it instead of blaming it all on someone else.  It's not just the snowflakes, it's the cupcakes like you that let the ultra rightwingers off the hook as well.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about.  My "side". What do you think that is ?
> 
> Report: Majority of Illegal Immigrant Households On Welfare - Washington Free Beacon
> 
> Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare
> 
> Most Illegal Immigrant Families Collect Welfare - Judicial Watch
> 
> Illegal Immigrants Get More Welfare Than American Families
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you sure did pick some real duzies for cites.  Let's  look at them.
> 
> _*freebeacon.com  *_Ultra Right Wing that is know for it's right wing bias and not know for it being factual.  Enough said about this one.  Most of what it puts out is probably false.
> 
> _*CIS  *_Let's look at this one.  Exactly where did they get this information from for CIS to  report it?  Let's see.  Welfare usually means some kind of Government Program yet the CIS report also included Food Banks,Church Programs and more.  I don't know about you but I doubt if any Church is going to let any Government Agency be privy to their records.  The CIS is an EXTREME right wing group that is almost off the right wing scale.  When I tried to Fact Check it, one thing kept coming up, "The CIS is a deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes or false information".  It's listed as a White Nationalist Site.  Yes, they referenced back to a decent source on their own source but it didn't take very long to tear that up.  Tell me, just how could you ever take a Government Survey determining the total Welfare to include non Government Programs that are NEVER listed by asking Illegal Immigrants when you can't find most of the illegal immigrants to ask in the first place.  They said they used a government census and gleaned the information from there.  Unlike the freebeacon.com site, CIS isn't even remotely written as well.
> 
> _*judicial-watch   *_Wow, another White Supremecy site.  They are so off the scale right wing that they.....well, it's just mind boggling.  They just looped back to the CIS report that turned out to be a white nationalist rag.  Keep going,  Tell me, are you a white nationalist as well?
> 
> _*newsmax.com   *_This is the only one that is remotely believable.  Yet it's not considered reliable or actual factual about anything other than right wing information.  It also links back to the CIS report that is just plain made up.
> 
> The fact remains, the information that is supposed to true in all of these comes from one source and one source only and they just made it up.  There is no way they could verify their information.  It could be true or a lie, but the fact that it's unverifiable means they were just lying out their asses.  Just because you saw it on the Internet doesn't make it true.  And quoting White Nationalist Sites pretty well says that you must be a white Nationalist as well.
Click to expand...

I consider ALL of the sources I posted to be 100% valid, and I just laugh at leftists who come in here and flash the ubiquitous INVALIDATION CARD. (while themselves using such laughable sources as CNN, MSNBC, PBS, PolitiFact, the New York Times, etc.)

 You also mention factchecking.  "Fact"checking ?  Really ?  lol  With whom ?  Politifact ?

You also say  >> CIS is "listed as a White Nationalist Site"  And what "
Duzies"​did YOU come up with to determine that.  Possibly Southern Poverty Laughingstock Center, by any chance ?  New York Time & Time Again Wrong ?

Here's the bottomline.  I get leftists constantly flashing their invalidation cards at me, but what they DON'T DO is EXPLAIN what they see as wrong with what is said.  And you didn't either.  I posted 4 sources, and all you've done is attak the sources, not the CONTENT of what the sources are saying.  Do you have anything to say about what is inside those links ? If so, let's hear it.

PS - Is there some wrong with being _"White" _?  Or a _"Nationalist"_ ?

PPS - you didn't answer my question about who my_ "side"_ is.

 INVALIDATION is hard-wired into liberals.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Daryl Hunt said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50%.  You know this for a fact.  Or are you just making it up or did your handlers give that figure to you that they just made it up.  Newsflash:  We have illegals around here and almost all of them are employed.  Otherwise, they wouldn't stay here.  Even your Orange Individual 1 hires illegals.  He just got rid of the last batch but his companies have just brought in a new batch.  All done under the books for work that they claim Americans won't do.  No we won't.  Not for less than minimum wage, we won't.  But illegals will.  Until the INS and ICE start snooping around and then it's time to fire the lot of them until things cool down.  Then hire a new batch.  If the jobs weren't there, they would be here in the first place.  If they couldn't get benefits they wouldn't be here.  Both sides are feeding this problem.  Why don't you accept your own sides responsibility for it instead of blaming it all on someone else.  It's not just the snowflakes, it's the cupcakes like you that let the ultra rightwingers off the hook as well.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about.  My "side". What do you think that is ?
> 
> Report: Majority of Illegal Immigrant Households On Welfare - Washington Free Beacon
> 
> Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare
> 
> Most Illegal Immigrant Families Collect Welfare - Judicial Watch
> 
> Illegal Immigrants Get More Welfare Than American Families
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you sure did pick some real duzies for cites.  Let's  look at them.
> 
> _*freebeacon.com  *_Ultra Right Wing that is know for it's right wing bias and not know for it being factual.  Enough said about this one.  Most of what it puts out is probably false.
> 
> _*CIS  *_Let's look at this one.  Exactly where did they get this information from for CIS to  report it?  Let's see.  Welfare usually means some kind of Government Program yet the CIS report also included Food Banks,Church Programs and more.  I don't know about you but I doubt if any Church is going to let any Government Agency be privy to their records.  The CIS is an EXTREME right wing group that is almost off the right wing scale.  When I tried to Fact Check it, one thing kept coming up, "The CIS is a deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes or false information".  It's listed as a White Nationalist Site.  Yes, they referenced back to a decent source on their own source but it didn't take very long to tear that up.  Tell me, just how could you ever take a Government Survey determining the total Welfare to include non Government Programs that are NEVER listed by asking Illegal Immigrants when you can't find most of the illegal immigrants to ask in the first place.  They said they used a government census and gleaned the information from there.  Unlike the freebeacon.com site, CIS isn't even remotely written as well.
> 
> _*judicial-watch   *_Wow, another White Supremecy site.  They are so off the scale right wing that they.....well, it's just mind boggling.  They just looped back to the CIS report that turned out to be a white nationalist rag.  Keep going,  Tell me, are you a white nationalist as well?
> 
> _*newsmax.com   *_This is the only one that is remotely believable.  Yet it's not considered reliable or actual factual about anything other than right wing information.  It also links back to the CIS report that is just plain made up.
> 
> The fact remains, the information that is supposed to true in all of these comes from one source and one source only and they just made it up.  There is no way they could verify their information.  It could be true or a lie, but the fact that it's unverifiable means they were just lying out their asses.  Just because you saw it on the Internet doesn't make it true.  And quoting White Nationalist Sites pretty well says that you must be a white Nationalist as well.
Click to expand...


*FWIW* -  I think we have an immigration problem; however, the right has a bigger problem with this so - called "illegal immigration" issue.  You're on the right track with this train of thought, but you need to have more facts.  Let me present a few for you:

The Center for Immigration Studies, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), NumbersUSA, and about a dozen non-profit anti-immigration non-profit corporations were founded and / or financed  by ONE man.  His name is John Tanton.  Little is written about him except in Wikipedia and the SPLC.  Personally, I hold the SPLC in as little regard as I do organizations like CIS and FAIR.  Still, the SPLC has not so nice things to say about Tanton.  According to Wikipedia:

"According to CNN, Tanton "has openly embraced eugenics, the *science of improving the genetic quality of the human population by encouraging selective breeding* and at times, advocating for the sterilization of genetically undesirable groups."[12] Tanton wrote a paper in 1975 arguing for "passive eugenics" whereby child-bearing would be restricted to those between the ages of 20 and 35.[13] He also founded the pro-eugenics organization, the Society for Genetic Education (SAGE)

John Tanton - Wikipedia

"
The *Center for Immigration Studies* (*CIS*) is a non-profit organization and think tank[3] "that favors far lower immigration numbers and produces research to further those views."[4]

Founded in 1985 as a spin-off from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)"

Center for Immigration Studies - Wikipedia

Also see: 

https://splinternews.com/the-eugenicist-doctor-and-the-vast-fortune-behind-trump-1827322435

In the above link, it mentions a man by the last name of Paddock - not a very common name.  Wonder if he was related to the Las Vegas mass shooter???

Anyway, in the good old days, before FAIR, CIS, etc. Tanton was doing research used by David Duke, the former nazi party supporter who founded his own version of the Ku Klux Klan.  For whatever reason, even Politifact says that the SPLC only has papers stating Tanton corresponded with white supremacists and all the negative reports about Tanton are based upon old relationships.  I don't like Politifact, but in all fairness they left out a key piece of information:

"He  (Tanton) introduced key FAIR leaders to the president of the *Pioneer Fund,* a white supremacist group set up to encourage "race betterment," at a 1997 meeting at a private club. He wrote a major funder to encourage her to read the work of a radical anti-Semitic professor — to "give you a new understanding of the Jewish outlook on life" — and suggested that the entire FAIR board discuss the professor's theories on the Jews."

John Tanton’s Private Papers Expose More Than 20 Years of Hate

The Pioneer Fund seems to be continually associated with David Duke:

FSU PROFESSOR UNDER FIRE FOR TEACHING RACIST VIEWS

Dancing With Bigotry

My point to you is that if not for neo nazis and proposed socialist solutions, the build the wall effort would implode on its own.  What amazes me is that so many in America pretended to despise someone like Bernie Sanders, but when it comes to that damn wall, the build the wall guys would perform a sex act on good 'ol Bernie if he was a swing vote in favor of the wall. 

The sources the build the wall guys rely on is purely political propaganda socialism with little basis in fact.  Few people are pointing out the neo - nazi, National Socialist founded organizations that are providing the rhetoric and talking points spewed by Trump supporters in favor of the wall.


----------



## protectionist

danielpalos said:


> We have no immigration clause, how can we have illegal immigrants?


We have immigration LAWS. You haven't heard ?


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> *FWIW* -  I think we have an immigration problem; however, the right has a bigger problem with this so - called "illegal immigration" issue.  You're on the right track with this train of thought, but you need to have more facts.  Let me present a few for you:
> 
> The Center for Immigration Studies, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), NumbersUSA, and about a dozen non-profit anti-immigration non-profit corporations were founded and / or financed  by ONE man.  His name is John Tanton.  Little is written about him except in Wikipedia and the SPLC.  Personally, I hold the SPLC in as little regard as I do organizations like CIS and FAIR.  Still, the SPLC has not so nice things to say about Tanton.  According to Wikipedia:
> 
> "According to CNN, Tanton "has openly embraced eugenics, the *science of improving the genetic quality of the human population by encouraging selective breeding* and at times, advocating for the sterilization of genetically undesirable groups."[12] Tanton wrote a paper in 1975 arguing for "passive eugenics" whereby child-bearing would be restricted to those between the ages of 20 and 35.[13] He also founded the pro-eugenics organization, the Society for Genetic Education (SAGE)
> 
> John Tanton - Wikipedia
> 
> "
> The *Center for Immigration Studies* (*CIS*) is a non-profit organization and think tank[3] "that favors far lower immigration numbers and produces research to further those views."[4]
> 
> Founded in 1985 as a spin-off from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)"
> 
> Center for Immigration Studies - Wikipedia
> 
> Also see:
> 
> https://splinternews.com/the-eugenicist-doctor-and-the-vast-fortune-behind-trump-1827322435
> 
> In the above link, it mentions a man by the last name of Paddock - not a very common name.  Wonder if he was related to the Las Vegas mass shooter???
> 
> Anyway, in the good old days, before FAIR, CIS, etc. Tanton was doing research used by David Duke, the former nazi party supporter who founded his own version of the Ku Klux Klan.  For whatever reason, even Politifact says that the SPLC only has papers stating Tanton corresponded with white supremacists and all the negative reports about Tanton are based upon old relationships.  I don't like Politifact, but in all fairness they left out a key piece of information:
> 
> "He  (Tanton) introduced key FAIR leaders to the president of the *Pioneer Fund,* a white supremacist group set up to encourage "race betterment," at a 1997 meeting at a private club. He wrote a major funder to encourage her to read the work of a radical anti-Semitic professor — to "give you a new understanding of the Jewish outlook on life" — and suggested that the entire FAIR board discuss the professor's theories on the Jews."
> 
> John Tanton’s Private Papers Expose More Than 20 Years of Hate
> 
> The Pioneer Fund seems to be continually associated with David Duke:
> 
> FSU PROFESSOR UNDER FIRE FOR TEACHING RACIST VIEWS
> 
> Dancing With Bigotry
> 
> My point to you is that if not for neo nazis and proposed socialist solutions, the build the wall effort would implode on its own.  What amazes me is that so many in America pretended to despise someone like Bernie Sanders, but when it comes to that damn wall, the build the wall guys would perform a sex act on good 'ol Bernie if he was a swing vote in favor of the wall.
> 
> The sources the build the wall guys rely on is purely political propaganda socialism with little basis in fact.  Few people are pointing out the neo - nazi, National Socialist founded organizations that are providing the rhetoric and talking points spewed by Trump supporters in favor of the wall.


NONSENSE! This post is nothing but a flimsy (and stupid) attempt to tie the wall to neo-Nazi groups, and a long ago founder of FAIR, whose positions have changed totally. It I also false to say that >>_ "neo - nazi, National Socialist founded organizations that are providing the rhetoric and talking points spewed by Trump supporters in favor of the wall." _ HA HA  HA This is so dumb, it doesn't even rate a "nice try".

Every intelligent person in America, who is concerned about national security, is providing the FACTS (not rhetoric) in favor of the wall.  For example > how about the 77 countries in the world who have border walls (most built quite recently) and which are working very well + the advice of US border patrol agents who say it will be very helpful (as they have been in San Diego, CA, Yuma, AZ, and el Paso, TX.)


----------



## Daryl Hunt

protectionist said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50%.  You know this for a fact.  Or are you just making it up or did your handlers give that figure to you that they just made it up.  Newsflash:  We have illegals around here and almost all of them are employed.  Otherwise, they wouldn't stay here.  Even your Orange Individual 1 hires illegals.  He just got rid of the last batch but his companies have just brought in a new batch.  All done under the books for work that they claim Americans won't do.  No we won't.  Not for less than minimum wage, we won't.  But illegals will.  Until the INS and ICE start snooping around and then it's time to fire the lot of them until things cool down.  Then hire a new batch.  If the jobs weren't there, they would be here in the first place.  If they couldn't get benefits they wouldn't be here.  Both sides are feeding this problem.  Why don't you accept your own sides responsibility for it instead of blaming it all on someone else.  It's not just the snowflakes, it's the cupcakes like you that let the ultra rightwingers off the hook as well.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about.  My "side". What do you think that is ?
> 
> Report: Majority of Illegal Immigrant Households On Welfare - Washington Free Beacon
> 
> Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare
> 
> Most Illegal Immigrant Families Collect Welfare - Judicial Watch
> 
> Illegal Immigrants Get More Welfare Than American Families
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you sure did pick some real duzies for cites.  Let's  look at them.
> 
> _*freebeacon.com  *_Ultra Right Wing that is know for it's right wing bias and not know for it being factual.  Enough said about this one.  Most of what it puts out is probably false.
> 
> _*CIS  *_Let's look at this one.  Exactly where did they get this information from for CIS to  report it?  Let's see.  Welfare usually means some kind of Government Program yet the CIS report also included Food Banks,Church Programs and more.  I don't know about you but I doubt if any Church is going to let any Government Agency be privy to their records.  The CIS is an EXTREME right wing group that is almost off the right wing scale.  When I tried to Fact Check it, one thing kept coming up, "The CIS is a deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes or false information".  It's listed as a White Nationalist Site.  Yes, they referenced back to a decent source on their own source but it didn't take very long to tear that up.  Tell me, just how could you ever take a Government Survey determining the total Welfare to include non Government Programs that are NEVER listed by asking Illegal Immigrants when you can't find most of the illegal immigrants to ask in the first place.  They said they used a government census and gleaned the information from there.  Unlike the freebeacon.com site, CIS isn't even remotely written as well.
> 
> _*judicial-watch   *_Wow, another White Supremecy site.  They are so off the scale right wing that they.....well, it's just mind boggling.  They just looped back to the CIS report that turned out to be a white nationalist rag.  Keep going,  Tell me, are you a white nationalist as well?
> 
> _*newsmax.com   *_This is the only one that is remotely believable.  Yet it's not considered reliable or actual factual about anything other than right wing information.  It also links back to the CIS report that is just plain made up.
> 
> The fact remains, the information that is supposed to true in all of these comes from one source and one source only and they just made it up.  There is no way they could verify their information.  It could be true or a lie, but the fact that it's unverifiable means they were just lying out their asses.  Just because you saw it on the Internet doesn't make it true.  And quoting White Nationalist Sites pretty well says that you must be a white Nationalist as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I consider ALL of the sources I posted to be 100% valid, and I just laugh at leftists who come in here and flash the ubiquitous INVALIDATION CARD. (while themselves using such laughable sources as CNN, MSNBC, PBS, PolitiFact, the New York Times, etc.)
> 
> You also mention factchecking.  "Fact"checking ?  Really ?  lol  With whom ?  Politifact ?
> 
> You also say  >> CIS is "listed as a White Nationalist Site"  And what "
> Duzies"​did YOU come up with to determine that.  Possibly Southern Poverty Laughingstock Center, by any chance ?  New York Time & Time Again Wrong ?
> 
> Here's the bottomline.  I get leftists constantly flashing their invalidation cards at me, but what they DON'T DO is EXPLAIN what they see as wrong with what is said.  And you didn't either.  I posted 4 sources, and all you've done is attak the sources, not the CONTENT of what the sources are saying.  Do you have anything to say about what is inside those links ? If so, let's hear it.
> 
> PS - Is there some wrong with being _"White" _?  Or a _"Nationalist"_ ?
> 
> PPS - you didn't answer my question about who my_ "side"_ is.
> 
> INVALIDATION is hard-wired into liberals.
Click to expand...


What is hard wired into me is Truth.  And when I see your "Truth" circling back to a white Nationalist site that is spewing something that cannot stand the test of scrutiny or reason then guess what, it's labeled as a lie.  And your whole argument falls flat on it's face.  Facts are Facts and can stand scrutiny.  Lies are Lies and can't.  So you go ahead and believe your CIS article even though there is no way in hell it can be the truth.  You go ahead and believe the other articles even though they are based on the bogus CIS article if you want.  All that does is take away an credibility you will ever have.

Then you need to reestablish Validation yourself at this point because you have none.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *FWIW* -  I think we have an immigration problem; however, the right has a bigger problem with this so - called "illegal immigration" issue.  You're on the right track with this train of thought, but you need to have more facts.  Let me present a few for you:
> 
> The Center for Immigration Studies, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), NumbersUSA, and about a dozen non-profit anti-immigration non-profit corporations were founded and / or financed  by ONE man.  His name is John Tanton.  Little is written about him except in Wikipedia and the SPLC.  Personally, I hold the SPLC in as little regard as I do organizations like CIS and FAIR.  Still, the SPLC has not so nice things to say about Tanton.  According to Wikipedia:
> 
> "According to CNN, Tanton "has openly embraced eugenics, the *science of improving the genetic quality of the human population by encouraging selective breeding* and at times, advocating for the sterilization of genetically undesirable groups."[12] Tanton wrote a paper in 1975 arguing for "passive eugenics" whereby child-bearing would be restricted to those between the ages of 20 and 35.[13] He also founded the pro-eugenics organization, the Society for Genetic Education (SAGE)
> 
> John Tanton - Wikipedia
> 
> "
> The *Center for Immigration Studies* (*CIS*) is a non-profit organization and think tank[3] "that favors far lower immigration numbers and produces research to further those views."[4]
> 
> Founded in 1985 as a spin-off from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)"
> 
> Center for Immigration Studies - Wikipedia
> 
> Also see:
> 
> https://splinternews.com/the-eugenicist-doctor-and-the-vast-fortune-behind-trump-1827322435
> 
> In the above link, it mentions a man by the last name of Paddock - not a very common name.  Wonder if he was related to the Las Vegas mass shooter???
> 
> Anyway, in the good old days, before FAIR, CIS, etc. Tanton was doing research used by David Duke, the former nazi party supporter who founded his own version of the Ku Klux Klan.  For whatever reason, even Politifact says that the SPLC only has papers stating Tanton corresponded with white supremacists and all the negative reports about Tanton are based upon old relationships.  I don't like Politifact, but in all fairness they left out a key piece of information:
> 
> "He  (Tanton) introduced key FAIR leaders to the president of the *Pioneer Fund,* a white supremacist group set up to encourage "race betterment," at a 1997 meeting at a private club. He wrote a major funder to encourage her to read the work of a radical anti-Semitic professor — to "give you a new understanding of the Jewish outlook on life" — and suggested that the entire FAIR board discuss the professor's theories on the Jews."
> 
> John Tanton’s Private Papers Expose More Than 20 Years of Hate
> 
> The Pioneer Fund seems to be continually associated with David Duke:
> 
> FSU PROFESSOR UNDER FIRE FOR TEACHING RACIST VIEWS
> 
> Dancing With Bigotry
> 
> My point to you is that if not for neo nazis and proposed socialist solutions, the build the wall effort would implode on its own.  What amazes me is that so many in America pretended to despise someone like Bernie Sanders, but when it comes to that damn wall, the build the wall guys would perform a sex act on good 'ol Bernie if he was a swing vote in favor of the wall.
> 
> The sources the build the wall guys rely on is purely political propaganda socialism with little basis in fact.  Few people are pointing out the neo - nazi, National Socialist founded organizations that are providing the rhetoric and talking points spewed by Trump supporters in favor of the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> NONSENSE! This post is nothing but a flimsy (and stupid) attempt to tie the wall to neo-Nazi groups, and a long ago founder of FAIR, whose positions have changed totally. It I also false to say that >>_ "neo - nazi, National Socialist founded organizations that are providing the rhetoric and talking points spewed by Trump supporters in favor of the wall." _ HA HA  HA This is so dumb, it doesn't even rate a "nice try".
> 
> Every intelligent person in America, who is concerned about national security, is providing the FACTS (not rhetoric) in favor of the wall.  For example > how about the 77 countries in the world who have border walls (most built quite recently) and which are working very well + the advice of US border patrol agents who say it will be very helpful (as they have been in San Diego, CA, Yuma, AZ, and el Paso, TX.)
Click to expand...


I can assure you that it is *NOT* a flimsy attempt.  Honestly, I've forgotten more about this subject than you're capable of learning.

David Duke initiated the first "Border Watch" in 1977.  Duke was a former nazi that founded his own version of the KKK.  John Tanton was the man who wrote most of Duke's talking points.  

In 2003 Ranch Rescue, a civilian border patrol group had an altercation with some Salvadorans while patrolling property at the owner's behest.  It ended with Ranch Rescue members being put into prison and the owner losing his ranch to the Salvadoran.  The judge ruled the "civil rights" of the Salvadorans had been violated.  So, yep, due to dumb asses that believe as you, it is official - those foreigners DO have Rights.

Leiva v. Ranch Rescue

In 2004 Jim Gilchrist started the so - called "Minutemen" that got the immigration debate on the front pages and in the mainstream media.  They are the founders and pioneers of the build the wall effort.  And, any idiot on this board can check to see who the various Minutemen groups were relying on for their talking points.  But, let's look at their leadership:

There was Jim Gilchrist who was so screwed up, nazis kicked him out of his own organization.  Let's learn a little about the pioneers of this effort:

"In addition to border watching, the project (The Minutemen) created a political action committee lobbying for representatives supporting proactive immigration law enforcement and border security issues. Members believe government officials have failed to protect the country from foreign enemy invasion.[4] They strongly support building a wall and placing additional border patrol agents or involving the military to curb free movement across the Mexico-United States border."

Minuteman Project - Wikipedia

If you access that article, you find that Gilchrist's co founder was Chris Simcox.  Chris Simcox was both a pedophile AND a neo-nazi:

Alleged Pedophile Chris Simcox Drops Bid to Personally Cross-Examine Child Victims

Minuteman Co-Founder Sentenced to 19½ Years for Molesting 5-Year-Old

Simcox would recruit fellow neo nazi sympathizer, J.T. Ready (who became a mass murderer) to join him in the build the wall effort.

Neo-Nazi Killed Family During 911 Call


Jim Gilchrist also recruited Shawna Forde and she was convicted of a double murder:


Notice she is ALSO a FAIR spokesperson

Minuteman Leader Jim Gilchrist's Ties To Shawna Forde's Gang Of Killers Finally Catch Up With Him

Sweep the connections under the rug; deny them; pretend you're a CIA agent - Admit nothing - deny everything - make counter accusations.  You still cannot run from the truth about who Tanton secretly supports while being able to claim plausible denialability.  The facts don't support your bogus "Nonsense" claim.  Let's move forward:

The build the wall issue is not, never has been and never will be about national security.  That is why Mexico's governor has ordered the withdrawal of troops just today:

New Mexico governor orders withdrawal of National Guard border troops, citing no "national security crisis"

The bottom line to this entire thread is that the wall is wrong for a host of reasons.  The most pressing way it is wrong is that no national security threat exists (the "problem" is solving itself) and DONALD TRUMP LACKS DE JURE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO WHAT HE'S DOING.  STATES - NOT THE FEDS GET TO DECIDE WHO COMES AND GOES WITHIN THEIR STATE.  

The federal government can write all the laws they want; but if the rule of law means a damn thing, then the federal government cannot impose on a state's Rights.


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have no immigration clause, how can we have illegal immigrants?
> 
> 
> 
> We have immigration LAWS. You haven't heard ?
Click to expand...

There is no express immigration clause.  Why deny and disparage natural rights over any implied power.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have no immigration clause, how can we have illegal immigrants?
> 
> 
> 
> We have immigration LAWS. You haven't heard ?
Click to expand...


We may have laws, but if you believe in the rule of law, then unconstitutional laws don't count.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Porter Rockwell said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have no immigration clause, how can we have illegal immigrants?
> 
> 
> 
> We have immigration LAWS. You haven't heard ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We may have laws, but if you believe in the rule of law, then unconstitutional laws don't count.
Click to expand...


As long as they are the law then they do count.  It's up to you to obey them until you can get them ruled as unconstitutional.  Otherwise, we just get to pick and choose the laws that we want to obey and to hell with all the others.


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> I can assure you that it is *NOT* a flimsy attempt.  Honestly, I've forgotten more about this subject than you're capable of learning.
> 
> David Duke initiated the first "Border Watch" in 1977.  Duke was a former nazi that founded his own version of the KKK.  John Tanton was the man who wrote most of Duke's talking points.
> 
> In 2003 Ranch Rescue, a civilian border patrol group had an altercation with some Salvadorans while patrolling property at the owner's behest.  It ended with Ranch Rescue members being put into prison and the owner losing his ranch to the Salvadoran.  The judge ruled the "civil rights" of the Salvadorans had been violated.  So, yep, due to dumb asses that believe as you, it is official - those foreigners DO have Rights.
> 
> Leiva v. Ranch Rescue
> 
> In 2004 Jim Gilchrist started the so - called "Minutemen" that got the immigration debate on the front pages and in the mainstream media.  They are the founders and pioneers of the build the wall effort.  And, any idiot on this board can check to see who the various Minutemen groups were relying on for their talking points.  But, let's look at their leadership:
> 
> There was Jim Gilchrist who was so screwed up, nazis kicked him out of his own organization.  Let's learn a little about the pioneers of this effort:
> 
> "In addition to border watching, the project (The Minutemen) created a political action committee lobbying for representatives supporting proactive immigration law enforcement and border security issues. Members believe government officials have failed to protect the country from foreign enemy invasion.[4] They strongly support building a wall and placing additional border patrol agents or involving the military to curb free movement across the Mexico-United States border."
> 
> Minuteman Project - Wikipedia
> 
> If you access that article, you find that Gilchrist's co founder was Chris Simcox.  Chris Simcox was both a pedophile AND a neo-nazi:
> 
> Alleged Pedophile Chris Simcox Drops Bid to Personally Cross-Examine Child Victims
> 
> Minuteman Co-Founder Sentenced to 19½ Years for Molesting 5-Year-Old
> 
> Simcox would recruit fellow neo nazi sympathizer, J.T. Ready (who became a mass murderer) to join him in the build the wall effort.
> 
> Neo-Nazi Killed Family During 911 Call
> 
> 
> Jim Gilchrist also recruited Shawna Forde and she was convicted of a double murder:
> 
> 
> Notice she is ALSO a FAIR spokesperson
> 
> Minuteman Leader Jim Gilchrist's Ties To Shawna Forde's Gang Of Killers Finally Catch Up With Him
> 
> Sweep the connections under the rug; deny them; pretend you're a CIA agent - Admit nothing - deny everything - make counter accusations.  You still cannot run from the truth about who Tanton secretly supports while being able to claim plausible denialability.  The facts don't support your bogus "Nonsense" claim.  Let's move forward:
> 
> The build the wall issue is not, never has been and never will be about national security.  That is why Mexico's governor has ordered the withdrawal of troops just today:
> 
> New Mexico governor orders withdrawal of National Guard border troops, citing no "national security crisis"
> 
> The bottom line to this entire thread is that the wall is wrong for a host of reasons.  The most pressing way it is wrong is that no national security threat exists (the "problem" is solving itself) and DONALD TRUMP LACKS DE JURE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO WHAT HE'S DOING.  STATES - NOT THE FEDS GET TO DECIDE WHO COMES AND GOES WITHIN THEIR STATE.
> 
> The federal government can write all the laws they want; but if the rule of law means a damn thing, then the federal government cannot impose on a state's Rights.


You "_assure"_ nothing.  You don't even know the law. Immigration and threats to national security are the president's domain. He has full authority to use the military to build the wall, and to stop invaders from rampaging cross the borders, by the thousands.  What could be more an issue of national security ?

Nothing in your post here presents anything worthwhile, and is just more of your flimsy earlier post that tries to discredit by association, a weak methodology at best.

As for New Mexico, it's a goofy blue state run by Democrats, populated by 1960s hippies. Who cares what they do ? Oh, they pulled out the New Mexico National Guard, did they ?  I know about the National Guard. I served in it for 6 years.  Watch how fast those New Mexico guardsman will be on the border, building the wall, the same day Trump orders them to be federalized, and 100% under HIS COMMAND.  Wanna see how fast that can happen ?  Maybe this is the part you had_ "forgotten"   >>>_

President Sends Troops to Little Rock, Federalizes Arkansas National Guard; Tells Nation He Acted to Avoid An Anarchy


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> We may have laws, but if you believe in the rule of law, then unconstitutional laws don't count.


Any law that is on the books counts, as long as it is there.

US Code 8, Section 1324, Section 1325, et al.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can assure you that it is *NOT* a flimsy attempt.  Honestly, I've forgotten more about this subject than you're capable of learning.
> 
> David Duke initiated the first "Border Watch" in 1977.  Duke was a former nazi that founded his own version of the KKK.  John Tanton was the man who wrote most of Duke's talking points.
> 
> In 2003 Ranch Rescue, a civilian border patrol group had an altercation with some Salvadorans while patrolling property at the owner's behest.  It ended with Ranch Rescue members being put into prison and the owner losing his ranch to the Salvadoran.  The judge ruled the "civil rights" of the Salvadorans had been violated.  So, yep, due to dumb asses that believe as you, it is official - those foreigners DO have Rights.
> 
> Leiva v. Ranch Rescue
> 
> In 2004 Jim Gilchrist started the so - called "Minutemen" that got the immigration debate on the front pages and in the mainstream media.  They are the founders and pioneers of the build the wall effort.  And, any idiot on this board can check to see who the various Minutemen groups were relying on for their talking points.  But, let's look at their leadership:
> 
> There was Jim Gilchrist who was so screwed up, nazis kicked him out of his own organization.  Let's learn a little about the pioneers of this effort:
> 
> "In addition to border watching, the project (The Minutemen) created a political action committee lobbying for representatives supporting proactive immigration law enforcement and border security issues. Members believe government officials have failed to protect the country from foreign enemy invasion.[4] They strongly support building a wall and placing additional border patrol agents or involving the military to curb free movement across the Mexico-United States border."
> 
> Minuteman Project - Wikipedia
> 
> If you access that article, you find that Gilchrist's co founder was Chris Simcox.  Chris Simcox was both a pedophile AND a neo-nazi:
> 
> Alleged Pedophile Chris Simcox Drops Bid to Personally Cross-Examine Child Victims
> 
> Minuteman Co-Founder Sentenced to 19½ Years for Molesting 5-Year-Old
> 
> Simcox would recruit fellow neo nazi sympathizer, J.T. Ready (who became a mass murderer) to join him in the build the wall effort.
> 
> Neo-Nazi Killed Family During 911 Call
> 
> 
> Jim Gilchrist also recruited Shawna Forde and she was convicted of a double murder:
> 
> 
> Notice she is ALSO a FAIR spokesperson
> 
> Minuteman Leader Jim Gilchrist's Ties To Shawna Forde's Gang Of Killers Finally Catch Up With Him
> 
> Sweep the connections under the rug; deny them; pretend you're a CIA agent - Admit nothing - deny everything - make counter accusations.  You still cannot run from the truth about who Tanton secretly supports while being able to claim plausible denialability.  The facts don't support your bogus "Nonsense" claim.  Let's move forward:
> 
> The build the wall issue is not, never has been and never will be about national security.  That is why Mexico's governor has ordered the withdrawal of troops just today:
> 
> New Mexico governor orders withdrawal of National Guard border troops, citing no "national security crisis"
> 
> The bottom line to this entire thread is that the wall is wrong for a host of reasons.  The most pressing way it is wrong is that no national security threat exists (the "problem" is solving itself) and DONALD TRUMP LACKS DE JURE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO WHAT HE'S DOING.  STATES - NOT THE FEDS GET TO DECIDE WHO COMES AND GOES WITHIN THEIR STATE.
> 
> The federal government can write all the laws they want; but if the rule of law means a damn thing, then the federal government cannot impose on a state's Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> You "_assure"_ nothing.  You don't even know the law. Immigration and threats to national security are the president's domain. He has full authority to use the military to build the wall, and to stop invaders from rampaging cross the borders, by the thousands.  What could be more an issue of national security ?
> 
> Nothing in your post here presents anything worthwhile, and is just more of your flimsy earlier post that tries to discredit by association, a weak methodology at best.
> 
> As for New Mexico, it's a goofy blue state run by Democrats, populated by 1960s hippies. Who cares what they do ? Oh, they pulled out the New Mexico National Guard, did they ?  I know about the National Guard. I served in it for 6 years.  Watch how fast those New Mexico guardsman will be on the border, building the wall, the same day Trump orders them to be federalized, and 100% under HIS COMMAND.  Wanna see how fast that can happen ?  Maybe this is the part you had_ "forgotten"   >>>_
> 
> President Sends Troops to Little Rock, Federalizes Arkansas National Guard; Tells Nation He Acted to Avoid An Anarchy
Click to expand...


And you seem to forget that Eisenhower did this because Congress was broken even then.  That won't happen this time.  Congress has already told him they would not accept it.  The President can only do something like this with the tacit approval of Congress.  Eisenhower was walking a very fine tight rope of the time.  He had already set precedence in Alabama and for that  had the total approval of the majority of Congress with the exception of a few southern state senators and congress people.  Don't look for that to happen this time.  The Texas reps have already spoken out against it.  The NM reps have spoken out against it.  Calif reps have spoken out against it.  Arizona reps have spoken out against it.  Declaring a National Emergency and usurping State Control is exactly what the first 10 amendments warn against.  But I guess you just throw out the bill of rights and the constitution anytime it suits you, right?  

As it stands, the Border is more a States issue anyway and the Feds have been well over the line for quite some time.  Imagine if the Feds were to remove Federal Monies if the States were to not secure their own borders.  Or to turn some of the border money over to the states for border control to improve border control.  It's a pretty well known fact that the States can do thing cheaper and better than any Federal can.  We should be fighting for States Rights, not expanding Federal Controls.  But since your Orange Individual 1 wants it, you want to throw the Constitution out the window.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> We may have laws, but if you believe in the rule of law, then unconstitutional laws don't count.
> 
> 
> 
> Any law that is on the books counts, as long as it is there.
> 
> US Code 8, Section 1324, Section 1325, et al.
Click to expand...


Okay.  Let's go with that.  When are you going to push to have President Trump Impeached under that law?  Let's face it, he's guilty as hell under that law.  And don't give me the crap about "Cite, Cite, Cit".  This is just one of his lesser crimes.  Yah, I know, his defense will be, "Not to the best of my Knowledge" which will be just another lie.  

I agree, it needs to be enforced.  But it needs to be enforced by everyone including the ultra rich right wing fat cats.  And that is why it hasn't been.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Daryl Hunt said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have no immigration clause, how can we have illegal immigrants?
> 
> 
> 
> We have immigration LAWS. You haven't heard ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We may have laws, but if you believe in the rule of law, then unconstitutional laws don't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as they are the law then they do count.  It's up to you to obey them until you can get them ruled as unconstitutional.  Otherwise, we just get to pick and choose the laws that we want to obey and to hell with all the others.
Click to expand...


Nothing gets changed until the law is disobeyed.  The United States Supreme Court disagress with you:


_"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_

_The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._

_An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._

_Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._

_A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._

_An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._

_Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
_


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can assure you that it is *NOT* a flimsy attempt.  Honestly, I've forgotten more about this subject than you're capable of learning.
> 
> David Duke initiated the first "Border Watch" in 1977.  Duke was a former nazi that founded his own version of the KKK.  John Tanton was the man who wrote most of Duke's talking points.
> 
> In 2003 Ranch Rescue, a civilian border patrol group had an altercation with some Salvadorans while patrolling property at the owner's behest.  It ended with Ranch Rescue members being put into prison and the owner losing his ranch to the Salvadoran.  The judge ruled the "civil rights" of the Salvadorans had been violated.  So, yep, due to dumb asses that believe as you, it is official - those foreigners DO have Rights.
> 
> Leiva v. Ranch Rescue
> 
> In 2004 Jim Gilchrist started the so - called "Minutemen" that got the immigration debate on the front pages and in the mainstream media.  They are the founders and pioneers of the build the wall effort.  And, any idiot on this board can check to see who the various Minutemen groups were relying on for their talking points.  But, let's look at their leadership:
> 
> There was Jim Gilchrist who was so screwed up, nazis kicked him out of his own organization.  Let's learn a little about the pioneers of this effort:
> 
> "In addition to border watching, the project (The Minutemen) created a political action committee lobbying for representatives supporting proactive immigration law enforcement and border security issues. Members believe government officials have failed to protect the country from foreign enemy invasion.[4] They strongly support building a wall and placing additional border patrol agents or involving the military to curb free movement across the Mexico-United States border."
> 
> Minuteman Project - Wikipedia
> 
> If you access that article, you find that Gilchrist's co founder was Chris Simcox.  Chris Simcox was both a pedophile AND a neo-nazi:
> 
> Alleged Pedophile Chris Simcox Drops Bid to Personally Cross-Examine Child Victims
> 
> Minuteman Co-Founder Sentenced to 19½ Years for Molesting 5-Year-Old
> 
> Simcox would recruit fellow neo nazi sympathizer, J.T. Ready (who became a mass murderer) to join him in the build the wall effort.
> 
> Neo-Nazi Killed Family During 911 Call
> 
> 
> Jim Gilchrist also recruited Shawna Forde and she was convicted of a double murder:
> 
> 
> Notice she is ALSO a FAIR spokesperson
> 
> Minuteman Leader Jim Gilchrist's Ties To Shawna Forde's Gang Of Killers Finally Catch Up With Him
> 
> Sweep the connections under the rug; deny them; pretend you're a CIA agent - Admit nothing - deny everything - make counter accusations.  You still cannot run from the truth about who Tanton secretly supports while being able to claim plausible denialability.  The facts don't support your bogus "Nonsense" claim.  Let's move forward:
> 
> The build the wall issue is not, never has been and never will be about national security.  That is why Mexico's governor has ordered the withdrawal of troops just today:
> 
> New Mexico governor orders withdrawal of National Guard border troops, citing no "national security crisis"
> 
> The bottom line to this entire thread is that the wall is wrong for a host of reasons.  The most pressing way it is wrong is that no national security threat exists (the "problem" is solving itself) and DONALD TRUMP LACKS DE JURE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO WHAT HE'S DOING.  STATES - NOT THE FEDS GET TO DECIDE WHO COMES AND GOES WITHIN THEIR STATE.
> 
> The federal government can write all the laws they want; but if the rule of law means a damn thing, then the federal government cannot impose on a state's Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> You "_assure"_ nothing.  You don't even know the law. Immigration and threats to national security are the president's domain. He has full authority to use the military to build the wall, and to stop invaders from rampaging cross the borders, by the thousands.  What could be more an issue of national security ?
> 
> Nothing in your post here presents anything worthwhile, and is just more of your flimsy earlier post that tries to discredit by association, a weak methodology at best.
> 
> As for New Mexico, it's a goofy blue state run by Democrats, populated by 1960s hippies. Who cares what they do ? Oh, they pulled out the New Mexico National Guard, did they ?  I know about the National Guard. I served in it for 6 years.  Watch how fast those New Mexico guardsman will be on the border, building the wall, the same day Trump orders them to be federalized, and 100% under HIS COMMAND.  Wanna see how fast that can happen ?  Maybe this is the part you had_ "forgotten"   >>>_
> 
> President Sends Troops to Little Rock, Federalizes Arkansas National Guard; Tells Nation He Acted to Avoid An Anarchy
Click to expand...


You have NO idea the extent of my legal knowledge.

The president can declare a national emergency, but in the instant case just because you got a hair up your ass over foreigners is not proof that Trump is acting on any national emergency.

He's acting to save his ass and get re-elected.

You *WISH *there were something wrong with my methodology.  EVERY talking point that you want to believe in CAN AND HAS BEEN a socialist talking point.  Period.  Your denials of the truth don't make it any less true.

Finally, you have to ask yourself why the far left NEVER mentions the connection.  How come they don't make the connections I did?  Here's another connection that the MSM won't make an issue of:

Those National Socialists openly endorsed Trump for President:

Minuteman Project Leader Endorses Donald Trump for President!  Suggests Cruz Run as VP.

Democrats in power don't talk about it as THEY ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have no immigration clause, how can we have illegal immigrants?
> 
> 
> 
> We have immigration LAWS. You haven't heard ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We may have laws, but if you believe in the rule of law, then unconstitutional laws don't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as they are the law then they do count.  It's up to you to obey them until you can get them ruled as unconstitutional.  Otherwise, we just get to pick and choose the laws that we want to obey and to hell with all the others.
Click to expand...

We have on express immigration clause.  That power is not specifically delegated to Congress by the People.


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> We may have laws, but if you believe in the rule of law, then unconstitutional laws don't count.
> 
> 
> 
> Any law that is on the books counts, as long as it is there.
> 
> US Code 8, Section 1324, Section 1325, et al.
Click to expand...

an unnecessary and improper law that merely increases Regulation costs. 

we have a naturalization clause and should have no costly illegal problem.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Porter Rockwell said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have no immigration clause, how can we have illegal immigrants?
> 
> 
> 
> We have immigration LAWS. You haven't heard ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We may have laws, but if you believe in the rule of law, then unconstitutional laws don't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as they are the law then they do count.  It's up to you to obey them until you can get them ruled as unconstitutional.  Otherwise, we just get to pick and choose the laws that we want to obey and to hell with all the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing gets changed until the law is disobeyed.  The United States Supreme Court disagress with you:
> 
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
> 
> No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
> 
> — Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
Click to expand...


Good luck with that one.  There are many people with felony arrests and convictions that followed your advice.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have no immigration clause, how can we have illegal immigrants?
> 
> 
> 
> We have immigration LAWS. You haven't heard ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We may have laws, but if you believe in the rule of law, then unconstitutional laws don't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as they are the law then they do count.  It's up to you to obey them until you can get them ruled as unconstitutional.  Otherwise, we just get to pick and choose the laws that we want to obey and to hell with all the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have on express immigration clause.  That power is not specifically delegated to Congress by the People.
Click to expand...


You have it backwards.  We have an express immigration clause where the power is delegated to the Government by the People.  It's We the People.  It appears that our government has forgotten that once again.


----------



## dblack

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have no immigration clause, how can we have illegal immigrants?
> 
> 
> 
> We have immigration LAWS. You haven't heard ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We may have laws, but if you believe in the rule of law, then unconstitutional laws don't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as they are the law then they do count.  It's up to you to obey them until you can get them ruled as unconstitutional.  Otherwise, we just get to pick and choose the laws that we want to obey and to hell with all the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have on express immigration clause.  That power is not specifically delegated to Congress by the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it backwards.  We have an express immigration clause where the power is delegated to the Government by the People.  It's We the People.  It appears that our government has forgotten that once again.
Click to expand...


The whole We the People thing has been inverted by statists. In the original usage the phrase "We the People" was meant to distinguish the people FROM the government. It was used to emphasize that the government should serve the people, and not the other way around.

Today, idiots and populists use the term to refer to the government itself, seeing the state as the embodiment of "We the People". This ignores the fact that, even in a perfectly democratic state, the government only represents the _majority_ of the people. Everyone else is out of luck. It would be more accurate for those with this view to use the phrase "We the Majority of the People".


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Daryl Hunt said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have no immigration clause, how can we have illegal immigrants?
> 
> 
> 
> We have immigration LAWS. You haven't heard ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We may have laws, but if you believe in the rule of law, then unconstitutional laws don't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as they are the law then they do count.  It's up to you to obey them until you can get them ruled as unconstitutional.  Otherwise, we just get to pick and choose the laws that we want to obey and to hell with all the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing gets changed until the law is disobeyed.  The United States Supreme Court disagress with you:
> 
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
> 
> No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
> 
> — Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck with that one.  There are many people with felony arrests and convictions that followed your advice.
Click to expand...


Me quoting the United States Supreme Court is *NOT* advice.  It should not be taken as such either.  It's either the law or it is not.  Furthermore, since the courts have been left to reinterpret their own decisions, what is legal today may be a felony for no reason tomorrow.

I'd like to quote you a few people who knew more than you and I combined:

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot"  Mark Twain

"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle"  Frederick Douglass  - former slave 

Yes, you are right.  Standing up for your Liberty could very well cost you your life.  The Declaration of Independence has this to say along those lines:

"...all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

When the tyranny became a bit too much for those held in bondage by King George, men came forward and put it as succinctly as possible:

"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"   Patrick Henry

WHEN the people begin to feel as Henry did, only then will we begin to free ourselves from the shackles of bondage.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> We may have laws, but if you believe in the rule of law, then unconstitutional laws don't count.
> 
> 
> 
> Any law that is on the books counts, as long as it is there.
> 
> US Code 8, Section 1324, Section 1325, et al.
Click to expand...


You quoted a civil section of federal law, but even at that, the bottom line is  *WHO COMES AND GOES WITHIN A STATE IS NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IF YOU ARE GOVERNED BY THE CONSTITUTION*.

What do you not understand about that concept?


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have no immigration clause, how can we have illegal immigrants?
> 
> 
> 
> We have immigration LAWS. You haven't heard ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We may have laws, but if you believe in the rule of law, then unconstitutional laws don't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as they are the law then they do count.  It's up to you to obey them until you can get them ruled as unconstitutional.  Otherwise, we just get to pick and choose the laws that we want to obey and to hell with all the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have on express immigration clause.  That power is not specifically delegated to Congress by the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it backwards.  We have an express immigration clause where the power is delegated to the Government by the People.  It's We the People.  It appears that our government has forgotten that once again.
Click to expand...

No, there is no express power delegated for immigration.   We have an express Establishment clause for naturalization, every time this issue comes up.


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> You quoted a civil section of federal law, but even at that, the bottom line is  *WHO COMES AND GOES WITHIN A STATE IS NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IF YOU ARE GOVERNED BY THE CONSTITUTION*.
> 
> What do you not understand about that concept?


I understand. YOU don't.  US Code 8 section 1324 and 1325 are both civil AND CRIMINAL.  Try reading them before posting. 

As for who come and goes or does whatever within a state, is both within the jurisdiction of the state OR the federal govt., depending on the law(s) involved.  It looks like you're trying to take the US govt out of the immigration issue. That's about as stupid a thing as I've ever seen anybody do in this forum.

8 U.S. Code § 1324 -  Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

8 U.S. Code § 1325 -  Improper entry by alien


----------



## danielpalos

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You quoted a civil section of federal law, but even at that, the bottom line is  *WHO COMES AND GOES WITHIN A STATE IS NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IF YOU ARE GOVERNED BY THE CONSTITUTION*.
> 
> What do you not understand about that concept?
> 
> 
> 
> I understand. YOU don't.  US Code 8 section 1324 and 1325 are both civil AND CRIMINAL.  Try reading them before posting.
> 
> As for who come and goes or does whatever within a state, is both within the jurisdiction of the state OR the federal govt., depending on the law(s) involved.  It looks like you're trying to take the US govt out of the immigration issue. That's about as stupid a thing as I've ever seen anybody do in this forum.
> 
> 8 U.S. Code § 1324 -  Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
> 
> 8 U.S. Code § 1325 -  Improper entry by alien
Click to expand...

We have a naturalization clause; all foreign nationals in the US should be federally identified.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You quoted a civil section of federal law, but even at that, the bottom line is  *WHO COMES AND GOES WITHIN A STATE IS NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IF YOU ARE GOVERNED BY THE CONSTITUTION*.
> 
> What do you not understand about that concept?
> 
> 
> 
> I understand. YOU don't.  US Code 8 section 1324 and 1325 are both civil AND CRIMINAL.  Try reading them before posting.
> 
> As for who come and goes or does whatever within a state, is both within the jurisdiction of the state OR the federal govt., depending on the law(s) involved.  It looks like you're trying to take the US govt out of the immigration issue. That's about as stupid a thing as I've ever seen anybody do in this forum.
> 
> 8 U.S. Code § 1324 -  Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
> 
> 8 U.S. Code § 1325 -  Improper entry by alien
Click to expand...


Have you ever litigated either in court?  If you had, you could see that what you're saying is absolute bullshit.

1)  Title 8 is the CIVIL CODE GOVERNING ALIENS AND NATIONALITY

U.S. Code: Table Of Contents


2)  If you look closely, Title 18 is *mentioned* in Title 8.  It is mentioned because Title 18 is the Criminal Code.  If Title 8 were a Criminal Code, it would not need to reference Title 18

3)  Title 8, especially in Section 1325 mentions* immigration related offenses*.  Of these, they are crimes in Title 18 and can be prosecuted as crimes.  For example in the first paragraph, Section 3 it mentions *making false and misleading statements*.  This is covered in Title 18.

Title 18 Section 1001 makes it a crime -  "makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation."

It is the same for EVERY crime listed in Title 8 USC 1325 except what the heading of that Title is about... IMPROPER ENTRY.  Look for yourself.  Improper Entry is NOT a Title 18 crime.

Even if it were, we've covered this so many times it is almost pointless.

The United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over immigration.  IF you can show me where, in the Constitution, where that document gives The United States Supreme Court the AUTHORITY to do anything except* interpret the laws*, I will kiss your ass on the main street of any town in America and give you two weeks to draw the crowd.

In 1876, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman (_Chy Lung v. Freeman_, 92 U.S. 275 (1876) a case went before the United States Supreme Court. In the ruling of that case, the Court " it is said the Court... _was also critical of the *State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration*, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case_." But, long story short, The United States Supreme Court gave _plenary powers_ over immigration to Congress.

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

Plenary power - Wikipedia

IF we were honest and observing the Rule of Law, we would admit that the statutes you're citing have little relevance and most are unconstitutional since the feds had NO JURISDICTION in state matters.  The United States Supreme Court has no authority to grant to ANY other branch of government any powers.


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> Have you ever litigated either in court?  If you had, you could see that what you're saying is absolute bullshit.
> 
> 1)  Title 8 is the CIVIL CODE GOVERNING ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
> 
> U.S. Code: Table Of Contents
> 
> 2)  If you look closely, Title 18 is *mentioned* in Title 8.  It is mentioned because Title 18 is the Criminal Code.  If Title 8 were a Criminal Code, it would not need to reference Title 18
> 
> 3)  Title 8, especially in Section 1325 mentions* immigration related offenses*.  Of these, they are crimes in Title 18 and can be prosecuted as crimes.  For example in the first paragraph, Section 3 it mentions *making false and misleading statements*.  This is covered in Title 18.
> 
> Title 18 Section 1001 makes it a crime -  "makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation."
> 
> It is the same for EVERY crime listed in Title 8 USC 1325 except what the heading of that Title is about... IMPROPER ENTRY.  Look for yourself.  Improper Entry is NOT a Title 18 crime.
> 
> Even if it were, we've covered this so many times it is almost pointless.
> 
> The United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over immigration.  IF you can show me where, in the Constitution, where that document gives The United States Supreme Court the AUTHORITY to do anything except* interpret the laws*, I will kiss your ass on the main street of any town in America and give you two weeks to draw the crowd.
> 
> In 1876, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman (_Chy Lung v. Freeman_, 92 U.S. 275 (1876) a case went before the United States Supreme Court. In the ruling of that case, the Court " it is said the Court... _was also critical of the *State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration*, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case_." But, long story short, The United States Supreme Court gave _plenary powers_ over immigration to Congress.
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> IF we were honest and observing the Rule of Law, we would admit that the statutes you're citing have little relevance and most are unconstitutional since the feds had NO JURISDICTION in state matters.  The United States Supreme Court has no authority to grant to ANY other branch of government any powers.


Great bunch of babbling there.  Now that I've woke up, after falling asleep in the middle of the most boring and worthless post I've ever read, let me just say that if you are an alien outside the US, and you cross the US border without inspection from US immigration authorities, the _"relevance"_ it will have to you, can be measured from the inside of a federal prison cell.

If you engage in marriage fraud, the _"relevance"_ it might have to you will be 5 years of your life behind bars in a federal prison, plus 1/4 of a Million $$ out of your pocket.  I could go on and on with the various relevances to you of the laws I cited, and their various subsections and penalties, but since I'm not one to write long diatribes like you do, I'll just cut to the one with the most_ "relevance"._

If you violate any of  Section 1324 subparagraph 1 - 5, and it results in the death of someone, you could spend the rest of your life in a federal prison, and if your life has any _"relevance" _to you, you might note that you could lose your life entirely, with the death penalty.

8 U.S. Code § 1324 -  Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

8 U.S. Code § 1325 -  Improper entry by alien

And yes, I've litigated in court, the last case being Florida Statute 316.061 - Crashes involving damage to vehicle or property.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever litigated either in court?  If you had, you could see that what you're saying is absolute bullshit.
> 
> 1)  Title 8 is the CIVIL CODE GOVERNING ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
> 
> U.S. Code: Table Of Contents
> 
> 2)  If you look closely, Title 18 is *mentioned* in Title 8.  It is mentioned because Title 18 is the Criminal Code.  If Title 8 were a Criminal Code, it would not need to reference Title 18
> 
> 3)  Title 8, especially in Section 1325 mentions* immigration related offenses*.  Of these, they are crimes in Title 18 and can be prosecuted as crimes.  For example in the first paragraph, Section 3 it mentions *making false and misleading statements*.  This is covered in Title 18.
> 
> Title 18 Section 1001 makes it a crime -  "makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation."
> 
> It is the same for EVERY crime listed in Title 8 USC 1325 except what the heading of that Title is about... IMPROPER ENTRY.  Look for yourself.  Improper Entry is NOT a Title 18 crime.
> 
> Even if it were, we've covered this so many times it is almost pointless.
> 
> The United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over immigration.  IF you can show me where, in the Constitution, where that document gives The United States Supreme Court the AUTHORITY to do anything except* interpret the laws*, I will kiss your ass on the main street of any town in America and give you two weeks to draw the crowd.
> 
> In 1876, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman (_Chy Lung v. Freeman_, 92 U.S. 275 (1876) a case went before the United States Supreme Court. In the ruling of that case, the Court " it is said the Court... _was also critical of the *State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration*, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case_." But, long story short, The United States Supreme Court gave _plenary powers_ over immigration to Congress.
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> IF we were honest and observing the Rule of Law, we would admit that the statutes you're citing have little relevance and most are unconstitutional since the feds had NO JURISDICTION in state matters.  The United States Supreme Court has no authority to grant to ANY other branch of government any powers.
> 
> 
> 
> Great bunch of babbling there.  Now that I've woke up, after falling asleep in the middle of the most boring and worthless post I've ever read, let me just say that if you are an alien outside the US, and you cross the US border without inspection from US immigration authorities, the _"relevance"_ it will have to you, can be measured from the inside of a federal prison cell.
> 
> If you engage in marriage fraud, the _"relevance"_ it might have to you will be 5 years of your life behind bars in a federal prison, plus 1/4 of a Million $$ out of your pocket.  I could go on and on with the various relevances to you of the laws I cited, and their various subsections and penalties, but since I'm not one to write long diatribes like you do, I'll just cut to the one with the most_ "relevance"._
> 
> If you violate any of  Section 1324 subparagraph 1 - 5, and it results in the death of someone, you could spend the rest of your life in a federal prison, and if your life has any _"relevance" _to you, you might note that you could lose your life entirely, with the death penalty.
> 
> 8 U.S. Code § 1324 -  Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
> 
> 8 U.S. Code § 1325 -  Improper entry by alien
> 
> And yes, I've litigated in court, the last case being Florida Statute 316.061 - Crashes involving damage to vehicle or property.
Click to expand...


He didn't say you didn't litigate in court. He asked if you litigated the respective Title 8 USC 1325 in court.  Well, Have you?  If so, when.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever litigated either in court?  If you had, you could see that what you're saying is absolute bullshit.
> 
> 1)  Title 8 is the CIVIL CODE GOVERNING ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
> 
> U.S. Code: Table Of Contents
> 
> 2)  If you look closely, Title 18 is *mentioned* in Title 8.  It is mentioned because Title 18 is the Criminal Code.  If Title 8 were a Criminal Code, it would not need to reference Title 18
> 
> 3)  Title 8, especially in Section 1325 mentions* immigration related offenses*.  Of these, they are crimes in Title 18 and can be prosecuted as crimes.  For example in the first paragraph, Section 3 it mentions *making false and misleading statements*.  This is covered in Title 18.
> 
> Title 18 Section 1001 makes it a crime -  "makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation."
> 
> It is the same for EVERY crime listed in Title 8 USC 1325 except what the heading of that Title is about... IMPROPER ENTRY.  Look for yourself.  Improper Entry is NOT a Title 18 crime.
> 
> Even if it were, we've covered this so many times it is almost pointless.
> 
> The United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over immigration.  IF you can show me where, in the Constitution, where that document gives The United States Supreme Court the AUTHORITY to do anything except* interpret the laws*, I will kiss your ass on the main street of any town in America and give you two weeks to draw the crowd.
> 
> In 1876, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman (_Chy Lung v. Freeman_, 92 U.S. 275 (1876) a case went before the United States Supreme Court. In the ruling of that case, the Court " it is said the Court... _was also critical of the *State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration*, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case_." But, long story short, The United States Supreme Court gave _plenary powers_ over immigration to Congress.
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> IF we were honest and observing the Rule of Law, we would admit that the statutes you're citing have little relevance and most are unconstitutional since the feds had NO JURISDICTION in state matters.  The United States Supreme Court has no authority to grant to ANY other branch of government any powers.
> 
> 
> 
> Great bunch of babbling there.  Now that I've woke up, after falling asleep in the middle of the most boring and worthless post I've ever read, let me just say that if you are an alien outside the US, and you cross the US border without inspection from US immigration authorities, the _"relevance"_ it will have to you, can be measured from the inside of a federal prison cell.
> 
> If you engage in marriage fraud, the _"relevance"_ it might have to you will be 5 years of your life behind bars in a federal prison, plus 1/4 of a Million $$ out of your pocket.  I could go on and on with the various relevances to you of the laws I cited, and their various subsections and penalties, but since I'm not one to write long diatribes like you do, I'll just cut to the one with the most_ "relevance"._
> 
> If you violate any of  Section 1324 subparagraph 1 - 5, and it results in the death of someone, you could spend the rest of your life in a federal prison, and if your life has any _"relevance" _to you, you might note that you could lose your life entirely, with the death penalty.
> 
> 8 U.S. Code § 1324 -  Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
> 
> 8 U.S. Code § 1325 -  Improper entry by alien
> 
> And yes, I've litigated in court, the last case being Florida Statute 316.061 - Crashes involving damage to vehicle or property.
Click to expand...


Well whoopie fucking doo.  I have published articles on immigration law.  Taken seminars from Uncle Scam on the issue as well.  Spent many an hour in all kinds of immigration proceedings on EVERY side of the issue.

I think you're off your meds as your post does not make any sense.  You tried to claim that Title 8 imposes criminal penalties and you were proven wrong.  If you think my posts are not worth your time, quit bitching about it and ignore them.  Some people on this thread are not like you.  Their IQ is higher than their shoe size.  

The immigration laws are so convoluted that even the legal community cannot tell you what the law is definitively.  It's the result of having the United States Supreme Court give Congress a power they have not authority to give.  If it were there, instead of being a smart ass, you'd show it to all the rest of us that are below your great intellectual level.

Who comes and goes within a state falls under the jurisdiction of the individual state.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Daryl Hunt said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever litigated either in court?  If you had, you could see that what you're saying is absolute bullshit.
> 
> 1)  Title 8 is the CIVIL CODE GOVERNING ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
> 
> U.S. Code: Table Of Contents
> 
> 2)  If you look closely, Title 18 is *mentioned* in Title 8.  It is mentioned because Title 18 is the Criminal Code.  If Title 8 were a Criminal Code, it would not need to reference Title 18
> 
> 3)  Title 8, especially in Section 1325 mentions* immigration related offenses*.  Of these, they are crimes in Title 18 and can be prosecuted as crimes.  For example in the first paragraph, Section 3 it mentions *making false and misleading statements*.  This is covered in Title 18.
> 
> Title 18 Section 1001 makes it a crime -  "makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation."
> 
> It is the same for EVERY crime listed in Title 8 USC 1325 except what the heading of that Title is about... IMPROPER ENTRY.  Look for yourself.  Improper Entry is NOT a Title 18 crime.
> 
> Even if it were, we've covered this so many times it is almost pointless.
> 
> The United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over immigration.  IF you can show me where, in the Constitution, where that document gives The United States Supreme Court the AUTHORITY to do anything except* interpret the laws*, I will kiss your ass on the main street of any town in America and give you two weeks to draw the crowd.
> 
> In 1876, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman (_Chy Lung v. Freeman_, 92 U.S. 275 (1876) a case went before the United States Supreme Court. In the ruling of that case, the Court " it is said the Court... _was also critical of the *State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration*, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case_." But, long story short, The United States Supreme Court gave _plenary powers_ over immigration to Congress.
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> IF we were honest and observing the Rule of Law, we would admit that the statutes you're citing have little relevance and most are unconstitutional since the feds had NO JURISDICTION in state matters.  The United States Supreme Court has no authority to grant to ANY other branch of government any powers.
> 
> 
> 
> Great bunch of babbling there.  Now that I've woke up, after falling asleep in the middle of the most boring and worthless post I've ever read, let me just say that if you are an alien outside the US, and you cross the US border without inspection from US immigration authorities, the _"relevance"_ it will have to you, can be measured from the inside of a federal prison cell.
> 
> If you engage in marriage fraud, the _"relevance"_ it might have to you will be 5 years of your life behind bars in a federal prison, plus 1/4 of a Million $$ out of your pocket.  I could go on and on with the various relevances to you of the laws I cited, and their various subsections and penalties, but since I'm not one to write long diatribes like you do, I'll just cut to the one with the most_ "relevance"._
> 
> If you violate any of  Section 1324 subparagraph 1 - 5, and it results in the death of someone, you could spend the rest of your life in a federal prison, and if your life has any _"relevance" _to you, you might note that you could lose your life entirely, with the death penalty.
> 
> 8 U.S. Code § 1324 -  Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
> 
> 8 U.S. Code § 1325 -  Improper entry by alien
> 
> And yes, I've litigated in court, the last case being Florida Statute 316.061 - Crashes involving damage to vehicle or property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't say you didn't litigate in court. He asked if you litigated the respective Title 8 USC 1325 in court.  Well, Have you?  If so, when.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that IS the question - and I have had to litigate the cases as a volunteer in an qualifying organization - which means that since they are authorized by the government, I can do the same things relative to immigration (i.e. improper entry) as attorneys. 

That also means  that when immigrants face charges IN ADDITION TO improper entry (lying to authorities, trying to elude them, marriage fraud, etc. as per the statutes) they are tried under Title 18 of the Criminal Code and, as most people know, I can only represent myself in a criminal case.  That is why Title 8 is civil law. 

Furthermore, improper entry cases are NOT tried in the judicial branch of the government.  Improper entry cases are tried in the Executive branch of government with the Attorney General being the head man in charge.  Immigration judges work in the Executive department.  THAT should tell you something.

When foreigners do commit crimes *related to* their improper entry, case law has allowed the courts to roll the improper entry into the criminal case to streamline the process since it is a moot point.  If a foreigner breaks the criminal law, it is immaterial whether or not  they entered improperly since deportation follows the conviction of a crime.  Not even a fraction of those who entered improperly go on to commit other crimes (which includes but it is not limited to stolen SSNs, getting welfare, and other benefits of citizenship.)

Adding insult to injury, the United States Supreme Court went even further:

" it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States"

Arizona v United States 641 F. 3d 339 (2012)

I think we should give protectionist another lesson just so he understands his predicament.  The whole build the wall philosophy revolves around whether or not foreigners have rights in the United States.  That issue was settled *BEFORE* the wannabe Minutemen organized.  It happened after a civilian border patrol group had an altercation on private property along the border.  Ranch Rescue, the border patrol group, was manning the property of Jack Foote, the property owner.

Some Salvadorans tried to enter improperly and were turned back by Ranch Rescue when the Salvadorans came across Foote's property.  An altercation ensued and the matter ended up in court.  The judge found that Ranch Rescue violated the *civil rights *of the Salvadorans.  I personally tried to get both sides to appeal the decision at the time.  A lot of the ruling was an impediment to stopping eminent domain abuses.  But, yep, those people do have rights - and apparently they trump those of private property owners in America, but it was protectionist's side that made it law.

Leiva v. Ranch Rescue


----------



## danielpalos

don't really care about the law unless it supports your right wing bigotry, right wingers?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

danielpalos said:


> don't really care about the law unless it supports your right wing bigotry, right wingers?



You're like a broken clock.  Even the most liberal guy has the potential to be right twice a day.

The bottom line, no bullshit, no debatable point is, those who want a wall ignore *ALL* the laws surrounding the issue.  THIS is going to be their downfall.  There are two sides to every issue.

People like protectionist want to litigate on a discussion board instead of having the facts put on the table.  The right will lose on peripheral issues as they cannot understand the long term ramifications of their actions.  Many times the right screws themselves because they have no insight.  

If protectionist wants to see how incompetent and silly their legal arguments are, I'm willing to give him the ultimate example today.


----------



## danielpalos

Porter Rockwell said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't really care about the law unless it supports your right wing bigotry, right wingers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're like a broken clock.  Even the most liberal guy has the potential to be right twice a day.
> 
> The bottom line, no bullshit, no debatable point is, those who want a wall ignore *ALL* the laws surrounding the issue.  THIS is going to be their downfall.  There are two sides to every issue.
> 
> People like protectionist want to litigate on a discussion board instead of having the facts put on the table.  The right will lose on peripheral issues as they cannot understand the long term ramifications of their actions.  Many times the right screws themselves because they have no insight.
> 
> If protectionist wants to see how incompetent and silly their legal arguments are, I'm willing to give him the ultimate example today.
Click to expand...

There is no immigration clause in our Constitution; thus, no delegated Power to that, wasteful and useless End.


----------



## LilOlLady

*US border crisis: Arizona city denounces Trump administration’s razor wire as ‘inhuman’*
*The city proclamation would note that concertina is typically seen in battlefields, not in areas of peace, and that the deployment of the wiring is “not only irresponsible but inhuman”.*

Outrage over Trump's 'inhuman' razor wire at US border
Human trafficking and drugs are inhuman and irresponsible.
Are we serious about border security or are we not? Yeah, put down some fucking chicken wire?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

LilOlLady said:


> Outrage over Trump's 'inhuman' razor wire at US border
> 
> 
> Are we serious about border security or are we not?



You confuse the militarization of the border with border security.  Your reasoning is like banning all firearms simply because a couple get used in crimes.


----------



## LilOlLady

Porter Rockwell said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Outrage over Trump's 'inhuman' razor wire at US border
> 
> 
> Are we serious about border security or are we not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse the militarization of the border with border security.  Your reasoning is like banning all firearms simply because a couple get used in crimes.
Click to expand...

I am not for banning firearms but gun control and the military is on the border for a reason. And the barbed wire is there for a reason. Stop the inflow of illegal aliens and drugs. I am not confused you radical socialist left wings are and I am a liberal as they come. We are not talking about keeping the fox out of the chicken coup. We are talking about keeping American free and safe for Americans. Open borders do not mean a free society. We would have a total nightmare on our hands. Once we are able to obtain real statistics from cities/counties states, and the federal government about how much recent immigrants and illegal aliens are costing American citizens, we will realize what has already happened to our country. We certainly don’t need to import more people. If our country needs more people, when our immigration laws are actually enforced, when we really secure our borders, when we change the crazy birthright citizenship and family reunification and preferred countries laws, maybe Americans will be able to put more money in their pockets and afford to have more children.


----------



## danielpalos

the right wing doesn't care about the law, Only their worthless bigotry.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> This Article below makes no mention of the word “slave” or “slavery” anywhere in the Amendment.   There is your FACT.
> 
> 
> Article I
> 
> Section 9.
> 
> The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
> 
> 
> It does speak however in addressing each state admitting foreigners, and the migration of such in the United States.  As listed below, the Founders DID have a lot to say regarding the migration and the entry of foreign immigrants into this country.
> 
> 
> Gouverneur Morris argued in the Convention as he ran over the privileges which emigrants would enjoy among us, “though they should be deprived of that of being eligible to the great offices of Government; *observing that they exceeded the privileges allowed to foreigners in any part of the world; and that as every Society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted.*”
> 
> SOURCE: Madison Debates, August 9, 1787
> 
> 
> The principles of the American Founding conferred a right to emigrate from the land of one’s birth, one should not make the mistake of assume that the principle of consent also conferred an inherent right to immigrate to any place of one’s choosing. *If “all men are created equal” then consent must be reciprocal among the parties involved.* Return to the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution: “The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: *It is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all SHALL BE GOVERNED BY CERTAIN LAWS FOR THE COMMON GOOD.*”
> 
> Mutual or reciprocal consent is dictated by the principle of natural equality.  —- *If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals.* *The immigrant is establishing himself as the rightful superior, as he has the power to dictate, unilaterally, the terms of the contract between himself and the community, without the community’s consent.*
> 
> *A person who is denied entrance into a country is not denied any inherent natural right.* He is perfectly free to go elsewhere, or even to form his own political community, and to take any necessary and proper measures to secure his own rights.
> 
> 
> *During the 1750s, Benjamin Franklin expressed great concern regarding the massive influx of German immigrants into Pennsylvania.* Franklin laments that Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s, or live as in a foreign country.”
> 
> SOURCE: Franklin, Letter to James Parker, March 20, 1750, in Writings, 445
> 
> 
> *Washington was also concerned about the isolation that differences of language bred.* He told his Vice President that “the advantage of [immigration and settlement] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”
> 
> SOURCE: Washington, Letter to the Vice President, November 15, 1794, in Fitzpatrick, Writings, 34:23.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that *foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? *There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. *The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.* In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
> 
> *The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations*, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. *The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust*; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but *their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.*”
> 
> “If the rights of naturalization may be communicated by parts, and it is not perceived why they may not, those peculiar to the conducting of business and the acquisition of property, might with propriety be at once conferred, upon receiving proof, by certain prescribed solemnities, of the intention of the candidates to become citizens; postponing all political privileges to the ultimate term. *To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in the message, would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty*.”
> 
> SOURCE: Alexander Hamilton (Lucius Crassus), “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile all this vast knowledge you have, all this experience of prepping 250 court cases, those resources you can’t offer for free... can be summed up through what you read in Wikipedia.  That’s it?
> 
> Exactly how much “legal experience” and how much Constitutional background do you think that website carries behind their “basic and general” posts?  Do you actually know what real research is?  Obviously, from what I see here, it’s more of a quick 5 minute offering of “Cliff Notes” research  behind all your talk of apparent vast “experience”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know enough about "research" that I can shepardize cases.  Can you?  I can tell the difference between dicta and a court's holding.  Can you?  I know that BEFORE the Chy Lung decision it was up to the states to decide who could come and go within a state and that the SCOTUS granted Congress plenary powers over immigration.
> 
> You cannot show us one single sentence in the entire United States Constitution that gives the SCOTUS the authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY power.
> 
> Additionally, the things you cite refer to citizenship NOT to the natural flow of people coming and going for the purposes of doing business - something you build a wall types seem completely oblivious to.  This dumbassery that you guys who dream of a POLICE STATE is so idiotic that we have to have arguments instead of civil discussion with idiots like you wanting to argue something you don't understand.
> 
> You think that everybody who sets foot on U.S. soil should be "admitted" - the article you cite is about naturalization not people operating in the normal course of business.  WTF is wrong with you?  Look at how long it took you to even respond to my earlier post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals“*
> 
> That quote deals specifically to foreign immigrants coming into the United States and imposing their will to recognize their right to be here in violation of its laws.
> 
> Franklin - “Pennsylvania *“will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s or live as in a foreign country” .. *addressed concerns over an OVERABUNDANCE of foreign immigrants entering this country with the need of limits in its numbers.
> 
> You see I can back up my point through multiple sources going back to our Founding, to include
> (1) Ben Franklin
> (2) George Washington
> (3) Alexander Hamilton,
> (4) the1780 Massachusetts Constitution:
> 
> ALL of which discredits your claims of a nation using borders which interferes into an immigrant’s personal liberty contrary to the United States Constitution.  More importantly, I can back up my views with direct quotes ... you can’t.  I can provide actual documentation without citing Wikipedia ... you can’t. I can do actual research while I laugh at the attempt of yours.  Let me know when you can provide actual documented sources from our Founders, the state Constitution of one of the colonies, or the Continental Congress which states their full support of unlimited foreign immigrants coming into this country.
> 
> Unlike you I just provided much more than your ramblings on a Immigration thread, like your response above.  Yes I obviously out research you by actually backing up my view through *and providing* individual views (*sources*) going back to our nation’s founding.
> 
> Show us your ability to perform actual research, or give us another lazy excuse not to — like I don’t do it for free.  If Wikipedia is your best, as a client I’d want my money back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the 4489 posts here I have quoted founding fathers, court cases, the Constitution, history books, etc.  Wasn't your last ass whipping enough the last time?
> 
> You continue to mix citizenship up with people working jobs and doing business here as non-citizens.  So, all the research you put on the table is irrelevant.
> 
> 1)  If an immigrant imposed himself on me or in my neighborhood, I'd drive the son of a bitch out myself.  I wouldn't be talking about it on a discussion board or thumping my chest.  So, why aren't you?  OR is your inaction and walls of irrelevant text an easy way out of doing a dirty job?  I think that maybe you understand that half of the population -  at a minimum *invited *the foreigner here.  So, your first paragraph is *irrelevant*.
> 
> 2)  Did Benjamin Franklin lobby for a quota system in the U.S.?  OR did he leave well enough alone?  Did he lobby to make America an English speaking country?  How many people agreed with him?
> 
> 3)  You continue to do your share of chest thumping, but no matter what founding father said what, *NONE* of them done a damn thing about the *FACT* that the comings and goings of foreigners were left up to the *STATES*.  The founders did not address it in the Constitution.  As a matter of *FACT*, the only authority the federal government has relative to immigration is:
> 
> "_To establish a uniform rule of naturalization_"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Other than that, the federal government has no lawful / legal / de jure authority in immigration.  The United States Constitution takes precedence over all the quotes you've given. Now which of us do you think, on that point, provided the best evidence?
> 
> Let me repeat what YOU said:
> 
> *If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals*
> 
> I think you want some debate on that point, but the bottom line is, when Americans buy from, sell to, rent to, and otherwise do business with foreigners, it's none of your fucking business.  It's dumb asses that fed you that socialist shit that is at the root of your problem.  How do you think you got into this situation?
> 
> Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, Congress enacted the first Naturalization Law.  Here is a quote from it:
> 
> "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof"
> 
> naturalization laws 1790-1795
> 
> Let's take a look at the Preamble to the Constitution:
> 
> _"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity*, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
> 
> The Constitution of the United States_
> 
> *WHEN* the United States Supreme Court interpreted that, they ruled (with respect to blacks):
> 
> "The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all of the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied [_sic_] by that instrument to the citizen?
> 
> ...
> We think [...] that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."
> 
> _Dred Scott v. Sandford_, 60 U.S. at 404–05.
> 
> Additionally, Taney, who wrote the majority opinion stated "The  American people, constituted a “political family” restricted to whites."
> 
> Eleven years later the Republicans *ILLEGALLY* ratified the 14th Amendment:
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez
> 
> https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm
> 
> It’s time to tell the truth; the 14th amendment was never ratified.
> 
> The 14th Amendment did a few negative things:
> 
> * It created TWO classes of citizens: Preamble and 14th Amendment citizens
> 
> *  The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights, or more specifically, your* unalienable Rights*.  Do you know what an unalienable Right is?
> 
> Let's move on:
> 
> "The Constitution for the United States of America talks about 2 classes of citizens.
> 
> Article IV, Section 2 Clause 1 says; "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
> 
> The courts have talked about the two classes of citizens as shown below.
> 
> "there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States  Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542,
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment, "....creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the States."
> Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at pg 591;
> 
> "One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443."
> Mc Donel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323;
> 
> "Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to be a citizen of his State" Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, Baltimore, Md., 1966, 221 A. 2d 431 citing US Supreme Court Slaughter House Cases and U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542, 549, 23 L. Ed 588 1875
> 
> "There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 (1909)
> 
> "Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities
> of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other" Tashiro v. Jordan, 255 P. 545 California Supreme Court
> 
> The United States Supreme Court quite thoroughly expanded on the two classes
> of citizenship in the case Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, where it said:
> 
> "...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states,
> which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the
> paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested."
> Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;
> 
> These two classes of citizenship continue to this day,
> "Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. 14,Â§ 1."
> Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993);
> 
> Because there are 2 classes of citizens, and also because of circumstances that will become known below, it is necessary to assert your sovereignty. In order to understand how and why you assert your sovereignty, we need to have some background knowledge.
> 
> A state citizen is one of "We the People" found in the preamble to the constitution. You can be in a state without being in the United States. In fact, if you read their codes, the United States in the United States Code is the District of Columbia and the Territories. The Puerto Rico website even talks about it.
> 
> The US citizen
> A US citizen does not have any rights.
> "...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;
> 
> The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957
> 
> "Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity."
> Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.
> 
> â€œA â€œUS Citizenâ€ upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in â€œinterstate commerceâ€, as a â€œresidentâ€ does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.â€ Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporterâ€™s Rd. 610-625. (1914)
> 
> A US citizen is a corporation.
> "...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300
> 
> This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.
> 
> Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is;
> 
> "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,....."
> 
> 
> The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended"   (Reposted with permission)
> 
> 2 Classes of Citizens
> 
> I want you to think on that while I work on part 2 of this for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The “topic” we are talking about surrounds immigrants crossing a border illegally (that means outside of established laws regarding immigration and it’s customs procedures) in the United States , establish a place to live in this country with the original intent of imposing *their will* and desire to become citizens of the United States.  We also have refugees in caravans that are seeking to force *their will* to live in the United States while using the “excuse”, aided by United States ideological supporters and attornies as if “asylum” was some secret password to grant them automatic entry.  Do you know what the actual conditions are asylum regarding in the United States?
> 
> Every year people come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:
> 
> Race
> Religion
> Nationality
> Membership in a particular social group
> Political opinion
> Those specific conditions do NOT include poverty. All this while we have immigrants overseas are seeking legal entry, going through the current established process designated by law to become American citizens.  We also have designated check points of entry for foreigners who wish to enter into Canada or come down into the United States.  None of that is in debate.  Yet a wall or parameter to allow foreigners to use the same kind of designated access into our country from our southern border IS an issue.
> 
> So the question has evolved into: What are the Founders views on a large influx of foreign immigrants intentionally crossing our southern border only to  later imposing THEIR will on the United States to “recognize” and “accept” them.
> 
> “*The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass*; by *promoting in DIFFERENT CLASSES different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others,* it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.”
> Alexander Hamilton
> 
> SOURCE: (Lucius Crassus), “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904)
> 
> We have immigrants sneaking across our southern demanding their right to be heard and recognized as citizens of the United States.  While we have a diffeeent class of foreigners from overseas who go through the long legal process to become a citizen of the United States BY LAW.
> 
> The Founders also has concerns of unlimited foreigners simply coming into the United States.
> 
> Benjamin Franklin’s concern surrounded a *massive influx of German immigrants pouring into Pennsylvania*. Franklin said Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s, or live as in a foreign country.”
> SOURCE:
> Franklin, Letter to James Parker, March 20, 1750, in Writings, 445
> 
> Washington was also concerned about the isolation that differences of language bred, telling  his Vice President:  “the advantage of [immigration and settlement] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) *may be much questioned*; for, by so doing, *they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them*.”
> SOURCE:
> Washington, Letter to the Vice President, November 15, 1794, in Fitzpatrick, Writings, 34:23
> 
> When we look to the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution: “The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: It is a social compact, by which *the WHOLE people* covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that  *ALL* (*without* *exclusion)* *shall be GOVERNED BY CERTAIN LAWS for the common good*.”
> SOURCE:
> Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, Preamble, in The Founders’ Constitution 1:11
> 
> These same laws which govern each state of *the “common good*” of *ALL*, to include foreigners and foreign immigrants, can be found under Article I of the United States Constitution.
> 
> 
> Article I
> 
> Section 9.
> 
> The *migration* or *importation* of such persons *as any of the STATES NOW EXISTING* *shall think proper to admit*, *shall not be prohibited by the CONGRESS prior* *to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight*, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
> 
> 
> 
> With regards to the principles of the American Founding, _*the right to emigrate from the land of one’s birth*_,  one should not make the mistake ... *assume* ... that this principle of consent also conferred an inherent right to immigrate to any place of one’s choosing.  If* “all men are created equal” *then *consent must be reciprocal among the parties involved*.
> 
> *ALL  to include foreign immigrants are governed by certain LAWS for the common good.  These laws act as a social contract that both parties must abide by.  You can not simply wander into a foreign nation and demand YOUR will, or what you believe as YOUR inherent right, upon others to be recognized if .. “all men are created equal”
> *
> Gouverneur Morris argued in the Convention, “*every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the CONDITIONS on which new members should be admitted*.”
> SOURCE: Gouverneur Morris, quoted in West, Vindicating the Founders, 157.
> 
> 
> *Mutual or reciprocal consent is dictated by the principle of natural equality*.  —- *If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals.* *The immigrant is establishing himself as the rightful superior, as he has the power to dictate, unilaterally, the terms of the contract between himself and the community, without the community’s consent.*
> 
> 
> This ends PART ONE, as I continue to take the time and go through several more sources, as well as references that lead me to other early Supreme Court cases.
> 
> 
> Now I have included specific views of our Founders related to this very issue, quotes you rejected as irrelevant.  All while YOU stated   “ I have quoted founding fathers, court cases, the Constitution, history books, etc.” while including your most predominate linked source “Wikipedia” .. and call that research.  Perhaps you can tell me just how many expert historians out there (list them please), or those who desire to be called an “expert” in a particular area of United States or Constitutional history ... use and reference Wikipedia as THEIR predominate go to source, if they even list it at all?  The term “Cliff Notes” really comes to mind when I see that source used, which is the choice of many individuals who would rather just throw up a quick link without actually taking the dime to do the research.  I find particularly hilarious.. at the very least entertaining, when an individual insists on prodomiantly using this source and makes this claim they are able “to kick my ass” on research”.   At least I can see you still have your sense of humor.
> 
> If there was ever a need to utilize “Cliff Notes” or a quick response to a post, I’m sure Wikipedia is the source to use ... as opposed to setting aside the amount of time which is required to perform some actual research.  At least I know where your list of “preferences” can be found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are repeating yourself and you've made those arguments and they got shot down.  You allowed some pages to pass and bring the same B.S. to the table.  The facts are NOT going to change:
> 
> 1)  The federal government has NO constitutional authority to tell a state who may come and go.  Congress is limited to naturalization.  Naturalization is citizenship
> 
> 2)  What Franklin said regarding the Germans becoming a large colony is predicated on the assumption that they would* become citizens*. You cannot colonize in a country where you are not a citizen... unless you're invading it with a force of arms and taking it. What in the Hell is your major malfunction here?  Becoming a citizen and coming to a country to conduct business are two separate things.  Are you really so stupid that you cannot differentiate nor delineate the difference between those two concepts?
> 
> 3)  Your quote regarding Gouverneur Morris is about *citizenship. * Again, it had *NOTHING to do with non-citizens* doing business in the United States
> 
> 4)  The foreigners coming here have no claim to citizenship and IF a jurisdiction is giving the foreigner ANYTHING at taxpayer expense, it is between the citizenry and their elected leaders.
> 
> NOBODY is doing what you claim.  People are taking advantage of free enterprise while your dumb ass is waging a war against private property Rights, the Freedom of Association, and the concept of God given, natural, inherent, absolute, *unalienable*, irrevocable Rights...  *ESPECIALLY LIBERTY
> *
> 5)  Article I  Section 9 has been explained to you.  Here is a repeat:
> 
> "_This is another euphemistic nod to America's dark history (_sic_) of slavery. "Such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" is a really long-winded way of saying "slaves" without actually saying "slaves." The Constitution barred any attempt to outlaw the slave trade before 1808. As soon as that date rolled around, Congress did vote to block the international slave trade, although slaves continued to be sold within the country and slavery itself lasted for almost another 60 years_..."
> 
> Article 1, Section 9
> 
> *Section 9 - The Meaning*
> _"Article I, Section 9 specifically prohibits Congress from legislating in certain areas. In the first clause, the Constitution bars Congress from banning the importation of slaves before 1808_."
> 
> Article I Section 9
> 
> 
> "_The importation of slaves cannot be outlawed before 1808."_
> _https://www.brighthubeducation.com/...471-article-1-of-the-us-constitution-summary/
> _
> *YOUR QUOTED SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION HAS NO, ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON IMMIGRATION.*
Click to expand...



First. having foreign immigrants use predesignated entry points to gain entry into the United States has absolutely NOTHING ... ZERO ... NADA ... with preventing a foreigner from doing business in the United States.  According to your statement,  foreigners that come to the United States from Europe, nations in the Pacific orient, Africa, and the Middle East are prevented .. somehow “harmed” from doing business based on what happens in the southern border.  EXCEPT for the fact we already have designated, restricted entry points at our northern border that the United States and Canada BOTH utilizes to check foreigners that enter their country.
That’s one claim that’s so easily shot down.

Also this overemphasized DRAMA of “private property Rights, the Freedom of Association, and the concept of God given, natural, inherent, absolute, *unalienable*, irrevocable Rights...  ESPECIALLY LIBERTY*” *is what it is .... DRAMA.  That would mean our northern customers border with Canada is ALSO in violation through its standards of enforcement.  Is that what you are saying?  Think about that when you lay out your little “drama speech”.

You can quote the preamble as many times as you wish, yet it STILL does NOT state or support a foreign immigrant in masses walking across another nation’s border .. then lay claim and recognition of citizenship.* 
*
Sorry you* NEVER *proved that.


In fact your ONE claim that the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional, came from a one source “conspiracy” website.  Do you believe everything you read from ONE source?

Let’s look at the true “actual” facts surrounding that Amendment.

The Constitution states:
Amendment does not become part of the Constitution unless it is ratified by *three-quarters* of the *states.

*


*

June 8, 1866 - The Senate passed the 14th Amendment by a vote of 33 to 11.

June 13, 1866 - The House of Representatives passed the 14th Amendment by a vote of 120 to 32.

June 22, 1866 - President Andrew Johnson submitted a message to Congress announcing that the Fourteenth Amendment had been sent to the states for ratification.

July 28, 1868 - Secretary of State William Seward issued a proclamation certifying the ratification of the 14th Amendment by the states.
*
*SOURCE: 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)
*

Those who also supported the ratification included
North Carolina on Jul 4, 1868
South Carolina on Jul 9, 1868
Georgia on Jul 21, 1868
And Virginia on Oct 8, 1869

The Amendment was Ratified in 757 days, making the 14th Amendment Constitional under the ratification process of the United States Constitution.

SOURCE: https://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html


----------



## LilOlLady

danielpalos said:


> the right wing doesn't care about the law, Only their worthless bigotry.


Securing the border and wanting legal immigration is American and not racist and bigotry. You are major confused.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

LilOlLady said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Outrage over Trump's 'inhuman' razor wire at US border
> 
> 
> Are we serious about border security or are we not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse the militarization of the border with border security.  Your reasoning is like banning all firearms simply because a couple get used in crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not for banning firearms but gun control and the military is on the border for a reason. And the barbed wire is there for a reason. Stop the inflow of illegal aliens and drugs. I am not confused you radical socialist left wings are and I am a liberal as they come. We are not talking about keeping the fox out of the chicken coup. We are talking about keeping American free and safe for Americans. Open borders do not mean a free society. We would have a total nightmare on our hands. Once we are able to obtain real statistics from cities/counties states, and the federal government about how much recent immigrants and illegal aliens are costing American citizens, we will realize what has already happened to our country. We certainly don’t need to import more people. If our country needs more people, when our immigration laws are actually enforced, when we really secure our borders, when we change the crazy birthright citizenship and family reunification and preferred countries laws, maybe Americans will be able to put more money in their pockets and afford to have more children.
Click to expand...


*YOU* self identified as a liberal.  I am *NOT* a liberal.  I am a Christian patriot and a constitutionalist.

If you don't want drugs in this country, you have to cut off the steady supply of users.  As long as America keeps manufacturing drug addicts, the drugs will come from somewhere.  

The solutions you support have their roots in *National Socialist* proposals and manifesting themselves in *Democrat* talking points.  Donald Trump has said himself stated many times that the Dems were for the wall until he became president.

Did you realize that America became the greatest nation in all of recorded history *WITHOUT* a wall?  How do you suppose that happened?

You do realize that Trump wants to import MORE people into the U.S. not fewer, right?  I'm all about putting more people to work.  AND, if they would go to work, fewer foreigners would show up.  BTW, I have contacts needing workers this season for about four months.  The pay is $11 an hour and a place to live.  Where I live there are *PLENTY* of help wanted signs out.  It's just damn near impossible to find Americans that want to work.  When you do, many corporations turn them away since lazy Americans did not take advantage of that free education we offered them.

When you take the lazy ass white males that live in mommy's basement playing on the computer and getting $600 for food from welfare; when you count up the people with a criminal record and are locked out of the workforce; when you add up the drug addicts; when you figure all those in whose mother does not want their children to have to work; figure those without an education or driver's license and you have 90 percent of the unemployed.  What's your plan to deal with them?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

LilOlLady said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing doesn't care about the law, Only their worthless bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> Securing the border and wanting legal immigration is American and not racist and bigotry. You are major confused.
Click to expand...


When they run out of supportive facts they can provide and go to, they turn to their racism and bigotry comments.  I’m not at all surprised by this.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know enough about "research" that I can shepardize cases.  Can you?  I can tell the difference between dicta and a court's holding.  Can you?  I know that BEFORE the Chy Lung decision it was up to the states to decide who could come and go within a state and that the SCOTUS granted Congress plenary powers over immigration.
> 
> You cannot show us one single sentence in the entire United States Constitution that gives the SCOTUS the authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY power.
> 
> Additionally, the things you cite refer to citizenship NOT to the natural flow of people coming and going for the purposes of doing business - something you build a wall types seem completely oblivious to.  This dumbassery that you guys who dream of a POLICE STATE is so idiotic that we have to have arguments instead of civil discussion with idiots like you wanting to argue something you don't understand.
> 
> You think that everybody who sets foot on U.S. soil should be "admitted" - the article you cite is about naturalization not people operating in the normal course of business.  WTF is wrong with you?  Look at how long it took you to even respond to my earlier post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals“*
> 
> That quote deals specifically to foreign immigrants coming into the United States and imposing their will to recognize their right to be here in violation of its laws.
> 
> Franklin - “Pennsylvania *“will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s or live as in a foreign country” .. *addressed concerns over an OVERABUNDANCE of foreign immigrants entering this country with the need of limits in its numbers.
> 
> You see I can back up my point through multiple sources going back to our Founding, to include
> (1) Ben Franklin
> (2) George Washington
> (3) Alexander Hamilton,
> (4) the1780 Massachusetts Constitution:
> 
> ALL of which discredits your claims of a nation using borders which interferes into an immigrant’s personal liberty contrary to the United States Constitution.  More importantly, I can back up my views with direct quotes ... you can’t.  I can provide actual documentation without citing Wikipedia ... you can’t. I can do actual research while I laugh at the attempt of yours.  Let me know when you can provide actual documented sources from our Founders, the state Constitution of one of the colonies, or the Continental Congress which states their full support of unlimited foreign immigrants coming into this country.
> 
> Unlike you I just provided much more than your ramblings on a Immigration thread, like your response above.  Yes I obviously out research you by actually backing up my view through *and providing* individual views (*sources*) going back to our nation’s founding.
> 
> Show us your ability to perform actual research, or give us another lazy excuse not to — like I don’t do it for free.  If Wikipedia is your best, as a client I’d want my money back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the 4489 posts here I have quoted founding fathers, court cases, the Constitution, history books, etc.  Wasn't your last ass whipping enough the last time?
> 
> You continue to mix citizenship up with people working jobs and doing business here as non-citizens.  So, all the research you put on the table is irrelevant.
> 
> 1)  If an immigrant imposed himself on me or in my neighborhood, I'd drive the son of a bitch out myself.  I wouldn't be talking about it on a discussion board or thumping my chest.  So, why aren't you?  OR is your inaction and walls of irrelevant text an easy way out of doing a dirty job?  I think that maybe you understand that half of the population -  at a minimum *invited *the foreigner here.  So, your first paragraph is *irrelevant*.
> 
> 2)  Did Benjamin Franklin lobby for a quota system in the U.S.?  OR did he leave well enough alone?  Did he lobby to make America an English speaking country?  How many people agreed with him?
> 
> 3)  You continue to do your share of chest thumping, but no matter what founding father said what, *NONE* of them done a damn thing about the *FACT* that the comings and goings of foreigners were left up to the *STATES*.  The founders did not address it in the Constitution.  As a matter of *FACT*, the only authority the federal government has relative to immigration is:
> 
> "_To establish a uniform rule of naturalization_"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Other than that, the federal government has no lawful / legal / de jure authority in immigration.  The United States Constitution takes precedence over all the quotes you've given. Now which of us do you think, on that point, provided the best evidence?
> 
> Let me repeat what YOU said:
> 
> *If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals*
> 
> I think you want some debate on that point, but the bottom line is, when Americans buy from, sell to, rent to, and otherwise do business with foreigners, it's none of your fucking business.  It's dumb asses that fed you that socialist shit that is at the root of your problem.  How do you think you got into this situation?
> 
> Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, Congress enacted the first Naturalization Law.  Here is a quote from it:
> 
> "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof"
> 
> naturalization laws 1790-1795
> 
> Let's take a look at the Preamble to the Constitution:
> 
> _"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity*, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
> 
> The Constitution of the United States_
> 
> *WHEN* the United States Supreme Court interpreted that, they ruled (with respect to blacks):
> 
> "The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all of the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied [_sic_] by that instrument to the citizen?
> 
> ...
> We think [...] that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."
> 
> _Dred Scott v. Sandford_, 60 U.S. at 404–05.
> 
> Additionally, Taney, who wrote the majority opinion stated "The  American people, constituted a “political family” restricted to whites."
> 
> Eleven years later the Republicans *ILLEGALLY* ratified the 14th Amendment:
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez
> 
> https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm
> 
> It’s time to tell the truth; the 14th amendment was never ratified.
> 
> The 14th Amendment did a few negative things:
> 
> * It created TWO classes of citizens: Preamble and 14th Amendment citizens
> 
> *  The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights, or more specifically, your* unalienable Rights*.  Do you know what an unalienable Right is?
> 
> Let's move on:
> 
> "The Constitution for the United States of America talks about 2 classes of citizens.
> 
> Article IV, Section 2 Clause 1 says; "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
> 
> The courts have talked about the two classes of citizens as shown below.
> 
> "there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States  Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542,
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment, "....creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the States."
> Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at pg 591;
> 
> "One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443."
> Mc Donel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323;
> 
> "Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to be a citizen of his State" Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, Baltimore, Md., 1966, 221 A. 2d 431 citing US Supreme Court Slaughter House Cases and U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542, 549, 23 L. Ed 588 1875
> 
> "There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 (1909)
> 
> "Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities
> of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other" Tashiro v. Jordan, 255 P. 545 California Supreme Court
> 
> The United States Supreme Court quite thoroughly expanded on the two classes
> of citizenship in the case Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, where it said:
> 
> "...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states,
> which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the
> paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested."
> Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;
> 
> These two classes of citizenship continue to this day,
> "Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. 14,Â§ 1."
> Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993);
> 
> Because there are 2 classes of citizens, and also because of circumstances that will become known below, it is necessary to assert your sovereignty. In order to understand how and why you assert your sovereignty, we need to have some background knowledge.
> 
> A state citizen is one of "We the People" found in the preamble to the constitution. You can be in a state without being in the United States. In fact, if you read their codes, the United States in the United States Code is the District of Columbia and the Territories. The Puerto Rico website even talks about it.
> 
> The US citizen
> A US citizen does not have any rights.
> "...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;
> 
> The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957
> 
> "Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity."
> Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.
> 
> â€œA â€œUS Citizenâ€ upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in â€œinterstate commerceâ€, as a â€œresidentâ€ does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.â€ Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporterâ€™s Rd. 610-625. (1914)
> 
> A US citizen is a corporation.
> "...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300
> 
> This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.
> 
> Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is;
> 
> "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,....."
> 
> 
> The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended"   (Reposted with permission)
> 
> 2 Classes of Citizens
> 
> I want you to think on that while I work on part 2 of this for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The “topic” we are talking about surrounds immigrants crossing a border illegally (that means outside of established laws regarding immigration and it’s customs procedures) in the United States , establish a place to live in this country with the original intent of imposing *their will* and desire to become citizens of the United States.  We also have refugees in caravans that are seeking to force *their will* to live in the United States while using the “excuse”, aided by United States ideological supporters and attornies as if “asylum” was some secret password to grant them automatic entry.  Do you know what the actual conditions are asylum regarding in the United States?
> 
> Every year people come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:
> 
> Race
> Religion
> Nationality
> Membership in a particular social group
> Political opinion
> Those specific conditions do NOT include poverty. All this while we have immigrants overseas are seeking legal entry, going through the current established process designated by law to become American citizens.  We also have designated check points of entry for foreigners who wish to enter into Canada or come down into the United States.  None of that is in debate.  Yet a wall or parameter to allow foreigners to use the same kind of designated access into our country from our southern border IS an issue.
> 
> So the question has evolved into: What are the Founders views on a large influx of foreign immigrants intentionally crossing our southern border only to  later imposing THEIR will on the United States to “recognize” and “accept” them.
> 
> “*The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass*; by *promoting in DIFFERENT CLASSES different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others,* it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.”
> Alexander Hamilton
> 
> SOURCE: (Lucius Crassus), “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904)
> 
> We have immigrants sneaking across our southern demanding their right to be heard and recognized as citizens of the United States.  While we have a diffeeent class of foreigners from overseas who go through the long legal process to become a citizen of the United States BY LAW.
> 
> The Founders also has concerns of unlimited foreigners simply coming into the United States.
> 
> Benjamin Franklin’s concern surrounded a *massive influx of German immigrants pouring into Pennsylvania*. Franklin said Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s, or live as in a foreign country.”
> SOURCE:
> Franklin, Letter to James Parker, March 20, 1750, in Writings, 445
> 
> Washington was also concerned about the isolation that differences of language bred, telling  his Vice President:  “the advantage of [immigration and settlement] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) *may be much questioned*; for, by so doing, *they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them*.”
> SOURCE:
> Washington, Letter to the Vice President, November 15, 1794, in Fitzpatrick, Writings, 34:23
> 
> When we look to the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution: “The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: It is a social compact, by which *the WHOLE people* covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that  *ALL* (*without* *exclusion)* *shall be GOVERNED BY CERTAIN LAWS for the common good*.”
> SOURCE:
> Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, Preamble, in The Founders’ Constitution 1:11
> 
> These same laws which govern each state of *the “common good*” of *ALL*, to include foreigners and foreign immigrants, can be found under Article I of the United States Constitution.
> 
> 
> Article I
> 
> Section 9.
> 
> The *migration* or *importation* of such persons *as any of the STATES NOW EXISTING* *shall think proper to admit*, *shall not be prohibited by the CONGRESS prior* *to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight*, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
> 
> 
> 
> With regards to the principles of the American Founding, _*the right to emigrate from the land of one’s birth*_,  one should not make the mistake ... *assume* ... that this principle of consent also conferred an inherent right to immigrate to any place of one’s choosing.  If* “all men are created equal” *then *consent must be reciprocal among the parties involved*.
> 
> *ALL  to include foreign immigrants are governed by certain LAWS for the common good.  These laws act as a social contract that both parties must abide by.  You can not simply wander into a foreign nation and demand YOUR will, or what you believe as YOUR inherent right, upon others to be recognized if .. “all men are created equal”
> *
> Gouverneur Morris argued in the Convention, “*every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the CONDITIONS on which new members should be admitted*.”
> SOURCE: Gouverneur Morris, quoted in West, Vindicating the Founders, 157.
> 
> 
> *Mutual or reciprocal consent is dictated by the principle of natural equality*.  —- *If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals.* *The immigrant is establishing himself as the rightful superior, as he has the power to dictate, unilaterally, the terms of the contract between himself and the community, without the community’s consent.*
> 
> 
> This ends PART ONE, as I continue to take the time and go through several more sources, as well as references that lead me to other early Supreme Court cases.
> 
> 
> Now I have included specific views of our Founders related to this very issue, quotes you rejected as irrelevant.  All while YOU stated   “ I have quoted founding fathers, court cases, the Constitution, history books, etc.” while including your most predominate linked source “Wikipedia” .. and call that research.  Perhaps you can tell me just how many expert historians out there (list them please), or those who desire to be called an “expert” in a particular area of United States or Constitutional history ... use and reference Wikipedia as THEIR predominate go to source, if they even list it at all?  The term “Cliff Notes” really comes to mind when I see that source used, which is the choice of many individuals who would rather just throw up a quick link without actually taking the dime to do the research.  I find particularly hilarious.. at the very least entertaining, when an individual insists on prodomiantly using this source and makes this claim they are able “to kick my ass” on research”.   At least I can see you still have your sense of humor.
> 
> If there was ever a need to utilize “Cliff Notes” or a quick response to a post, I’m sure Wikipedia is the source to use ... as opposed to setting aside the amount of time which is required to perform some actual research.  At least I know where your list of “preferences” can be found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are repeating yourself and you've made those arguments and they got shot down.  You allowed some pages to pass and bring the same B.S. to the table.  The facts are NOT going to change:
> 
> 1)  The federal government has NO constitutional authority to tell a state who may come and go.  Congress is limited to naturalization.  Naturalization is citizenship
> 
> 2)  What Franklin said regarding the Germans becoming a large colony is predicated on the assumption that they would* become citizens*. You cannot colonize in a country where you are not a citizen... unless you're invading it with a force of arms and taking it. What in the Hell is your major malfunction here?  Becoming a citizen and coming to a country to conduct business are two separate things.  Are you really so stupid that you cannot differentiate nor delineate the difference between those two concepts?
> 
> 3)  Your quote regarding Gouverneur Morris is about *citizenship. * Again, it had *NOTHING to do with non-citizens* doing business in the United States
> 
> 4)  The foreigners coming here have no claim to citizenship and IF a jurisdiction is giving the foreigner ANYTHING at taxpayer expense, it is between the citizenry and their elected leaders.
> 
> NOBODY is doing what you claim.  People are taking advantage of free enterprise while your dumb ass is waging a war against private property Rights, the Freedom of Association, and the concept of God given, natural, inherent, absolute, *unalienable*, irrevocable Rights...  *ESPECIALLY LIBERTY
> *
> 5)  Article I  Section 9 has been explained to you.  Here is a repeat:
> 
> "_This is another euphemistic nod to America's dark history (_sic_) of slavery. "Such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" is a really long-winded way of saying "slaves" without actually saying "slaves." The Constitution barred any attempt to outlaw the slave trade before 1808. As soon as that date rolled around, Congress did vote to block the international slave trade, although slaves continued to be sold within the country and slavery itself lasted for almost another 60 years_..."
> 
> Article 1, Section 9
> 
> *Section 9 - The Meaning*
> _"Article I, Section 9 specifically prohibits Congress from legislating in certain areas. In the first clause, the Constitution bars Congress from banning the importation of slaves before 1808_."
> 
> Article I Section 9
> 
> 
> "_The importation of slaves cannot be outlawed before 1808."_
> _https://www.brighthubeducation.com/...471-article-1-of-the-us-constitution-summary/
> _
> *YOUR QUOTED SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION HAS NO, ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON IMMIGRATION.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First. having foreign immigrants use predesignated entry points to gain entry into the United States has absolutely NOTHING ... ZERO ... NADA ... with preventing a foreigner from doing business in the United States.  According to your statement,  foreigners that come to the United States from Europe, nations in the Pacific orient, Africa, and the Middle East are prevented .. somehow “harmed” from doing business based on what happens in the southern border.  EXCEPT for the fact we already have designated, restricted entry points at our northern border that the United States and Canada BOTH utilizes to check foreigners that enter their country.
> That’s one claim that’s so easily shot down.
> 
> Also this overemphasized DRAMA of “private property Rights, the Freedom of Association, and the concept of God given, natural, inherent, absolute, *unalienable*, irrevocable Rights...  ESPECIALLY LIBERTY*” *is what it is .... DRAMA.  That would mean our northern customers border with Canada is ALSO in violation through its standards of enforcement.  Is that what you are saying?  Think about that when you lay out your little “drama speech”.
> 
> You can quote the preamble as many times as you wish, yet it STILL does NOT state or support a foreign immigrant in masses walking across another nation’s border .. then lay claim and recognition of citizenship.*
> *
> Sorry you* NEVER *proved that.
> 
> 
> In fact your ONE claim that the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional, came from a one source “conspiracy” website.  Do you believe everything you read from ONE source?
> 
> Let’s look at the true “actual” facts surrounding that Amendment.
> 
> The Constitution states:
> Amendment does not become part of the Constitution unless it is ratified by *three-quarters* of the *states.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> June 8, 1866 - The Senate passed the 14th Amendment by a vote of 33 to 11.
> 
> June 13, 1866 - The House of Representatives passed the 14th Amendment by a vote of 120 to 32.
> 
> June 22, 1866 - President Andrew Johnson submitted a message to Congress announcing that the Fourteenth Amendment had been sent to the states for ratification.
> 
> July 28, 1868 - Secretary of State William Seward issued a proclamation certifying the ratification of the 14th Amendment by the states.
> *
> *SOURCE: 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)
> *
> 
> Those who also supported the ratification included
> North Carolina on Jul 4, 1868
> South Carolina on Jul 9, 1868
> Georgia on Jul 21, 1868
> And Virginia on Oct 8, 1869
> 
> The Amendment was Ratified in 757 days, making the 14th Amendment Constitional under the ratification process of the United States Constitution.
> 
> SOURCE: https://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html
Click to expand...


It takes at least two weeks for you to research and cobble together what you think are talking points in favor of hating the little brown people from south of the border.  I'll respond to some of your allegations this morning and that's just for chits and giggles.

1)  I* do NOT disagree *with your proposition that we should have entry points.  Where I disagree with you is that the federal government puts quotas in place and tries to deny people the ability to take advantage of opportunities* willingly* offered

2)  You have *NEVER *been able to shoot down any fact that I've brought to the table.  You are constantly defending immigration laws that were passed by *liberals*.  Those laws clearly and unequivocally discriminate against white people:

The Hart–Celler Act abolished the quota system based on national origins that had been American immigration policy since the 1920s. The 1965 Act marked a change from past U.S. policy which had discriminated against non-northern Europeans.[2] In removing racial and national barriers the Act would significantly alter the demographic mix in the U.S

... Senator Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said,our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset"

However, the ethnic composition of immigrants changed following the passage of the law.[18][19] Specifically, the Hart–Celler Act allowed increased numbers of people to migrate to the United States from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. The 1965 act, however, imposed the first cap on immigration from the Americas. This marks the first time numerical limitations were placed on legal immigration from Latin American countries including Mexico"

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia

3)  The United States is not responsible for the immigration policies of Canada.  I don't know what point you made there, but if I wanted to hire a Canadian because they speak French and few Americans do, I would hire them on that basis

4)    Insofar as the unconstitutionality of the 14th, I was fighting it in court a decade *BEFORE* your little anti-immigrant build a wall cult was founded.  We were chipping away at its unconstitutional provisions and the MSM helped National Socialists, just like you, turn 25 years of hard ass work by constitutionalists into defeats for the left.  What a bunch of morons!!!

5)  Here are FIVE sources off the top of my head (and I don't really need a link for some things as I AM the original citing source for much of what I say.)  Just use the links to refute (and yes they answer your objections) the walls of irrelevant text that you post that have been disproven three times now in the course of this thread:

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

Was the Fourteenth Amendment Constitutionally Adopted? | Abbeville Institute

The above link is the only one we really need

http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf

Freedom School - Texas

Those sites, combined, refute everything you will ever post in support of the Amendment that, if it didn't exist, would give you whiners one less lie to parrot (i.e. the "anchor baby" myth.)  Without the 14th those people would not be citizens and you'd have one less reason to exist.

So your actual "facts" (LMFAO) got shot down by judges, historians, legal researchers, lawyers, and citizen activists.  It's almost funny.  The 14 jeopardizes your Rights, allows millions to become "citizens" that you hate, loathe and despise and yet you STILL support it.  How much more screwed up can you be?

6)  Your denial of what I can prove or not prove is not left up to you.  Your opinion does not constitute fact.  My *opinion* is that you hate the most important foundational principles upon which the Republic rests.  You have a problem with *unalienable* Rights.  Maybe it's YOU who needs to be deported.


----------



## danielpalos

LilOlLady said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing doesn't care about the law, Only their worthless bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> Securing the border and wanting legal immigration is American and not racist and bigotry. You are major confused.
Click to expand...

there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.  

why not care about that, right wingers?


----------



## danielpalos

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing doesn't care about the law, Only their worthless bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> Securing the border and wanting legal immigration is American and not racist and bigotry. You are major confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they run out of supportive facts they can provide and go to, they turn to their racism and bigotry comments.  I’m not at all surprised by this.
Click to expand...

in right wing fantasy, right wingers are Always right.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't really care about the law unless it supports your right wing bigotry, right wingers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're like a broken clock.  Even the most liberal guy has the potential to be right twice a day.
> 
> The bottom line, no bullshit, no debatable point is, those who want a wall ignore *ALL* the laws surrounding the issue.  THIS is going to be their downfall.  There are two sides to every issue.
> 
> People like protectionist want to litigate on a discussion board instead of having the facts put on the table.  The right will lose on peripheral issues as they cannot understand the long term ramifications of their actions.  Many times the right screws themselves because they have no insight.
> 
> If protectionist wants to see how incompetent and silly their legal arguments are, I'm willing to give him the ultimate example today.
Click to expand...


So when Canada and the United States imposes specific customs “check points” locations on their border, the requirement to provide a passport, go through a series of questions and possibly be required to submit to car inspections.   Are they, in any way, violating this concept of God given, natural inherent, absolute,  unalienable, irrevocable rights? Can you provide Supreme Court, and/or a statement from the Constitutional Congress that supports that?    That is YOUR claim that any form of border enforcement does.

Again, the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants.  It is in fact referencing “We the people  (of the United States) in Order to form a more perfect *Union*. ... more specifically CITIZENS recognized by the United States.  Citizens, NOT foreign immigrants, have congressional representation which establishes law for the common good, just as the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution supports.



In short I have more references and examples  which reflect and back up my view point, than you have been able to show to the contrary.


----------



## LilOlLady

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't really care about the law unless it supports your right wing bigotry, right wingers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're like a broken clock.  Even the most liberal guy has the potential to be right twice a day.
> 
> The bottom line, no bullshit, no debatable point is, those who want a wall ignore *ALL* the laws surrounding the issue.  THIS is going to be their downfall.  There are two sides to every issue.
> 
> People like protectionist want to litigate on a discussion board instead of having the facts put on the table.  The right will lose on peripheral issues as they cannot understand the long term ramifications of their actions.  Many times the right screws themselves because they have no insight.
> 
> If protectionist wants to see how incompetent and silly their legal arguments are, I'm willing to give him the ultimate example today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when Canada and the United States imposes specific customs “check points” locations on their border, the requirement to provide a passport, go through a series of questions and possibly be required to submit to car inspections.   Are they, in any way, violating this concept of God given, natural inherent, absolute,  unalienable, irrevocable rights? Can you provide Supreme Court, and/or a statement from the Constitutional Congress that supports that?    That is YOUR claim that any form of border enforcement does.
> 
> Again, the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants.  It is in fact referencing “We the people  (of the United States) in Order to form a more perfect *Union*. ... more specifically CITIZENS recognized by the United States.  Citizens, NOT foreign immigrants, have congressional representation which establishes law for the common good, just as the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution supports.
> 
> 
> 
> In short I have more references and examples which reflect and back up my view point, than you have been able to show to the contrary.[/QUOT
> What are God-given, natural inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable rights? To protect you and yours have been the law since the beginning of time. Borders and boundaries were created by GOD. The *role* of the *judges* during the settlement period in Canaan is understood into two aspects. ... On the other hand, *judges* are also considered as military leaders in order to fight the enemy of the Israelites. It is the *role of judges* to protect the people in Israel from all forms of destruction.
> The first ten *amendments* to the U.S. Constitution are summarized below. *Freedom of religion*, *speech*, press, assembly, and petition. Right to *keep and bear arms* in order to maintain a well *regulated* militia. Right to *due process of law*, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.
> The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created *equal*, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain* unalienable Rights,* that among these are *Life, Liberty*, and the *Pursuit of Happiness*….”
Click to expand...


----------



## danielpalos

admit it right wingers; only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> *“If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals“*
> 
> That quote deals specifically to foreign immigrants coming into the United States and imposing their will to recognize their right to be here in violation of its laws.
> 
> Franklin - “Pennsylvania *“will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s or live as in a foreign country” .. *addressed concerns over an OVERABUNDANCE of foreign immigrants entering this country with the need of limits in its numbers.
> 
> You see I can back up my point through multiple sources going back to our Founding, to include
> (1) Ben Franklin
> (2) George Washington
> (3) Alexander Hamilton,
> (4) the1780 Massachusetts Constitution:
> 
> ALL of which discredits your claims of a nation using borders which interferes into an immigrant’s personal liberty contrary to the United States Constitution.  More importantly, I can back up my views with direct quotes ... you can’t.  I can provide actual documentation without citing Wikipedia ... you can’t. I can do actual research while I laugh at the attempt of yours.  Let me know when you can provide actual documented sources from our Founders, the state Constitution of one of the colonies, or the Continental Congress which states their full support of unlimited foreign immigrants coming into this country.
> 
> Unlike you I just provided much more than your ramblings on a Immigration thread, like your response above.  Yes I obviously out research you by actually backing up my view through *and providing* individual views (*sources*) going back to our nation’s founding.
> 
> Show us your ability to perform actual research, or give us another lazy excuse not to — like I don’t do it for free.  If Wikipedia is your best, as a client I’d want my money back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the 4489 posts here I have quoted founding fathers, court cases, the Constitution, history books, etc.  Wasn't your last ass whipping enough the last time?
> 
> You continue to mix citizenship up with people working jobs and doing business here as non-citizens.  So, all the research you put on the table is irrelevant.
> 
> 1)  If an immigrant imposed himself on me or in my neighborhood, I'd drive the son of a bitch out myself.  I wouldn't be talking about it on a discussion board or thumping my chest.  So, why aren't you?  OR is your inaction and walls of irrelevant text an easy way out of doing a dirty job?  I think that maybe you understand that half of the population -  at a minimum *invited *the foreigner here.  So, your first paragraph is *irrelevant*.
> 
> 2)  Did Benjamin Franklin lobby for a quota system in the U.S.?  OR did he leave well enough alone?  Did he lobby to make America an English speaking country?  How many people agreed with him?
> 
> 3)  You continue to do your share of chest thumping, but no matter what founding father said what, *NONE* of them done a damn thing about the *FACT* that the comings and goings of foreigners were left up to the *STATES*.  The founders did not address it in the Constitution.  As a matter of *FACT*, the only authority the federal government has relative to immigration is:
> 
> "_To establish a uniform rule of naturalization_"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Other than that, the federal government has no lawful / legal / de jure authority in immigration.  The United States Constitution takes precedence over all the quotes you've given. Now which of us do you think, on that point, provided the best evidence?
> 
> Let me repeat what YOU said:
> 
> *If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals*
> 
> I think you want some debate on that point, but the bottom line is, when Americans buy from, sell to, rent to, and otherwise do business with foreigners, it's none of your fucking business.  It's dumb asses that fed you that socialist shit that is at the root of your problem.  How do you think you got into this situation?
> 
> Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, Congress enacted the first Naturalization Law.  Here is a quote from it:
> 
> "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof"
> 
> naturalization laws 1790-1795
> 
> Let's take a look at the Preamble to the Constitution:
> 
> _"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity*, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
> 
> The Constitution of the United States_
> 
> *WHEN* the United States Supreme Court interpreted that, they ruled (with respect to blacks):
> 
> "The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all of the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied [_sic_] by that instrument to the citizen?
> 
> ...
> We think [...] that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."
> 
> _Dred Scott v. Sandford_, 60 U.S. at 404–05.
> 
> Additionally, Taney, who wrote the majority opinion stated "The  American people, constituted a “political family” restricted to whites."
> 
> Eleven years later the Republicans *ILLEGALLY* ratified the 14th Amendment:
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez
> 
> https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm
> 
> It’s time to tell the truth; the 14th amendment was never ratified.
> 
> The 14th Amendment did a few negative things:
> 
> * It created TWO classes of citizens: Preamble and 14th Amendment citizens
> 
> *  The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights, or more specifically, your* unalienable Rights*.  Do you know what an unalienable Right is?
> 
> Let's move on:
> 
> "The Constitution for the United States of America talks about 2 classes of citizens.
> 
> Article IV, Section 2 Clause 1 says; "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
> 
> The courts have talked about the two classes of citizens as shown below.
> 
> "there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States  Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542,
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment, "....creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the States."
> Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at pg 591;
> 
> "One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443."
> Mc Donel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323;
> 
> "Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to be a citizen of his State" Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, Baltimore, Md., 1966, 221 A. 2d 431 citing US Supreme Court Slaughter House Cases and U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542, 549, 23 L. Ed 588 1875
> 
> "There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 (1909)
> 
> "Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities
> of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other" Tashiro v. Jordan, 255 P. 545 California Supreme Court
> 
> The United States Supreme Court quite thoroughly expanded on the two classes
> of citizenship in the case Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, where it said:
> 
> "...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states,
> which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the
> paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested."
> Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;
> 
> These two classes of citizenship continue to this day,
> "Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. 14,Â§ 1."
> Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993);
> 
> Because there are 2 classes of citizens, and also because of circumstances that will become known below, it is necessary to assert your sovereignty. In order to understand how and why you assert your sovereignty, we need to have some background knowledge.
> 
> A state citizen is one of "We the People" found in the preamble to the constitution. You can be in a state without being in the United States. In fact, if you read their codes, the United States in the United States Code is the District of Columbia and the Territories. The Puerto Rico website even talks about it.
> 
> The US citizen
> A US citizen does not have any rights.
> "...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;
> 
> The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957
> 
> "Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity."
> Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.
> 
> â€œA â€œUS Citizenâ€ upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in â€œinterstate commerceâ€, as a â€œresidentâ€ does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.â€ Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporterâ€™s Rd. 610-625. (1914)
> 
> A US citizen is a corporation.
> "...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300
> 
> This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.
> 
> Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is;
> 
> "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,....."
> 
> 
> The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended"   (Reposted with permission)
> 
> 2 Classes of Citizens
> 
> I want you to think on that while I work on part 2 of this for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The “topic” we are talking about surrounds immigrants crossing a border illegally (that means outside of established laws regarding immigration and it’s customs procedures) in the United States , establish a place to live in this country with the original intent of imposing *their will* and desire to become citizens of the United States.  We also have refugees in caravans that are seeking to force *their will* to live in the United States while using the “excuse”, aided by United States ideological supporters and attornies as if “asylum” was some secret password to grant them automatic entry.  Do you know what the actual conditions are asylum regarding in the United States?
> 
> Every year people come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:
> 
> Race
> Religion
> Nationality
> Membership in a particular social group
> Political opinion
> Those specific conditions do NOT include poverty. All this while we have immigrants overseas are seeking legal entry, going through the current established process designated by law to become American citizens.  We also have designated check points of entry for foreigners who wish to enter into Canada or come down into the United States.  None of that is in debate.  Yet a wall or parameter to allow foreigners to use the same kind of designated access into our country from our southern border IS an issue.
> 
> So the question has evolved into: What are the Founders views on a large influx of foreign immigrants intentionally crossing our southern border only to  later imposing THEIR will on the United States to “recognize” and “accept” them.
> 
> “*The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass*; by *promoting in DIFFERENT CLASSES different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others,* it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.”
> Alexander Hamilton
> 
> SOURCE: (Lucius Crassus), “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904)
> 
> We have immigrants sneaking across our southern demanding their right to be heard and recognized as citizens of the United States.  While we have a diffeeent class of foreigners from overseas who go through the long legal process to become a citizen of the United States BY LAW.
> 
> The Founders also has concerns of unlimited foreigners simply coming into the United States.
> 
> Benjamin Franklin’s concern surrounded a *massive influx of German immigrants pouring into Pennsylvania*. Franklin said Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s, or live as in a foreign country.”
> SOURCE:
> Franklin, Letter to James Parker, March 20, 1750, in Writings, 445
> 
> Washington was also concerned about the isolation that differences of language bred, telling  his Vice President:  “the advantage of [immigration and settlement] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) *may be much questioned*; for, by so doing, *they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them*.”
> SOURCE:
> Washington, Letter to the Vice President, November 15, 1794, in Fitzpatrick, Writings, 34:23
> 
> When we look to the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution: “The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: It is a social compact, by which *the WHOLE people* covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that  *ALL* (*without* *exclusion)* *shall be GOVERNED BY CERTAIN LAWS for the common good*.”
> SOURCE:
> Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, Preamble, in The Founders’ Constitution 1:11
> 
> These same laws which govern each state of *the “common good*” of *ALL*, to include foreigners and foreign immigrants, can be found under Article I of the United States Constitution.
> 
> 
> Article I
> 
> Section 9.
> 
> The *migration* or *importation* of such persons *as any of the STATES NOW EXISTING* *shall think proper to admit*, *shall not be prohibited by the CONGRESS prior* *to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight*, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
> 
> 
> 
> With regards to the principles of the American Founding, _*the right to emigrate from the land of one’s birth*_,  one should not make the mistake ... *assume* ... that this principle of consent also conferred an inherent right to immigrate to any place of one’s choosing.  If* “all men are created equal” *then *consent must be reciprocal among the parties involved*.
> 
> *ALL  to include foreign immigrants are governed by certain LAWS for the common good.  These laws act as a social contract that both parties must abide by.  You can not simply wander into a foreign nation and demand YOUR will, or what you believe as YOUR inherent right, upon others to be recognized if .. “all men are created equal”
> *
> Gouverneur Morris argued in the Convention, “*every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the CONDITIONS on which new members should be admitted*.”
> SOURCE: Gouverneur Morris, quoted in West, Vindicating the Founders, 157.
> 
> 
> *Mutual or reciprocal consent is dictated by the principle of natural equality*.  —- *If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals.* *The immigrant is establishing himself as the rightful superior, as he has the power to dictate, unilaterally, the terms of the contract between himself and the community, without the community’s consent.*
> 
> 
> This ends PART ONE, as I continue to take the time and go through several more sources, as well as references that lead me to other early Supreme Court cases.
> 
> 
> Now I have included specific views of our Founders related to this very issue, quotes you rejected as irrelevant.  All while YOU stated   “ I have quoted founding fathers, court cases, the Constitution, history books, etc.” while including your most predominate linked source “Wikipedia” .. and call that research.  Perhaps you can tell me just how many expert historians out there (list them please), or those who desire to be called an “expert” in a particular area of United States or Constitutional history ... use and reference Wikipedia as THEIR predominate go to source, if they even list it at all?  The term “Cliff Notes” really comes to mind when I see that source used, which is the choice of many individuals who would rather just throw up a quick link without actually taking the dime to do the research.  I find particularly hilarious.. at the very least entertaining, when an individual insists on prodomiantly using this source and makes this claim they are able “to kick my ass” on research”.   At least I can see you still have your sense of humor.
> 
> If there was ever a need to utilize “Cliff Notes” or a quick response to a post, I’m sure Wikipedia is the source to use ... as opposed to setting aside the amount of time which is required to perform some actual research.  At least I know where your list of “preferences” can be found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are repeating yourself and you've made those arguments and they got shot down.  You allowed some pages to pass and bring the same B.S. to the table.  The facts are NOT going to change:
> 
> 1)  The federal government has NO constitutional authority to tell a state who may come and go.  Congress is limited to naturalization.  Naturalization is citizenship
> 
> 2)  What Franklin said regarding the Germans becoming a large colony is predicated on the assumption that they would* become citizens*. You cannot colonize in a country where you are not a citizen... unless you're invading it with a force of arms and taking it. What in the Hell is your major malfunction here?  Becoming a citizen and coming to a country to conduct business are two separate things.  Are you really so stupid that you cannot differentiate nor delineate the difference between those two concepts?
> 
> 3)  Your quote regarding Gouverneur Morris is about *citizenship. * Again, it had *NOTHING to do with non-citizens* doing business in the United States
> 
> 4)  The foreigners coming here have no claim to citizenship and IF a jurisdiction is giving the foreigner ANYTHING at taxpayer expense, it is between the citizenry and their elected leaders.
> 
> NOBODY is doing what you claim.  People are taking advantage of free enterprise while your dumb ass is waging a war against private property Rights, the Freedom of Association, and the concept of God given, natural, inherent, absolute, *unalienable*, irrevocable Rights...  *ESPECIALLY LIBERTY
> *
> 5)  Article I  Section 9 has been explained to you.  Here is a repeat:
> 
> "_This is another euphemistic nod to America's dark history (_sic_) of slavery. "Such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" is a really long-winded way of saying "slaves" without actually saying "slaves." The Constitution barred any attempt to outlaw the slave trade before 1808. As soon as that date rolled around, Congress did vote to block the international slave trade, although slaves continued to be sold within the country and slavery itself lasted for almost another 60 years_..."
> 
> Article 1, Section 9
> 
> *Section 9 - The Meaning*
> _"Article I, Section 9 specifically prohibits Congress from legislating in certain areas. In the first clause, the Constitution bars Congress from banning the importation of slaves before 1808_."
> 
> Article I Section 9
> 
> 
> "_The importation of slaves cannot be outlawed before 1808."_
> _https://www.brighthubeducation.com/...471-article-1-of-the-us-constitution-summary/
> _
> *YOUR QUOTED SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION HAS NO, ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON IMMIGRATION.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First. having foreign immigrants use predesignated entry points to gain entry into the United States has absolutely NOTHING ... ZERO ... NADA ... with preventing a foreigner from doing business in the United States.  According to your statement,  foreigners that come to the United States from Europe, nations in the Pacific orient, Africa, and the Middle East are prevented .. somehow “harmed” from doing business based on what happens in the southern border.  EXCEPT for the fact we already have designated, restricted entry points at our northern border that the United States and Canada BOTH utilizes to check foreigners that enter their country.
> That’s one claim that’s so easily shot down.
> 
> Also this overemphasized DRAMA of “private property Rights, the Freedom of Association, and the concept of God given, natural, inherent, absolute, *unalienable*, irrevocable Rights...  ESPECIALLY LIBERTY*” *is what it is .... DRAMA.  That would mean our northern customers border with Canada is ALSO in violation through its standards of enforcement.  Is that what you are saying?  Think about that when you lay out your little “drama speech”.
> 
> You can quote the preamble as many times as you wish, yet it STILL does NOT state or support a foreign immigrant in masses walking across another nation’s border .. then lay claim and recognition of citizenship.*
> *
> Sorry you* NEVER *proved that.
> 
> 
> In fact your ONE claim that the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional, came from a one source “conspiracy” website.  Do you believe everything you read from ONE source?
> 
> Let’s look at the true “actual” facts surrounding that Amendment.
> 
> The Constitution states:
> Amendment does not become part of the Constitution unless it is ratified by *three-quarters* of the *states.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> June 8, 1866 - The Senate passed the 14th Amendment by a vote of 33 to 11.
> 
> June 13, 1866 - The House of Representatives passed the 14th Amendment by a vote of 120 to 32.
> 
> June 22, 1866 - President Andrew Johnson submitted a message to Congress announcing that the Fourteenth Amendment had been sent to the states for ratification.
> 
> July 28, 1868 - Secretary of State William Seward issued a proclamation certifying the ratification of the 14th Amendment by the states.
> *
> *SOURCE: 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)
> *
> 
> Those who also supported the ratification included
> North Carolina on Jul 4, 1868
> South Carolina on Jul 9, 1868
> Georgia on Jul 21, 1868
> And Virginia on Oct 8, 1869
> 
> The Amendment was Ratified in 757 days, making the 14th Amendment Constitional under the ratification process of the United States Constitution.
> 
> SOURCE: https://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It takes at least two weeks for you to research and cobble together what you think are talking points in favor of hating the little brown people from south of the border.  I'll respond to some of your allegations this morning and that's just for chits and giggles.
> 
> 1)  I* do NOT disagree *with your proposition that we should have entry points.  Where I disagree with you is that the federal government puts quotas in place and tries to deny people the ability to take advantage of opportunities* willingly* offered
> 
> 2)  You have *NEVER *been able to shoot down any fact that I've brought to the table.  You are constantly defending immigration laws that were passed by *liberals*.  Those laws clearly and unequivocally discriminate against white people:
> 
> The Hart–Celler Act abolished the quota system based on national origins that had been American immigration policy since the 1920s. The 1965 Act marked a change from past U.S. policy which had discriminated against non-northern Europeans.[2] In removing racial and national barriers the Act would significantly alter the demographic mix in the U.S
> 
> ... Senator Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said,our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset"
> 
> However, the ethnic composition of immigrants changed following the passage of the law.[18][19] Specifically, the Hart–Celler Act allowed increased numbers of people to migrate to the United States from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. The 1965 act, however, imposed the first cap on immigration from the Americas. This marks the first time numerical limitations were placed on legal immigration from Latin American countries including Mexico"
> 
> Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia
> 
> 3)  The United States is not responsible for the immigration policies of Canada.  I don't know what point you made there, but if I wanted to hire a Canadian because they speak French and few Americans do, I would hire them on that basis
> 
> 4)    Insofar as the unconstitutionality of the 14th, I was fighting it in court a decade *BEFORE* your little anti-immigrant build a wall cult was founded.  We were chipping away at its unconstitutional provisions and the MSM helped National Socialists, just like you, turn 25 years of hard ass work by constitutionalists into defeats for the left.  What a bunch of morons!!!
> 
> 5)  Here are FIVE sources off the top of my head (and I don't really need a link for some things as I AM the original citing source for much of what I say.)  Just use the links to refute (and yes they answer your objections) the walls of irrelevant text that you post that have been disproven three times now in the course of this thread:
> 
> https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez
> 
> Was the Fourteenth Amendment Constitutionally Adopted? | Abbeville Institute
> 
> The above link is the only one we really need
> 
> http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf
> 
> Freedom School - Texas
> 
> Those sites, combined, refute everything you will ever post in support of the Amendment that, if it didn't exist, would give you whiners one less lie to parrot (i.e. the "anchor baby" myth.)  Without the 14th those people would not be citizens and you'd have one less reason to exist.
> 
> So your actual "facts" (LMFAO) got shot down by judges, historians, legal researchers, lawyers, and citizen activists.  It's almost funny.  The 14 jeopardizes your Rights, allows millions to become "citizens" that you hate, loathe and despise and yet you STILL support it.  How much more screwed up can you be?
> 
> 6)  Your denial of what I can prove or not prove is not left up to you.  Your opinion does not constitute fact.  My *opinion* is that you hate the most important foundational principles upon which the Republic rests.  You have a problem with *unalienable* Rights.  Maybe it's YOU who needs to be deported.
Click to expand...


Turning to racist statements like “hating brown people” does not AID in your position.  IN FACT those who make judgment views using racially charged sentiments (such as yourself) DO SO because they can no longer defend their argument with any amount of provided research that backs their case.

Remember you are making racial suggestions and statements... not I.  *My previous responses included evidence where one group of foreign illegal immigrants are accepted and treated differently from foreign immigrants overseas, creating two classes of immigrants that is contrary to the view of “all men created equal” that you claim under our Constitution.


(1) One group obtaining citizenship through the legal process of our immigration LAW, 
(2) Second seperate group to make allowances for those who break the law.
*
*This is not* *“all men created equal” *as our Constitution supports

With regard to your reference of “quotas”, that’s where the quotes of Washington’s, Hamilton’s Franklin’s come in.  What was the view of Founders surrounding UNLIMITED foreign immigrants entering the United States with the desire to later become United States citizens.

“*To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country*, as recommended in the message, would be *nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our LIBERTY and SOVEREIGHNTY.*”
— Alexander Hamilton
SOURCE:  “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904

This quote by Hamilton DOES NOT support unlimited foreign immigration into this country. 

Benjamin Franklin also expressed reservations and concerns with very large numbers of foreign immigrants settling in our country.
Regarding the rather large number of German immigrants into Pennsylvania. Franklin says  *Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s, or live as in a foreign country.”*

Did that statement support large numbers of foreign immigrants freely flowing in the United States?
Yes ... or not ?  YES their opinions DO matter, as they were involved in our nation’s Constitution. 

With regards to your responses:
1) You provided no quotes from our Founders supporting unlimited immigration.
2) You provided nothing from the Continental Congress supporting unlimited immigration.


The difference is ... that I turn to the opinion of the Founders, a state Constitution during the period of the colonies, Federalist Papers, MYSELF in researching early United States views on the subject to foreign immigrants entering into this country.  I don’t see “evidence” of unlimited numbers without concerns of keeping such amount in check.

You turn to a 20th century opinion piece link or “Cliff Notes” quick reference sheet in an attempt to try and support your view.. and call that research.

Throwing up a 20th century link of an opinion piece is not research ... it’s someone else’s opinion piece.

BIG DIFFERENCE

Have you SERIOUSLY, in complete honesty... EVER put together a research paper that does not involve Wikipedia, or three or four links of “opinion pieces” as your complete answer ?

Research my ass!!  I doubt you actually took a class and ever written one.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't really care about the law unless it supports your right wing bigotry, right wingers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're like a broken clock.  Even the most liberal guy has the potential to be right twice a day.
> 
> The bottom line, no bullshit, no debatable point is, those who want a wall ignore *ALL* the laws surrounding the issue.  THIS is going to be their downfall.  There are two sides to every issue.
> 
> People like protectionist want to litigate on a discussion board instead of having the facts put on the table.  The right will lose on peripheral issues as they cannot understand the long term ramifications of their actions.  Many times the right screws themselves because they have no insight.
> 
> If protectionist wants to see how incompetent and silly their legal arguments are, I'm willing to give him the ultimate example today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when Canada and the United States imposes specific customs “check points” locations on their border, the requirement to provide a passport, go through a series of questions and possibly be required to submit to car inspections.   Are they, in any way, violating this concept of God given, natural inherent, absolute,  unalienable, irrevocable rights? Can you provide Supreme Court, and/or a statement from the Constitutional Congress that supports that?    That is YOUR claim that any form of border enforcement does.
> 
> Again, the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants.  It is in fact referencing “We the people  (of the United States) in Order to form a more perfect *Union*. ... more specifically CITIZENS recognized by the United States.  Citizens, NOT foreign immigrants, have congressional representation which establishes law for the common good, just as the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution supports.
> 
> 
> 
> In short I have more references and examples  which reflect and back up my view point, than you have been able to show to the contrary.
Click to expand...


You are an absolute dumb ass.  You lie so much that nobody here on the left or the right can have a constructive discussion with you.  I've not said *anything* regarding every form of "_border enhancement._"   That is total bullshit you just made up. 

IF you looked at what the OP is about, it is in reference to a wall.  A wall must transverse across *PRIVATE* property lines wherein people do not want it.  The wall requires the America people to forfeit their Liberties in the name of *enforcement of the wall*.  Do you not recall the number of laws and policies that have been put in effect to monitor foreigners that have been more costly to the American people?  *Your side* pushed the so called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, the end of the presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty, assaults on private property, total nullification of the Fourth Amendment, warrant less search and seizures, 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb monitoring, National Gun Registration, the cashless society, etc.  *THESE ARE FRUITS OF YOUR LABORS*.  

*IF* your idiotic ass would read the links I provide, you would know full well the answer to every question you asked and what the exact answer is.  You are so full of shit that one minute you're making one argument and the next minute, you're making the opposite argument.  So, let me get you caught up to speed:

You start sounding like a patriot with the statement that:

 "the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants."

This statement is absolutely true.  That is two points you have gotten  right this week.  In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford case the United States Supreme Court ruled that:

"It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several states, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; *it was formed by them and for them and their posterity, but for no one else*."

Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

Now, here is where you get this bass ackwards:

The 14th Amendment created *TWO* separate and distinct classes of citizens.  You have Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens... points you would have learned had you actually read my links.  Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities along with this wording:

"nor shall any State deprive any* person* of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any *person* within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Notice the differentiation between the way the 14th Amendment uses the terms person and Citizen.  Under the 14th Amendment foreigners are absolutely guaranteed Liberty.  The moment their feet hit U.S. soil, they have rights that Uncle Scam bestowed upon them. * Initially* when they became citizens, they were eligible for all kinds of benefits and privileges of citizenship.  HOWEVER, as time has gone on the Courts have brought *everybody* under the umbrella of the 14th Amendment.

Unless you claim your Rights under the Preamble, you are a 14th Amendment citizen and have no claim to the Bill of Rights.  If you are a foreigner, under the 14th Amendment, you have the guaranteed Rights of *life, liberty and property* - REGARDLESS of how you came into the United States.  These are government granted rights, but it is what it is.  There is NO exception just because they came in at something other than a checkpoint.  Consequently, the Supreme Court has ruled that being here without papers is not a crime; if undocumented parents here have children born in the United States, they are citizens as per the 14th Amendment; ANY competent court will not split families up because the parents violated a civil misdemeanor.  That would be a clear cut violation of the 8th Amendment.  In the near future your talking points are going to leave you with a minimum of 6 MILLION people that will vote your dumb ass into oblivion.  Are you getting a fucking clue as to why I'm opposed to the 14th Amendment at this point OR are you still running around like a chicken with it's head cut off?

The Two United States


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the 4489 posts here I have quoted founding fathers, court cases, the Constitution, history books, etc.  Wasn't your last ass whipping enough the last time?
> 
> You continue to mix citizenship up with people working jobs and doing business here as non-citizens.  So, all the research you put on the table is irrelevant.
> 
> 1)  If an immigrant imposed himself on me or in my neighborhood, I'd drive the son of a bitch out myself.  I wouldn't be talking about it on a discussion board or thumping my chest.  So, why aren't you?  OR is your inaction and walls of irrelevant text an easy way out of doing a dirty job?  I think that maybe you understand that half of the population -  at a minimum *invited *the foreigner here.  So, your first paragraph is *irrelevant*.
> 
> 2)  Did Benjamin Franklin lobby for a quota system in the U.S.?  OR did he leave well enough alone?  Did he lobby to make America an English speaking country?  How many people agreed with him?
> 
> 3)  You continue to do your share of chest thumping, but no matter what founding father said what, *NONE* of them done a damn thing about the *FACT* that the comings and goings of foreigners were left up to the *STATES*.  The founders did not address it in the Constitution.  As a matter of *FACT*, the only authority the federal government has relative to immigration is:
> 
> "_To establish a uniform rule of naturalization_"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Other than that, the federal government has no lawful / legal / de jure authority in immigration.  The United States Constitution takes precedence over all the quotes you've given. Now which of us do you think, on that point, provided the best evidence?
> 
> Let me repeat what YOU said:
> 
> *If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals*
> 
> I think you want some debate on that point, but the bottom line is, when Americans buy from, sell to, rent to, and otherwise do business with foreigners, it's none of your fucking business.  It's dumb asses that fed you that socialist shit that is at the root of your problem.  How do you think you got into this situation?
> 
> Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, Congress enacted the first Naturalization Law.  Here is a quote from it:
> 
> "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof"
> 
> naturalization laws 1790-1795
> 
> Let's take a look at the Preamble to the Constitution:
> 
> _"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity*, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
> 
> The Constitution of the United States_
> 
> *WHEN* the United States Supreme Court interpreted that, they ruled (with respect to blacks):
> 
> "The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all of the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied [_sic_] by that instrument to the citizen?
> 
> ...
> We think [...] that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."
> 
> _Dred Scott v. Sandford_, 60 U.S. at 404–05.
> 
> Additionally, Taney, who wrote the majority opinion stated "The  American people, constituted a “political family” restricted to whites."
> 
> Eleven years later the Republicans *ILLEGALLY* ratified the 14th Amendment:
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez
> 
> https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm
> 
> It’s time to tell the truth; the 14th amendment was never ratified.
> 
> The 14th Amendment did a few negative things:
> 
> * It created TWO classes of citizens: Preamble and 14th Amendment citizens
> 
> *  The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights, or more specifically, your* unalienable Rights*.  Do you know what an unalienable Right is?
> 
> Let's move on:
> 
> "The Constitution for the United States of America talks about 2 classes of citizens.
> 
> Article IV, Section 2 Clause 1 says; "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
> 
> The courts have talked about the two classes of citizens as shown below.
> 
> "there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States  Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542,
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment, "....creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the States."
> Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at pg 591;
> 
> "One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443."
> Mc Donel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323;
> 
> "Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to be a citizen of his State" Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, Baltimore, Md., 1966, 221 A. 2d 431 citing US Supreme Court Slaughter House Cases and U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542, 549, 23 L. Ed 588 1875
> 
> "There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 (1909)
> 
> "Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities
> of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other" Tashiro v. Jordan, 255 P. 545 California Supreme Court
> 
> The United States Supreme Court quite thoroughly expanded on the two classes
> of citizenship in the case Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, where it said:
> 
> "...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states,
> which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the
> paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested."
> Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;
> 
> These two classes of citizenship continue to this day,
> "Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. 14,Â§ 1."
> Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993);
> 
> Because there are 2 classes of citizens, and also because of circumstances that will become known below, it is necessary to assert your sovereignty. In order to understand how and why you assert your sovereignty, we need to have some background knowledge.
> 
> A state citizen is one of "We the People" found in the preamble to the constitution. You can be in a state without being in the United States. In fact, if you read their codes, the United States in the United States Code is the District of Columbia and the Territories. The Puerto Rico website even talks about it.
> 
> The US citizen
> A US citizen does not have any rights.
> "...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;
> 
> The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957
> 
> "Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity."
> Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.
> 
> â€œA â€œUS Citizenâ€ upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in â€œinterstate commerceâ€, as a â€œresidentâ€ does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.â€ Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporterâ€™s Rd. 610-625. (1914)
> 
> A US citizen is a corporation.
> "...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300
> 
> This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.
> 
> Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is;
> 
> "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,....."
> 
> 
> The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended"   (Reposted with permission)
> 
> 2 Classes of Citizens
> 
> I want you to think on that while I work on part 2 of this for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The “topic” we are talking about surrounds immigrants crossing a border illegally (that means outside of established laws regarding immigration and it’s customs procedures) in the United States , establish a place to live in this country with the original intent of imposing *their will* and desire to become citizens of the United States.  We also have refugees in caravans that are seeking to force *their will* to live in the United States while using the “excuse”, aided by United States ideological supporters and attornies as if “asylum” was some secret password to grant them automatic entry.  Do you know what the actual conditions are asylum regarding in the United States?
> 
> Every year people come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:
> 
> Race
> Religion
> Nationality
> Membership in a particular social group
> Political opinion
> Those specific conditions do NOT include poverty. All this while we have immigrants overseas are seeking legal entry, going through the current established process designated by law to become American citizens.  We also have designated check points of entry for foreigners who wish to enter into Canada or come down into the United States.  None of that is in debate.  Yet a wall or parameter to allow foreigners to use the same kind of designated access into our country from our southern border IS an issue.
> 
> So the question has evolved into: What are the Founders views on a large influx of foreign immigrants intentionally crossing our southern border only to  later imposing THEIR will on the United States to “recognize” and “accept” them.
> 
> “*The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass*; by *promoting in DIFFERENT CLASSES different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others,* it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.”
> Alexander Hamilton
> 
> SOURCE: (Lucius Crassus), “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904)
> 
> We have immigrants sneaking across our southern demanding their right to be heard and recognized as citizens of the United States.  While we have a diffeeent class of foreigners from overseas who go through the long legal process to become a citizen of the United States BY LAW.
> 
> The Founders also has concerns of unlimited foreigners simply coming into the United States.
> 
> Benjamin Franklin’s concern surrounded a *massive influx of German immigrants pouring into Pennsylvania*. Franklin said Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s, or live as in a foreign country.”
> SOURCE:
> Franklin, Letter to James Parker, March 20, 1750, in Writings, 445
> 
> Washington was also concerned about the isolation that differences of language bred, telling  his Vice President:  “the advantage of [immigration and settlement] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) *may be much questioned*; for, by so doing, *they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them*.”
> SOURCE:
> Washington, Letter to the Vice President, November 15, 1794, in Fitzpatrick, Writings, 34:23
> 
> When we look to the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution: “The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: It is a social compact, by which *the WHOLE people* covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that  *ALL* (*without* *exclusion)* *shall be GOVERNED BY CERTAIN LAWS for the common good*.”
> SOURCE:
> Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, Preamble, in The Founders’ Constitution 1:11
> 
> These same laws which govern each state of *the “common good*” of *ALL*, to include foreigners and foreign immigrants, can be found under Article I of the United States Constitution.
> 
> 
> Article I
> 
> Section 9.
> 
> The *migration* or *importation* of such persons *as any of the STATES NOW EXISTING* *shall think proper to admit*, *shall not be prohibited by the CONGRESS prior* *to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight*, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
> 
> 
> 
> With regards to the principles of the American Founding, _*the right to emigrate from the land of one’s birth*_,  one should not make the mistake ... *assume* ... that this principle of consent also conferred an inherent right to immigrate to any place of one’s choosing.  If* “all men are created equal” *then *consent must be reciprocal among the parties involved*.
> 
> *ALL  to include foreign immigrants are governed by certain LAWS for the common good.  These laws act as a social contract that both parties must abide by.  You can not simply wander into a foreign nation and demand YOUR will, or what you believe as YOUR inherent right, upon others to be recognized if .. “all men are created equal”
> *
> Gouverneur Morris argued in the Convention, “*every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the CONDITIONS on which new members should be admitted*.”
> SOURCE: Gouverneur Morris, quoted in West, Vindicating the Founders, 157.
> 
> 
> *Mutual or reciprocal consent is dictated by the principle of natural equality*.  —- *If an immigrant can successfully impose himself on a political community, in violation of its laws, then the relation between the immigrant and the community is not a relationship of equals.* *The immigrant is establishing himself as the rightful superior, as he has the power to dictate, unilaterally, the terms of the contract between himself and the community, without the community’s consent.*
> 
> 
> This ends PART ONE, as I continue to take the time and go through several more sources, as well as references that lead me to other early Supreme Court cases.
> 
> 
> Now I have included specific views of our Founders related to this very issue, quotes you rejected as irrelevant.  All while YOU stated   “ I have quoted founding fathers, court cases, the Constitution, history books, etc.” while including your most predominate linked source “Wikipedia” .. and call that research.  Perhaps you can tell me just how many expert historians out there (list them please), or those who desire to be called an “expert” in a particular area of United States or Constitutional history ... use and reference Wikipedia as THEIR predominate go to source, if they even list it at all?  The term “Cliff Notes” really comes to mind when I see that source used, which is the choice of many individuals who would rather just throw up a quick link without actually taking the dime to do the research.  I find particularly hilarious.. at the very least entertaining, when an individual insists on prodomiantly using this source and makes this claim they are able “to kick my ass” on research”.   At least I can see you still have your sense of humor.
> 
> If there was ever a need to utilize “Cliff Notes” or a quick response to a post, I’m sure Wikipedia is the source to use ... as opposed to setting aside the amount of time which is required to perform some actual research.  At least I know where your list of “preferences” can be found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are repeating yourself and you've made those arguments and they got shot down.  You allowed some pages to pass and bring the same B.S. to the table.  The facts are NOT going to change:
> 
> 1)  The federal government has NO constitutional authority to tell a state who may come and go.  Congress is limited to naturalization.  Naturalization is citizenship
> 
> 2)  What Franklin said regarding the Germans becoming a large colony is predicated on the assumption that they would* become citizens*. You cannot colonize in a country where you are not a citizen... unless you're invading it with a force of arms and taking it. What in the Hell is your major malfunction here?  Becoming a citizen and coming to a country to conduct business are two separate things.  Are you really so stupid that you cannot differentiate nor delineate the difference between those two concepts?
> 
> 3)  Your quote regarding Gouverneur Morris is about *citizenship. * Again, it had *NOTHING to do with non-citizens* doing business in the United States
> 
> 4)  The foreigners coming here have no claim to citizenship and IF a jurisdiction is giving the foreigner ANYTHING at taxpayer expense, it is between the citizenry and their elected leaders.
> 
> NOBODY is doing what you claim.  People are taking advantage of free enterprise while your dumb ass is waging a war against private property Rights, the Freedom of Association, and the concept of God given, natural, inherent, absolute, *unalienable*, irrevocable Rights...  *ESPECIALLY LIBERTY
> *
> 5)  Article I  Section 9 has been explained to you.  Here is a repeat:
> 
> "_This is another euphemistic nod to America's dark history (_sic_) of slavery. "Such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" is a really long-winded way of saying "slaves" without actually saying "slaves." The Constitution barred any attempt to outlaw the slave trade before 1808. As soon as that date rolled around, Congress did vote to block the international slave trade, although slaves continued to be sold within the country and slavery itself lasted for almost another 60 years_..."
> 
> Article 1, Section 9
> 
> *Section 9 - The Meaning*
> _"Article I, Section 9 specifically prohibits Congress from legislating in certain areas. In the first clause, the Constitution bars Congress from banning the importation of slaves before 1808_."
> 
> Article I Section 9
> 
> 
> "_The importation of slaves cannot be outlawed before 1808."_
> _https://www.brighthubeducation.com/...471-article-1-of-the-us-constitution-summary/
> _
> *YOUR QUOTED SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION HAS NO, ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON IMMIGRATION.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First. having foreign immigrants use predesignated entry points to gain entry into the United States has absolutely NOTHING ... ZERO ... NADA ... with preventing a foreigner from doing business in the United States.  According to your statement,  foreigners that come to the United States from Europe, nations in the Pacific orient, Africa, and the Middle East are prevented .. somehow “harmed” from doing business based on what happens in the southern border.  EXCEPT for the fact we already have designated, restricted entry points at our northern border that the United States and Canada BOTH utilizes to check foreigners that enter their country.
> That’s one claim that’s so easily shot down.
> 
> Also this overemphasized DRAMA of “private property Rights, the Freedom of Association, and the concept of God given, natural, inherent, absolute, *unalienable*, irrevocable Rights...  ESPECIALLY LIBERTY*” *is what it is .... DRAMA.  That would mean our northern customers border with Canada is ALSO in violation through its standards of enforcement.  Is that what you are saying?  Think about that when you lay out your little “drama speech”.
> 
> You can quote the preamble as many times as you wish, yet it STILL does NOT state or support a foreign immigrant in masses walking across another nation’s border .. then lay claim and recognition of citizenship.*
> *
> Sorry you* NEVER *proved that.
> 
> 
> In fact your ONE claim that the 14th Amendment is UNConstitutional, came from a one source “conspiracy” website.  Do you believe everything you read from ONE source?
> 
> Let’s look at the true “actual” facts surrounding that Amendment.
> 
> The Constitution states:
> Amendment does not become part of the Constitution unless it is ratified by *three-quarters* of the *states.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> June 8, 1866 - The Senate passed the 14th Amendment by a vote of 33 to 11.
> 
> June 13, 1866 - The House of Representatives passed the 14th Amendment by a vote of 120 to 32.
> 
> June 22, 1866 - President Andrew Johnson submitted a message to Congress announcing that the Fourteenth Amendment had been sent to the states for ratification.
> 
> July 28, 1868 - Secretary of State William Seward issued a proclamation certifying the ratification of the 14th Amendment by the states.
> *
> *SOURCE: 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)
> *
> 
> Those who also supported the ratification included
> North Carolina on Jul 4, 1868
> South Carolina on Jul 9, 1868
> Georgia on Jul 21, 1868
> And Virginia on Oct 8, 1869
> 
> The Amendment was Ratified in 757 days, making the 14th Amendment Constitional under the ratification process of the United States Constitution.
> 
> SOURCE: https://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It takes at least two weeks for you to research and cobble together what you think are talking points in favor of hating the little brown people from south of the border.  I'll respond to some of your allegations this morning and that's just for chits and giggles.
> 
> 1)  I* do NOT disagree *with your proposition that we should have entry points.  Where I disagree with you is that the federal government puts quotas in place and tries to deny people the ability to take advantage of opportunities* willingly* offered
> 
> 2)  You have *NEVER *been able to shoot down any fact that I've brought to the table.  You are constantly defending immigration laws that were passed by *liberals*.  Those laws clearly and unequivocally discriminate against white people:
> 
> The Hart–Celler Act abolished the quota system based on national origins that had been American immigration policy since the 1920s. The 1965 Act marked a change from past U.S. policy which had discriminated against non-northern Europeans.[2] In removing racial and national barriers the Act would significantly alter the demographic mix in the U.S
> 
> ... Senator Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said,our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset"
> 
> However, the ethnic composition of immigrants changed following the passage of the law.[18][19] Specifically, the Hart–Celler Act allowed increased numbers of people to migrate to the United States from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. The 1965 act, however, imposed the first cap on immigration from the Americas. This marks the first time numerical limitations were placed on legal immigration from Latin American countries including Mexico"
> 
> Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia
> 
> 3)  The United States is not responsible for the immigration policies of Canada.  I don't know what point you made there, but if I wanted to hire a Canadian because they speak French and few Americans do, I would hire them on that basis
> 
> 4)    Insofar as the unconstitutionality of the 14th, I was fighting it in court a decade *BEFORE* your little anti-immigrant build a wall cult was founded.  We were chipping away at its unconstitutional provisions and the MSM helped National Socialists, just like you, turn 25 years of hard ass work by constitutionalists into defeats for the left.  What a bunch of morons!!!
> 
> 5)  Here are FIVE sources off the top of my head (and I don't really need a link for some things as I AM the original citing source for much of what I say.)  Just use the links to refute (and yes they answer your objections) the walls of irrelevant text that you post that have been disproven three times now in the course of this thread:
> 
> https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez
> 
> Was the Fourteenth Amendment Constitutionally Adopted? | Abbeville Institute
> 
> The above link is the only one we really need
> 
> http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf
> 
> Freedom School - Texas
> 
> Those sites, combined, refute everything you will ever post in support of the Amendment that, if it didn't exist, would give you whiners one less lie to parrot (i.e. the "anchor baby" myth.)  Without the 14th those people would not be citizens and you'd have one less reason to exist.
> 
> So your actual "facts" (LMFAO) got shot down by judges, historians, legal researchers, lawyers, and citizen activists.  It's almost funny.  The 14 jeopardizes your Rights, allows millions to become "citizens" that you hate, loathe and despise and yet you STILL support it.  How much more screwed up can you be?
> 
> 6)  Your denial of what I can prove or not prove is not left up to you.  Your opinion does not constitute fact.  My *opinion* is that you hate the most important foundational principles upon which the Republic rests.  You have a problem with *unalienable* Rights.  Maybe it's YOU who needs to be deported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turning to racist statements like “hating brown people” does not AID in your position.  IN FACT those who make judgment views using racially charged sentiments (such as yourself) DO SO because they can no longer defend their argument with any amount of provided research that backs their case.
> 
> Remember you are making racial suggestions and statements... not I.  *My previous responses included evidence where one group of foreign illegal immigrants are accepted and treated differently from foreign immigrants overseas, creating two classes of immigrants that is contrary to the view of “all men created equal” that you claim under our Constitution.
> 
> 
> (1) One group obtaining citizenship through the legal process of our immigration LAW,
> (2) Second seperate group to make allowances for those who break the law.
> *
> *This is not* *“all men created equal” *as our Constitution supports
> 
> With regard to your reference of “quotas”, that’s where the quotes of Washington’s, Hamilton’s Franklin’s come in.  What was the view of Founders surrounding UNLIMITED foreign immigrants entering the United States with the desire to later become United States citizens.
> 
> “*To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country*, as recommended in the message, would be *nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our LIBERTY and SOVEREIGHNTY.*”
> — Alexander Hamilton
> SOURCE:  “Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801,” viii, January 7, 1802, in Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904
> 
> This quote by Hamilton DOES NOT support unlimited foreign immigration into this country.
> 
> Benjamin Franklin also expressed reservations and concerns with very large numbers of foreign immigrants settling in our country.
> Regarding the rather large number of German immigrants into Pennsylvania. Franklin says  *Pennsylvania “will in a few Years become a German Colony. Instead of their Learning our Language, we must learn their’s, or live as in a foreign country.”*
> 
> Did that statement support large numbers of foreign immigrants freely flowing in the United States?
> Yes ... or not ?  YES their opinions DO matter, as they were involved in our nation’s Constitution.
> 
> With regards to your responses:
> 1) You provided no quotes from our Founders supporting unlimited immigration.
> 2) You provided nothing from the Continental Congress supporting unlimited immigration.
> 
> 
> The difference is ... that I turn to the opinion of the Founders, a state Constitution during the period of the colonies, Federalist Papers, MYSELF in researching early United States views on the subject to foreign immigrants entering into this country.  I don’t see “evidence” of unlimited numbers without concerns of keeping such amount in check.
> 
> You turn to a 20th century opinion piece link or “Cliff Notes” quick reference sheet in an attempt to try and support your view.. and call that research.
> 
> Throwing up a 20th century link of an opinion piece is not research ... it’s someone else’s opinion piece.
> 
> BIG DIFFERENCE
> 
> Have you SERIOUSLY, in complete honesty... EVER put together a research paper that does not involve Wikipedia, or three or four links of “opinion pieces” as your complete answer ?
> 
> Research my ass!!  I doubt you actually took a class and ever written one.
Click to expand...


More walls of text because you don't *READ* the provided links. 

1)  When you don't have anything, throw in the race card.  Hey dumbass, YOUR side keeps telling me that the little brown people from across the southern border do not constitute a race.  You're* now *changing the goalposts because you don't have anything factual?

2)  You are the one supporting the two classes of citizenship with your support of the 14th Amendment

3)  The Constitution doesn't say a damn thing about all men being created equal.  That is the Declaration of Independence.  There is yet more proof that you ask for links to documentation that you don't bother reading; you just excel at creating strawman arguments

4)  Don't screw with me.  If you're not bothering to read the responses, don't bother to ask me to respond to that when did you quit beating your wife variety of questions

5)  You keep supporting the 14th Amendment then quoting the founders that make MY point.  You are all over the map. * Immigration *is people coming into the United States for the purpose of *PERMANENT RESIDENCE*.  What is so hard to understand about that?  What in the Hell short circuits in your brain that you cannot tell the difference between people doing business and people becoming part of the body politic as permanent residents? 

6)    You accuse me of not providing quotes from the founders.  WTH?  Have you actually READ anything I've written?  Try this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"     Thomas Jefferson writing in the Declaration of Independence

Either all men have the Rights you find so offensive or they don't.  Which is it?  Jefferson IS a founding father; the Declaration of Independence trumps all other anecdotal quotes you can post

7)  You make an accusation that your pea brain cannot sustain.  If ANYONE on this board looks at the time period between when you posted and supposedly went to the links provided will see that you are lying.  Period.  If you check the links I left in the last three posts I've done, you will find:

** References to the Constitution
* References to the Declaration of Independence
*  Over 100 court cases cited
*  Opinions from all three branches of the government
*  The research from world class historians
* Over 50 major court cases cited and analyzed*

Your dumb ass didn't even bother to access them.  Anyone looking at the time frame between your last few posts can see that.  Don't accuse me of Cliff's Notes... and* NOTHING *you've posted refutes anything I've posted.

You can "_doubt_" all you want, but my home is open and you can not only see the cases I've researched, but those I've won.  You can see the many tv, radio and newspaper interviews I've done over the years. Check out the diplomas and degrees - we'll even invite some of the local political leaders over and you can weigh that for yourself... OR YOU CAN CONTINUE TO TRY AND BULLSHIT YOUR WAY THROUGH THIS THREAD WHILE TAKING THE ASS WHIPPING OF A LIFE TIME.

People who want the facts will, sooner or later, access the links provided and figure out, you tell more lies than any politician on Capitol Hill.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

SHACKLESOFBIGGOV  is aptly named.  He wants more and more government to save him from people he calls "illegals."  So, he's all over the board, unable to make a cogent statement about the issue.  We can make this easy for everybody.  It will only take a few posts, so let us see this issue put into perspective for all to understand.

*Immigration * - "The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence. The correlative term “emigration” denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country"  Black's Law Dictionary  What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)

*Naturalization* - "The act of adopting an alien into a nation, and clothing him with all the rights possessed by a natural- born citizen"   Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U. S. 135, 12 Sup. Ct. 375, 36 L. Ed. 103.

*Citizen* -  In general, A member of a free city or jural society, (civitas.) possessing *all the rights* and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties.  Black's Law Dictionary  What is CITIZEN? definition of CITIZEN (Black's Law Dictionary)

*FACT*:  The word immigration is not in the Constitution

*FACT*:  There is no term in the Constitution that defines people who come and go and do business in the United States *without *becoming citizens

*FACT*:  Society has *misused* the words immigrant and immigration loosely so that it covers both people seeking to become citizens and those who come here strictly to do business with Americans

*FACT*:  There is nothing in the Constitution that confers any power to any branch of government to restrict the movement of people conducting business including, but not limited to foreigners, temporary laborers, businesses, guest workers, and invitees.

*FACT*:  The Constitution states that "Congress shall have the power ...To establish a uniform rule of naturalization..."  That is the extent of their jurisdiction; no more and no less.  Congress gets to decide who may become a citizen of the United States.  Congress has NO power to tell the individual state who they may or may not let into their respective states to conduct business.  If it were in the Constitution, someone would have pointed out in the more than 

Here is a link to some research done by the Cato Institute on what the founders had to say relative to immigration:

The Founding Fathers Favored a Liberal Immigration System

**NOTE*:  In most contexts where the founders are discussing and / or debating "immigration," it is in reference to people who are coming to the United States for *permanent residence*.  Their discussions DO NOT cover people who come into the United States to do business.

People like SHACKLESOFBIGGOV are using the misapplication of the word immigration to give the government powers that they simply do not have in the Constitution.  IF such a power existed, those who obsess over the wall would have pointed that power out.


----------



## Slyhunter

Regardless of all the shit you spout in your over-abundance of word play it doesn't change the fact that America can not afford to give welfare to the worlds poor. We need to keep them out or they will bankrupt our country.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Regardless of all the shit you spout in your over-abundance of word play it doesn't change the fact that America can not afford to give welfare to the worlds poor. We need to keep them out or they will bankrupt our country.



Non-citizens should not qualify for *ANY* kind of welfare.  *IF* they are getting freebies, the greatest thing you can do to incentivize the foreigners from coming here is cut that practice - even if takes a constitutional amendment to do so.

Non-citizens should not allowed to vote *IF* it is happening.  Non-citizens who plan on* being in* the United States should be issued a separate Tax ID and pay a higher rate for NOT becoming citizens.  Why the higher rate?  Citizenship has its perks.

*IF* there are fewer jobs on account of foreigners; if there are costs (which, in reality there are not), then you offset those costs with a higher tax rate.

You can also give employers SUBSTANTIAL tax incentives to hire an all American staff with all of its subsidiaries IN the United States.

You can *REPEAL* the 14th Amendment and take the "anchor baby" argument OFF the table PLUS eliminate, once a for all, this idiotic, dishonest or uninformed notion that foreigners without papers don't have rights.  I can *assure* you that they do.  I'm doing a simplification of this issue from A to Z.  I will keep each post updated so that you can scroll through the posts and figure out how the build the wall idiots are working toward their own demise AND what it will take to bring us back to sanity.


----------



## Slyhunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of all the shit you spout in your over-abundance of word play it doesn't change the fact that America can not afford to give welfare to the worlds poor. We need to keep them out or they will bankrupt our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non-citizens should not qualify for *ANY* kind of welfare.  *IF* they are getting freebies, the greatest thing you can do to incentivize the foreigners from coming here is cut that practice - even if takes a constitutional amendment to do so.
> 
> Non-citizens should not allowed to vote *IF* it is happening.  Non-citizens who plan on* being in* the United States should be issued a separate Tax ID and pay a higher rate for NOT becoming citizens.  Why the higher rate?  Citizenship has its perks.
> 
> *IF* there are fewer jobs on account of foreigners; if there are costs (which, in reality there are not), then you offset those costs with a higher tax rate.
> 
> You can also give employers SUBSTANTIAL tax incentives to hire an all American staff with all of its subsidiaries IN the United States.
> 
> You can *REPEAL* the 14th Amendment and take the "anchor baby" argument OFF the table PLUS eliminate, once a for all, this idiotic, dishonest or uninformed notion that foreigners without papers don't have rights.  I can *assure* you that they do.  I'm doing a simplification of this issue from A to Z.  I will keep each post updated so that you can scroll through the posts and figure out how the build the wall idiots are working toward their own demise AND what it will take to bring us back to sanity.
Click to expand...

Their american born anchor babies collect welfare and give it to their illegal alien parents.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Porter Rockwell said:


> SHACKLESOFBIGGOV  is aptly named.  He wants more and more government to save him from people he calls "illegals."  So, he's all over the board, unable to make a cogent statement about the issue.  We can make this easy for everybody.  It will only take a few posts, so let us see this issue put into perspective for all to understand.
> 
> *Immigration * - "The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence. The correlative term “emigration” denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country"  Black's Law Dictionary  What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> *Naturalization* - "The act of adopting an alien into a nation, and clothing him with all the rights possessed by a natural- born citizen"   Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U. S. 135, 12 Sup. Ct. 375, 36 L. Ed. 103.
> 
> *Citizen* -  In general, A member of a free city or jural society, (civitas.) possessing *all the rights* and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties.  Black's Law Dictionary  What is CITIZEN? definition of CITIZEN (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> *FACT*:  The word immigration is not in the Constitution
> 
> *FACT*:  There is no term in the Constitution that defines people who come and go and do business in the United States *without *becoming citizens
> 
> *FACT*:  Society has *misused* the words immigrant and immigration loosely so that it covers both people seeking to become citizens and those who come here strictly to do business with Americans
> 
> *FACT*:  There is nothing in the Constitution that confers any power to any branch of government to restrict the movement of people conducting business including, but not limited to foreigners, temporary laborers, businesses, guest workers, and invitees.
> 
> *FACT*:  The Constitution states that "Congress shall have the power ...To establish a uniform rule of naturalization..."  That is the extent of their jurisdiction; no more and no less.  Congress gets to decide who may become a citizen of the United States.  Congress has NO power to tell the individual state who they may or may not let into their respective states to conduct business.  If it were in the Constitution, someone would have pointed out in the more than
> 
> Here is a link to some research done by the Cato Institute on what the founders had to say relative to immigration:
> 
> The Founding Fathers Favored a Liberal Immigration System
> 
> **NOTE*:  In most contexts where the founders are discussing and / or debating "immigration," it is in reference to people who are coming to the United States for *permanent residence*.  Their discussions DO NOT cover people who come into the United States to do business.
> 
> People like SHACKLESOFBIGGOV are using the misapplication of the word immigration to give the government powers that they simply do not have in the Constitution.  IF such a power existed, those who obsess over the wall would have pointed that power out.



*THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POST # 4581
*
The Declaration provides that:

"_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable Rights*, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."

Throughout my writings, I have been partly dishonest with my critics because *they are being wholly dishonest *about  the *REAL* America.  Whether we like it or not; agree with it or not, the immigration / foreigner issue is perceived as a race issue by both the left and the right.  Both sides cannot have a civil discussion without interjecting race into the issue.  

On my part, I have tried to soft sell America by quoting the part about "_all men being created equal ...endowed with certain *unalienable *Rights_..."  If backed into a corner, I could always fall back on the fact that Thomas Jefferson wrote those words and he must have felt that way because he brought mixed race children into this world by way of Sally Hemmings.  So, let's quit blowing smoke up each other's hind quarters and admit a few things before we start thinking about building a wall around the southern border.

The *first* governing document of the New World (as the colonists knew it) was the *Mayflower Compact* which was signed in 1620.  A relevant part goes like this:

_"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc._

*Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith.*"  

It wasn't long after that a preacher by the name of *Pastor* *John Winthrop* gave a sermon aboard the ship the Arabella on its way to America  in 1630.  It is entitled:* A Model of Christian Charity.*  This sermon is very symbolic to our national heritage and it has been quoted by many politicians  and presidents including Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy.  I'd like to quote a few things for you from that speech:

"First, in regard of the more near bond of marriage between Him and us, wherein He hath taken us to be His, after a most strict and peculiar manner, which will make Him the more jealous of our love and obedience. So He tells the people of Israel, you only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I punish you for your transgressions....

...Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission. The Lord hath given us leave to draw our own articles.

We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, "may the Lord make it like that of New England." For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world."

http://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

The point here is that the early colonists saw themselves as being the Israelites of the Bible and America as the New Jerusalem.  This is the *most important fact* that I can make should you want to look at why we cannot build a wall around the southern border.  I dare not explain this to you in this posting, but we will look at it.  The liberals cannot be ignored either so I'd like to leave you with a link to* their view *of America's human rights record:

RACE - The Power of an Illusion . Go Deeper | PBS


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of all the shit you spout in your over-abundance of word play it doesn't change the fact that America can not afford to give welfare to the worlds poor. We need to keep them out or they will bankrupt our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non-citizens should not qualify for *ANY* kind of welfare.  *IF* they are getting freebies, the greatest thing you can do to incentivize the foreigners from coming here is cut that practice - even if takes a constitutional amendment to do so.
> 
> Non-citizens should not allowed to vote *IF* it is happening.  Non-citizens who plan on* being in* the United States should be issued a separate Tax ID and pay a higher rate for NOT becoming citizens.  Why the higher rate?  Citizenship has its perks.
> 
> *IF* there are fewer jobs on account of foreigners; if there are costs (which, in reality there are not), then you offset those costs with a higher tax rate.
> 
> You can also give employers SUBSTANTIAL tax incentives to hire an all American staff with all of its subsidiaries IN the United States.
> 
> You can *REPEAL* the 14th Amendment and take the "anchor baby" argument OFF the table PLUS eliminate, once a for all, this idiotic, dishonest or uninformed notion that foreigners without papers don't have rights.  I can *assure* you that they do.  I'm doing a simplification of this issue from A to Z.  I will keep each post updated so that you can scroll through the posts and figure out how the build the wall idiots are working toward their own demise AND what it will take to bring us back to sanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their american born anchor babies collect welfare and give it to their illegal alien parents.
Click to expand...


Are you still stuck on stupid?  How much do you think each American born baby gets in welfare?  Most us know you are lying out your ass.  Having an American born baby here *does not *anchor the parents to the United States.  Trump has kicked undocumented foreigners out of the country and they had several American born children left behind when he did it.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't really care about the law unless it supports your right wing bigotry, right wingers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're like a broken clock.  Even the most liberal guy has the potential to be right twice a day.
> 
> The bottom line, no bullshit, no debatable point is, those who want a wall ignore *ALL* the laws surrounding the issue.  THIS is going to be their downfall.  There are two sides to every issue.
> 
> People like protectionist want to litigate on a discussion board instead of having the facts put on the table.  The right will lose on peripheral issues as they cannot understand the long term ramifications of their actions.  Many times the right screws themselves because they have no insight.
> 
> If protectionist wants to see how incompetent and silly their legal arguments are, I'm willing to give him the ultimate example today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when Canada and the United States imposes specific customs “check points” locations on their border, the requirement to provide a passport, go through a series of questions and possibly be required to submit to car inspections.   Are they, in any way, violating this concept of God given, natural inherent, absolute,  unalienable, irrevocable rights? Can you provide Supreme Court, and/or a statement from the Constitutional Congress that supports that?    That is YOUR claim that any form of border enforcement does.
> 
> Again, the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants.  It is in fact referencing “We the people  (of the United States) in Order to form a more perfect *Union*. ... more specifically CITIZENS recognized by the United States.  Citizens, NOT foreign immigrants, have congressional representation which establishes law for the common good, just as the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution supports.
> 
> 
> 
> In short I have more references and examples  which reflect and back up my view point, than you have been able to show to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an absolute dumb ass.  You lie so much that nobody here on the left or the right can have a constructive discussion with you.  I've not said *anything* regarding every form of "_border enhancement._"   That is total bullshit you just made up.
> 
> IF you looked at what the OP is about, it is in reference to a wall.  A wall must transverse across *PRIVATE* property lines wherein people do not want it.  The wall requires the America people to forfeit their Liberties in the name of *enforcement of the wall*.  Do you not recall the number of laws and policies that have been put in effect to monitor foreigners that have been more costly to the American people?  *Your side* pushed the so called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, the end of the presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty, assaults on private property, total nullification of the Fourth Amendment, warrant less search and seizures, 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb monitoring, National Gun Registration, the cashless society, etc.  *THESE ARE FRUITS OF YOUR LABORS*.
> 
> *IF* your idiotic ass would read the links I provide, you would know full well the answer to every question you asked and what the exact answer is.  You are so full of shit that one minute you're making one argument and the next minute, you're making the opposite argument.  So, let me get you caught up to speed:
> 
> You start sounding like a patriot with the statement that:
> 
> "the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants."
> 
> This statement is absolutely true.  That is two points you have gotten  right this week.  In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford case the United States Supreme Court ruled that:
> 
> "It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several states, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; *it was formed by them and for them and their posterity, but for no one else*."
> 
> Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
> 
> Now, here is where you get this bass ackwards:
> 
> The 14th Amendment created *TWO* separate and distinct classes of citizens.  You have Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens... points you would have learned had you actually read my links.  Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities along with this wording:
> 
> "nor shall any State deprive any* person* of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any *person* within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
> 
> Notice the differentiation between the way the 14th Amendment uses the terms person and Citizen.  Under the 14th Amendment foreigners are absolutely guaranteed Liberty.  The moment their feet hit U.S. soil, they have rights that Uncle Scam bestowed upon them. * Initially* when they became citizens, they were eligible for all kinds of benefits and privileges of citizenship.  HOWEVER, as time has gone on the Courts have brought *everybody* under the umbrella of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Unless you claim your Rights under the Preamble, you are a 14th Amendment citizen and have no claim to the Bill of Rights.  If you are a foreigner, under the 14th Amendment, you have the guaranteed Rights of *life, liberty and property* - REGARDLESS of how you came into the United States.  These are government granted rights, but it is what it is.  There is NO exception just because they came in at something other than a checkpoint.  Consequently, the Supreme Court has ruled that being here without papers is not a crime; if undocumented parents here have children born in the United States, they are citizens as per the 14th Amendment; ANY competent court will not split families up because the parents violated a civil misdemeanor.  That would be a clear cut violation of the 8th Amendment.  In the near future your talking points are going to leave you with a minimum of 6 MILLION people that will vote your dumb ass into oblivion.  Are you getting a fucking clue as to why I'm opposed to the 14th Amendment at this point OR are you still running around like a chicken with it's head cut off?
> 
> The Two United States
Click to expand...


I’m a dumb ass for stating we have a northern border as well that Canada and the United States both use in establishing points of entry and requirements of foreigners?  A border, by the way, that does not hinder foreign business and those who wish to do business in the United States.  A border that does not hinder God given, natural inherent, absolute,  unalienable, irrevocable rights of foreigners.  I’m sure somewhere along that well established national border you will find it close to some personal property rights as well.   How is any of that a lie... calling ME the dumbass ?

You simply don’t like it when someone finds holes in your argument.  Especially when such a well researched expert who prides over 250 cases, yet never once heard of national sovereignty or eminent domain?

Yes, to educate you once more .. the Constitution begins with We the people of the United States of America in order to form a more perfect union.  This is in reference towards those recognized citizens of the United States. African Americans did not have any rights, they were viewed as “property” at the time those words were written.  There is no evidence that Native Americans were considered a part of “We the people”.  I don’t see any Federalist papers, Founders quotes, or early Supreme Court cases where territories (like the Louisiana Purchase) considered any tribe or foreign traveler generally residing in that region as part of “We the people”.  So while native Americans in these western territories were not recognized, while our Founders did not recognize African Americans as anything BUT property at that time, you want me to believe foreign immigrants from other nations make up “We the People” with THEIR “inalienable rights”?  I’m surprised as a “Constitutional and mr research expert” (laughing) you didn’t know any of that which I just listed above.  I’m the liar? I’m the idiot?  Please.

Your  lack of documented research on this that proves me otherwise, as you stumble all over yourself, says everything I need to know  Thank you for the entertainment.


----------



## LilOlLady

Proof of the problem with unchecked and open borders. If we had a wall in 1492 the European immigrant savages would not have been able to enslave, murder, rape, spread disease, steal the land, separated native children from their parents and put them in Christians home taking away their language, culture, and clothing. Sound familiar? *We should denounce Columbus as a criminal* and rename Columbus Day to *Indigenous Peoples’ Solidarity D*ay, Columbus didn't “discover” America — he never set foot in North America. If we do not learn from our mistake, we are bound to repeat them.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> Regardless of all the shit you spout in your over-abundance of word play it doesn't change the fact that America can not afford to give welfare to the worlds poor. We need to keep them out or they will bankrupt our country.


only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy and claim to for Capitalism and specifically not socialism on a national basis.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of all the shit you spout in your over-abundance of word play it doesn't change the fact that America can not afford to give welfare to the worlds poor. We need to keep them out or they will bankrupt our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non-citizens should not qualify for *ANY* kind of welfare.  *IF* they are getting freebies, the greatest thing you can do to incentivize the foreigners from coming here is cut that practice - even if takes a constitutional amendment to do so.
> 
> Non-citizens should not allowed to vote *IF* it is happening.  Non-citizens who plan on* being in* the United States should be issued a separate Tax ID and pay a higher rate for NOT becoming citizens.  Why the higher rate?  Citizenship has its perks.
> 
> *IF* there are fewer jobs on account of foreigners; if there are costs (which, in reality there are not), then you offset those costs with a higher tax rate.
> 
> You can also give employers SUBSTANTIAL tax incentives to hire an all American staff with all of its subsidiaries IN the United States.
> 
> You can *REPEAL* the 14th Amendment and take the "anchor baby" argument OFF the table PLUS eliminate, once a for all, this idiotic, dishonest or uninformed notion that foreigners without papers don't have rights.  I can *assure* you that they do.  I'm doing a simplification of this issue from A to Z.  I will keep each post updated so that you can scroll through the posts and figure out how the build the wall idiots are working toward their own demise AND what it will take to bring us back to sanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their american born anchor babies collect welfare and give it to their illegal alien parents.
Click to expand...

Upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure would enable revenue generation and that refugees are in the minority.


----------



## danielpalos

Thank Goodness for our Constitution.


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Timmy said:


> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .


A wall means less border agents needed,less immigration courts and less burden on private industry to do governments job.


----------



## danielpalos

sawyerloggingon said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> A wall means less border agents needed,less immigration courts and less burden on private industry to do governments job.
Click to expand...

we have a separation of powers, for a reason.  

and, 

we have no immigration clause in Constitution.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't really care about the law unless it supports your right wing bigotry, right wingers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're like a broken clock.  Even the most liberal guy has the potential to be right twice a day.
> 
> The bottom line, no bullshit, no debatable point is, those who want a wall ignore *ALL* the laws surrounding the issue.  THIS is going to be their downfall.  There are two sides to every issue.
> 
> People like protectionist want to litigate on a discussion board instead of having the facts put on the table.  The right will lose on peripheral issues as they cannot understand the long term ramifications of their actions.  Many times the right screws themselves because they have no insight.
> 
> If protectionist wants to see how incompetent and silly their legal arguments are, I'm willing to give him the ultimate example today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when Canada and the United States imposes specific customs “check points” locations on their border, the requirement to provide a passport, go through a series of questions and possibly be required to submit to car inspections.   Are they, in any way, violating this concept of God given, natural inherent, absolute,  unalienable, irrevocable rights? Can you provide Supreme Court, and/or a statement from the Constitutional Congress that supports that?    That is YOUR claim that any form of border enforcement does.
> 
> Again, the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants.  It is in fact referencing “We the people  (of the United States) in Order to form a more perfect *Union*. ... more specifically CITIZENS recognized by the United States.  Citizens, NOT foreign immigrants, have congressional representation which establishes law for the common good, just as the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution supports.
> 
> 
> 
> In short I have more references and examples  which reflect and back up my view point, than you have been able to show to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an absolute dumb ass.  You lie so much that nobody here on the left or the right can have a constructive discussion with you.  I've not said *anything* regarding every form of "_border enhancement._"   That is total bullshit you just made up.
> 
> IF you looked at what the OP is about, it is in reference to a wall.  A wall must transverse across *PRIVATE* property lines wherein people do not want it.  The wall requires the America people to forfeit their Liberties in the name of *enforcement of the wall*.  Do you not recall the number of laws and policies that have been put in effect to monitor foreigners that have been more costly to the American people?  *Your side* pushed the so called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, the end of the presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty, assaults on private property, total nullification of the Fourth Amendment, warrant less search and seizures, 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb monitoring, National Gun Registration, the cashless society, etc.  *THESE ARE FRUITS OF YOUR LABORS*.
> 
> *IF* your idiotic ass would read the links I provide, you would know full well the answer to every question you asked and what the exact answer is.  You are so full of shit that one minute you're making one argument and the next minute, you're making the opposite argument.  So, let me get you caught up to speed:
> 
> You start sounding like a patriot with the statement that:
> 
> "the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants."
> 
> This statement is absolutely true.  That is two points you have gotten  right this week.  In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford case the United States Supreme Court ruled that:
> 
> "It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several states, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; *it was formed by them and for them and their posterity, but for no one else*."
> 
> Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
> 
> Now, here is where you get this bass ackwards:
> 
> The 14th Amendment created *TWO* separate and distinct classes of citizens.  You have Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens... points you would have learned had you actually read my links.  Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities along with this wording:
> 
> "nor shall any State deprive any* person* of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any *person* within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
> 
> Notice the differentiation between the way the 14th Amendment uses the terms person and Citizen.  Under the 14th Amendment foreigners are absolutely guaranteed Liberty.  The moment their feet hit U.S. soil, they have rights that Uncle Scam bestowed upon them. * Initially* when they became citizens, they were eligible for all kinds of benefits and privileges of citizenship.  HOWEVER, as time has gone on the Courts have brought *everybody* under the umbrella of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Unless you claim your Rights under the Preamble, you are a 14th Amendment citizen and have no claim to the Bill of Rights.  If you are a foreigner, under the 14th Amendment, you have the guaranteed Rights of *life, liberty and property* - REGARDLESS of how you came into the United States.  These are government granted rights, but it is what it is.  There is NO exception just because they came in at something other than a checkpoint.  Consequently, the Supreme Court has ruled that being here without papers is not a crime; if undocumented parents here have children born in the United States, they are citizens as per the 14th Amendment; ANY competent court will not split families up because the parents violated a civil misdemeanor.  That would be a clear cut violation of the 8th Amendment.  In the near future your talking points are going to leave you with a minimum of 6 MILLION people that will vote your dumb ass into oblivion.  Are you getting a fucking clue as to why I'm opposed to the 14th Amendment at this point OR are you still running around like a chicken with it's head cut off?
> 
> The Two United States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m a dumb ass for stating we have a northern border as well that Canada and the United States both use in establishing points of entry and requirements of foreigners?  A border, by the way, that does not hinder foreign business and those who wish to do business in the United States.  A border that does not hinder God given, natural inherent, absolute,  unalienable, irrevocable rights of foreigners.  I’m sure somewhere along that well established national border you will find it close to some personal property rights as well.   How is any of that a lie... calling ME the dumbass ?
> 
> You simply don’t like it when someone finds holes in your argument.  Especially when such a well researched expert who prides over 250 cases, yet never once heard of national sovereignty or eminent domain?
> 
> Yes, to educate you once more .. the Constitution begins with We the people of the United States of America in order to form a more perfect union.  This is in reference towards those recognized citizens of the United States. African Americans did not have any rights, they were viewed as “property” at the time those words were written.  There is no evidence that Native Americans were considered a part of “We the people”.  I don’t see any Federalist papers, Founders quotes, or early Supreme Court cases where territories (like the Louisiana Purchase) considered any tribe or foreign traveler generally residing in that region as part of “We the people”.  So while native Americans in these western territories were not recognized, while our Founders did not recognize African Americans as anything BUT property at that time, you want me to believe foreign immigrants from other nations make up “We the People” with THEIR “inalienable rights”?  I’m surprised as a “Constitutional and mr research expert” (laughing) you didn’t know any of that which I just listed above.  I’m the liar? I’m the idiot?  Please.
> 
> Your  lack of documented research on this that proves me otherwise, as you stumble all over yourself, says everything I need to know  Thank you for the entertainment.
Click to expand...


You're a dumb ass for using straw man arguments in a vain attempt to prove an unprovable proposition.  While you rant about it, you've again changed the goalposts.  Now you're saying a border, not a wall.  Did you forget what this subject is about?

If you were only *READING* my posts (and not just the ones in response to you) I am answering each and every point you make.  You see, while you've been making all that noise, I've been *agreeing* with some of your points.  I'm also telling the *whole *truth... not the portions that benefit the left and not those that benefit the right.  See posts # 4581 and 4585.  At least one more posting is coming up today.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

sawyerloggingon said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> A wall means less border agents needed,less immigration courts and less burden on private industry to do governments job.
Click to expand...


A wall means more government, more intrusions, fewer Liberties, and a further dismantling of the Bill of Rights.  And, it means that once Trump trades his freaking wall for gun control, the liberals will let the wall go to Hell the next time they are in power, becoming a graffiti canvas while you're stuck with so many tyrannical laws that resistance to oppression and unconstitutional acts will be impossible.


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Porter Rockwell said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> A wall means less border agents needed,less immigration courts and less burden on private industry to do governments job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall means more government, more intrusions, fewer Liberties, and a further dismantling of the Bill of Rights.  And, it means that once Trump trades his freaking wall for gun control, the liberals will let the wall go to Hell the next time they are in power, becoming a graffiti canvas while you're stuck with so many tyrannical laws that resistance to oppression and unconstitutional acts will be impossible.
Click to expand...

All Trump was asking for in this budget was barriers in a few strategic areas that border guards wanted and needed. Apparently even that was too much for the leftist.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

*THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS # 4581 AND 4585*

For those who cannot keep up this go around, the top is "Is building the wall wrong?"  We keep having the same conversation so I'm answering ALL the questions, laying the facts on the table and challenging our in resident socialist to attempt to refute any point made.  I could have sworn I left the following link in one of my previous posts, but don't see it.  So, to add what I already said in posts # 4581 and and 4585 I leave this before I begin:

The Wall’s of History

The reality is, America was founded by white Christians whose ancestors, the first colonists, believed they were the Israel of the Bible.  I've shown evidence of this in my earlier posts, but will add to it.

Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, Congress passed the first Naturalization Act in 1790.  Here is the relevant portion:

"CHAP, IIT.—... to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

.(a)  March 26,1790. SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a *free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof..."

Most, if not all, the state constitutions, charters, compacts, and statutes only allowed whites - and usually Christian whites to have the privileges of  voting and / or holding public office.  Since the founders did not think in terms of "race" per se (the way we view it) what we know as the privileges of citizenship were limited to "Freeholders or Freemen."  Unless one was a Freeholder, they could not vote, hold public office, serve on juries *or become a member of the commonwealth of a state.
*
Freeman's Oath

So committed to this Rule of Naturalization that the states made the intentions unequivocally clear.  For example, the* 1776 Constitution of Virginia *contains this wording:

"Section 1 -  That men are, by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which when they enter into a state if society, *they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity*."

The posterity of the founders were members of the white race.  The intent of the founders was that those people can never be divested of their status... another reason the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional.  But I digress.  We will move forward with my next posting.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

sawyerloggingon said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> A wall means less border agents needed,less immigration courts and less burden on private industry to do governments job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall means more government, more intrusions, fewer Liberties, and a further dismantling of the Bill of Rights.  And, it means that once Trump trades his freaking wall for gun control, the liberals will let the wall go to Hell the next time they are in power, becoming a graffiti canvas while you're stuck with so many tyrannical laws that resistance to oppression and unconstitutional acts will be impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All Trump was asking for in this budget was barriers in a few strategic areas that border guards wanted and needed. Apparently even that was too much for the leftist.
Click to expand...


Really dude?  The wall fight has about as much sincerity as a professional wrestling match.  The left wanted it before the right did.  What you're seeing is the phony fight that leaves you with National Gun Control in exchange for a wall that will become a canvas for graffiti artists the next time the liberals are in control and defund its enforcement.  Don't sweat it.  You're going to get your silly wall - and when you're paying the REAL cost, you will lay in bed at night wishing you had read my walls of text on why this is the WRONG move to make.


----------



## danielpalos

sawyerloggingon said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a waste of money .   If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .
> 
> More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges .  More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals .   That’s a better use if the money .
> 
> 
> 
> A wall means less border agents needed,less immigration courts and less burden on private industry to do governments job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall means more government, more intrusions, fewer Liberties, and a further dismantling of the Bill of Rights.  And, it means that once Trump trades his freaking wall for gun control, the liberals will let the wall go to Hell the next time they are in power, becoming a graffiti canvas while you're stuck with so many tyrannical laws that resistance to oppression and unconstitutional acts will be impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All Trump was asking for in this budget was barriers in a few strategic areas that border guards wanted and needed. Apparently even that was too much for the leftist.
Click to expand...

improved trade relations and resorting to capitalism instead of socialism for walls; is what the right wing Should be about; not socialism on a national basis.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't really care about the law unless it supports your right wing bigotry, right wingers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're like a broken clock.  Even the most liberal guy has the potential to be right twice a day.
> 
> The bottom line, no bullshit, no debatable point is, those who want a wall ignore *ALL* the laws surrounding the issue.  THIS is going to be their downfall.  There are two sides to every issue.
> 
> People like protectionist want to litigate on a discussion board instead of having the facts put on the table.  The right will lose on peripheral issues as they cannot understand the long term ramifications of their actions.  Many times the right screws themselves because they have no insight.
> 
> If protectionist wants to see how incompetent and silly their legal arguments are, I'm willing to give him the ultimate example today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when Canada and the United States imposes specific customs “check points” locations on their border, the requirement to provide a passport, go through a series of questions and possibly be required to submit to car inspections.   Are they, in any way, violating this concept of God given, natural inherent, absolute,  unalienable, irrevocable rights? Can you provide Supreme Court, and/or a statement from the Constitutional Congress that supports that?    That is YOUR claim that any form of border enforcement does.
> 
> Again, the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants.  It is in fact referencing “We the people  (of the United States) in Order to form a more perfect *Union*. ... more specifically CITIZENS recognized by the United States.  Citizens, NOT foreign immigrants, have congressional representation which establishes law for the common good, just as the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution supports.
> 
> 
> 
> In short I have more references and examples  which reflect and back up my view point, than you have been able to show to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an absolute dumb ass.  You lie so much that nobody here on the left or the right can have a constructive discussion with you.  I've not said *anything* regarding every form of "_border enhancement._"   That is total bullshit you just made up.
> 
> IF you looked at what the OP is about, it is in reference to a wall.  A wall must transverse across *PRIVATE* property lines wherein people do not want it.  The wall requires the America people to forfeit their Liberties in the name of *enforcement of the wall*.  Do you not recall the number of laws and policies that have been put in effect to monitor foreigners that have been more costly to the American people?  *Your side* pushed the so called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, the end of the presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty, assaults on private property, total nullification of the Fourth Amendment, warrant less search and seizures, 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb monitoring, National Gun Registration, the cashless society, etc.  *THESE ARE FRUITS OF YOUR LABORS*.
> 
> *IF* your idiotic ass would read the links I provide, you would know full well the answer to every question you asked and what the exact answer is.  You are so full of shit that one minute you're making one argument and the next minute, you're making the opposite argument.  So, let me get you caught up to speed:
> 
> You start sounding like a patriot with the statement that:
> 
> "the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants."
> 
> This statement is absolutely true.  That is two points you have gotten  right this week.  In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford case the United States Supreme Court ruled that:
> 
> "It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several states, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; *it was formed by them and for them and their posterity, but for no one else*."
> 
> Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
> 
> Now, here is where you get this bass ackwards:
> 
> The 14th Amendment created *TWO* separate and distinct classes of citizens.  You have Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens... points you would have learned had you actually read my links.  Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities along with this wording:
> 
> "nor shall any State deprive any* person* of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any *person* within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
> 
> Notice the differentiation between the way the 14th Amendment uses the terms person and Citizen.  Under the 14th Amendment foreigners are absolutely guaranteed Liberty.  The moment their feet hit U.S. soil, they have rights that Uncle Scam bestowed upon them. * Initially* when they became citizens, they were eligible for all kinds of benefits and privileges of citizenship.  HOWEVER, as time has gone on the Courts have brought *everybody* under the umbrella of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Unless you claim your Rights under the Preamble, you are a 14th Amendment citizen and have no claim to the Bill of Rights.  If you are a foreigner, under the 14th Amendment, you have the guaranteed Rights of *life, liberty and property* - REGARDLESS of how you came into the United States.  These are government granted rights, but it is what it is.  There is NO exception just because they came in at something other than a checkpoint.  Consequently, the Supreme Court has ruled that being here without papers is not a crime; if undocumented parents here have children born in the United States, they are citizens as per the 14th Amendment; ANY competent court will not split families up because the parents violated a civil misdemeanor.  That would be a clear cut violation of the 8th Amendment.  In the near future your talking points are going to leave you with a minimum of 6 MILLION people that will vote your dumb ass into oblivion.  Are you getting a fucking clue as to why I'm opposed to the 14th Amendment at this point OR are you still running around like a chicken with it's head cut off?
> 
> The Two United States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m a dumb ass for stating we have a northern border as well that Canada and the United States both use in establishing points of entry and requirements of foreigners?  A border, by the way, that does not hinder foreign business and those who wish to do business in the United States.  A border that does not hinder God given, natural inherent, absolute,  unalienable, irrevocable rights of foreigners.  I’m sure somewhere along that well established national border you will find it close to some personal property rights as well.   How is any of that a lie... calling ME the dumbass ?
> 
> You simply don’t like it when someone finds holes in your argument.  Especially when such a well researched expert who prides over 250 cases, yet never once heard of national sovereignty or eminent domain?
> 
> Yes, to educate you once more .. the Constitution begins with We the people of the United States of America in order to form a more perfect union.  This is in reference towards those recognized citizens of the United States. African Americans did not have any rights, they were viewed as “property” at the time those words were written.  There is no evidence that Native Americans were considered a part of “We the people”.  I don’t see any Federalist papers, Founders quotes, or early Supreme Court cases where territories (like the Louisiana Purchase) considered any tribe or foreign traveler generally residing in that region as part of “We the people”.  So while native Americans in these western territories were not recognized, while our Founders did not recognize African Americans as anything BUT property at that time, you want me to believe foreign immigrants from other nations make up “We the People” with THEIR “inalienable rights”?  I’m surprised as a “Constitutional and mr research expert” (laughing) you didn’t know any of that which I just listed above.  I’m the liar? I’m the idiot?  Please.
> 
> Your  lack of documented research on this that proves me otherwise, as you stumble all over yourself, says everything I need to know  Thank you for the entertainment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a dumb ass for using straw man arguments in a vain attempt to prove an unprovable proposition.  While you rant about it, you've again changed the goalposts.  Now you're saying a border, not a wall.  Did you forget what this subject is about?
> 
> If you were only *READING* my posts (and not just the ones in response to you) I am answering each and every point you make.  You see, while you've been making all that noise, I've been *agreeing* with some of your points.  I'm also telling the *whole *truth... not the portions that benefit the left and not those that benefit the right.  See posts # 4581 and 4585.  At least one more posting is coming up today.
Click to expand...


The unprovable position is the claim border enforcement on southern border, which is the same as those designated entry points already used in our northern border ... interferes with and interferes with the freedom to do business and work in the United States.  A total BS unproven argument on your part as it has no impact associated with our northern border.

Your inalienable rights preamble you keep spouting off as your argument, likewise holds no evidence when we look at border enforcement associated with Canada. Both points successfully debunked simply by looking to the simple fact we have controlled entry points to the north.

Someone who is against allowing the same designated, organized, and controlled enforcement of a border thats found to our north .. to be the exception to our south is an enabler to the illegal immigration problem.  Unless you happen to be in favor of troops in those vast open, unsecured areas of our border, we need a secured and closely monitored border to our south.

Making and / or listing  “excuses” for illegal aliens and illegal immigration shows blatant disrespect (a spit in the face) to those overseas foreigners who take the time to come here through the LEGAL process to become citizens.  It creates two classes of immigrants (1) that comes here and works hard to attain citizenship through the long legal process .. and (2) those who sneak across illegally who we make excuses for breaking the law, and make as an exception to the rule by treating them differently from  legal foreign immigrants.  With respect to foreign immigrants and immigration, this is NOT “all men are created equal” for as many times as you like to quote the Constitution.  There is no way you can spin “equality” between those who endure the legal process to become citizens ... and those who have their means to cross “illegally” as an exception to the rule!!

I can’t make it any more clear for the “enablers” of the problem.


----------



## danielpalos

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're like a broken clock.  Even the most liberal guy has the potential to be right twice a day.
> 
> The bottom line, no bullshit, no debatable point is, those who want a wall ignore *ALL* the laws surrounding the issue.  THIS is going to be their downfall.  There are two sides to every issue.
> 
> People like protectionist want to litigate on a discussion board instead of having the facts put on the table.  The right will lose on peripheral issues as they cannot understand the long term ramifications of their actions.  Many times the right screws themselves because they have no insight.
> 
> If protectionist wants to see how incompetent and silly their legal arguments are, I'm willing to give him the ultimate example today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when Canada and the United States imposes specific customs “check points” locations on their border, the requirement to provide a passport, go through a series of questions and possibly be required to submit to car inspections.   Are they, in any way, violating this concept of God given, natural inherent, absolute,  unalienable, irrevocable rights? Can you provide Supreme Court, and/or a statement from the Constitutional Congress that supports that?    That is YOUR claim that any form of border enforcement does.
> 
> Again, the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants.  It is in fact referencing “We the people  (of the United States) in Order to form a more perfect *Union*. ... more specifically CITIZENS recognized by the United States.  Citizens, NOT foreign immigrants, have congressional representation which establishes law for the common good, just as the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution supports.
> 
> 
> 
> In short I have more references and examples  which reflect and back up my view point, than you have been able to show to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an absolute dumb ass.  You lie so much that nobody here on the left or the right can have a constructive discussion with you.  I've not said *anything* regarding every form of "_border enhancement._"   That is total bullshit you just made up.
> 
> IF you looked at what the OP is about, it is in reference to a wall.  A wall must transverse across *PRIVATE* property lines wherein people do not want it.  The wall requires the America people to forfeit their Liberties in the name of *enforcement of the wall*.  Do you not recall the number of laws and policies that have been put in effect to monitor foreigners that have been more costly to the American people?  *Your side* pushed the so called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, the end of the presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty, assaults on private property, total nullification of the Fourth Amendment, warrant less search and seizures, 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb monitoring, National Gun Registration, the cashless society, etc.  *THESE ARE FRUITS OF YOUR LABORS*.
> 
> *IF* your idiotic ass would read the links I provide, you would know full well the answer to every question you asked and what the exact answer is.  You are so full of shit that one minute you're making one argument and the next minute, you're making the opposite argument.  So, let me get you caught up to speed:
> 
> You start sounding like a patriot with the statement that:
> 
> "the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants."
> 
> This statement is absolutely true.  That is two points you have gotten  right this week.  In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford case the United States Supreme Court ruled that:
> 
> "It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several states, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; *it was formed by them and for them and their posterity, but for no one else*."
> 
> Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
> 
> Now, here is where you get this bass ackwards:
> 
> The 14th Amendment created *TWO* separate and distinct classes of citizens.  You have Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens... points you would have learned had you actually read my links.  Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities along with this wording:
> 
> "nor shall any State deprive any* person* of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any *person* within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
> 
> Notice the differentiation between the way the 14th Amendment uses the terms person and Citizen.  Under the 14th Amendment foreigners are absolutely guaranteed Liberty.  The moment their feet hit U.S. soil, they have rights that Uncle Scam bestowed upon them. * Initially* when they became citizens, they were eligible for all kinds of benefits and privileges of citizenship.  HOWEVER, as time has gone on the Courts have brought *everybody* under the umbrella of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Unless you claim your Rights under the Preamble, you are a 14th Amendment citizen and have no claim to the Bill of Rights.  If you are a foreigner, under the 14th Amendment, you have the guaranteed Rights of *life, liberty and property* - REGARDLESS of how you came into the United States.  These are government granted rights, but it is what it is.  There is NO exception just because they came in at something other than a checkpoint.  Consequently, the Supreme Court has ruled that being here without papers is not a crime; if undocumented parents here have children born in the United States, they are citizens as per the 14th Amendment; ANY competent court will not split families up because the parents violated a civil misdemeanor.  That would be a clear cut violation of the 8th Amendment.  In the near future your talking points are going to leave you with a minimum of 6 MILLION people that will vote your dumb ass into oblivion.  Are you getting a fucking clue as to why I'm opposed to the 14th Amendment at this point OR are you still running around like a chicken with it's head cut off?
> 
> The Two United States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m a dumb ass for stating we have a northern border as well that Canada and the United States both use in establishing points of entry and requirements of foreigners?  A border, by the way, that does not hinder foreign business and those who wish to do business in the United States.  A border that does not hinder God given, natural inherent, absolute,  unalienable, irrevocable rights of foreigners.  I’m sure somewhere along that well established national border you will find it close to some personal property rights as well.   How is any of that a lie... calling ME the dumbass ?
> 
> You simply don’t like it when someone finds holes in your argument.  Especially when such a well researched expert who prides over 250 cases, yet never once heard of national sovereignty or eminent domain?
> 
> Yes, to educate you once more .. the Constitution begins with We the people of the United States of America in order to form a more perfect union.  This is in reference towards those recognized citizens of the United States. African Americans did not have any rights, they were viewed as “property” at the time those words were written.  There is no evidence that Native Americans were considered a part of “We the people”.  I don’t see any Federalist papers, Founders quotes, or early Supreme Court cases where territories (like the Louisiana Purchase) considered any tribe or foreign traveler generally residing in that region as part of “We the people”.  So while native Americans in these western territories were not recognized, while our Founders did not recognize African Americans as anything BUT property at that time, you want me to believe foreign immigrants from other nations make up “We the People” with THEIR “inalienable rights”?  I’m surprised as a “Constitutional and mr research expert” (laughing) you didn’t know any of that which I just listed above.  I’m the liar? I’m the idiot?  Please.
> 
> Your  lack of documented research on this that proves me otherwise, as you stumble all over yourself, says everything I need to know  Thank you for the entertainment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a dumb ass for using straw man arguments in a vain attempt to prove an unprovable proposition.  While you rant about it, you've again changed the goalposts.  Now you're saying a border, not a wall.  Did you forget what this subject is about?
> 
> If you were only *READING* my posts (and not just the ones in response to you) I am answering each and every point you make.  You see, while you've been making all that noise, I've been *agreeing* with some of your points.  I'm also telling the *whole *truth... not the portions that benefit the left and not those that benefit the right.  See posts # 4581 and 4585.  At least one more posting is coming up today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The unprovable position is the claim border enforcement on southern border, which is the same as those designated entry points already used in our northern border ... interferes with and interferes with the freedom to do business and work in the United States.  A total BS unproven argument on your part as it has no impact associated with our northern border.
> 
> Your inalienable rights preamble you keep spouting off as your argument, likewise holds no evidence when we look at border enforcement associated with Canada. Both points successfully debunked simply by looking to the simple fact we have controlled entry points to the north.
> 
> Someone who is against allowing the same designated, organized, and controlled enforcement of a border thats found to our north .. to be the exception to our south is an enabler to the illegal immigration problem.  Unless you happen to be in favor of troops in those vast open, unsecured areas of our border, we need a secured and closely monitored border to our south.
> 
> Making and / or listing  “excuses” for illegal aliens and illegal immigration shows blatant disrespect (a spit in the face) to those overseas foreigners who take the time to come here through the LEGAL process to become citizens.  It creates two classes of immigrants (1) that comes here and works hard to attain citizenship through the long legal process .. and (2) those who sneak across illegally who we make excuses for breaking the law, and make as an exception to the rule by treating them differently from  legal foreign immigrants.  With respect to foreign immigrants and immigration, this is NOT “all men are created equal” for as many times as you like to quote the Constitution.  There is no way you can spin “equality” between those who endure the legal process to become citizens ... and those who have their means to cross “illegally” as an exception to the rule!!
> 
> I can’t make it any more clear for the “enablers” of the problem.
Click to expand...

There is no express immigration clause in our supreme law of the land.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

*
*


ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're like a broken clock.  Even the most liberal guy has the potential to be right twice a day.
> 
> The bottom line, no bullshit, no debatable point is, those who want a wall ignore *ALL* the laws surrounding the issue.  THIS is going to be their downfall.  There are two sides to every issue.
> 
> People like protectionist want to litigate on a discussion board instead of having the facts put on the table.  The right will lose on peripheral issues as they cannot understand the long term ramifications of their actions.  Many times the right screws themselves because they have no insight.
> 
> If protectionist wants to see how incompetent and silly their legal arguments are, I'm willing to give him the ultimate example today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when Canada and the United States imposes specific customs “check points” locations on their border, the requirement to provide a passport, go through a series of questions and possibly be required to submit to car inspections.   Are they, in any way, violating this concept of God given, natural inherent, absolute,  unalienable, irrevocable rights? Can you provide Supreme Court, and/or a statement from the Constitutional Congress that supports that?    That is YOUR claim that any form of border enforcement does.
> 
> Again, the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants.  It is in fact referencing “We the people  (of the United States) in Order to form a more perfect *Union*. ... more specifically CITIZENS recognized by the United States.  Citizens, NOT foreign immigrants, have congressional representation which establishes law for the common good, just as the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution supports.
> 
> 
> 
> In short I have more references and examples  which reflect and back up my view point, than you have been able to show to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an absolute dumb ass.  You lie so much that nobody here on the left or the right can have a constructive discussion with you.  I've not said *anything* regarding every form of "_border enhancement._"   That is total bullshit you just made up.
> 
> IF you looked at what the OP is about, it is in reference to a wall.  A wall must transverse across *PRIVATE* property lines wherein people do not want it.  The wall requires the America people to forfeit their Liberties in the name of *enforcement of the wall*.  Do you not recall the number of laws and policies that have been put in effect to monitor foreigners that have been more costly to the American people?  *Your side* pushed the so called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, the end of the presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty, assaults on private property, total nullification of the Fourth Amendment, warrant less search and seizures, 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb monitoring, National Gun Registration, the cashless society, etc.  *THESE ARE FRUITS OF YOUR LABORS*.
> 
> *IF* your idiotic ass would read the links I provide, you would know full well the answer to every question you asked and what the exact answer is.  You are so full of shit that one minute you're making one argument and the next minute, you're making the opposite argument.  So, let me get you caught up to speed:
> 
> You start sounding like a patriot with the statement that:
> 
> "the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants."
> 
> This statement is absolutely true.  That is two points you have gotten  right this week.  In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford case the United States Supreme Court ruled that:
> 
> "It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several states, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; *it was formed by them and for them and their posterity, but for no one else*."
> 
> Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
> 
> Now, here is where you get this bass ackwards:
> 
> The 14th Amendment created *TWO* separate and distinct classes of citizens.  You have Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens... points you would have learned had you actually read my links.  Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities along with this wording:
> 
> "nor shall any State deprive any* person* of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any *person* within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
> 
> Notice the differentiation between the way the 14th Amendment uses the terms person and Citizen.  Under the 14th Amendment foreigners are absolutely guaranteed Liberty.  The moment their feet hit U.S. soil, they have rights that Uncle Scam bestowed upon them. * Initially* when they became citizens, they were eligible for all kinds of benefits and privileges of citizenship.  HOWEVER, as time has gone on the Courts have brought *everybody* under the umbrella of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Unless you claim your Rights under the Preamble, you are a 14th Amendment citizen and have no claim to the Bill of Rights.  If you are a foreigner, under the 14th Amendment, you have the guaranteed Rights of *life, liberty and property* - REGARDLESS of how you came into the United States.  These are government granted rights, but it is what it is.  There is NO exception just because they came in at something other than a checkpoint.  Consequently, the Supreme Court has ruled that being here without papers is not a crime; if undocumented parents here have children born in the United States, they are citizens as per the 14th Amendment; ANY competent court will not split families up because the parents violated a civil misdemeanor.  That would be a clear cut violation of the 8th Amendment.  In the near future your talking points are going to leave you with a minimum of 6 MILLION people that will vote your dumb ass into oblivion.  Are you getting a fucking clue as to why I'm opposed to the 14th Amendment at this point OR are you still running around like a chicken with it's head cut off?
> 
> The Two United States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m a dumb ass for stating we have a northern border as well that Canada and the United States both use in establishing points of entry and requirements of foreigners?  A border, by the way, that does not hinder foreign business and those who wish to do business in the United States.  A border that does not hinder God given, natural inherent, absolute,  unalienable, irrevocable rights of foreigners.  I’m sure somewhere along that well established national border you will find it close to some personal property rights as well.   How is any of that a lie... calling ME the dumbass ?
> 
> You simply don’t like it when someone finds holes in your argument.  Especially when such a well researched expert who prides over 250 cases, yet never once heard of national sovereignty or eminent domain?
> 
> Yes, to educate you once more .. the Constitution begins with We the people of the United States of America in order to form a more perfect union.  This is in reference towards those recognized citizens of the United States. African Americans did not have any rights, they were viewed as “property” at the time those words were written.  There is no evidence that Native Americans were considered a part of “We the people”.  I don’t see any Federalist papers, Founders quotes, or early Supreme Court cases where territories (like the Louisiana Purchase) considered any tribe or foreign traveler generally residing in that region as part of “We the people”.  So while native Americans in these western territories were not recognized, while our Founders did not recognize African Americans as anything BUT property at that time, you want me to believe foreign immigrants from other nations make up “We the People” with THEIR “inalienable rights”?  I’m surprised as a “Constitutional and mr research expert” (laughing) you didn’t know any of that which I just listed above.  I’m the liar? I’m the idiot?  Please.
> 
> Your  lack of documented research on this that proves me otherwise, as you stumble all over yourself, says everything I need to know  Thank you for the entertainment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a dumb ass for using straw man arguments in a vain attempt to prove an unprovable proposition.  While you rant about it, you've again changed the goalposts.  Now you're saying a border, not a wall.  Did you forget what this subject is about?
> 
> If you were only *READING* my posts (and not just the ones in response to you) I am answering each and every point you make.  You see, while you've been making all that noise, I've been *agreeing* with some of your points.  I'm also telling the *whole *truth... not the portions that benefit the left and not those that benefit the right.  See posts # 4581 and 4585.  At least one more posting is coming up today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The unprovable position is the claim border enforcement on southern border, which is the same as those designated entry points already used in our northern border ... interferes with and interferes with the freedom to do business and work in the United States.  A total BS unproven argument on your part as it has no impact associated with our northern border.
> 
> Your inalienable rights preamble you keep spouting off as your argument, likewise holds no evidence when we look at border enforcement associated with Canada. Both points successfully debunked simply by looking to the simple fact we have controlled entry points to the north.
> 
> Someone who is against allowing the same designated, organized, and controlled enforcement of a border thats found to our north .. to be the exception to our south is an enabler to the illegal immigration problem.  Unless you happen to be in favor of troops in those vast open, unsecured areas of our border, we need a secured and closely monitored border to our south.
> 
> Making and / or listing  “excuses” for illegal aliens and illegal immigration shows blatant disrespect (a spit in the face) to those overseas foreigners who take the time to come here through the LEGAL process to become citizens.  It creates two classes of immigrants (1) that comes here and works hard to attain citizenship through the long legal process .. and (2) those who sneak across illegally who we make excuses for breaking the law, and make as an exception to the rule by treating them differently from  legal foreign immigrants.  With respect to foreign immigrants and immigration, this is NOT “all men are created equal” for as many times as you like to quote the Constitution.  There is no way you can spin “equality” between those who endure the legal process to become citizens ... and those who have their means to cross “illegally” as an exception to the rule!!
> 
> I can’t make it any more clear for the “enablers” of the problem.
Click to expand...


Such idiotic and retarded statements using still MORE strawman arguments with no basis in fact  and ignoring the points being made is an insult to even what little intelligence you have.  While you're arguing, I'm dismantling the bullshit point by point.  You may want to read posts 4581, 4585, and 4597 to see what IS being said.  Other than that, your post is so much pious cant so as to be devoid of any reasoning and, consequently, not deserving of a response.  It is irrelevant, immaterial, full of lies and strawman arguments.

Your dumb ass has been unable to quote me having made the arguments you claim since we are revisiting the issue point by point in posts 4581, 4585, 4597, and 4603


----------



## Porter Rockwell

*THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS # 4581, 4585, AND 4597
*
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."* Preamble to the Constitution of the United States*

The Blessings of Liberty were intended only for the whites.  They did not belong to the blacks; they were slaves; it wasn't intended for the Chinese who lived here permanently, but were never citizens.  The Native Americans were uprooted and placed on reservations.  The Native Americans were not considered as citizens of the United States.

When critics are challenging me and postulating a "Preamble" argument as to who is and is not covered in the Constitution, they  need to be mindful of exactly what that language is about.  It is about the preservation, protection and advancement of the white race of people.

As can be seen by the constant posting by critics they cannot differentiate between immigration / naturalization / citizenship *versus* people entering the United States in the normal course of business.  It's strange.  The founders never defined immigration in their terms even once.  The founders didn't even put the word immigration into the Constitution.  But, we do know, exactly as to *WHO* that language about posterity belongs to.  In order to make the build the wall argument look palatable; to give it legitimacy, the build the wall people they endorse the 14th Amendment on one hand and then attempt to discredit it on the other.  Though I've answered the liars who pretend to be critics (ignoring the fact that we've discussed this aspect of the issue), here are some links to explain to you WHY the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified:

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

Was the Fourteenth Amendment Constitutionally Adopted? | Abbeville Institute

14th amendment ... illegally passed and ratified?

BTW, for those who presume the legitimacy of the 14th Amendment, here is a mainstream view regarding the strategies you are seeing people try to beat me over the head with:

Birthright citizenship, explained

For any *honest* researcher out there, those links take over two hours to fully read and understand.  But, even using the words of *those who passed* the 14th Amendment, they questioned its legitimacy.

IS IT WRONG TO BUILD A WALL?  That depends upon how you look at it.  And so, we have a couple more inroads to make so that you will be fully informed.


----------



## LilOlLady

SLYHUNTER>>>
*MATTHEW 25:31-40*
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. *For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, *I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, "I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘*Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you,* or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, *whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.”* (NIV)


----------



## Porter Rockwell

LilOlLady said:


> SLYHUNTER>>>
> *MATTHEW 25:31-40*
> “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
> 
> “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. *For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, *I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, "I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
> 
> “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘*Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you,* or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
> 
> “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, *whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.”* (NIV)



*THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603*

Sometimes you find Christians who are on the cusp of understanding what the immigration debacle is all about and how to best resolve it.  For those into wall worship, all they understand is that you enter the United States through some "right" way that exists only marginally, and then, the wall worshipers demand we follow draconian laws to force people to become citizens.

In order to understand the immigration debacle, you have to understand America's history.  Early Americans saw themselves as Christians who were in a covenant with the  Lord / Yahweh and that America represented the New Jerusalem.

Apocalypticism Explained | Apocalypse! FRONTLINE | PBS

The Old Jerusalem is Not the New JerUSAlem

http://www.kimmillerconcernedchristians.com/Unsealings/1425.pdf


New Jerusalem

Our Father's Kingdom of America: America the New Jerusalem

"...various Protestant denominations, modernist branches of Christianity, Mormonism and Reform Judaism, view the New Jerusalem as figurative, or believe that such a renewal may have already taken place,* or that it will take place at some other location besides the Temple Mount*."

New Jerusalem - Wikipedia

This basic presupposition is what led to John Winthrop's sermon A Model of Christian Charity in 1630 all the way to the first Naturalization Law of 1790 wherein only whites were allowed to become citizens.

Although the whites did not invent slavery, because America became the most powerful nation in history, every other race thinks the United States screwed them out of it.  We can trace slavery back to about 1860 B.C, as an established institution according to the Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi.  

Today, few countries exist that practice slavery, the most notable are Islamic countries.  And while the non-whites are having their culture attacked: the removal of statutes, monuments, statues, and plaques; the censure of anyone who uses a non - PC term; the assaults on religion to force everyone to adopt a one race / globalist culture, etc. we are being saddled with religious extremists who believe they must convert or kill Christians.  Those people are citizens and they are political leaders... makes you wonder what all that "legal immigration" mumbo jumbo really consists of.


----------



## danielpalos

The right wing doesn't Care about the Law, only their bigotry without a Cause.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when Canada and the United States imposes specific customs “check points” locations on their border, the requirement to provide a passport, go through a series of questions and possibly be required to submit to car inspections.   Are they, in any way, violating this concept of God given, natural inherent, absolute,  unalienable, irrevocable rights? Can you provide Supreme Court, and/or a statement from the Constitutional Congress that supports that?    That is YOUR claim that any form of border enforcement does.
> 
> Again, the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants.  It is in fact referencing “We the people  (of the United States) in Order to form a more perfect *Union*. ... more specifically CITIZENS recognized by the United States.  Citizens, NOT foreign immigrants, have congressional representation which establishes law for the common good, just as the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution supports.
> 
> 
> 
> In short I have more references and examples  which reflect and back up my view point, than you have been able to show to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an absolute dumb ass.  You lie so much that nobody here on the left or the right can have a constructive discussion with you.  I've not said *anything* regarding every form of "_border enhancement._"   That is total bullshit you just made up.
> 
> IF you looked at what the OP is about, it is in reference to a wall.  A wall must transverse across *PRIVATE* property lines wherein people do not want it.  The wall requires the America people to forfeit their Liberties in the name of *enforcement of the wall*.  Do you not recall the number of laws and policies that have been put in effect to monitor foreigners that have been more costly to the American people?  *Your side* pushed the so called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, the end of the presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty, assaults on private property, total nullification of the Fourth Amendment, warrant less search and seizures, 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb monitoring, National Gun Registration, the cashless society, etc.  *THESE ARE FRUITS OF YOUR LABORS*.
> 
> *IF* your idiotic ass would read the links I provide, you would know full well the answer to every question you asked and what the exact answer is.  You are so full of shit that one minute you're making one argument and the next minute, you're making the opposite argument.  So, let me get you caught up to speed:
> 
> You start sounding like a patriot with the statement that:
> 
> "the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants."
> 
> This statement is absolutely true.  That is two points you have gotten  right this week.  In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford case the United States Supreme Court ruled that:
> 
> "It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several states, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; *it was formed by them and for them and their posterity, but for no one else*."
> 
> Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
> 
> Now, here is where you get this bass ackwards:
> 
> The 14th Amendment created *TWO* separate and distinct classes of citizens.  You have Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens... points you would have learned had you actually read my links.  Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities along with this wording:
> 
> "nor shall any State deprive any* person* of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any *person* within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
> 
> Notice the differentiation between the way the 14th Amendment uses the terms person and Citizen.  Under the 14th Amendment foreigners are absolutely guaranteed Liberty.  The moment their feet hit U.S. soil, they have rights that Uncle Scam bestowed upon them. * Initially* when they became citizens, they were eligible for all kinds of benefits and privileges of citizenship.  HOWEVER, as time has gone on the Courts have brought *everybody* under the umbrella of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Unless you claim your Rights under the Preamble, you are a 14th Amendment citizen and have no claim to the Bill of Rights.  If you are a foreigner, under the 14th Amendment, you have the guaranteed Rights of *life, liberty and property* - REGARDLESS of how you came into the United States.  These are government granted rights, but it is what it is.  There is NO exception just because they came in at something other than a checkpoint.  Consequently, the Supreme Court has ruled that being here without papers is not a crime; if undocumented parents here have children born in the United States, they are citizens as per the 14th Amendment; ANY competent court will not split families up because the parents violated a civil misdemeanor.  That would be a clear cut violation of the 8th Amendment.  In the near future your talking points are going to leave you with a minimum of 6 MILLION people that will vote your dumb ass into oblivion.  Are you getting a fucking clue as to why I'm opposed to the 14th Amendment at this point OR are you still running around like a chicken with it's head cut off?
> 
> The Two United States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m a dumb ass for stating we have a northern border as well that Canada and the United States both use in establishing points of entry and requirements of foreigners?  A border, by the way, that does not hinder foreign business and those who wish to do business in the United States.  A border that does not hinder God given, natural inherent, absolute,  unalienable, irrevocable rights of foreigners.  I’m sure somewhere along that well established national border you will find it close to some personal property rights as well.   How is any of that a lie... calling ME the dumbass ?
> 
> You simply don’t like it when someone finds holes in your argument.  Especially when such a well researched expert who prides over 250 cases, yet never once heard of national sovereignty or eminent domain?
> 
> Yes, to educate you once more .. the Constitution begins with We the people of the United States of America in order to form a more perfect union.  This is in reference towards those recognized citizens of the United States. African Americans did not have any rights, they were viewed as “property” at the time those words were written.  There is no evidence that Native Americans were considered a part of “We the people”.  I don’t see any Federalist papers, Founders quotes, or early Supreme Court cases where territories (like the Louisiana Purchase) considered any tribe or foreign traveler generally residing in that region as part of “We the people”.  So while native Americans in these western territories were not recognized, while our Founders did not recognize African Americans as anything BUT property at that time, you want me to believe foreign immigrants from other nations make up “We the People” with THEIR “inalienable rights”?  I’m surprised as a “Constitutional and mr research expert” (laughing) you didn’t know any of that which I just listed above.  I’m the liar? I’m the idiot?  Please.
> 
> Your  lack of documented research on this that proves me otherwise, as you stumble all over yourself, says everything I need to know  Thank you for the entertainment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a dumb ass for using straw man arguments in a vain attempt to prove an unprovable proposition.  While you rant about it, you've again changed the goalposts.  Now you're saying a border, not a wall.  Did you forget what this subject is about?
> 
> If you were only *READING* my posts (and not just the ones in response to you) I am answering each and every point you make.  You see, while you've been making all that noise, I've been *agreeing* with some of your points.  I'm also telling the *whole *truth... not the portions that benefit the left and not those that benefit the right.  See posts # 4581 and 4585.  At least one more posting is coming up today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The unprovable position is the claim border enforcement on southern border, which is the same as those designated entry points already used in our northern border ... interferes with and interferes with the freedom to do business and work in the United States.  A total BS unproven argument on your part as it has no impact associated with our northern border.
> 
> Your inalienable rights preamble you keep spouting off as your argument, likewise holds no evidence when we look at border enforcement associated with Canada. Both points successfully debunked simply by looking to the simple fact we have controlled entry points to the north.
> 
> Someone who is against allowing the same designated, organized, and controlled enforcement of a border thats found to our north .. to be the exception to our south is an enabler to the illegal immigration problem.  Unless you happen to be in favor of troops in those vast open, unsecured areas of our border, we need a secured and closely monitored border to our south.
> 
> Making and / or listing  “excuses” for illegal aliens and illegal immigration shows blatant disrespect (a spit in the face) to those overseas foreigners who take the time to come here through the LEGAL process to become citizens.  It creates two classes of immigrants (1) that comes here and works hard to attain citizenship through the long legal process .. and (2) those who sneak across illegally who we make excuses for breaking the law, and make as an exception to the rule by treating them differently from  legal foreign immigrants.  With respect to foreign immigrants and immigration, this is NOT “all men are created equal” for as many times as you like to quote the Constitution.  There is no way you can spin “equality” between those who endure the legal process to become citizens ... and those who have their means to cross “illegally” as an exception to the rule!!
> 
> I can’t make it any more clear for the “enablers” of the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such idiotic and retarded statements using still MORE strawman arguments with no basis in fact  and ignoring the points being made is an insult to even what little intelligence you have.  While you're arguing, I'm dismantling the bullshit point by point.  You may want to read posts 4581, 4585, and 4597 to see what IS being said.  Other than that, your post is so much pious cant so as to be devoid of any reasoning and, consequently, not deserving of a response.  It is irrelevant, immaterial, full of lies and strawman arguments.
> 
> Your dumb ass has been unable to quote me having made the arguments you claim since we are revisiting the issue point by point in posts 4581, 4585, 4597, and 4603
Click to expand...


The only straight up lie, is your claim that an enforced southern border would interfere with those who wish to do business and work in the United States. I asked how exactly an enforced northern border inhibits foreigners from doing business in the United States.. or of those foreigners coming from overseas.  You have no answer to defend your argument, a direct question as it relates to border security.  Trying to falsely claim that as a strawman argument proves your “claim” is both inaccurate and a straight up lie.

I asked you to point out HOW enforcment of our northern border has infringed on a foreign immigrants inalienable rights, rights I have successfully proven through the writtten Constitution as it references “We the people of the United States” who are recognized as citizens.  If you are to accurate interprete the Constitution (like you have tried to in your reference of Article I Section 9) you will find inalienable rights was written to specifically address those recognized as “We the people of the United States”.  In reference to the time it was written, the Continental Congress, quotes from our Founders, and the early United States Supreme Court, made no mention to include native Indians in that statement within its territory (like the Louisiana Purchase), unfortunately African Americans were considered property at that time, so the only accurate reference to the writing of the United States Constitution are “We the people” which accurately addresses CITIZENS recognized by the United States.  Not strawman but undeniable FACT.  You are great in holding onto original context to how a segment of the Constitution is to be interpreted, until evidence points against your unproven “perception” to what’s written.

You see, I don’t need to discuss (1) how YOU think enforcment will interfere with foreigners ability to work, (2) concerning a foreign illegal immigrants inalienable rights that CLEARLY addresses “We the People”, as I have already recently debunked BOTH of those arguments.

I already have shown one early Supreme Court decision coming shortly after 1808, where their position concluded the Federal Government has authority over the states on issues concerning immigration.

Also, what judicial Supreme Court position (state or otherwise) does a 20th century commentary opinion piece hold in reference to the 14th Amendment?   I already shown, successfully through historical evidence, that it passed both legislative houses, was ratified by 2/3 of the states as specifically required  by the Constitution.  In fact commentary gripes of successfully ratified 14th Amendment IS your irrelevant strawman argument.

So what else you got left that I haven’t discredited?  Seriously, you need to do better research as it relates to the subject at hand - Immigration border enforcement.


----------



## danielpalos

There is no express immigration clause or wall building clause.  There is an express general welfare clause and a commerce clause.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are an absolute dumb ass.  You lie so much that nobody here on the left or the right can have a constructive discussion with you.  I've not said *anything* regarding every form of "_border enhancement._"   That is total bullshit you just made up.
> 
> IF you looked at what the OP is about, it is in reference to a wall.  A wall must transverse across *PRIVATE* property lines wherein people do not want it.  The wall requires the America people to forfeit their Liberties in the name of *enforcement of the wall*.  Do you not recall the number of laws and policies that have been put in effect to monitor foreigners that have been more costly to the American people?  *Your side* pushed the so called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, the end of the presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty, assaults on private property, total nullification of the Fourth Amendment, warrant less search and seizures, 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb monitoring, National Gun Registration, the cashless society, etc.  *THESE ARE FRUITS OF YOUR LABORS*.
> 
> *IF* your idiotic ass would read the links I provide, you would know full well the answer to every question you asked and what the exact answer is.  You are so full of shit that one minute you're making one argument and the next minute, you're making the opposite argument.  So, let me get you caught up to speed:
> 
> You start sounding like a patriot with the statement that:
> 
> "the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants."
> 
> This statement is absolutely true.  That is two points you have gotten  right this week.  In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford case the United States Supreme Court ruled that:
> 
> "It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several states, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; *it was formed by them and for them and their posterity, but for no one else*."
> 
> Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
> 
> Now, here is where you get this bass ackwards:
> 
> The 14th Amendment created *TWO* separate and distinct classes of citizens.  You have Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens... points you would have learned had you actually read my links.  Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities along with this wording:
> 
> "nor shall any State deprive any* person* of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any *person* within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
> 
> Notice the differentiation between the way the 14th Amendment uses the terms person and Citizen.  Under the 14th Amendment foreigners are absolutely guaranteed Liberty.  The moment their feet hit U.S. soil, they have rights that Uncle Scam bestowed upon them. * Initially* when they became citizens, they were eligible for all kinds of benefits and privileges of citizenship.  HOWEVER, as time has gone on the Courts have brought *everybody* under the umbrella of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Unless you claim your Rights under the Preamble, you are a 14th Amendment citizen and have no claim to the Bill of Rights.  If you are a foreigner, under the 14th Amendment, you have the guaranteed Rights of *life, liberty and property* - REGARDLESS of how you came into the United States.  These are government granted rights, but it is what it is.  There is NO exception just because they came in at something other than a checkpoint.  Consequently, the Supreme Court has ruled that being here without papers is not a crime; if undocumented parents here have children born in the United States, they are citizens as per the 14th Amendment; ANY competent court will not split families up because the parents violated a civil misdemeanor.  That would be a clear cut violation of the 8th Amendment.  In the near future your talking points are going to leave you with a minimum of 6 MILLION people that will vote your dumb ass into oblivion.  Are you getting a fucking clue as to why I'm opposed to the 14th Amendment at this point OR are you still running around like a chicken with it's head cut off?
> 
> The Two United States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m a dumb ass for stating we have a northern border as well that Canada and the United States both use in establishing points of entry and requirements of foreigners?  A border, by the way, that does not hinder foreign business and those who wish to do business in the United States.  A border that does not hinder God given, natural inherent, absolute,  unalienable, irrevocable rights of foreigners.  I’m sure somewhere along that well established national border you will find it close to some personal property rights as well.   How is any of that a lie... calling ME the dumbass ?
> 
> You simply don’t like it when someone finds holes in your argument.  Especially when such a well researched expert who prides over 250 cases, yet never once heard of national sovereignty or eminent domain?
> 
> Yes, to educate you once more .. the Constitution begins with We the people of the United States of America in order to form a more perfect union.  This is in reference towards those recognized citizens of the United States. African Americans did not have any rights, they were viewed as “property” at the time those words were written.  There is no evidence that Native Americans were considered a part of “We the people”.  I don’t see any Federalist papers, Founders quotes, or early Supreme Court cases where territories (like the Louisiana Purchase) considered any tribe or foreign traveler generally residing in that region as part of “We the people”.  So while native Americans in these western territories were not recognized, while our Founders did not recognize African Americans as anything BUT property at that time, you want me to believe foreign immigrants from other nations make up “We the People” with THEIR “inalienable rights”?  I’m surprised as a “Constitutional and mr research expert” (laughing) you didn’t know any of that which I just listed above.  I’m the liar? I’m the idiot?  Please.
> 
> Your  lack of documented research on this that proves me otherwise, as you stumble all over yourself, says everything I need to know  Thank you for the entertainment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a dumb ass for using straw man arguments in a vain attempt to prove an unprovable proposition.  While you rant about it, you've again changed the goalposts.  Now you're saying a border, not a wall.  Did you forget what this subject is about?
> 
> If you were only *READING* my posts (and not just the ones in response to you) I am answering each and every point you make.  You see, while you've been making all that noise, I've been *agreeing* with some of your points.  I'm also telling the *whole *truth... not the portions that benefit the left and not those that benefit the right.  See posts # 4581 and 4585.  At least one more posting is coming up today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The unprovable position is the claim border enforcement on southern border, which is the same as those designated entry points already used in our northern border ... interferes with and interferes with the freedom to do business and work in the United States.  A total BS unproven argument on your part as it has no impact associated with our northern border.
> 
> Your inalienable rights preamble you keep spouting off as your argument, likewise holds no evidence when we look at border enforcement associated with Canada. Both points successfully debunked simply by looking to the simple fact we have controlled entry points to the north.
> 
> Someone who is against allowing the same designated, organized, and controlled enforcement of a border thats found to our north .. to be the exception to our south is an enabler to the illegal immigration problem.  Unless you happen to be in favor of troops in those vast open, unsecured areas of our border, we need a secured and closely monitored border to our south.
> 
> Making and / or listing  “excuses” for illegal aliens and illegal immigration shows blatant disrespect (a spit in the face) to those overseas foreigners who take the time to come here through the LEGAL process to become citizens.  It creates two classes of immigrants (1) that comes here and works hard to attain citizenship through the long legal process .. and (2) those who sneak across illegally who we make excuses for breaking the law, and make as an exception to the rule by treating them differently from  legal foreign immigrants.  With respect to foreign immigrants and immigration, this is NOT “all men are created equal” for as many times as you like to quote the Constitution.  There is no way you can spin “equality” between those who endure the legal process to become citizens ... and those who have their means to cross “illegally” as an exception to the rule!!
> 
> I can’t make it any more clear for the “enablers” of the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such idiotic and retarded statements using still MORE strawman arguments with no basis in fact  and ignoring the points being made is an insult to even what little intelligence you have.  While you're arguing, I'm dismantling the bullshit point by point.  You may want to read posts 4581, 4585, and 4597 to see what IS being said.  Other than that, your post is so much pious cant so as to be devoid of any reasoning and, consequently, not deserving of a response.  It is irrelevant, immaterial, full of lies and strawman arguments.
> 
> Your dumb ass has been unable to quote me having made the arguments you claim since we are revisiting the issue point by point in posts 4581, 4585, 4597, and 4603
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only straight up lie, is your claim that an enforced southern border would interfere with those who wish to do business and work in the United States. I asked how exactly an enforced northern border inhibits foreigners from doing business in the United States.. or of those foreigners coming from overseas.  You have no answer to defend your argument, a direct question as it relates to border security.  Trying to falsely claim that as a strawman argument proves your “claim” is both inaccurate and a straight up lie.
> 
> I asked you to point out HOW enforcment of our northern border has infringed on a foreign immigrants inalienable rights, rights I have successfully proven through the writtten Constitution as it references “We the people of the United States” who are recognized as citizens.  If you are to accurate interprete the Constitution (like you have tried to in your reference of Article I Section 9) you will find inalienable rights was written to specifically address those recognized as “We the people of the United States”.  In reference to the time it was written, the Continental Congress, quotes from our Founders, and the early United States Supreme Court, made no mention to include native Indians in that statement within its territory (like the Louisiana Purchase), unfortunately African Americans were considered property at that time, so the only accurate reference to the writing of the United States Constitution are “We the people” which accurately addresses CITIZENS recognized by the United States.  Not strawman but undeniable FACT.  You are great in holding onto original context to how a segment of the Constitution is to be interpreted, until evidence points against your unproven “perception” to what’s written.
> 
> You see, I don’t need to discuss (1) how YOU think enforcment will interfere with foreigners ability to work, (2) concerning a foreign illegal immigrants inalienable rights that CLEARLY addresses “We the People”, as I have already recently debunked BOTH of those arguments.
> 
> I already have shown one early Supreme Court decision coming shortly after 1808, where their position concluded the Federal Government has authority over the states on issues concerning immigration.
> 
> Also, what judicial Supreme Court position (state or otherwise) does a 20th century commentary opinion piece hold in reference to the 14th Amendment?   I already shown, successfully through historical evidence, that it passed both legislative houses, was ratified by 2/3 of the states as specifically required  by the Constitution.  In fact commentary gripes of successfully ratified 14th Amendment IS your irrelevant strawman argument.
> 
> So what else you got left that I haven’t discredited?  Seriously, you need to do better research as it relates to the subject at hand - Immigration border enforcement.
Click to expand...



*THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4581, 4585, 4597, 4603 AND 4605

We have to interrupt the flow of this thread to respond to SHACKLES OFBIGGOV WHO IS TOO STUPID TO FIGURE OUT HIS QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.  LET US LEAD HIM BY THE HAND.
*
ShacklesofBiggov wrote:  "The only straight up lie, is your claim that an enforced southern border would interfere with those who wish to do business and work in the United States"

*RESPONSE*:  On at least six occasions we have* PROVEN* you wrong on this thread on this issue.   The current laws were passed by liberals and do not contemplate the way employers access labor.  As a result, we have an antiquated system with* unconstitutional quotas*.  You continue to bitch and moan, but the bottom line is, you cannot tell an employer who they can and cannot hire.  The employer owns the freaking job.  You are advocating SOCIALISM.

ShacklesofBiggov wrote: I already have shown one early Supreme Court decision coming shortly after 1808, where their position concluded the Federal Government has authority over the states on issues concerning immigration.

*RESPONSE*:  For the sixth time you haven't shown us shit.  There is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives the Courts any authority to grant to anyone or any other branch of government any power.  It's not their job.  

Secondly, Immigration is defined as people coming to another country for the purpose of *permanent residence.*  What part of the English language goes over your head?  Foreign workers *ARE NOT SEEKING PERMANENT RESIDENCE.  CONSEQUENTLY YOUR LITTLE CASE DOESN'T APPLY.  *The case only applies to those who want to be permanent residents.

ShacklesofBiggov wrote:  "I asked you to point out HOW enforcment of our northern border has infringed on a foreign immigrants inalienable rights..

*RESPONSE*: ."This is a load of horseshit because it has NOTHING to do with what goes on at the southern border AND immigration attorneys have addressed this - AND we've discussed it on numerous occasions.  Article I Section 9  DOES NOT DEAL with the issues you bring to the table.  Our focus here is SOUTHERN BORDER.  You deflect because you're getting your ass kicked.  AND you are making straw man arguments in order to confuse the issue.

ShacklesofBiggov wrote: I already have shown one early Supreme Court decision coming shortly after 1808, where their position concluded the Federal Government has authority over the states on issues concerning immigration.

*RESPONSE*:  And you failed to show me the word immigration in the Constitution; you failed to show us where the Constitution gives the Supreme Court to grant to any state or branch of government any power.  Show it to me in the Constitution or STFU and let's move forward.

Finally, with respect to the 14th Amendment, you are LYING.  Period.  You haven't shown us shit and I've posted cases, the positions of judges, historians, and attorneys while you LIE to the posters.

Your bullshit has no credibility because you are lying.  I gave you more than half a dozen links, citing over a hundred court cases and explaining the unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment - AND THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THE 14TH AMENDMENT.  You need the deflection to keep people from being able to see the ass whipping you are taking.  EVERY statement you've made has been legitimately refuted.  So we're moving forward.  Lick your wounds and keep telling those repetitive lies.  If you tell the lie a thousand times, maybe someone will believe that this is not been addressed - if they're as big a dumb ass as you and afraid to READ THE LINKS in response to your desperate attempt at relevancy in this discussion.


*
*


----------



## LilOlLady

Demo-rats claim the border is secure and we do not need a wall.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the *330 Central Americans *were apprehended early *Monday* at the Antelope Wells port of entry, 122 miles (197 kilometers) west of *El Paso, Texas.*

This marks the second large group to be arrested near the port in less than a week. On Friday, agents arrested* 290 Central Americans* who entered the country illegally. CBP said* 28 groups* of* more than 100 people* have been apprehended in the area since Oct. 1.


----------



## LilOlLady

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m a dumb ass for stating we have a northern border as well that Canada and the United States both use in establishing points of entry and requirements of foreigners?  A border, by the way, that does not hinder foreign business and those who wish to do business in the United States.  A border that does not hinder God given, natural inherent, absolute,  unalienable, irrevocable rights of foreigners.  I’m sure somewhere along that well established national border you will find it close to some personal property rights as well.   How is any of that a lie... calling ME the dumbass ?
> 
> You simply don’t like it when someone finds holes in your argument.  Especially when such a well researched expert who prides over 250 cases, yet never once heard of national sovereignty or eminent domain?
> 
> Yes, to educate you once more .. the Constitution begins with We the people of the United States of America in order to form a more perfect union.  This is in reference towards those recognized citizens of the United States. African Americans did not have any rights, they were viewed as “property” at the time those words were written.  There is no evidence that Native Americans were considered a part of “We the people”.  I don’t see any Federalist papers, Founders quotes, or early Supreme Court cases where territories (like the Louisiana Purchase) considered any tribe or foreign traveler generally residing in that region as part of “We the people”.  So while native Americans in these western territories were not recognized, while our Founders did not recognize African Americans as anything BUT property at that time, you want me to believe foreign immigrants from other nations make up “We the People” with THEIR “inalienable rights”?  I’m surprised as a “Constitutional and mr research expert” (laughing) you didn’t know any of that which I just listed above.  I’m the liar? I’m the idiot?  Please.
> 
> Your  lack of documented research on this that proves me otherwise, as you stumble all over yourself, says everything I need to know  Thank you for the entertainment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a dumb ass for using straw man arguments in a vain attempt to prove an unprovable proposition.  While you rant about it, you've again changed the goalposts.  Now you're saying a border, not a wall.  Did you forget what this subject is about?
> 
> If you were only *READING* my posts (and not just the ones in response to you) I am answering each and every point you make.  You see, while you've been making all that noise, I've been *agreeing* with some of your points.  I'm also telling the *whole *truth... not the portions that benefit the left and not those that benefit the right.  See posts # 4581 and 4585.  At least one more posting is coming up today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The unprovable position is the claim border enforcement on southern border, which is the same as those designated entry points already used in our northern border ... interferes with and interferes with the freedom to do business and work in the United States.  A total BS unproven argument on your part as it has no impact associated with our northern border.
> 
> Your inalienable rights preamble you keep spouting off as your argument, likewise holds no evidence when we look at border enforcement associated with Canada. Both points successfully debunked simply by looking to the simple fact we have controlled entry points to the north.
> 
> Someone who is against allowing the same designated, organized, and controlled enforcement of a border thats found to our north .. to be the exception to our south is an enabler to the illegal immigration problem.  Unless you happen to be in favor of troops in those vast open, unsecured areas of our border, we need a secured and closely monitored border to our south.
> 
> Making and / or listing  “excuses” for illegal aliens and illegal immigration shows blatant disrespect (a spit in the face) to those overseas foreigners who take the time to come here through the LEGAL process to become citizens.  It creates two classes of immigrants (1) that comes here and works hard to attain citizenship through the long legal process .. and (2) those who sneak across illegally who we make excuses for breaking the law, and make as an exception to the rule by treating them differently from  legal foreign immigrants.  With respect to foreign immigrants and immigration, this is NOT “all men are created equal” for as many times as you like to quote the Constitution.  There is no way you can spin “equality” between those who endure the legal process to become citizens ... and those who have their means to cross “illegally” as an exception to the rule!!
> 
> I can’t make it any more clear for the “enablers” of the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such idiotic and retarded statements using still MORE strawman arguments with no basis in fact  and ignoring the points being made is an insult to even what little intelligence you have.  While you're arguing, I'm dismantling the bullshit point by point.  You may want to read posts 4581, 4585, and 4597 to see what IS being said.  Other than that, your post is so much pious cant so as to be devoid of any reasoning and, consequently, not deserving of a response.  It is irrelevant, immaterial, full of lies and strawman arguments.
> 
> Your dumb ass has been unable to quote me having made the arguments you claim since we are revisiting the issue point by point in posts 4581, 4585, 4597, and 4603
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only straight up lie, is your claim that an enforced southern border would interfere with those who wish to do business and work in the United States. I asked how exactly an enforced northern border inhibits foreigners from doing business in the United States.. or of those foreigners coming from overseas.  You have no answer to defend your argument, a direct question as it relates to border security.  Trying to falsely claim that as a strawman argument proves your “claim” is both inaccurate and a straight up lie.
> 
> I asked you to point out HOW enforcment of our northern border has infringed on a foreign immigrants inalienable rights, rights I have successfully proven through the writtten Constitution as it references “We the people of the United States” who are recognized as citizens.  If you are to accurate interprete the Constitution (like you have tried to in your reference of Article I Section 9) you will find inalienable rights was written to specifically address those recognized as “We the people of the United States”.  In reference to the time it was written, the Continental Congress, quotes from our Founders, and the early United States Supreme Court, made no mention to include native Indians in that statement within its territory (like the Louisiana Purchase), unfortunately African Americans were considered property at that time, so the only accurate reference to the writing of the United States Constitution are “We the people” which accurately addresses CITIZENS recognized by the United States.  Not strawman but undeniable FACT.  You are great in holding onto original context to how a segment of the Constitution is to be interpreted, until evidence points against your unproven “perception” to what’s written.
> 
> You see, I don’t need to discuss (1) how YOU think enforcment will interfere with foreigners ability to work, (2) concerning a foreign illegal immigrants inalienable rights that CLEARLY addresses “We the People”, as I have already recently debunked BOTH of those arguments.
> 
> I already have shown one early Supreme Court decision coming shortly after 1808, where their position concluded the Federal Government has authority over the states on issues concerning immigration.
> 
> Also, what judicial Supreme Court position (state or otherwise) does a 20th century commentary opinion piece hold in reference to the 14th Amendment?   I already shown, successfully through historical evidence, that it passed both legislative houses, was ratified by 2/3 of the states as specifically required  by the Constitution.  In fact commentary gripes of successfully ratified 14th Amendment IS your irrelevant strawman argument.
> 
> So what else you got left that I haven’t discredited?  Seriously, you need to do better research as it relates to the subject at hand - Immigration border enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4581, 4585, 4597, 4603 AND 4605
> 
> We have to interrupt the flow of this thread to respond to SHACKLES OFBIGGOV WHO IS TOO STUPID TO FIGURE OUT HIS QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.  LET US LEAD HIM BY THE HAND.
> *
> ShacklesofBiggov wrote:  "The only straight up lie, is your claim that an enforced southern border would interfere with those who wish to do business and work in the United States"
> 
> *RESPONSE*:  On at least six occasions we have* PROVEN* you wrong on this thread on this issue.   The current laws were passed by liberals and do not contemplate the way employers access labor.  As a result, we have an antiquated system with* unconstitutional quotas*.  You continue to bitch and moan, but the bottom line is, you cannot tell an employer who they can and cannot hire.  The employer owns the freaking job.  You are advocating SOCIALISM.
> 
> ShacklesofBiggov wrote: I already have shown one early Supreme Court decision coming shortly after 1808, where their position concluded the Federal Government has authority over the states on issues concerning immigration.
> 
> *RESPONSE*:  For the sixth time you haven't shown us shit.  There is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives the Courts any authority to grant to anyone or any other branch of government any power.  It's not their job.
> 
> Secondly, Immigration is defined as people coming to another country for the purpose of *permanent residence.*  What part of the English language goes over your head?  Foreign workers *ARE NOT SEEKING PERMANENT RESIDENCE.  CONSEQUENTLY YOUR LITTLE CASE DOESN'T APPLY.  *The case only applies to those who want to be permanent residents.
> 
> ShacklesofBiggov wrote:  "I asked you to point out HOW enforcment of our northern border has infringed on a foreign immigrants inalienable rights..
> 
> *RESPONSE*: ."This is a load of horseshit because it has NOTHING to do with what goes on at the southern border AND immigration attorneys have addressed this - AND we've discussed it on numerous occasions.  Article I Section 9  DOES NOT DEAL with the issues you bring to the table.  Our focus here is SOUTHERN BORDER.  You deflect because you're getting your ass kicked.  AND you are making straw man arguments in order to confuse the issue.
> 
> ShacklesofBiggov wrote: I already have shown one early Supreme Court decision coming shortly after 1808, where their position concluded the Federal Government has authority over the states on issues concerning immigration.
> 
> *RESPONSE*:  And you failed to show me the word immigration in the Constitution; you failed to show us where the Constitution gives the Supreme Court to grant to any state or branch of government any power.  Show it to me in the Constitution or STFU and let's move forward.
> 
> Finally, with respect to the 14th Amendment, you are LYING.  Period.  You haven't shown us shit and I've posted cases, the positions of judges, historians, and attorneys while you LIE to the posters.
> 
> Your bullshit has no credibility because you are lying.  I gave you more than half a dozen links, citing over a hundred court cases and explaining the unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment - AND THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THE 14TH AMENDMENT.  You need the deflection to keep people from being able to see the ass whipping you are taking.  EVERY statement you've made has been legitimately refuted.  So we're moving forward.  Lick your wounds and keep telling those repetitive lies.  If you tell the lie a thousand times, maybe someone will believe that this is not been addressed - if they're as big a dumb ass as you and afraid to READ THE LINKS in response to your desperate attempt at relevancy in this discussion.
Click to expand...

 
*Title 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(A) makes it unlawful for any person or other entity to hire, recruit, or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien, as defined in subsection 1324a(h)(3).*
*Subsection 1324a(2) makes it unlawful for any person or entity, after hiring an alien for employment, to continue to employ the alien in the United States knowing the alien is or has become an unauthorized alien with respect to such employment.
Subsection 1324a(f) provides that any person or entity that engages in a "pattern or practice" of violations of subsection (a)(1)(A) or (a)(2) shall be fined not more than $3000 for each unauthorized alien with respect to whom such a violation occurs, imprisoned for not more than six months for the entire pattern or practice, or both. The legislative history indicates that "a pattern or practice" of violations is to be given a commonsense rather than overly technical meaning, and must evidence regular, repeated and intentional activities, but does not include isolated, sporadic or accidental acts. H.R.Rep. No. 99-682, Part 3, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (1986), p. 59. See 8 C.F.R. § 274a.1(k).A scheme for civil enforcement of the requirements of §  1324a through injunctions and monetary penalties is set forth in § 1324a(e) and § 1324a(f)(2).
*
*In addition, 18 U.S.C. § 1546(b) makes it a felony offense to use a false identification document or misuse a real one, for the purpose of satisfying the employment verification provisions in 8 U.S.C. §  1324a(b).*


----------



## Porter Rockwell

*THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572,  4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603*
*
I made a response to our resident troll on this thread, so I will not include it in the continuation of this discussion.
*
There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, case precedents, etc., etc.  Still, most gun rights types know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gun control.  Yet, unless you run into a *constitutionalist*, you probably won't find people that will see not only gun control, but other back door attacks on the Constitution from angles you don't expect.
*
IN * 1857, a case made it's way to the United States Supreme Court.  It was the Dred Scott v Sanford case.  It made plain that non-whites were not citizens and that the terminology in the Constitution applied to whites only... an area where we've already been.  But, here is the $64,000 question:  Since immigration isn't mentioned in the Constitution and citizenship isn't constitutionally defined by the founders, what were the limits of the federal government in he regulation of non-citizen foreigners?  To answer that, let's see what's in the Constitution and what is not.

From the University of Minnnesota, Human Rights Library, there is this:

"*The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments.* Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the *plenary power* to be an inherent sovereign power."

Chapter 2:  The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization

There is the bottom line to the constitutionalist's argument.  The Constitution *does not* give the federal government  any power over non-citizens.  The *Tenth Amendment *clearly states:

"The* powers not delegated* to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, *are reserved to the states* respectively, or to the people."

So, HOW did the federal government usurp a Right of the states?

The aforementioned article answers that:

"...in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the *plenary power* to be an inherent sovereign power."

Whoa.  Wait.  The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government on WHOSE authority???  WHERE, *in the Constitution* does the build the wall advocates find such a power?  It is not there.  See this link on "plenary power."

Plenary power - Wikipedia

From a *constitutionalist *point of view, this is a dangerous precedent that will not stop with immigration.  If the United States Supreme Court can claim a complete and absolute power, do you think that precedent is limited to telling a state who may come and go within its borders?

Let's look at the *RULING* Heller decision regarding the Second Amendment:

_"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_..."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Since when was the Bill of Rights limited in scope?  Does the Court believe that SOME Rights are unlimited, but others are not?  Where did the United States Supreme Court get these magical powers to over-rule the Constitution?  You cannot turn a blind eye to tyranny simply because YOU think YOU will benefit off it.  There is NO power in the Constitution to tell states who they may and may not invite into their state.  There is no mention of a "plenary power" and you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid to think that if you allow an unelected body to have that kind "*exclusive*" power over an area of law, they are NOT stopping with immigration.  Look closely at Heller.  They are rapidly moving in that direction with gun control and also with the Fourth Amendment, not to mention other areas of the law.

If you read the above quote, the law does not say anything about plenary powers being exclusive to immigration; they can be applied to anything the United States Supreme Court decides - AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT.  OTOH, if you allow them to establish that precedent, you are bound by it once it's YOUR Rights on the line.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

LilOlLady said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a dumb ass for using straw man arguments in a vain attempt to prove an unprovable proposition.  While you rant about it, you've again changed the goalposts.  Now you're saying a border, not a wall.  Did you forget what this subject is about?
> 
> If you were only *READING* my posts (and not just the ones in response to you) I am answering each and every point you make.  You see, while you've been making all that noise, I've been *agreeing* with some of your points.  I'm also telling the *whole *truth... not the portions that benefit the left and not those that benefit the right.  See posts # 4581 and 4585.  At least one more posting is coming up today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The unprovable position is the claim border enforcement on southern border, which is the same as those designated entry points already used in our northern border ... interferes with and interferes with the freedom to do business and work in the United States.  A total BS unproven argument on your part as it has no impact associated with our northern border.
> 
> Your inalienable rights preamble you keep spouting off as your argument, likewise holds no evidence when we look at border enforcement associated with Canada. Both points successfully debunked simply by looking to the simple fact we have controlled entry points to the north.
> 
> Someone who is against allowing the same designated, organized, and controlled enforcement of a border thats found to our north .. to be the exception to our south is an enabler to the illegal immigration problem.  Unless you happen to be in favor of troops in those vast open, unsecured areas of our border, we need a secured and closely monitored border to our south.
> 
> Making and / or listing  “excuses” for illegal aliens and illegal immigration shows blatant disrespect (a spit in the face) to those overseas foreigners who take the time to come here through the LEGAL process to become citizens.  It creates two classes of immigrants (1) that comes here and works hard to attain citizenship through the long legal process .. and (2) those who sneak across illegally who we make excuses for breaking the law, and make as an exception to the rule by treating them differently from  legal foreign immigrants.  With respect to foreign immigrants and immigration, this is NOT “all men are created equal” for as many times as you like to quote the Constitution.  There is no way you can spin “equality” between those who endure the legal process to become citizens ... and those who have their means to cross “illegally” as an exception to the rule!!
> 
> I can’t make it any more clear for the “enablers” of the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such idiotic and retarded statements using still MORE strawman arguments with no basis in fact  and ignoring the points being made is an insult to even what little intelligence you have.  While you're arguing, I'm dismantling the bullshit point by point.  You may want to read posts 4581, 4585, and 4597 to see what IS being said.  Other than that, your post is so much pious cant so as to be devoid of any reasoning and, consequently, not deserving of a response.  It is irrelevant, immaterial, full of lies and strawman arguments.
> 
> Your dumb ass has been unable to quote me having made the arguments you claim since we are revisiting the issue point by point in posts 4581, 4585, 4597, and 4603
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only straight up lie, is your claim that an enforced southern border would interfere with those who wish to do business and work in the United States. I asked how exactly an enforced northern border inhibits foreigners from doing business in the United States.. or of those foreigners coming from overseas.  You have no answer to defend your argument, a direct question as it relates to border security.  Trying to falsely claim that as a strawman argument proves your “claim” is both inaccurate and a straight up lie.
> 
> I asked you to point out HOW enforcment of our northern border has infringed on a foreign immigrants inalienable rights, rights I have successfully proven through the writtten Constitution as it references “We the people of the United States” who are recognized as citizens.  If you are to accurate interprete the Constitution (like you have tried to in your reference of Article I Section 9) you will find inalienable rights was written to specifically address those recognized as “We the people of the United States”.  In reference to the time it was written, the Continental Congress, quotes from our Founders, and the early United States Supreme Court, made no mention to include native Indians in that statement within its territory (like the Louisiana Purchase), unfortunately African Americans were considered property at that time, so the only accurate reference to the writing of the United States Constitution are “We the people” which accurately addresses CITIZENS recognized by the United States.  Not strawman but undeniable FACT.  You are great in holding onto original context to how a segment of the Constitution is to be interpreted, until evidence points against your unproven “perception” to what’s written.
> 
> You see, I don’t need to discuss (1) how YOU think enforcment will interfere with foreigners ability to work, (2) concerning a foreign illegal immigrants inalienable rights that CLEARLY addresses “We the People”, as I have already recently debunked BOTH of those arguments.
> 
> I already have shown one early Supreme Court decision coming shortly after 1808, where their position concluded the Federal Government has authority over the states on issues concerning immigration.
> 
> Also, what judicial Supreme Court position (state or otherwise) does a 20th century commentary opinion piece hold in reference to the 14th Amendment?   I already shown, successfully through historical evidence, that it passed both legislative houses, was ratified by 2/3 of the states as specifically required  by the Constitution.  In fact commentary gripes of successfully ratified 14th Amendment IS your irrelevant strawman argument.
> 
> So what else you got left that I haven’t discredited?  Seriously, you need to do better research as it relates to the subject at hand - Immigration border enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4581, 4585, 4597, 4603 AND 4605
> 
> We have to interrupt the flow of this thread to respond to SHACKLES OFBIGGOV WHO IS TOO STUPID TO FIGURE OUT HIS QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.  LET US LEAD HIM BY THE HAND.
> *
> ShacklesofBiggov wrote:  "The only straight up lie, is your claim that an enforced southern border would interfere with those who wish to do business and work in the United States"
> 
> *RESPONSE*:  On at least six occasions we have* PROVEN* you wrong on this thread on this issue.   The current laws were passed by liberals and do not contemplate the way employers access labor.  As a result, we have an antiquated system with* unconstitutional quotas*.  You continue to bitch and moan, but the bottom line is, you cannot tell an employer who they can and cannot hire.  The employer owns the freaking job.  You are advocating SOCIALISM.
> 
> ShacklesofBiggov wrote: I already have shown one early Supreme Court decision coming shortly after 1808, where their position concluded the Federal Government has authority over the states on issues concerning immigration.
> 
> *RESPONSE*:  For the sixth time you haven't shown us shit.  There is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives the Courts any authority to grant to anyone or any other branch of government any power.  It's not their job.
> 
> Secondly, Immigration is defined as people coming to another country for the purpose of *permanent residence.*  What part of the English language goes over your head?  Foreign workers *ARE NOT SEEKING PERMANENT RESIDENCE.  CONSEQUENTLY YOUR LITTLE CASE DOESN'T APPLY.  *The case only applies to those who want to be permanent residents.
> 
> ShacklesofBiggov wrote:  "I asked you to point out HOW enforcment of our northern border has infringed on a foreign immigrants inalienable rights..
> 
> *RESPONSE*: ."This is a load of horseshit because it has NOTHING to do with what goes on at the southern border AND immigration attorneys have addressed this - AND we've discussed it on numerous occasions.  Article I Section 9  DOES NOT DEAL with the issues you bring to the table.  Our focus here is SOUTHERN BORDER.  You deflect because you're getting your ass kicked.  AND you are making straw man arguments in order to confuse the issue.
> 
> ShacklesofBiggov wrote: I already have shown one early Supreme Court decision coming shortly after 1808, where their position concluded the Federal Government has authority over the states on issues concerning immigration.
> 
> *RESPONSE*:  And you failed to show me the word immigration in the Constitution; you failed to show us where the Constitution gives the Supreme Court to grant to any state or branch of government any power.  Show it to me in the Constitution or STFU and let's move forward.
> 
> Finally, with respect to the 14th Amendment, you are LYING.  Period.  You haven't shown us shit and I've posted cases, the positions of judges, historians, and attorneys while you LIE to the posters.
> 
> Your bullshit has no credibility because you are lying.  I gave you more than half a dozen links, citing over a hundred court cases and explaining the unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment - AND THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THE 14TH AMENDMENT.  You need the deflection to keep people from being able to see the ass whipping you are taking.  EVERY statement you've made has been legitimately refuted.  So we're moving forward.  Lick your wounds and keep telling those repetitive lies.  If you tell the lie a thousand times, maybe someone will believe that this is not been addressed - if they're as big a dumb ass as you and afraid to READ THE LINKS in response to your desperate attempt at relevancy in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Title 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(A) makes it unlawful for any person or other entity to hire, recruit, or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien, as defined in subsection 1324a(h)(3).*
> *Subsection 1324a(2) makes it unlawful for any person or entity, after hiring an alien for employment, to continue to employ the alien in the United States knowing the alien is or has become an unauthorized alien with respect to such employment.*
> *Subsection 1324a(f) provides that any person or entity that engages in a "pattern or practice" of violations of subsection (a)(1)(A) or (a)(2) shall be fined not more than $3000 for each unauthorized alien with respect to whom such a violation occurs, imprisoned for not more than six months for the entire pattern or practice, or both. The legislative history indicates that "a pattern or practice" of violations is to be given a commonsense rather than overly technical meaning, and must evidence regular, repeated and intentional activities, but does not include isolated, sporadic or accidental acts. H.R.Rep. No. 99-682, Part 3, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (1986), p. 59. See 8 C.F.R. § 274a.1(k).A scheme for civil enforcement of the requirements of §  1324a through injunctions and monetary penalties is set forth in § 1324a(e) and § 1324a(f)(2).*
> 
> *In addition, 18 U.S.C. § 1546(b) makes it a felony offense to use a false identification document or misuse a real one, for the purpose of satisfying the employment verification provisions in 8 U.S.C. §  1324a(b).*
Click to expand...



What's your point?  If you read  posts 4572, 4581, 4585, 4597, 4605 and 4609 we've carefully shown that these statutes, for the most part are blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I hire whomever I like.  If you don't like it, go pound sand

If someone uses fake ID, lies to authorities, etc., there are legitimate laws in Title 18 of which they can be tried on.  That has *NO* bearing on this discussion.  

The United States Supreme Court itself has opined that no one is bound to obey an unconstitutional act.  Does that mean I can ignore laws I don't like?  Hell NO.  But, if you cannot show me, in the Constitution where the Constitution gives the United States Supreme Court the* authority* to grant powers to another branch of government, then you can kiss my white ass.  Your positions have been asked and answered.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

LilOlLady said:


> Demo-rats claim the border is secure and we do not need a wall.
> 
> U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the *330 Central Americans *were apprehended early *Monday* at the Antelope Wells port of entry, 122 miles (197 kilometers) west of *El Paso, Texas.*
> 
> This marks the second large group to be arrested near the port in less than a week. On Friday, agents arrested* 290 Central Americans* who entered the country illegally. CBP said* 28 groups* of* more than 100 people* have been apprehended in the area since Oct. 1.




What is your point?


----------



## LilOlLady

Porter Rockwell said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Demo-rats claim the border is secure and we do not need a wall.
> 
> U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the *330 Central Americans *were apprehended early *Monday* at the Antelope Wells port of entry, 122 miles (197 kilometers) west of *El Paso, Texas.*
> 
> This marks the second large group to be arrested near the port in less than a week. On Friday, agents arrested* 290 Central Americans* who entered the country illegally. CBP said* 28 groups* of* more than 100 people* have been apprehended in the area since Oct. 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point?
Click to expand...

The border is not secure as the dem rats claim.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

*THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572, 4581, 4585, 4597, 4603, 4609, and 4612*

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."  Thomas Jefferson

I've come a long way in the last seven posts, challenging the notion that the United States Supreme Court *EVER* had the authority to give Congress a power over *non-citizens* that enter the United States to work jobs willingly offered.  

The one thing that is insulting, reprehensible, and shows the lack of a moral compass among the Tea Party Republicans - or anyone else that would suggest a wall is the disdain it shows for Liberty.  I cannot believe that any segment of my own brethren would stoop so low as to suggest we criminalize Liberty.  At the same time, one has to almost admire a people willing to brave death and the prospect of being raped, beaten, robbed, and / or used as prostitutes or maybe drug mules to come into the United States and get a minimum wage job in order to feed their family.

The Constitution only gives the Congress the power to  "establish a uniform rule of naturalization..."  Naturalization is about citizenship - and citizenship is about becoming a part of the body politic.  I'm sure that the founders could not fathom free men and machines working the fields and producing millions of tons of food that feeds the world.  They could not have predicted warehouses bigger than their largest cities.  

The narrow view of those wanting a wall shows that they have no real end game in their thinking process.  The only "in" they see is people coming in the "legal" way as they love to call it which is code for citizenship.  After the right has called these people rapists, robbers, drug dealers, thieves, murderers, etc. they think they can make citizens out of them with no repercussions.  Are they nuts?  They are insuring that those people will become Democrats, vote the right into oblivion and make this entire discussion moot.  What a Hell of an end game!

Congress could *regulate* the flow of  foreigners who come here to work without expecting to apply for citizenship.  That is an Interstate Commerce issue.  Still, there would not be an excuse for quotas, long waiting periods, and these feeble attempts to prohibit foreigners from coming into the United States to work.  Those people would show up at entry points, be issued a temporary ID and then get a tax ID which would be valid for two years.  After that, they go home for two years OR, if they want to become U.S. citizens, they apply for it.  If they don't want to become citizens, they can work in the U.S. for two years and go home for two years before reapplying for Guest Worker status.  Problem solved.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

LilOlLady said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Demo-rats claim the border is secure and we do not need a wall.
> 
> U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the *330 Central Americans *were apprehended early *Monday* at the Antelope Wells port of entry, 122 miles (197 kilometers) west of *El Paso, Texas.*
> 
> This marks the second large group to be arrested near the port in less than a week. On Friday, agents arrested* 290 Central Americans* who entered the country illegally. CBP said* 28 groups* of* more than 100 people* have been apprehended in the area since Oct. 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The border is not secure as the dem rats claim.
Click to expand...


What a pant load!  Did you ever think to yourself that the people from south of the border must be part Neanderthal?   What kind of people would wait until Obama was out of office before arranging a caravan to come here with an anti-immigrant president at the helm?  Why not come here when you encounter the least resistance?

Are you not smart enough to understand you're being played?


----------



## danielpalos

LilOlLady said:


> Demo-rats claim the border is secure and we do not need a wall.
> 
> U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the *330 Central Americans *were apprehended early *Monday* at the Antelope Wells port of entry, 122 miles (197 kilometers) west of *El Paso, Texas.*
> 
> This marks the second large group to be arrested near the port in less than a week. On Friday, agents arrested* 290 Central Americans* who entered the country illegally. CBP said* 28 groups* of* more than 100 people* have been apprehended in the area since Oct. 1.


Repubacks are worse than less fortunate illegals; there is no express immigration clause or wall building clause in our Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

LilOlLady said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Demo-rats claim the border is secure and we do not need a wall.
> 
> U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the *330 Central Americans *were apprehended early *Monday* at the Antelope Wells port of entry, 122 miles (197 kilometers) west of *El Paso, Texas.*
> 
> This marks the second large group to be arrested near the port in less than a week. On Friday, agents arrested* 290 Central Americans* who entered the country illegally. CBP said* 28 groups* of* more than 100 people* have been apprehended in the area since Oct. 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The border is not secure as the dem rats claim.
Click to expand...

we have a refugee problem.


----------



## Geaux4it

Indeed. We need to shut immigration down completely until we get a hold on things

-Geaux


----------



## danielpalos

Geaux4it said:


> Indeed. We need to shut immigration down completely until we get a hold on things
> 
> -Geaux


the problem with that, is that there is no express immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  Why right wing bigotry for a non-existent power?


----------



## LilOlLady

danielpalos said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Demo-rats claim the border is secure and we do not need a wall.
> 
> U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the *330 Central Americans *were apprehended early *Monday* at the Antelope Wells port of entry, 122 miles (197 kilometers) west of *El Paso, Texas.*
> 
> This marks the second large group to be arrested near the port in less than a week. On Friday, agents arrested* 290 Central Americans* who entered the country illegally. CBP said* 28 groups* of* more than 100 people* have been apprehended in the area since Oct. 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The border is not secure as the dem rats claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a refugee problem.
Click to expand...

The* Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) program* is a new federal fund that offers up to *8 months of cash assistance *to refugees who come to the United States with assets totaling under *$1,000*, and who fail to qualify for TANF or SSI. Refugees do not jump the fence and ask for asylum. There is a process to get into the country. And it is not catch and release until your claim is processed. That is the dum-rats way. We have a new sheriff in town.


----------



## LilOlLady

Beto O'Rouke say El Paso is safe. Dum-Ass do not understand that it is safer because of the fence (wall) and agents and military. 
Cruz says the goal is to "stop the human traffickers, stop the drug traffickers and build the wall."
Cruz also says Texans welcome legal immigrants, but that they need to "stand in line" and "follow the rules." The crowd roared in agreement.
If it stops human traffickers that kill people and stop drug traffickers whose drugs kill then a wall do save lives. Not to mention those that cross and die in the desert because the border is not stopping them.


----------



## danielpalos

LilOlLady said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Demo-rats claim the border is secure and we do not need a wall.
> 
> U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the *330 Central Americans *were apprehended early *Monday* at the Antelope Wells port of entry, 122 miles (197 kilometers) west of *El Paso, Texas.*
> 
> This marks the second large group to be arrested near the port in less than a week. On Friday, agents arrested* 290 Central Americans* who entered the country illegally. CBP said* 28 groups* of* more than 100 people* have been apprehended in the area since Oct. 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The border is not secure as the dem rats claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a refugee problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The* Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) program* is a new federal fund that offers up to *8 months of cash assistance *to refugees who come to the United States with assets totaling under *$1,000*, and who fail to qualify for TANF or SSI. Refugees do not jump the fence and ask for asylum. There is a process to get into the country. And it is not catch and release until your claim is processed. That is the dum-rats way. We have a new sheriff in town.
Click to expand...

We don't have an immigration clause.  Right wing devices only cause problems for the right wing.

We have a naturalization clause and should be upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure.  Normal tourism should "dwarf" any refugee issue and could help cover those costs.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

LilOlLady said:


> Beto O'Rouke say El Paso is safe. Dum-Ass do not understand that it is safer because of the fence (wall) and agents and military.
> Cruz says the goal is to "stop the human traffickers, stop the drug traffickers and build the wall."
> Cruz also says Texans welcome legal immigrants, but that they need to "stand in line" and "follow the rules." The crowd roared in agreement.
> If it stops human traffickers that kill people and stop drug traffickers whose drugs kill then a wall do save lives. Not to mention those that cross and die in the desert because the border is not stopping them.



Do you bother to READ the thread or just spew nonsense on a whim?  The state officials in three states dispute the build the wall worshipers rhetoric and say they don't need a wall nor the military.


----------



## regent

A question? If the wall is not built exactly on the surveyed border and some American territory is left on the Mexican side, can a pregnant Mexican mother come to that American parcel, have her baby and declare  it an American citizen?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> *THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572,  4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603
> 
> I made a response to our resident troll on this thread, so I will not include it in the continuation of this discussion.
> *
> There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, case precedents, etc., etc.  Still, most gun rights types know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gun control.  Yet, unless you run into a *constitutionalist*, you probably won't find people that will see not only gun control, but other back door attacks on the Constitution from angles you don't expect.
> *
> IN * 1857, a case made it's way to the United States Supreme Court.  It was the Dred Scott v Sanford case.  It made plain that non-whites were not citizens and that the terminology in the Constitution applied to whites only... an area where we've already been.  But, here is the $64,000 question:  Since immigration isn't mentioned in the Constitution and citizenship isn't constitutionally defined by the founders, what were the limits of the federal government in he regulation of non-citizen foreigners?  To answer that, let's see what's in the Constitution and what is not.
> 
> From the University of Minnnesota, Human Rights Library, there is this:
> 
> "*The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments.* Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the *plenary power* to be an inherent sovereign power."
> 
> Chapter 2:  The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization
> 
> There is the bottom line to the constitutionalist's argument.  The Constitution *does not* give the federal government  any power over non-citizens.  The *Tenth Amendment *clearly states:
> 
> "The* powers not delegated* to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, *are reserved to the states* respectively, or to the people."
> 
> So, HOW did the federal government usurp a Right of the states?
> 
> The aforementioned article answers that:
> 
> "...in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the *plenary power* to be an inherent sovereign power."
> 
> Whoa.  Wait.  The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government on WHOSE authority???  WHERE, *in the Constitution* does the build the wall advocates find such a power?  It is not there.  See this link on "plenary power."
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> From a *constitutionalist *point of view, this is a dangerous precedent that will not stop with immigration.  If the United States Supreme Court can claim a complete and absolute power, do you think that precedent is limited to telling a state who may come and go within its borders?
> 
> Let's look at the *RULING* Heller decision regarding the Second Amendment:
> 
> _"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_..."
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> Since when was the Bill of Rights limited in scope?  Does the Court believe that SOME Rights are unlimited, but others are not?  Where did the United States Supreme Court get these magical powers to over-rule the Constitution?  You cannot turn a blind eye to tyranny simply because YOU think YOU will benefit off it.  There is NO power in the Constitution to tell states who they may and may not invite into their state.  There is no mention of a "plenary power" and you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid to think that if you allow an unelected body to have that kind "*exclusive*" power over an area of law, they are NOT stopping with immigration.  Look closely at Heller.  They are rapidly moving in that direction with gun control and also with the Fourth Amendment, not to mention other areas of the law.
> 
> If you read the above quote, the law does not say anything about plenary powers being exclusive to immigration; they can be applied to anything the United States Supreme Court decides - AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT.  OTOH, if you allow them to establish that precedent, you are bound by it once it's YOUR Rights on the line.



So what legal and Constitutional credentials does 
University of Minnnesot Human Rights Library carry that’s relevant to the discussion of Constitutional legitimacy of Immigration enforcment as it pertains to Constitutional law?  Now listing the actual dictation views of a judge, with a proven strong educational and legal background for the rule of law, sitting on the United States Supreme Court would carry more weight than a someone with their own human rights agenda.  Sorry to keep putting holes in your choice of unrelated and irrelevant “opinions”, as   driven agendas differ from knowing and interpreting the ACTUAL rule of law.


----------



## danielpalos

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572,  4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603
> 
> I made a response to our resident troll on this thread, so I will not include it in the continuation of this discussion.
> *
> There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, case precedents, etc., etc.  Still, most gun rights types know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gun control.  Yet, unless you run into a *constitutionalist*, you probably won't find people that will see not only gun control, but other back door attacks on the Constitution from angles you don't expect.
> *
> IN * 1857, a case made it's way to the United States Supreme Court.  It was the Dred Scott v Sanford case.  It made plain that non-whites were not citizens and that the terminology in the Constitution applied to whites only... an area where we've already been.  But, here is the $64,000 question:  Since immigration isn't mentioned in the Constitution and citizenship isn't constitutionally defined by the founders, what were the limits of the federal government in he regulation of non-citizen foreigners?  To answer that, let's see what's in the Constitution and what is not.
> 
> From the University of Minnnesota, Human Rights Library, there is this:
> 
> "*The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments.* Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the *plenary power* to be an inherent sovereign power."
> 
> Chapter 2:  The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization
> 
> There is the bottom line to the constitutionalist's argument.  The Constitution *does not* give the federal government  any power over non-citizens.  The *Tenth Amendment *clearly states:
> 
> "The* powers not delegated* to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, *are reserved to the states* respectively, or to the people."
> 
> So, HOW did the federal government usurp a Right of the states?
> 
> The aforementioned article answers that:
> 
> "...in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the *plenary power* to be an inherent sovereign power."
> 
> Whoa.  Wait.  The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government on WHOSE authority???  WHERE, *in the Constitution* does the build the wall advocates find such a power?  It is not there.  See this link on "plenary power."
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> From a *constitutionalist *point of view, this is a dangerous precedent that will not stop with immigration.  If the United States Supreme Court can claim a complete and absolute power, do you think that precedent is limited to telling a state who may come and go within its borders?
> 
> Let's look at the *RULING* Heller decision regarding the Second Amendment:
> 
> _"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_..."
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> Since when was the Bill of Rights limited in scope?  Does the Court believe that SOME Rights are unlimited, but others are not?  Where did the United States Supreme Court get these magical powers to over-rule the Constitution?  You cannot turn a blind eye to tyranny simply because YOU think YOU will benefit off it.  There is NO power in the Constitution to tell states who they may and may not invite into their state.  There is no mention of a "plenary power" and you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid to think that if you allow an unelected body to have that kind "*exclusive*" power over an area of law, they are NOT stopping with immigration.  Look closely at Heller.  They are rapidly moving in that direction with gun control and also with the Fourth Amendment, not to mention other areas of the law.
> 
> If you read the above quote, the law does not say anything about plenary powers being exclusive to immigration; they can be applied to anything the United States Supreme Court decides - AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT.  OTOH, if you allow them to establish that precedent, you are bound by it once it's YOUR Rights on the line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what legal and Constitutional credentials does
> University of Minnnesot Human Rights Library carry that’s relevant to the discussion of Constitutional legitimacy of Immigration enforcment as it pertains to Constitutional law?  Now listing the actual dictation views of a judge, with a proven strong educational and legal background for the rule of law, sitting on the United States Supreme Court would carry more weight than a someone with their own human rights agenda.  Sorry to keep putting holes in your choice of unrelated and irrelevant “opinions”, as   driven agendas differ from knowing and interpreting the ACTUAL rule of law.
Click to expand...

There is no immigration clause in our actual Constitutional, rule of law.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

danielpalos said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572,  4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603
> 
> I made a response to our resident troll on this thread, so I will not include it in the continuation of this discussion.
> *
> There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, case precedents, etc., etc.  Still, most gun rights types know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gun control.  Yet, unless you run into a *constitutionalist*, you probably won't find people that will see not only gun control, but other back door attacks on the Constitution from angles you don't expect.
> *
> IN * 1857, a case made it's way to the United States Supreme Court.  It was the Dred Scott v Sanford case.  It made plain that non-whites were not citizens and that the terminology in the Constitution applied to whites only... an area where we've already been.  But, here is the $64,000 question:  Since immigration isn't mentioned in the Constitution and citizenship isn't constitutionally defined by the founders, what were the limits of the federal government in he regulation of non-citizen foreigners?  To answer that, let's see what's in the Constitution and what is not.
> 
> From the University of Minnnesota, Human Rights Library, there is this:
> 
> "*The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments.* Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the *plenary power* to be an inherent sovereign power."
> 
> Chapter 2:  The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization
> 
> There is the bottom line to the constitutionalist's argument.  The Constitution *does not* give the federal government  any power over non-citizens.  The *Tenth Amendment *clearly states:
> 
> "The* powers not delegated* to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, *are reserved to the states* respectively, or to the people."
> 
> So, HOW did the federal government usurp a Right of the states?
> 
> The aforementioned article answers that:
> 
> "...in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the *plenary power* to be an inherent sovereign power."
> 
> Whoa.  Wait.  The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government on WHOSE authority???  WHERE, *in the Constitution* does the build the wall advocates find such a power?  It is not there.  See this link on "plenary power."
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> From a *constitutionalist *point of view, this is a dangerous precedent that will not stop with immigration.  If the United States Supreme Court can claim a complete and absolute power, do you think that precedent is limited to telling a state who may come and go within its borders?
> 
> Let's look at the *RULING* Heller decision regarding the Second Amendment:
> 
> _"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_..."
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> Since when was the Bill of Rights limited in scope?  Does the Court believe that SOME Rights are unlimited, but others are not?  Where did the United States Supreme Court get these magical powers to over-rule the Constitution?  You cannot turn a blind eye to tyranny simply because YOU think YOU will benefit off it.  There is NO power in the Constitution to tell states who they may and may not invite into their state.  There is no mention of a "plenary power" and you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid to think that if you allow an unelected body to have that kind "*exclusive*" power over an area of law, they are NOT stopping with immigration.  Look closely at Heller.  They are rapidly moving in that direction with gun control and also with the Fourth Amendment, not to mention other areas of the law.
> 
> If you read the above quote, the law does not say anything about plenary powers being exclusive to immigration; they can be applied to anything the United States Supreme Court decides - AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT.  OTOH, if you allow them to establish that precedent, you are bound by it once it's YOUR Rights on the line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what legal and Constitutional credentials does
> University of Minnnesot Human Rights Library carry that’s relevant to the discussion of Constitutional legitimacy of Immigration enforcment as it pertains to Constitutional law?  Now listing the actual dictation views of a judge, with a proven strong educational and legal background for the rule of law, sitting on the United States Supreme Court would carry more weight than a someone with their own human rights agenda.  Sorry to keep putting holes in your choice of unrelated and irrelevant “opinions”, as   driven agendas differ from knowing and interpreting the ACTUAL rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our actual Constitutional, rule of law.
Click to expand...


You’re definitely not going to find if you happen to be skimming across and throwing up some 3 second “quick links” to Wikipedia, with their “Cliff Notes” summaries.  True research takes more time, detailed and deeper references, with sources that carry a little more credibility than that to fall back on.   Wikipedia is a lazy person’s tool if you don’t want to put in the work.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572,  4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603
> 
> I made a response to our resident troll on this thread, so I will not include it in the continuation of this discussion.
> *
> There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, case precedents, etc., etc.  Still, most gun rights types know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gun control.  Yet, unless you run into a *constitutionalist*, you probably won't find people that will see not only gun control, but other back door attacks on the Constitution from angles you don't expect.
> *
> IN * 1857, a case made it's way to the United States Supreme Court.  It was the Dred Scott v Sanford case.  It made plain that non-whites were not citizens and that the terminology in the Constitution applied to whites only... an area where we've already been.  But, here is the $64,000 question:  Since immigration isn't mentioned in the Constitution and citizenship isn't constitutionally defined by the founders, what were the limits of the federal government in he regulation of non-citizen foreigners?  To answer that, let's see what's in the Constitution and what is not.
> 
> From the University of Minnnesota, Human Rights Library, there is this:
> 
> "*The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments.* Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the *plenary power* to be an inherent sovereign power."
> 
> Chapter 2:  The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization
> 
> There is the bottom line to the constitutionalist's argument.  The Constitution *does not* give the federal government  any power over non-citizens.  The *Tenth Amendment *clearly states:
> 
> "The* powers not delegated* to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, *are reserved to the states* respectively, or to the people."
> 
> So, HOW did the federal government usurp a Right of the states?
> 
> The aforementioned article answers that:
> 
> "...in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the *plenary power* to be an inherent sovereign power."
> 
> Whoa.  Wait.  The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government on WHOSE authority???  WHERE, *in the Constitution* does the build the wall advocates find such a power?  It is not there.  See this link on "plenary power."
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> From a *constitutionalist *point of view, this is a dangerous precedent that will not stop with immigration.  If the United States Supreme Court can claim a complete and absolute power, do you think that precedent is limited to telling a state who may come and go within its borders?
> 
> Let's look at the *RULING* Heller decision regarding the Second Amendment:
> 
> _"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_..."
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> Since when was the Bill of Rights limited in scope?  Does the Court believe that SOME Rights are unlimited, but others are not?  Where did the United States Supreme Court get these magical powers to over-rule the Constitution?  You cannot turn a blind eye to tyranny simply because YOU think YOU will benefit off it.  There is NO power in the Constitution to tell states who they may and may not invite into their state.  There is no mention of a "plenary power" and you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid to think that if you allow an unelected body to have that kind "*exclusive*" power over an area of law, they are NOT stopping with immigration.  Look closely at Heller.  They are rapidly moving in that direction with gun control and also with the Fourth Amendment, not to mention other areas of the law.
> 
> If you read the above quote, the law does not say anything about plenary powers being exclusive to immigration; they can be applied to anything the United States Supreme Court decides - AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT.  OTOH, if you allow them to establish that precedent, you are bound by it once it's YOUR Rights on the line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what legal and Constitutional credentials does
> University of Minnnesot Human Rights Library carry that’s relevant to the discussion of Constitutional legitimacy of Immigration enforcment as it pertains to Constitutional law?  Now listing the actual dictation views of a judge, with a proven strong educational and legal background for the rule of law, sitting on the United States Supreme Court would carry more weight than a someone with their own human rights agenda.  Sorry to keep putting holes in your choice of unrelated and irrelevant “opinions”, as   driven agendas differ from knowing and interpreting the ACTUAL rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our actual Constitutional, rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re definitely not going to find if you happen to be skimming across and throwing up some 3 second “quick links” to Wikipedia, with their “Cliff Notes” summaries.  True research takes more time, detailed and deeper references, with sources that carry a little more credibility than that to fall back on.   Wikipedia is a lazy person’s tool if you don’t want to put in the work.
Click to expand...


Your false claim is easily dismissed by anyone that reads my links.  Rarely do I rely on Wikipedia for anything except as a secondary source because, in many cases, I AM THE ORIGINAL CITING SOURCE.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572,  4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603
> 
> I made a response to our resident troll on this thread, so I will not include it in the continuation of this discussion.
> *
> There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, case precedents, etc., etc.  Still, most gun rights types know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gun control.  Yet, unless you run into a *constitutionalist*, you probably won't find people that will see not only gun control, but other back door attacks on the Constitution from angles you don't expect.
> *
> IN * 1857, a case made it's way to the United States Supreme Court.  It was the Dred Scott v Sanford case.  It made plain that non-whites were not citizens and that the terminology in the Constitution applied to whites only... an area where we've already been.  But, here is the $64,000 question:  Since immigration isn't mentioned in the Constitution and citizenship isn't constitutionally defined by the founders, what were the limits of the federal government in he regulation of non-citizen foreigners?  To answer that, let's see what's in the Constitution and what is not.
> 
> From the University of Minnnesota, Human Rights Library, there is this:
> 
> "*The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments.* Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the *plenary power* to be an inherent sovereign power."
> 
> Chapter 2:  The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization
> 
> There is the bottom line to the constitutionalist's argument.  The Constitution *does not* give the federal government  any power over non-citizens.  The *Tenth Amendment *clearly states:
> 
> "The* powers not delegated* to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, *are reserved to the states* respectively, or to the people."
> 
> So, HOW did the federal government usurp a Right of the states?
> 
> The aforementioned article answers that:
> 
> "...in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the *plenary power* to be an inherent sovereign power."
> 
> Whoa.  Wait.  The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government on WHOSE authority???  WHERE, *in the Constitution* does the build the wall advocates find such a power?  It is not there.  See this link on "plenary power."
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> From a *constitutionalist *point of view, this is a dangerous precedent that will not stop with immigration.  If the United States Supreme Court can claim a complete and absolute power, do you think that precedent is limited to telling a state who may come and go within its borders?
> 
> Let's look at the *RULING* Heller decision regarding the Second Amendment:
> 
> _"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_..."
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> Since when was the Bill of Rights limited in scope?  Does the Court believe that SOME Rights are unlimited, but others are not?  Where did the United States Supreme Court get these magical powers to over-rule the Constitution?  You cannot turn a blind eye to tyranny simply because YOU think YOU will benefit off it.  There is NO power in the Constitution to tell states who they may and may not invite into their state.  There is no mention of a "plenary power" and you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid to think that if you allow an unelected body to have that kind "*exclusive*" power over an area of law, they are NOT stopping with immigration.  Look closely at Heller.  They are rapidly moving in that direction with gun control and also with the Fourth Amendment, not to mention other areas of the law.
> 
> If you read the above quote, the law does not say anything about plenary powers being exclusive to immigration; they can be applied to anything the United States Supreme Court decides - AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT.  OTOH, if you allow them to establish that precedent, you are bound by it once it's YOUR Rights on the line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what legal and Constitutional credentials does
> University of Minnnesot Human Rights Library carry that’s relevant to the discussion of Constitutional legitimacy of Immigration enforcment as it pertains to Constitutional law?  Now listing the actual dictation views of a judge, with a proven strong educational and legal background for the rule of law, sitting on the United States Supreme Court would carry more weight than a someone with their own human rights agenda.  Sorry to keep putting holes in your choice of unrelated and irrelevant “opinions”, as   driven agendas differ from knowing and interpreting the ACTUAL rule of law.
Click to expand...


You like to argue and even when the facts are laid on the table, you will still be lying to anyone who reads the facts.  Sharpen your pencil asshole.

According to the New York Times:

"Immigration courts operate within the Justice Department and are not part of the judicial branch, so Mr. Mukasey’s ruling has the effect of the highest immigration authority. Any challenge would have to take place in the federal appeals courts."

Ruling Says Deportation Cases May Not Be Appealed Over Lawyer Errors

Another article had this to say:

"Immigration courts have for decades operated under the premise that immigrants enjoy a constitutional right to effective counsel, immigration lawyers said. Criminal defendants whose lawyers fail to represent defendants at a basic level of competence may seek a new trial. Mukasey wrote that the US constitution affords a right to counsel, and hence a right to effective counsel, only in criminal matters. Immigration proceedings are civil matters, he wrote, and therefore that right does not apply"

Immigrants facing deportation have no right to an effective lawyer, attorney general declares

This is in reference to Mukasey's ruling as follows:

"In Matter of Compean, Attorney General Mukasey reexamined Lozada in light of the circuit split. See Compean, 24 I&N Dec. at 714-27. He first examined whether respondents have a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel under either the Fifth or Sixth Amendment. In evaluating whether such a right exists under the Sixth Amendment, the Attorney General found that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel has no application to removal proceedings. Id. at 716-17."

25 I&N Dec. 1 (A.G. 2009)

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2009/07/24/vol3no3.pdf

Allow me to decipher this for you:

IF a foreigner makes it past the immigration authorities and IF that foreigner does not commit a Title 18 Crime, then they are *NOT* criminals.  Obama's Attorney General overturned Mukasey in part with the basic objection that the foreigners *LIBERTY* was at stake - and that is a 14th Amendment guarantee to *ALL PERSONS*.

That puts YOU on the left with your endless chatter like a monkey with a music box.  The *United States Supreme Court confirmed* what I've told you over and over and over again:

"it is not generally a crime for a removable alien to be present in the United States,"

_*Arizona v. United States*_, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

Now, where did you see Wikipedia mentioned???  Now, remember we're talking about the* HIGHEST RANKING IMMIGRATION OFFICIAL IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT*.

Why stop there?  Let's go back to what I told you earlier in this posting and let some personal experience speak to you.  Let's hear what the HEAD of the Dept. of Homeland ((N) Security said:

“And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because *crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil*.

Read Newsmax: DHS Chief Napolitano: Illegal Immigration Is Not a Crime | Newsmax.com

*Are you seeing Wikipedia or are you fantasizing about how great you are?  
*
Let's go to Trump's own attorney.  What did HE say...  this is Trump's own attorney:


*No Wikipedia there sport.
*
Let's ask ANOTHER Trump confidant and supporter.  Let us ask Chris Christie.  This is what he says:

_"U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie surprised many at a Dover church public forum when he said sneaking into the United States is not a criminal act.


"Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime," Christie told more than 60 residents and town officials. "The whole phrase of 'illegal immigrant' connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime."

Being undocumented may be a civil wrong, but it's not a criminal act, Christie said.

"Don't let people make you believe that that's a crime that the U.S. Attorney's Office should be doing something about," he added of entering the country illegally. "It is not."_

Chris Christie On Illegal Immigration
*
I still aint seeing no Wikipedia
*
Now, I'm showing you how you're being played.  Watch Chris Christie backpedal on this to win your support AND shoot you a line of shit, letting the left know that he's still with them on this:

"he  (Christie)  was later asked a hypothetical question about someone sneaking across the border and said that's not a crime either. Is that true, too?

A: No. "Improper entry by an alien" as it is called, *is a violation of Title 8 of the U.S. criminal code* punishable by a fine of between $50 and $250 and/or a maximum of six months in jail."

Christie clarifies: 'Illegal' immigrants are in civil violation

Did you see how Christie played you?  The liberals caught what he was doing and you can't see it,  so allow me.  *TITLE 8 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE IS NOT THE CRIMINAL CODE*.

Title 8 is a *civil *section of the law dealing with Aliens and Nationality.  *Title 18 (EIGHTEEN) is the Criminal Code*.  Christie was a former United States Attorney, not a freaking first year law student.  Go back to the Attorney General Michael Mukasey's ruling... this is civil law so the "solutions" you seek as if regression is a solution) won't fly in the long run.

U.S. Code: Table Of Contents

If you look at the history of the people whose bullshit you're buying isn't crystal clear to you by now, you should not engage in this conversation.  You'd only embarrass yourself.  Those political propaganda prostitutes are selling you a pig in a poke in order to introduce you to a NEW WORLD ORDER / ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.  The wall itself is about to cost you your gun Rights right off the bat.

*STILL NO WIKIPEDIA HERE, SON*.  Just sharing with you some early experiences that I didn't need links to.


----------



## danielpalos

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572,  4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603
> 
> I made a response to our resident troll on this thread, so I will not include it in the continuation of this discussion.
> *
> There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, case precedents, etc., etc.  Still, most gun rights types know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gun control.  Yet, unless you run into a *constitutionalist*, you probably won't find people that will see not only gun control, but other back door attacks on the Constitution from angles you don't expect.
> *
> IN * 1857, a case made it's way to the United States Supreme Court.  It was the Dred Scott v Sanford case.  It made plain that non-whites were not citizens and that the terminology in the Constitution applied to whites only... an area where we've already been.  But, here is the $64,000 question:  Since immigration isn't mentioned in the Constitution and citizenship isn't constitutionally defined by the founders, what were the limits of the federal government in he regulation of non-citizen foreigners?  To answer that, let's see what's in the Constitution and what is not.
> 
> From the University of Minnnesota, Human Rights Library, there is this:
> 
> "*The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments.* Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the *plenary power* to be an inherent sovereign power."
> 
> Chapter 2:  The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization
> 
> There is the bottom line to the constitutionalist's argument.  The Constitution *does not* give the federal government  any power over non-citizens.  The *Tenth Amendment *clearly states:
> 
> "The* powers not delegated* to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, *are reserved to the states* respectively, or to the people."
> 
> So, HOW did the federal government usurp a Right of the states?
> 
> The aforementioned article answers that:
> 
> "...in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the *plenary power* to be an inherent sovereign power."
> 
> Whoa.  Wait.  The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government on WHOSE authority???  WHERE, *in the Constitution* does the build the wall advocates find such a power?  It is not there.  See this link on "plenary power."
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> From a *constitutionalist *point of view, this is a dangerous precedent that will not stop with immigration.  If the United States Supreme Court can claim a complete and absolute power, do you think that precedent is limited to telling a state who may come and go within its borders?
> 
> Let's look at the *RULING* Heller decision regarding the Second Amendment:
> 
> _"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_..."
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> Since when was the Bill of Rights limited in scope?  Does the Court believe that SOME Rights are unlimited, but others are not?  Where did the United States Supreme Court get these magical powers to over-rule the Constitution?  You cannot turn a blind eye to tyranny simply because YOU think YOU will benefit off it.  There is NO power in the Constitution to tell states who they may and may not invite into their state.  There is no mention of a "plenary power" and you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid to think that if you allow an unelected body to have that kind "*exclusive*" power over an area of law, they are NOT stopping with immigration.  Look closely at Heller.  They are rapidly moving in that direction with gun control and also with the Fourth Amendment, not to mention other areas of the law.
> 
> If you read the above quote, the law does not say anything about plenary powers being exclusive to immigration; they can be applied to anything the United States Supreme Court decides - AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT.  OTOH, if you allow them to establish that precedent, you are bound by it once it's YOUR Rights on the line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what legal and Constitutional credentials does
> University of Minnnesot Human Rights Library carry that’s relevant to the discussion of Constitutional legitimacy of Immigration enforcment as it pertains to Constitutional law?  Now listing the actual dictation views of a judge, with a proven strong educational and legal background for the rule of law, sitting on the United States Supreme Court would carry more weight than a someone with their own human rights agenda.  Sorry to keep putting holes in your choice of unrelated and irrelevant “opinions”, as   driven agendas differ from knowing and interpreting the ACTUAL rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our actual Constitutional, rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re definitely not going to find if you happen to be skimming across and throwing up some 3 second “quick links” to Wikipedia, with their “Cliff Notes” summaries.  True research takes more time, detailed and deeper references, with sources that carry a little more credibility than that to fall back on.   Wikipedia is a lazy person’s tool if you don’t want to put in the work.
Click to expand...

lol.  There is no express immigration clause in our federal Constitution.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572,  4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603
> 
> I made a response to our resident troll on this thread, so I will not include it in the continuation of this discussion.
> *
> There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, case precedents, etc., etc.  Still, most gun rights types know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gun control.  Yet, unless you run into a *constitutionalist*, you probably won't find people that will see not only gun control, but other back door attacks on the Constitution from angles you don't expect.
> *
> IN * 1857, a case made it's way to the United States Supreme Court.  It was the Dred Scott v Sanford case.  It made plain that non-whites were not citizens and that the terminology in the Constitution applied to whites only... an area where we've already been.  But, here is the $64,000 question:  Since immigration isn't mentioned in the Constitution and citizenship isn't constitutionally defined by the founders, what were the limits of the federal government in he regulation of non-citizen foreigners?  To answer that, let's see what's in the Constitution and what is not.
> 
> From the University of Minnnesota, Human Rights Library, there is this:
> 
> "*The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments.* Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the *plenary power* to be an inherent sovereign power."
> 
> Chapter 2:  The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization
> 
> There is the bottom line to the constitutionalist's argument.  The Constitution *does not* give the federal government  any power over non-citizens.  The *Tenth Amendment *clearly states:
> 
> "The* powers not delegated* to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, *are reserved to the states* respectively, or to the people."
> 
> So, HOW did the federal government usurp a Right of the states?
> 
> The aforementioned article answers that:
> 
> "...in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the *plenary power* to be an inherent sovereign power."
> 
> Whoa.  Wait.  The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government on WHOSE authority???  WHERE, *in the Constitution* does the build the wall advocates find such a power?  It is not there.  See this link on "plenary power."
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> From a *constitutionalist *point of view, this is a dangerous precedent that will not stop with immigration.  If the United States Supreme Court can claim a complete and absolute power, do you think that precedent is limited to telling a state who may come and go within its borders?
> 
> Let's look at the *RULING* Heller decision regarding the Second Amendment:
> 
> _"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_..."
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> Since when was the Bill of Rights limited in scope?  Does the Court believe that SOME Rights are unlimited, but others are not?  Where did the United States Supreme Court get these magical powers to over-rule the Constitution?  You cannot turn a blind eye to tyranny simply because YOU think YOU will benefit off it.  There is NO power in the Constitution to tell states who they may and may not invite into their state.  There is no mention of a "plenary power" and you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid to think that if you allow an unelected body to have that kind "*exclusive*" power over an area of law, they are NOT stopping with immigration.  Look closely at Heller.  They are rapidly moving in that direction with gun control and also with the Fourth Amendment, not to mention other areas of the law.
> 
> If you read the above quote, the law does not say anything about plenary powers being exclusive to immigration; they can be applied to anything the United States Supreme Court decides - AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT.  OTOH, if you allow them to establish that precedent, you are bound by it once it's YOUR Rights on the line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what legal and Constitutional credentials does
> University of Minnnesot Human Rights Library carry that’s relevant to the discussion of Constitutional legitimacy of Immigration enforcment as it pertains to Constitutional law?  Now listing the actual dictation views of a judge, with a proven strong educational and legal background for the rule of law, sitting on the United States Supreme Court would carry more weight than a someone with their own human rights agenda.  Sorry to keep putting holes in your choice of unrelated and irrelevant “opinions”, as   driven agendas differ from knowing and interpreting the ACTUAL rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our actual Constitutional, rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re definitely not going to find if you happen to be skimming across and throwing up some 3 second “quick links” to Wikipedia, with their “Cliff Notes” summaries.  True research takes more time, detailed and deeper references, with sources that carry a little more credibility than that to fall back on.   Wikipedia is a lazy person’s tool if you don’t want to put in the work.
Click to expand...


*Part 2 of my last response to ShacklesofBigGov
*
Shackles wanted to accuse me of "3 second “quick links” to Wikipedia" so we spent some time shooting down that theory.

Now, let's point out a few things wherein he's misled the posters:

Over and over again, until *recent* years, what I am posting here was standard "conservative" fare. politicians, like Ronald Reagan George HW Bush, wanted to increase immigration, provide an "amnesty" to those here and even have regular intervals to grant citizenship to undocumented foreigners:

Ronald Reagan was right on amnesty for immigrants. Here’s why.

The solutions I've brought to the table are the same ones "conservatives" advocated a little over a quarter of a century ago:


What conservatives DID NOT advocate was making citizens out of Guest Workers.  ShacklesofBigGov clearly, unequivocally and irrefutably has taken the same position that the DEMOCRATS took when George HW Bush and Ronald Reagan BOTH distanced themselves from any support for a wall.  See my earlier link.

ShacklesofBigGov has endorsed the talking points, rhetoric, and political agenda that was made famous by Democrats.  There was a former federal immigration prosecutor that was good at telling the sheeple what they wanted to hear, but carried out the same policies Shackles is obsessed with when this guy became president.  His name was Jimmy Carter:

Trump dialed it up to 10, but his predecessors often treated migrants with disdain

IIRC, it was Carter as president, who banned Iranians from coming into the United States.  That one is from memory so don't expect me to look it up just so Shackles can dispute it.  I can tell you what I knew as a young man.  Anyway, back to the roots of a wall (and now it's symbolic for fence, virtual wall, concrete wall... the symbology and semantics are the same) - it was *Jimmy Carter,* a liberal Democrat that floated a "fence" as a barrier that was *OPPOSED* by the Republicans (Bush and Reagan alluding to it in an earlier link in this posting) as being any kind of "solution:"  

How Not to Build a “Great, Great Wall”: A Timeline of Border Fortification

So far ShacklesofBigGov has taken the position of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Eric Holder (who overturned Michael Mukasey's ruling that undocumented foreigners were not due legal counsel in deportation matters since it was civil law... but, even Holder (Obama's Attorney General) did not challenge the part that it was civil law, only that not providing attorneys jeopardized the foreigner's liberty.  Shackles argues very stringently in favor of the 14th Amendment (which I say was illegally ratified) which guarantees even undocumented foreigners that liberty (sic.)   Shackles is like a rodent on a treadmill.  

History shows that I have remained consistent with what *was* the conservative position while the Tea Party Republicans and those suffering from TDS are buying into yet another Democrat's socialist solutions.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572,  4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603
> 
> I made a response to our resident troll on this thread, so I will not include it in the continuation of this discussion.
> *
> There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, case precedents, etc., etc.  Still, most gun rights types know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gun control.  Yet, unless you run into a *constitutionalist*, you probably won't find people that will see not only gun control, but other back door attacks on the Constitution from angles you don't expect.
> *
> IN * 1857, a case made it's way to the United States Supreme Court.  It was the Dred Scott v Sanford case.  It made plain that non-whites were not citizens and that the terminology in the Constitution applied to whites only... an area where we've already been.  But, here is the $64,000 question:  Since immigration isn't mentioned in the Constitution and citizenship isn't constitutionally defined by the founders, what were the limits of the federal government in he regulation of non-citizen foreigners?  To answer that, let's see what's in the Constitution and what is not.
> 
> From the University of Minnnesota, Human Rights Library, there is this:
> 
> "*The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments.* Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the *plenary power* to be an inherent sovereign power."
> 
> Chapter 2:  The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization
> 
> There is the bottom line to the constitutionalist's argument.  The Constitution *does not* give the federal government  any power over non-citizens.  The *Tenth Amendment *clearly states:
> 
> "The* powers not delegated* to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, *are reserved to the states* respectively, or to the people."
> 
> So, HOW did the federal government usurp a Right of the states?
> 
> The aforementioned article answers that:
> 
> "...in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the *plenary power* to be an inherent sovereign power."
> 
> Whoa.  Wait.  The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government on WHOSE authority???  WHERE, *in the Constitution* does the build the wall advocates find such a power?  It is not there.  See this link on "plenary power."
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> From a *constitutionalist *point of view, this is a dangerous precedent that will not stop with immigration.  If the United States Supreme Court can claim a complete and absolute power, do you think that precedent is limited to telling a state who may come and go within its borders?
> 
> Let's look at the *RULING* Heller decision regarding the Second Amendment:
> 
> _"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_..."
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> Since when was the Bill of Rights limited in scope?  Does the Court believe that SOME Rights are unlimited, but others are not?  Where did the United States Supreme Court get these magical powers to over-rule the Constitution?  You cannot turn a blind eye to tyranny simply because YOU think YOU will benefit off it.  There is NO power in the Constitution to tell states who they may and may not invite into their state.  There is no mention of a "plenary power" and you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid to think that if you allow an unelected body to have that kind "*exclusive*" power over an area of law, they are NOT stopping with immigration.  Look closely at Heller.  They are rapidly moving in that direction with gun control and also with the Fourth Amendment, not to mention other areas of the law.
> 
> If you read the above quote, the law does not say anything about plenary powers being exclusive to immigration; they can be applied to anything the United States Supreme Court decides - AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT.  OTOH, if you allow them to establish that precedent, you are bound by it once it's YOUR Rights on the line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what legal and Constitutional credentials does
> University of Minnnesot Human Rights Library carry that’s relevant to the discussion of Constitutional legitimacy of Immigration enforcment as it pertains to Constitutional law?  Now listing the actual dictation views of a judge, with a proven strong educational and legal background for the rule of law, sitting on the United States Supreme Court would carry more weight than a someone with their own human rights agenda.  Sorry to keep putting holes in your choice of unrelated and irrelevant “opinions”, as   driven agendas differ from knowing and interpreting the ACTUAL rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our actual Constitutional, rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re definitely not going to find if you happen to be skimming across and throwing up some 3 second “quick links” to Wikipedia, with their “Cliff Notes” summaries.  True research takes more time, detailed and deeper references, with sources that carry a little more credibility than that to fall back on.   Wikipedia is a lazy person’s tool if you don’t want to put in the work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your false claim is easily dismissed by anyone that reads my links.  Rarely do I rely on Wikipedia for anything except as a secondary source because, in many cases, I AM THE ORIGINAL CITING SOURCE.
Click to expand...


If you are (as you simply put it) the *original* *citing* *source*, then you are expressing nothing more than unsupported opinion.  An opinion that CAN be rejected as holding no real weight in (1) the face of facts supported by dictation from a High Court Judge or (2) expressed quoted views from those legislators present during the debate and time a particular legislation was written.  In short “case law” in Constitutional legal matters, is generally determined by Congressional legislation signed into law, or an Amendment that’s deemed Constitutional, based on original intent when presented against the Constitution of the United States.  *NEVER* will you find a paralegal educated in United States law, research and reference for their legal firm 20th century commentary pieces, what they read in Wikipedia, or commentary piece found on a site from a “Human Rights Library” in determining *original intent *towards a specific law passed in the 1700s or 1800s or the Constitution itself.  I have yet to see such sources presented to a State Supreme Court or United States Supreme Court. 

Now this would be considered a no brained to any legal team, actually educated in Constitutional Law when preparing and presenting a case before the High Court.  The rest is .. put simply ... commentary  fluff of an individual’s ongoing ramblings or “opinion”.

Now if what your expressing is really nothing more than your “opinion”, then you can’t claim what your presenting is irrefutable FACT against any individual who wishes to challenge your view using supported legal judicial dictation... quotes from our Founders ... or legislators from a specific time when that certain referenced law was debated and written.  An “*original source opinion”, in *comparison to law or Constitution’s* “original intent”*  are two VERY different approaches to a debate of an expressed view.  That’s how I can tell when what I’m reading is relevant supported case law backed by the expressed opinions (views) of judicial dictation as it relates to the Constitution  ... and when I see the an individual who really wants to state nothing more than their expressed written opinion.  Anyone can read your posts and determine which of the two is being presented, as well as the “opinions” used and expressed through your specific choice of links incorporated into your responses.

There are those who wishes nothing more than to simply express their views or opinion.  I have to laugh however, when people like yourself .. take opinion and make it out to be irrefutable fact (I’ve seen it before many times).  That’s why I highly doubt, with that much (all over the place) grey area in their responses, they can really tell the difference

You may have heard this expression before ... but quality IS so much better than quantity..


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572,  4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603
> 
> I made a response to our resident troll on this thread, so I will not include it in the continuation of this discussion.
> *
> There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, case precedents, etc., etc.  Still, most gun rights types know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gun control.  Yet, unless you run into a *constitutionalist*, you probably won't find people that will see not only gun control, but other back door attacks on the Constitution from angles you don't expect.
> *
> IN * 1857, a case made it's way to the United States Supreme Court.  It was the Dred Scott v Sanford case.  It made plain that non-whites were not citizens and that the terminology in the Constitution applied to whites only... an area where we've already been.  But, here is the $64,000 question:  Since immigration isn't mentioned in the Constitution and citizenship isn't constitutionally defined by the founders, what were the limits of the federal government in he regulation of non-citizen foreigners?  To answer that, let's see what's in the Constitution and what is not.
> 
> From the University of Minnnesota, Human Rights Library, there is this:
> 
> "*The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments.* Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the *plenary power* to be an inherent sovereign power."
> 
> Chapter 2:  The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization
> 
> There is the bottom line to the constitutionalist's argument.  The Constitution *does not* give the federal government  any power over non-citizens.  The *Tenth Amendment *clearly states:
> 
> "The* powers not delegated* to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, *are reserved to the states* respectively, or to the people."
> 
> So, HOW did the federal government usurp a Right of the states?
> 
> The aforementioned article answers that:
> 
> "...in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the *plenary power* to be an inherent sovereign power."
> 
> Whoa.  Wait.  The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government on WHOSE authority???  WHERE, *in the Constitution* does the build the wall advocates find such a power?  It is not there.  See this link on "plenary power."
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> From a *constitutionalist *point of view, this is a dangerous precedent that will not stop with immigration.  If the United States Supreme Court can claim a complete and absolute power, do you think that precedent is limited to telling a state who may come and go within its borders?
> 
> Let's look at the *RULING* Heller decision regarding the Second Amendment:
> 
> _"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_..."
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> Since when was the Bill of Rights limited in scope?  Does the Court believe that SOME Rights are unlimited, but others are not?  Where did the United States Supreme Court get these magical powers to over-rule the Constitution?  You cannot turn a blind eye to tyranny simply because YOU think YOU will benefit off it.  There is NO power in the Constitution to tell states who they may and may not invite into their state.  There is no mention of a "plenary power" and you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid to think that if you allow an unelected body to have that kind "*exclusive*" power over an area of law, they are NOT stopping with immigration.  Look closely at Heller.  They are rapidly moving in that direction with gun control and also with the Fourth Amendment, not to mention other areas of the law.
> 
> If you read the above quote, the law does not say anything about plenary powers being exclusive to immigration; they can be applied to anything the United States Supreme Court decides - AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT.  OTOH, if you allow them to establish that precedent, you are bound by it once it's YOUR Rights on the line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what legal and Constitutional credentials does
> University of Minnnesot Human Rights Library carry that’s relevant to the discussion of Constitutional legitimacy of Immigration enforcment as it pertains to Constitutional law?  Now listing the actual dictation views of a judge, with a proven strong educational and legal background for the rule of law, sitting on the United States Supreme Court would carry more weight than a someone with their own human rights agenda.  Sorry to keep putting holes in your choice of unrelated and irrelevant “opinions”, as   driven agendas differ from knowing and interpreting the ACTUAL rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You like to argue and even when the facts are laid on the table, you will still be lying to anyone who reads the facts.  Sharpen your pencil asshole.
> 
> According to the New York Times:
> 
> "Immigration courts operate within the Justice Department and are not part of the judicial branch, so Mr. Mukasey’s ruling has the effect of the highest immigration authority. Any challenge would have to take place in the federal appeals courts."
> 
> Ruling Says Deportation Cases May Not Be Appealed Over Lawyer Errors
> 
> Another article had this to say:
> 
> "Immigration courts have for decades operated under the premise that immigrants enjoy a constitutional right to effective counsel, immigration lawyers said. Criminal defendants whose lawyers fail to represent defendants at a basic level of competence may seek a new trial. Mukasey wrote that the US constitution affords a right to counsel, and hence a right to effective counsel, only in criminal matters. Immigration proceedings are civil matters, he wrote, and therefore that right does not apply"
> 
> Immigrants facing deportation have no right to an effective lawyer, attorney general declares
> 
> This is in reference to Mukasey's ruling as follows:
> 
> "In Matter of Compean, Attorney General Mukasey reexamined Lozada in light of the circuit split. See Compean, 24 I&N Dec. at 714-27. He first examined whether respondents have a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel under either the Fifth or Sixth Amendment. In evaluating whether such a right exists under the Sixth Amendment, the Attorney General found that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel has no application to removal proceedings. Id. at 716-17."
> 
> 25 I&N Dec. 1 (A.G. 2009)
> 
> https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2009/07/24/vol3no3.pdf
> 
> Allow me to decipher this for you:
> 
> IF a foreigner makes it past the immigration authorities and IF that foreigner does not commit a Title 18 Crime, then they are *NOT* criminals.  Obama's Attorney General overturned Mukasey in part with the basic objection that the foreigners *LIBERTY* was at stake - and that is a 14th Amendment guarantee to *ALL PERSONS*.
> 
> That puts YOU on the left with your endless chatter like a monkey with a music box.  The *United States Supreme Court confirmed* what I've told you over and over and over again:
> 
> "it is not generally a crime for a removable alien to be present in the United States,"
> 
> _*Arizona v. United States*_, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)
> 
> Now, where did you see Wikipedia mentioned???  Now, remember we're talking about the* HIGHEST RANKING IMMIGRATION OFFICIAL IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT*.
> 
> Why stop there?  Let's go back to what I told you earlier in this posting and let some personal experience speak to you.  Let's hear what the HEAD of the Dept. of Homeland ((N) Security said:
> 
> “And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because *crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil*.
> 
> Read Newsmax: DHS Chief Napolitano: Illegal Immigration Is Not a Crime | Newsmax.com
> 
> *Are you seeing Wikipedia or are you fantasizing about how great you are?
> *
> Let's go to Trump's own attorney.  What did HE say...  this is Trump's own attorney:
> 
> 
> *No Wikipedia there sport.
> *
> Let's ask ANOTHER Trump confidant and supporter.  Let us ask Chris Christie.  This is what he says:
> 
> _"U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie surprised many at a Dover church public forum when he said sneaking into the United States is not a criminal act.
> 
> 
> "Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime," Christie told more than 60 residents and town officials. "The whole phrase of 'illegal immigrant' connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime."
> 
> Being undocumented may be a civil wrong, but it's not a criminal act, Christie said.
> 
> "Don't let people make you believe that that's a crime that the U.S. Attorney's Office should be doing something about," he added of entering the country illegally. "It is not."_
> 
> Chris Christie On Illegal Immigration
> *
> I still aint seeing no Wikipedia
> *
> Now, I'm showing you how you're being played.  Watch Chris Christie backpedal on this to win your support AND shoot you a line of shit, letting the left know that he's still with them on this:
> 
> "he  (Christie)  was later asked a hypothetical question about someone sneaking across the border and said that's not a crime either. Is that true, too?
> 
> A: No. "Improper entry by an alien" as it is called, *is a violation of Title 8 of the U.S. criminal code* punishable by a fine of between $50 and $250 and/or a maximum of six months in jail."
> 
> Christie clarifies: 'Illegal' immigrants are in civil violation
> 
> Did you see how Christie played you?  The liberals caught what he was doing and you can't see it,  so allow me.  *TITLE 8 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE IS NOT THE CRIMINAL CODE*.
> 
> Title 8 is a *civil *section of the law dealing with Aliens and Nationality.  *Title 18 (EIGHTEEN) is the Criminal Code*.  Christie was a former United States Attorney, not a freaking first year law student.  Go back to the Attorney General Michael Mukasey's ruling... this is civil law so the "solutions" you seek as if regression is a solution) won't fly in the long run.
> 
> U.S. Code: Table Of Contents
> 
> If you look at the history of the people whose bullshit you're buying isn't crystal clear to you by now, you should not engage in this conversation.  You'd only embarrass yourself.  Those political propaganda prostitutes are selling you a pig in a poke in order to introduce you to a NEW WORLD ORDER / ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.  The wall itself is about to cost you your gun Rights right off the bat.
> 
> *STILL NO WIKIPEDIA HERE, SON*.  Just sharing with you some early experiences that I didn't need links to.
Click to expand...


So while I can site an earlier United States Supreme Court ruling you somehow claim (without evidence) Supreme Court overreach, .. yet you’re clinging to a New York Times Article, Chris Christie opinion, and New World Order conspiracies as more relevant to the original intent.

You can NOT be serious, posting this kind of response with a straight face.  SMH

Again ... there is a VAST difference between original intent, and quoting links of someone’s 20th century view or opinion.  You don’t know the difference.


----------



## danielpalos

the whole and entire right wing is Worse at following instructions than I am.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572,  4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603
> 
> I made a response to our resident troll on this thread, so I will not include it in the continuation of this discussion.
> *
> There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, case precedents, etc., etc.  Still, most gun rights types know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gun control.  Yet, unless you run into a *constitutionalist*, you probably won't find people that will see not only gun control, but other back door attacks on the Constitution from angles you don't expect.
> *
> IN * 1857, a case made it's way to the United States Supreme Court.  It was the Dred Scott v Sanford case.  It made plain that non-whites were not citizens and that the terminology in the Constitution applied to whites only... an area where we've already been.  But, here is the $64,000 question:  Since immigration isn't mentioned in the Constitution and citizenship isn't constitutionally defined by the founders, what were the limits of the federal government in he regulation of non-citizen foreigners?  To answer that, let's see what's in the Constitution and what is not.
> 
> From the University of Minnnesota, Human Rights Library, there is this:
> 
> "*The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments.* Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the *plenary power* to be an inherent sovereign power."
> 
> Chapter 2:  The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization
> 
> There is the bottom line to the constitutionalist's argument.  The Constitution *does not* give the federal government  any power over non-citizens.  The *Tenth Amendment *clearly states:
> 
> "The* powers not delegated* to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, *are reserved to the states* respectively, or to the people."
> 
> So, HOW did the federal government usurp a Right of the states?
> 
> The aforementioned article answers that:
> 
> "...in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the *plenary power* to be an inherent sovereign power."
> 
> Whoa.  Wait.  The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government on WHOSE authority???  WHERE, *in the Constitution* does the build the wall advocates find such a power?  It is not there.  See this link on "plenary power."
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> From a *constitutionalist *point of view, this is a dangerous precedent that will not stop with immigration.  If the United States Supreme Court can claim a complete and absolute power, do you think that precedent is limited to telling a state who may come and go within its borders?
> 
> Let's look at the *RULING* Heller decision regarding the Second Amendment:
> 
> _"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_..."
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> Since when was the Bill of Rights limited in scope?  Does the Court believe that SOME Rights are unlimited, but others are not?  Where did the United States Supreme Court get these magical powers to over-rule the Constitution?  You cannot turn a blind eye to tyranny simply because YOU think YOU will benefit off it.  There is NO power in the Constitution to tell states who they may and may not invite into their state.  There is no mention of a "plenary power" and you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid to think that if you allow an unelected body to have that kind "*exclusive*" power over an area of law, they are NOT stopping with immigration.  Look closely at Heller.  They are rapidly moving in that direction with gun control and also with the Fourth Amendment, not to mention other areas of the law.
> 
> If you read the above quote, the law does not say anything about plenary powers being exclusive to immigration; they can be applied to anything the United States Supreme Court decides - AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT.  OTOH, if you allow them to establish that precedent, you are bound by it once it's YOUR Rights on the line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what legal and Constitutional credentials does
> University of Minnnesot Human Rights Library carry that’s relevant to the discussion of Constitutional legitimacy of Immigration enforcment as it pertains to Constitutional law?  Now listing the actual dictation views of a judge, with a proven strong educational and legal background for the rule of law, sitting on the United States Supreme Court would carry more weight than a someone with their own human rights agenda.  Sorry to keep putting holes in your choice of unrelated and irrelevant “opinions”, as   driven agendas differ from knowing and interpreting the ACTUAL rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our actual Constitutional, rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re definitely not going to find if you happen to be skimming across and throwing up some 3 second “quick links” to Wikipedia, with their “Cliff Notes” summaries.  True research takes more time, detailed and deeper references, with sources that carry a little more credibility than that to fall back on.   Wikipedia is a lazy person’s tool if you don’t want to put in the work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your false claim is easily dismissed by anyone that reads my links.  Rarely do I rely on Wikipedia for anything except as a secondary source because, in many cases, I AM THE ORIGINAL CITING SOURCE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are (as you simply put it) the *original* *citing* *source*, then you are expressing nothing more than unsupported opinion.  An opinion that CAN be rejected as holding no real weight in (1) the face of facts supported by dictation from a High Court Judge or (2) expressed quoted views from those legislators present during the debate and time a particular legislation was written.  In short “case law” in Constitutional legal matters, is generally determined by Congressional legislation signed into law, or an Amendment that’s deemed Constitutional, based on original intent when presented against the Constitution of the United States.  *NEVER* will you find a paralegal educated in United States law, research and reference for their legal firm 20th century commentary pieces, what they read in Wikipedia, or commentary piece found on a site from a “Human Rights Library” in determining *original intent *towards a specific law passed in the 1700s or 1800s or the Constitution itself.  I have yet to see such sources presented to a State Supreme Court or United States Supreme Court.
> 
> Now this would be considered a no brained to any legal team, actually educated in Constitutional Law when preparing and presenting a case before the High Court.  The rest is .. put simply ... commentary  fluff of an individual’s ongoing ramblings or “opinion”.
> 
> Now if what your expressing is really nothing more than your “opinion”, then you can’t claim what your presenting is irrefutable FACT against any individual who wishes to challenge your view using supported legal judicial dictation... quotes from our Founders ... or legislators from a specific time when that certain referenced law was debated and written.  An “*original source opinion”, in *comparison to law or Constitution’s* “original intent”*  are two VERY different approaches to a debate of an expressed view.  That’s how I can tell when what I’m reading is relevant supported case law backed by the expressed opinions (views) of judicial dictation as it relates to the Constitution  ... and when I see the an individual who really wants to state nothing more than their expressed written opinion.  Anyone can read your posts and determine which of the two is being presented, as well as the “opinions” used and expressed through your specific choice of links incorporated into your responses.
> 
> There are those who wishes nothing more than to simply express their views or opinion.  I have to laugh however, when people like yourself .. take opinion and make it out to be irrefutable fact (I’ve seen it before many times).  That’s why I highly doubt, with that much (all over the place) grey area in their responses, they can really tell the difference
> 
> You may have heard this expression before ... but quality IS so much better than quantity..
Click to expand...


You talk absolute horseshit.  When I say I am a "citing source," I'm talking about what I personally heard, saw, was a part of and / or knew someone who was.  As for the balance, you are getting your ass kicked with that phony lie about Wikipedia.  

You don't have anything; you got your ass handed to you, but got to say one thing, you are the dumbest son of a bitch on this board.  I thought another guy was until you reverted back to your standard canard.  My last couple of posts gave the readers at least twenty links to follow just to show you are a blowhard trying to wing his way through the thread with disproven theories.  If you removed the lies you tell and face the facts, you'll find that you are a left wing, pabulum puking, liberal proselyte that is two-fold more the child of Hell than the Devil himself (my apologies to Jesus for borrowing his sentiments on this one.)


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS 4572,  4581, 4585, 4597, AND 4603
> 
> I made a response to our resident troll on this thread, so I will not include it in the continuation of this discussion.
> *
> There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, case precedents, etc., etc.  Still, most gun rights types know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional gun control.  Yet, unless you run into a *constitutionalist*, you probably won't find people that will see not only gun control, but other back door attacks on the Constitution from angles you don't expect.
> *
> IN * 1857, a case made it's way to the United States Supreme Court.  It was the Dred Scott v Sanford case.  It made plain that non-whites were not citizens and that the terminology in the Constitution applied to whites only... an area where we've already been.  But, here is the $64,000 question:  Since immigration isn't mentioned in the Constitution and citizenship isn't constitutionally defined by the founders, what were the limits of the federal government in he regulation of non-citizen foreigners?  To answer that, let's see what's in the Constitution and what is not.
> 
> From the University of Minnnesota, Human Rights Library, there is this:
> 
> "*The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments.* Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the *plenary power* to be an inherent sovereign power."
> 
> Chapter 2:  The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization
> 
> There is the bottom line to the constitutionalist's argument.  The Constitution *does not* give the federal government  any power over non-citizens.  The *Tenth Amendment *clearly states:
> 
> "The* powers not delegated* to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, *are reserved to the states* respectively, or to the people."
> 
> So, HOW did the federal government usurp a Right of the states?
> 
> The aforementioned article answers that:
> 
> "...in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the *plenary power* to be an inherent sovereign power."
> 
> Whoa.  Wait.  The United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to the federal government on WHOSE authority???  WHERE, *in the Constitution* does the build the wall advocates find such a power?  It is not there.  See this link on "plenary power."
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> From a *constitutionalist *point of view, this is a dangerous precedent that will not stop with immigration.  If the United States Supreme Court can claim a complete and absolute power, do you think that precedent is limited to telling a state who may come and go within its borders?
> 
> Let's look at the *RULING* Heller decision regarding the Second Amendment:
> 
> _"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_..."
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> Since when was the Bill of Rights limited in scope?  Does the Court believe that SOME Rights are unlimited, but others are not?  Where did the United States Supreme Court get these magical powers to over-rule the Constitution?  You cannot turn a blind eye to tyranny simply because YOU think YOU will benefit off it.  There is NO power in the Constitution to tell states who they may and may not invite into their state.  There is no mention of a "plenary power" and you have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid to think that if you allow an unelected body to have that kind "*exclusive*" power over an area of law, they are NOT stopping with immigration.  Look closely at Heller.  They are rapidly moving in that direction with gun control and also with the Fourth Amendment, not to mention other areas of the law.
> 
> If you read the above quote, the law does not say anything about plenary powers being exclusive to immigration; they can be applied to anything the United States Supreme Court decides - AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT.  OTOH, if you allow them to establish that precedent, you are bound by it once it's YOUR Rights on the line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what legal and Constitutional credentials does
> University of Minnnesot Human Rights Library carry that’s relevant to the discussion of Constitutional legitimacy of Immigration enforcment as it pertains to Constitutional law?  Now listing the actual dictation views of a judge, with a proven strong educational and legal background for the rule of law, sitting on the United States Supreme Court would carry more weight than a someone with their own human rights agenda.  Sorry to keep putting holes in your choice of unrelated and irrelevant “opinions”, as   driven agendas differ from knowing and interpreting the ACTUAL rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You like to argue and even when the facts are laid on the table, you will still be lying to anyone who reads the facts.  Sharpen your pencil asshole.
> 
> According to the New York Times:
> 
> "Immigration courts operate within the Justice Department and are not part of the judicial branch, so Mr. Mukasey’s ruling has the effect of the highest immigration authority. Any challenge would have to take place in the federal appeals courts."
> 
> Ruling Says Deportation Cases May Not Be Appealed Over Lawyer Errors
> 
> Another article had this to say:
> 
> "Immigration courts have for decades operated under the premise that immigrants enjoy a constitutional right to effective counsel, immigration lawyers said. Criminal defendants whose lawyers fail to represent defendants at a basic level of competence may seek a new trial. Mukasey wrote that the US constitution affords a right to counsel, and hence a right to effective counsel, only in criminal matters. Immigration proceedings are civil matters, he wrote, and therefore that right does not apply"
> 
> Immigrants facing deportation have no right to an effective lawyer, attorney general declares
> 
> This is in reference to Mukasey's ruling as follows:
> 
> "In Matter of Compean, Attorney General Mukasey reexamined Lozada in light of the circuit split. See Compean, 24 I&N Dec. at 714-27. He first examined whether respondents have a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel under either the Fifth or Sixth Amendment. In evaluating whether such a right exists under the Sixth Amendment, the Attorney General found that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel has no application to removal proceedings. Id. at 716-17."
> 
> 25 I&N Dec. 1 (A.G. 2009)
> 
> https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2009/07/24/vol3no3.pdf
> 
> Allow me to decipher this for you:
> 
> IF a foreigner makes it past the immigration authorities and IF that foreigner does not commit a Title 18 Crime, then they are *NOT* criminals.  Obama's Attorney General overturned Mukasey in part with the basic objection that the foreigners *LIBERTY* was at stake - and that is a 14th Amendment guarantee to *ALL PERSONS*.
> 
> That puts YOU on the left with your endless chatter like a monkey with a music box.  The *United States Supreme Court confirmed* what I've told you over and over and over again:
> 
> "it is not generally a crime for a removable alien to be present in the United States,"
> 
> _*Arizona v. United States*_, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)
> 
> Now, where did you see Wikipedia mentioned???  Now, remember we're talking about the* HIGHEST RANKING IMMIGRATION OFFICIAL IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT*.
> 
> Why stop there?  Let's go back to what I told you earlier in this posting and let some personal experience speak to you.  Let's hear what the HEAD of the Dept. of Homeland ((N) Security said:
> 
> “And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because *crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil*.
> 
> Read Newsmax: DHS Chief Napolitano: Illegal Immigration Is Not a Crime | Newsmax.com
> 
> *Are you seeing Wikipedia or are you fantasizing about how great you are?
> *
> Let's go to Trump's own attorney.  What did HE say...  this is Trump's own attorney:
> 
> 
> *No Wikipedia there sport.
> *
> Let's ask ANOTHER Trump confidant and supporter.  Let us ask Chris Christie.  This is what he says:
> 
> _"U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie surprised many at a Dover church public forum when he said sneaking into the United States is not a criminal act.
> 
> 
> "Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime," Christie told more than 60 residents and town officials. "The whole phrase of 'illegal immigrant' connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime."
> 
> Being undocumented may be a civil wrong, but it's not a criminal act, Christie said.
> 
> "Don't let people make you believe that that's a crime that the U.S. Attorney's Office should be doing something about," he added of entering the country illegally. "It is not."_
> 
> Chris Christie On Illegal Immigration
> *
> I still aint seeing no Wikipedia
> *
> Now, I'm showing you how you're being played.  Watch Chris Christie backpedal on this to win your support AND shoot you a line of shit, letting the left know that he's still with them on this:
> 
> "he  (Christie)  was later asked a hypothetical question about someone sneaking across the border and said that's not a crime either. Is that true, too?
> 
> A: No. "Improper entry by an alien" as it is called, *is a violation of Title 8 of the U.S. criminal code* punishable by a fine of between $50 and $250 and/or a maximum of six months in jail."
> 
> Christie clarifies: 'Illegal' immigrants are in civil violation
> 
> Did you see how Christie played you?  The liberals caught what he was doing and you can't see it,  so allow me.  *TITLE 8 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE IS NOT THE CRIMINAL CODE*.
> 
> Title 8 is a *civil *section of the law dealing with Aliens and Nationality.  *Title 18 (EIGHTEEN) is the Criminal Code*.  Christie was a former United States Attorney, not a freaking first year law student.  Go back to the Attorney General Michael Mukasey's ruling... this is civil law so the "solutions" you seek as if regression is a solution) won't fly in the long run.
> 
> U.S. Code: Table Of Contents
> 
> If you look at the history of the people whose bullshit you're buying isn't crystal clear to you by now, you should not engage in this conversation.  You'd only embarrass yourself.  Those political propaganda prostitutes are selling you a pig in a poke in order to introduce you to a NEW WORLD ORDER / ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.  The wall itself is about to cost you your gun Rights right off the bat.
> 
> *STILL NO WIKIPEDIA HERE, SON*.  Just sharing with you some early experiences that I didn't need links to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So while I can site an earlier United States Supreme Court ruling you somehow claim (without evidence) Supreme Court overreach, .. yet you’re clinging to a New York Times Article, Chris Christie opinion, and New World Order conspiracies as more relevant to the original intent.
> 
> You can NOT be serious, posting this kind of response with a straight face.  SMH
> 
> Again ... there is a VAST difference between original intent, and quoting links of someone’s 20th century view or opinion.  You don’t know the difference.
Click to expand...


Your little ruling was examined and nothing's new* IT GOT REFUTED DUMB ASS*.  Would you like to repeat it and we'll do it yet again???

Immigration law and the decisions made by the most recent people in that field take precedence over a case that you don't understand and don't even know how to shepardize.  BTW, I just cited that law for you - not an opinion, but A *RULING FROM THE HIGHEST RANKING IMMIGRATION OFFICIAL IN THE UNITED STATES *-  I hope he knew more about the law than you.  Otherwise you are an Attorney General.  Are you?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Porter Rockwell said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what legal and Constitutional credentials does
> University of Minnnesot Human Rights Library carry that’s relevant to the discussion of Constitutional legitimacy of Immigration enforcment as it pertains to Constitutional law?  Now listing the actual dictation views of a judge, with a proven strong educational and legal background for the rule of law, sitting on the United States Supreme Court would carry more weight than a someone with their own human rights agenda.  Sorry to keep putting holes in your choice of unrelated and irrelevant “opinions”, as   driven agendas differ from knowing and interpreting the ACTUAL rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our actual Constitutional, rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re definitely not going to find if you happen to be skimming across and throwing up some 3 second “quick links” to Wikipedia, with their “Cliff Notes” summaries.  True research takes more time, detailed and deeper references, with sources that carry a little more credibility than that to fall back on.   Wikipedia is a lazy person’s tool if you don’t want to put in the work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your false claim is easily dismissed by anyone that reads my links.  Rarely do I rely on Wikipedia for anything except as a secondary source because, in many cases, I AM THE ORIGINAL CITING SOURCE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are (as you simply put it) the *original* *citing* *source*, then you are expressing nothing more than unsupported opinion.  An opinion that CAN be rejected as holding no real weight in (1) the face of facts supported by dictation from a High Court Judge or (2) expressed quoted views from those legislators present during the debate and time a particular legislation was written.  In short “case law” in Constitutional legal matters, is generally determined by Congressional legislation signed into law, or an Amendment that’s deemed Constitutional, based on original intent when presented against the Constitution of the United States.  *NEVER* will you find a paralegal educated in United States law, research and reference for their legal firm 20th century commentary pieces, what they read in Wikipedia, or commentary piece found on a site from a “Human Rights Library” in determining *original intent *towards a specific law passed in the 1700s or 1800s or the Constitution itself.  I have yet to see such sources presented to a State Supreme Court or United States Supreme Court.
> 
> Now this would be considered a no brained to any legal team, actually educated in Constitutional Law when preparing and presenting a case before the High Court.  The rest is .. put simply ... commentary  fluff of an individual’s ongoing ramblings or “opinion”.
> 
> Now if what your expressing is really nothing more than your “opinion”, then you can’t claim what your presenting is irrefutable FACT against any individual who wishes to challenge your view using supported legal judicial dictation... quotes from our Founders ... or legislators from a specific time when that certain referenced law was debated and written.  An “*original source opinion”, in *comparison to law or Constitution’s* “original intent”*  are two VERY different approaches to a debate of an expressed view.  That’s how I can tell when what I’m reading is relevant supported case law backed by the expressed opinions (views) of judicial dictation as it relates to the Constitution  ... and when I see the an individual who really wants to state nothing more than their expressed written opinion.  Anyone can read your posts and determine which of the two is being presented, as well as the “opinions” used and expressed through your specific choice of links incorporated into your responses.
> 
> There are those who wishes nothing more than to simply express their views or opinion.  I have to laugh however, when people like yourself .. take opinion and make it out to be irrefutable fact (I’ve seen it before many times).  That’s why I highly doubt, with that much (all over the place) grey area in their responses, they can really tell the difference
> 
> You may have heard this expression before ... but quality IS so much better than quantity..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talk absolute horseshit.  When I say I am a "citing source," I'm talking about what I personally heard, saw, was a part of and / or knew someone who was.  As for the balance, you are getting your ass kicked with that phony lie about Wikipedia.
> 
> You don't have anything; you got your ass handed to you, but got to say one thing, you are the dumbest son of a bitch on this board.  I thought another guy was until you reverted back to your standard canard.  My last couple of posts gave the readers at least twenty links to follow just to show you are a blowhard trying to wing his way through the thread with disproven theories.  If you removed the lies you tell and face the facts, you'll find that you are a left wing, pabulum puking, liberal proselyte that is two-fold more the child of Hell than the Devil himself (my apologies to Jesus for borrowing his sentiments on this one.)
Click to expand...


I simply presented that there is a clear difference between sharing an “opinion” with how one looks at the approach to seeking out a law’s “original intent”.  This is typically how cases are presented and facts based when rendering a Supreme Court decision - original intent of the law during the time it was written is what justices use in rendering their decision.  People will generally find that “original intent tactic” used behind the Justices written response in interpreting the United States Constitution.  To which your response is, yet again your usual repetitive reply .... of nothing more than just referring to share an opposing view to your point as “idiots”.  You don’t like your sources background or legal significance to the discussion questioned.  Then you move on to stating someone is a liar as your only real means of defense to your argument, without any supportive evidence .. from those you don’t agree with.  You have gone from presenting a Wikipedia of Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875), where I first really entered this thread discussion with ACTUAL dictation from the majority opinion of a Supreme Court judge in that case (who’s credentials holds a LOT more legal experience than you, I might add), using a government Supreme Court site.. which suddenly became just — “oh that’s just Constitutional judicial overreach”.  Really?  Based on what exactly?  Your mere opinion over their legal experience and background?  (Mistake Number one)
To then hearing you initially bring up the unConstitutionality of certain Amendments (?) unrelated to the thread topic above, to a recent New York Times Article, to New World Order conspiracies to current politicians expressing their opinions  ... ALL of which has nothing to do with original intent.  Yet you CLAIM to have prepped some 250 court cases? How? Choosing news articles and views of current politicians OVER those originally involved in writing the Legislation in question .. or those involved in rendering their original judicial interpretation?  Then replying STFU because they present such evidence through supported historical links, that contradicts and challenges your view and interpretation of Article I Section 9  of the United States Constitution.  Then you respond “idiot” when another individual presents evidence and questions your position because they don’t agree with your view?  Yes .. I have seen that approach you’ve taken  with several of the other posters who challenge your position on this thread before, this really is nothing new.  When you have this pattern of referring to those who oppose you (beyond just myself) as idiots, when ALL you have left for someone who presents an opposing view is “you’re a racist”, a “LAIR”, it really plays to your ignorance.  All this “getting your ass handed to you”, “pabulum puking, liberal proselyte”, is really reflective of mere adolescent behavior to say the least.  Certainly not a response reflective of one who carries any college level legal knowledge and experience behind them at all.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our actual Constitutional, rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re definitely not going to find if you happen to be skimming across and throwing up some 3 second “quick links” to Wikipedia, with their “Cliff Notes” summaries.  True research takes more time, detailed and deeper references, with sources that carry a little more credibility than that to fall back on.   Wikipedia is a lazy person’s tool if you don’t want to put in the work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your false claim is easily dismissed by anyone that reads my links.  Rarely do I rely on Wikipedia for anything except as a secondary source because, in many cases, I AM THE ORIGINAL CITING SOURCE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are (as you simply put it) the *original* *citing* *source*, then you are expressing nothing more than unsupported opinion.  An opinion that CAN be rejected as holding no real weight in (1) the face of facts supported by dictation from a High Court Judge or (2) expressed quoted views from those legislators present during the debate and time a particular legislation was written.  In short “case law” in Constitutional legal matters, is generally determined by Congressional legislation signed into law, or an Amendment that’s deemed Constitutional, based on original intent when presented against the Constitution of the United States.  *NEVER* will you find a paralegal educated in United States law, research and reference for their legal firm 20th century commentary pieces, what they read in Wikipedia, or commentary piece found on a site from a “Human Rights Library” in determining *original intent *towards a specific law passed in the 1700s or 1800s or the Constitution itself.  I have yet to see such sources presented to a State Supreme Court or United States Supreme Court.
> 
> Now this would be considered a no brained to any legal team, actually educated in Constitutional Law when preparing and presenting a case before the High Court.  The rest is .. put simply ... commentary  fluff of an individual’s ongoing ramblings or “opinion”.
> 
> Now if what your expressing is really nothing more than your “opinion”, then you can’t claim what your presenting is irrefutable FACT against any individual who wishes to challenge your view using supported legal judicial dictation... quotes from our Founders ... or legislators from a specific time when that certain referenced law was debated and written.  An “*original source opinion”, in *comparison to law or Constitution’s* “original intent”*  are two VERY different approaches to a debate of an expressed view.  That’s how I can tell when what I’m reading is relevant supported case law backed by the expressed opinions (views) of judicial dictation as it relates to the Constitution  ... and when I see the an individual who really wants to state nothing more than their expressed written opinion.  Anyone can read your posts and determine which of the two is being presented, as well as the “opinions” used and expressed through your specific choice of links incorporated into your responses.
> 
> There are those who wishes nothing more than to simply express their views or opinion.  I have to laugh however, when people like yourself .. take opinion and make it out to be irrefutable fact (I’ve seen it before many times).  That’s why I highly doubt, with that much (all over the place) grey area in their responses, they can really tell the difference
> 
> You may have heard this expression before ... but quality IS so much better than quantity..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talk absolute horseshit.  When I say I am a "citing source," I'm talking about what I personally heard, saw, was a part of and / or knew someone who was.  As for the balance, you are getting your ass kicked with that phony lie about Wikipedia.
> 
> You don't have anything; you got your ass handed to you, but got to say one thing, you are the dumbest son of a bitch on this board.  I thought another guy was until you reverted back to your standard canard.  My last couple of posts gave the readers at least twenty links to follow just to show you are a blowhard trying to wing his way through the thread with disproven theories.  If you removed the lies you tell and face the facts, you'll find that you are a left wing, pabulum puking, liberal proselyte that is two-fold more the child of Hell than the Devil himself (my apologies to Jesus for borrowing his sentiments on this one.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I simply presented that there is a clear difference between sharing an “opinion” with how one looks at the approach to seeking out a law’s “original intent”.  This is typically how cases are presented and facts based when rendering a Supreme Court decision - original intent of the law during the time it was written is what justices use in rendering their decision.  People will generally find that “original intent tactic” used behind the Justices written response in interpreting the United States Constitution.  To which your response is, yet again your usual repetitive reply .... of nothing more than just referring to share an opposing view to your point as “idiots”.  You don’t like your sources background or legal significance to the discussion questioned.  Then you move on to stating someone is a liar as your only real means of defense to your argument, without any supportive evidence .. from those you don’t agree with.  You have gone from presenting a Wikipedia of Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875), where I first really entered this thread discussion with ACTUAL dictation from the majority opinion of a Supreme Court judge in that case (who’s credentials holds a LOT more legal experience than you, I might add), using a government Supreme Court site.. which suddenly became just — “oh that’s just Constitutional judicial overreach”.  Really?  Based on what exactly?  Your mere opinion over their legal experience and background?  (Mistake Number one)
> To then hearing you initially bring up the unConstitutionality of certain Amendments (?) unrelated to the thread topic above, to a recent New York Times Article, to New World Order conspiracies to current politicians expressing their opinions  ... ALL of which has nothing to do with original intent.  Yet you CLAIM to have prepped some 250 court cases? How? Choosing news articles and views of current politicians OVER those originally involved in writing the Legislation in question .. or those involved in rendering their original judicial interpretation?  Then replying STFU because they present such evidence through supported historical links, that contradicts and challenges your view and interpretation of Article I Section 9  of the United States Constitution.  Then you respond “idiot” when another individual presents evidence and questions your position because they don’t agree with your view?  Yes .. I have seen that approach you’ve taken  with several of the other posters who challenge your position on this thread before, this really is nothing new.  When you have this pattern of referring to those who oppose you (beyond just myself) as idiots, when ALL you have left for someone who presents an opposing view is “you’re a racist”, a “LAIR”, it really plays to your ignorance.  All this “getting your ass handed to you”, “pabulum puking, liberal proselyte”, is really reflective of mere adolescent behavior to say the least.  Certainly not a response reflective of one who carries any college level legal knowledge and experience behind them at all.
Click to expand...


Give it a break.  You sound desperate.  Your attempts to sound like an intellectual come off as phony and insecure.  Regardless of where you came into the discussion at, I am listing the relevant posts by number for those who want to see that you are lying.

If you'd like to sit down and swap resumes with me in a public place, we can do that.  If you have more experience in this than I do, I will gladly admit it in writing and bow out of this thread - even leave the forum.  All you have to do is tell me to name the time and place.  We show up, swap resumes and then you'll have an honest answer.

You had* one single old case, taken out of context* that didn't mean shit.  Insofar as Chy Lung v. Freeman, I learned that one in a seminar dealing with the chronology of important immigration cases.  I can guarantee you that I will not use Wikipedia as any kind of resource and in my previous posts (4631 and 4633) most of that was a result of personal experience - like knowing about the stuff when it happened has not been disputed by you.  Old legal maxim - that which is not denied is deemed to be admitted.  You could not counter the facts so you resorted back to the personality contest.

Did I say you were a racist?  What post is that?  "LAIR?"  I don't think my last three posts have anything to do with anything you've brought up.  You keep crowing about some unnamed 1808 U.S. Supreme Court case you thought you found, but obviously wasn't relevant or you would be citing and explaining it.  

What we do know is that from the ratification of the Constitution into 1802 *EVERY* time Congress revisited the Naturalization laws, one had to be a "free white person"  in order to become a citizen.   Check the 1802 Naturalization Act.  *NOTHING* affected that law in any capacity until  the mid 1850s when alien wives of Americans were admitted for naturalization.  So, if you have a point, now would be the time to speak up since your alleged 1808 case seems to not be relevant.


----------



## bripat9643

Tax Man said:


> The New Colossus
> 
> Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
> Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
> 
> Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)
> A bronze plaque with the words of the poem "The New Colossus" raised on it. The 1903 bronze plaque located in the Statue of Liberty's museum.
> 
> NPS


The Statue of Liberty was dedicated in 1886, 17 years previously.


----------



## bripat9643

Grampa Murked U said:


> Moron leftists say a wall wont stop them all. There is truth in that BUT just ask them this...
> 
> If you had to play Russian Roulette would you rather have 1 bullet in the revolver or 5?


We're expected to accept the proposition that if it only stops 99 out of 100, then it's worthless.


----------



## bripat9643

Tax Man said:


> What is so silly is the reich totally ignores the largest immigration problem is expired visa's. There are more of them than people crossing without permission or documentation.


That isn't the largest group if illegal aliens.  The fact that you keep lying about it shows why people who support America don't believe a thing you open-borders douchebags say.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so silly is the reich totally ignores the largest immigration problem is expired visa's. There are more of them than people crossing without permission or documentation.
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't the largest group if illegal aliens.  The fact that you keep lying about it shows why people who support America don't believe a thing you open-borders douchebags say.
Click to expand...



About half of the undocumented foreigners in the United States came in "legally" ( though no such term in constitutional law - it's actually proper entry)

Rep. Kevin McCarthy's Mostly True claim on visa overstays


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so silly is the reich totally ignores the largest immigration problem is expired visa's. There are more of them than people crossing without permission or documentation.
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't the largest group if illegal aliens.  The fact that you keep lying about it shows why people who support America don't believe a thing you open-borders douchebags say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> About half of the undocumented foreigners in the United States came in "legally" ( though no such term in constitutional law - it's actually proper entry)
> 
> Rep. Kevin McCarthy's Mostly True claim on visa overstays
Click to expand...


ICE says the figure is 40%.  Why do you open-borders douchebags always lie about that?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so silly is the reich totally ignores the largest immigration problem is expired visa's. There are more of them than people crossing without permission or documentation.
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't the largest group if illegal aliens.  The fact that you keep lying about it shows why people who support America don't believe a thing you open-borders douchebags say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> About half of the undocumented foreigners in the United States came in "legally" ( though no such term in constitutional law - it's actually proper entry)
> 
> Rep. Kevin McCarthy's Mostly True claim on visa overstays
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ICE says the figure is 40%.  Why do you open-borders douchebags always lie about that?
Click to expand...


First off, I'm not an "open borders douchebag."  I'm a man - something you will never be.

Secondly, I didn't lie about anything.  I repeated information from what appears to be a non-partisan source, explaining how they arrived at the figures.

IF you had any common sense, rather than to call people names, you'd offer your version of the truth with some credible evidence to back up the claim.  Just because people don't fall at your feet and declare that you have a monopoly on the truth does not make them douchebags, liars, or anything less than your equal.


----------



## bripat9643

Porter Rockwell said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so silly is the reich totally ignores the largest immigration problem is expired visa's. There are more of them than people crossing without permission or documentation.
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't the largest group if illegal aliens.  The fact that you keep lying about it shows why people who support America don't believe a thing you open-borders douchebags say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> About half of the undocumented foreigners in the United States came in "legally" ( though no such term in constitutional law - it's actually proper entry)
> 
> Rep. Kevin McCarthy's Mostly True claim on visa overstays
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ICE says the figure is 40%.  Why do you open-borders douchebags always lie about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, I'm not an "open borders douchebag."  I'm a man - something you will never be.
> 
> Secondly, I didn't lie about anything.  I repeated information from what appears to be a non-partisan source, explaining how they arrived at the figures.
> 
> IF you had any common sense, rather than to call people names, you'd offer your version of the truth with some credible evidence to back up the claim.  Just because people don't fall at your feet and declare that you have a monopoly on the truth does not make them douchebags, liars, or anything less than your equal.
Click to expand...

I call people douchebags when the spew obvious lies and deliberate falsehoods.  That's what you just did.  

And you are an open-borders douchebag.  You lie about your opposition to the wall.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so silly is the reich totally ignores the largest immigration problem is expired visa's. There are more of them than people crossing without permission or documentation.
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't the largest group if illegal aliens.  The fact that you keep lying about it shows why people who support America don't believe a thing you open-borders douchebags say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> About half of the undocumented foreigners in the United States came in "legally" ( though no such term in constitutional law - it's actually proper entry)
> 
> Rep. Kevin McCarthy's Mostly True claim on visa overstays
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ICE says the figure is 40%.  Why do you open-borders douchebags always lie about that?
Click to expand...

We have no immigration clause.  We have a Commerce Clause and should be generating revenue like Good capitalists.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bripat9643 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so silly is the reich totally ignores the largest immigration problem is expired visa's. There are more of them than people crossing without permission or documentation.
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't the largest group if illegal aliens.  The fact that you keep lying about it shows why people who support America don't believe a thing you open-borders douchebags say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> About half of the undocumented foreigners in the United States came in "legally" ( though no such term in constitutional law - it's actually proper entry)
> 
> Rep. Kevin McCarthy's Mostly True claim on visa overstays
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ICE says the figure is 40%.  Why do you open-borders douchebags always lie about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, I'm not an "open borders douchebag."  I'm a man - something you will never be.
> 
> Secondly, I didn't lie about anything.  I repeated information from what appears to be a non-partisan source, explaining how they arrived at the figures.
> 
> IF you had any common sense, rather than to call people names, you'd offer your version of the truth with some credible evidence to back up the claim.  Just because people don't fall at your feet and declare that you have a monopoly on the truth does not make them douchebags, liars, or anything less than your equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I call people douchebags when the spew obvious lies and deliberate falsehoods.  That's what you just did.
> 
> And you are an open-borders douchebag.  You lie about your opposition to the wall.
Click to expand...


When have I *EVER* "lied" about my opposition to the wall?  Is there a reason you keep making baseless allegations and not backing them up?  Do you even recall what thread you're on?

Do you get paid to troll this forum and / or be a disinformation agent for some group or the other?  You make the right look so bad that I'm wondering if you aren't employed by Uncle Scam.  Surely if the right read your posts they would be embarrassed by what you're saying.

What evidence have you got to show that half of the undocumented foreigners did not come into the United States properly (i.e. around half of all undocumented entered properly as per the question asked of you the last time?)


----------

